Jump to content

Sony 70-300mm F/4.5-5.6 G SSM Lens (SAL70300G) on A7ii


Recommended Posts

I'm seriously resisting purchasing the FE 70300 G due to budget constraints.

 

One alternative is to try the SAL70300G for the time being. If anyone has experience using this lens via LA-EA3 on an A7mk2 or A6300 please share your experience and a few sample shots.

 

Thanks in advance.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Save a bit longer and go for the fe lens! It's a marvel. Here is a (heavy) crop made with the a7m2 and this lens:  https://flic.kr/p/J5kiGf    (f/10, 1/40, iso 100, from tripod.)

 

Thanks Lescatalpas! Fantastic shot! Sold! I'll sell my FE 70-200 f/4 and that will cover the cost of the FE 70-300. For me, there's no need to have both.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I finally just gave up on the whole adapter thing.   I wanted to adapt my Nikon long zoom to avoid having to buy the Sony 70-300 G, but it just would not autofocus.   I am pondering the Sony, now.   Everything I've read suggests it is worth the money.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I finally just gave up on the whole adapter thing.   I wanted to adapt my Nikon long zoom to avoid having to buy the Sony 70-300 G, but it just would not autofocus.   I am pondering the Sony, now.   Everything I've read suggests it is worth the money.

I have tried adapters, as I come from Pentax and had all this great glass.  Well, after 7-8 months, all my adapter glass is sold, apart from a very good sigma 105  macro lens, as macro is mainly manual anyway.  Still wondering if I should buy the 90mm macro fe lens, but available comparisons are not in favor of the sony macro lens. Anybody experience with this 90mm fe?  Worth the 1200 bucks?

Link to post
Share on other sites

I have tried adapters, as I come from Pentax and had all this great glass.  Well, after 7-8 months, all my adapter glass is sold, apart from a very good sigma 105  macro lens, as macro is mainly manual anyway.  Still wondering if I should buy the 90mm macro fe lens, but available comparisons are not in favor of the sony macro lens. Anybody experience with this 90mm fe?  Worth the 1200 bucks?

 

I have it and like it a lot. Yes, manual focus is generally ok for macro but having AF doesn't hurt! I like this lens for portraits at f/2.8 as well. The only downside is that the bokeh is not that great but this is true of many (most?) macro lenses. You can find the FE 90 macro used for less than US $900. It's funny that you came from Pentax to Sony and now I'm considering the reverse. I'm all Sony because of their Minolta roots but I'm eyeing Pentax because of the reasonably-priced weather-sealed body/lens combos. I'll probably try the new K-70 and one lens while holding onto my A6300 and A7mk2, then decide which of the two Sony bodies to keep.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I have it and like it a lot. Yes, manual focus is generally ok for macro but having AF doesn't hurt! I like this lens for portraits at f/2.8 as well. The only downside is that the bokeh is not that great but this is true of many (most?) macro lenses. You can find the FE 90 macro used for less than US $900. It's funny that you came from Pentax to Sony and now I'm considering the reverse. I'm all Sony because of their Minolta roots but I'm eyeing Pentax because of the reasonably-priced weather-sealed body/lens combos. I'll probably try the new K-70 and one lens while holding onto my A6300 and A7mk2, then decide which of the two Sony bodies to keep.

Thanks for your reply. I switched from Pentax because of mirror problems. My k5, which was an excellent camera as far as iq is concerned, had various mirror problems and at the time no full frame alternative. Hence the switch to Sony A7II. No mirror=no mirror problems. Noise control is far better in Pentax though. With my Sony I try to avoid shooting above 160iso because of noise.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for your reply. I switched from Pentax because of mirror problems. My k5, which was an excellent camera as far as iq is concerned, had various mirror problems and at the time no full frame alternative. Hence the switch to Sony A7II. No mirror=no mirror problems. Noise control is far better in Pentax though. With my Sony I try to avoid shooting above 160iso because of noise.

 

I switched from Nikon to Sony to take advantage of the mirror-less options.   No regrets, so far.   The noise on my A7Rii at high ISO is a pain, but I mainly shoot in good light or with strobes.   I can't figure out how Sony got such a big jump on Nikon and all the others in the mirror-less market.   It's almost like they (Nikon) thinks mirror-less is just a fad and will fade.   I think it's here to stay.  I love the silent shooting mode on the A7Rii, especially in crowds at events and just shooting on the street.   

Link to post
Share on other sites

I have tried adapters, as I come from Pentax and had all this great glass.  Well, after 7-8 months, all my adapter glass is sold, apart from a very good sigma 105  macro lens, as macro is mainly manual anyway.  Still wondering if I should buy the 90mm macro fe lens, but available comparisons are not in favor of the sony macro lens. Anybody experience with this 90mm fe?  Worth the 1200 bucks?

 

I have the Nikon 105 f2.8 and it's a great lens, but I rarely use it.   Macro was one of those fads I thought I would love, but found myself tired of bugs and spiders, after awhile.   Thought I would use it for portraits, but now that I'm using Sony, I just put my 24-70 fe G on my A7Rii and shoot at 70.   If you really love macro, you might consider the Sony.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I have the Sony FE 90mm macro and love it.  Very sharp (DXO Mark has it the sharpest Sony lens out there).

Do you use the autofocus for macro work, or rather, is the autofocus fast enough at close range, say 30cm?  Or do you use the lens in manual mode for close range macro work?  

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

The new FE 70-300 mm G OSS is fantastic. I use it just during my vacation in swiss.The shot shows the top of the Piz Bernina ( 4.049 m) - focal lenght at 450 mm hand held with the A6300.

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

Guys, I had the 70-300 oss for a week... mine just wasn't sharp wide open. At f8 it was sharp.. but not exceptional. I decided to try the 70-200 f4 instead. I was surprised, it's sharper wide open and at f8. It also renders color and bokeh much nicer. Personally I don't think 70-300 is a great lense. Seems compromised to me. Good luck with whatever you decide.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Guys, I had the 70-300 oss for a week... mine just wasn't sharp wide open. At f8 it was sharp.. but not exceptional. I decided to try the 70-200 f4 instead. I was surprised, it's sharper wide open and at f8. It also renders color and bokeh much nicer. Personally I don't think 70-300 is a great lense. Seems compromised to me. Good luck with whatever you decide.

 

Good to know.   Thanks for the input.   My wife and I got the 70-300, mostly for travel and it's on her A7R most of the time.   I was thinking about the 70-200 f4, since I would like a long zoom of my own and cannot afford the f2.8 at $2500.   Wondering what you think about the weight and bulk.   The only thing I didn't like about the 70-300 was the size of that lens at 300.   With the hood, it's really long.  

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

  • Posts

    • Hello ! A friend gave me an old Sony SLT A65 that was locked in a suitcase for some years and guess what... It was pretty dirty. The translucent mirror looks strange. I know it's a pellicle mirror, but something is really weird , at least to me who never saw this entity before. It shows a rainbow pattern when lit, like a diffraction grid. And when I point the camera to a strong light source, let´s say streets lights or car lights, a huge halo and a diffuse pattern appears, almost like one of that photographic filters from the '70s. I guess the mirror is damaged. Does enyone have any experience with this ? I managed to remove the mirror and carefully rinse it with water and detergent solution , rinse again and dry, but the rainbow patter persists. My question is basically about the translucent mirror behavior with strong highlights and if the rainbow pattern on its surface is normal.   Thanks!  
    • Sounds like you need a manual, and you are correct different settings can affect what you can do in the drive more.  Did you simple press the DRIVE button and select the THREE rectangles? There are several "burst" modes -- that you set with the Fn button or DRIVE button.  One takes several photos, when you press the button once (CONTINUOUS).  Another requires you to press the shutter button each time (SINGLE).  When you press the DRIVE button, what icon shows up -- a single rectangle or three?
    • If the 18-105 is too bulky, then so is the Tamron 17-70. Quality wise however, definately pick the Tamron over the Sony Zeiss 16-70, which is a compromised and dated design and similar in quality to the 18-105. I was in the same boat as you for a while (also had the 16-50 kit lens and 18-105 f/4), and went with the Sony 16-55 F/2.8 G. Happy with the choice as it's more compact than the Tamron 17-70 and vastly better quality than the Zony 16-70. In your case however, the omission of stabilized optics might be a dealbreaker. Did you consider the tiny but decent Sigma 18-50 f/2.8?
  • Topics

×
×
  • Create New...