1. Welcome to TalkEmount.com—a friendly Sony E-mount camera & photography discussion forum!

    If you are thinking of buying a camera or need help with your photos, you will find our forum members full of advice! Click here to join for free!

Sony 70-300mm vs 100-400mm

Discussion in 'Sony Alpha E-Mount Lenses' started by erb3742, Jun 25, 2018.

Which lens?

Poll closed Jul 2, 2018.
  1. Sony 70-300

    5 vote(s)
    55.6%
  2. Sony 100-400

    3 vote(s)
    33.3%
  3. Other (please post!)

    1 vote(s)
    11.1%
  1. erb3742

    erb3742 TalkEmount Rookie

    10
    Jan 8, 2018
    Now that I have spent the past few months with Sony after leaving M43, I have decided I would like some additional reach. I really prefer native lenses vs adapting anything, especially for a telephoto zoom where I want great AF and IS.

    I know the two lenses are vastly different in price, but that aside, for those that have used one or both, what is your impression?

    I have read some people having poor quality from Sony with the 70-300 where the 100-400 reviews have been stellar so I am less concerned picking one up used.

    Thanks in advance for the feedback!
     
  2. bdbits

    bdbits TalkEmount All-Pro

    Sep 10, 2015
    Bob
    I've not had either one (unfortunately), but for my money I would choose the 100-400 especially if reach is the primary objective (no pun intended). So I voted for the 100-400.
     
  3. WNG

    WNG TalkEmount Hall of Famer

    Aug 12, 2014
    Arrid Zone-A, USA
    Will
    Don't have either as well. But it's not a fair comparison as the 70-300 is a G and the 100-400 is a more newer G-Master. I too would choose the 100-400 for it's focal length, razor sharpness and quick responding AF.
     
  4. Tipton

    Tipton TalkEmount Top Veteran

    531
    Jan 30, 2016
    Rae Leggett
    Of note, I believe you can get 1.4x or 2x teleconverters for the 100-400 GM. Yes, even more money, but even more reach...

    There are no TC's available for the 100-300 G.

    You may want to consider buying the LAEA-4 converter and try the Tamron or Sigma 150-600 mm Zooms. I'm having good results with the Tamron on my a6500.
     
  5. JonathanF2

    JonathanF2 TalkEmount Top Veteran

    836
    Aug 16, 2014
    Los Angeles, USA
    Since I'm a bang-for-buck type shooter, my preference would be for the 70-300G. I'm a bit annoyed at how spendy that lens is compared to the Nikon and Canon equivalents. I'd only buy either lens used and at major discount.

    BTW - I have a Nikon 300mm f4 AF-S on order that I'll be using on a Commlite ENF-E1 PRO adapter. It's an amazingly sharp lens and still rates highly. It's been mostly forgotten since it was a non-stabilized lens, but mounted on an IBIS equipped body this lens gets new life. I've seen used copies sell for as low as $450 USD.
     
    Last edited: Jun 25, 2018
    • Agree Agree x 1
    • Informative Informative x 1
  6. WestOkid

    WestOkid TalkEmount All-Pro Subscribing Member

    Jan 25, 2014
    New Jersey, USA
    Gary
    Jonathan - I think you're making the same mistake I did.

    I think becuase Sony doesn't have an entry level 70-300 like most manufacturers, the 70-300G is often compared to entry level Canikon 70-300 lenses. The lens is more comparable to Canon 70-300L. When you do that, the Canikon versions cost more.

    I know this because I used MC11 + Canon 70-300 IS USM for a year, thinking I the Sony was equivalent over priced. When I decided to switch to the Sony 70-300G I was only looking for improved AF, but I got so much more. The fact is the build quality and image quality of the Sony 70-300G is in another class. I did a quick compare before selling the Canon, just holding the 2 lenses made me laugh, I was embarrassed for listening to the internet and not doing more research. A few test shots and things only got worse. I then went to DXO to see if I was off and all it did was confirm what I found out. The Sony 70-300G is better than both the Canon L and the Nikon G equivalents. So to compare it to the cheapo offerings from Canon isn't doing it justice.

    Sony FE 70-300mm F4.5-5.6 G OSS on Sony A7R II vs Canon EF 70-300mm f/4-5.6L IS USM on Canon EOS 5DS R vs Nikon AF-S VR Zoom-Nikkor 70-300mm f/4.5-5.6G IF-ED on Nikon D810 | DxOMark
     
    Last edited: Jun 26, 2018
    • Informative Informative x 3
    • Like Like x 1
  7. Kiwi Paul

    Kiwi Paul TalkEmount Top Veteran Subscribing Member

    978
    Feb 14, 2016
    Aberdeen, Scotland
    Paul
    I have the 70-300G and love it. The IQ is excellent, I've not tried the 100-400.
    I can certainly recommend the 70-300 though.
     
    • Informative Informative x 1
  8. quezra

    quezra TalkEmount All-Pro

    Aug 22, 2012
    While you're not wrong, you did basically show how you get a teleconverter for the 70-300G: Put it on an A6xxx. ;)  In fact, if you needed 400mm reach, the 70-300 with an a6300 would be cheaper than the 100-400 by itself, and you would be using the sharp central portion of the lens so it's likely results will be good.

    That said, the 100-400 can get an effective 1200mm reach with a 2.0x TC and APS-C camera, but whether you need that kind of insane reach (given the cost) is a question!
     
    • Like Like x 1
  9. Kiwi Paul

    Kiwi Paul TalkEmount Top Veteran Subscribing Member

    978
    Feb 14, 2016
    Aberdeen, Scotland
    Paul
    • Like Like x 1
  10. JonathanF2

    JonathanF2 TalkEmount Top Veteran

    836
    Aug 16, 2014
    Los Angeles, USA
    Not to get too far off topic, but Nikon did release a brand new 70-300mm f/4.5-5.6 AF-P FX VR lens that retails for $746 USD and I've seen used copies selling around the $500-600 USD range. Reviews of the lens are favorable, due to a brand new optical design with sharpness holding it's own even on a D850 45mp body.

    On the plus side, I've seen Sony 70-300mm FE lenses sell used in the $700-800 range. In fact when I bought my used 70-200mm f4 FE, there was also a used 70-300mm FE on sale in the same price range. I think the good thing is the lens is quite accessible, since big retailers like Best Buy have them for sale. I think there should be more inventory trickling down in the used market, where prices will be more reasonable for bargain shoppers. ;) 
     
    Last edited: Jun 26, 2018
  11. Tipton

    Tipton TalkEmount Top Veteran

    531
    Jan 30, 2016
    Rae Leggett
    Damnit now you guys have convinced me and I've added the 70-300mm G to my "buy this next" list.

    You guys are the worst thing ever for my bank account.
     
    • Funny Funny x 4
  12. Kiwi Paul

    Kiwi Paul TalkEmount Top Veteran Subscribing Member

    978
    Feb 14, 2016
    Aberdeen, Scotland
    Paul
    • Like Like x 5
  13. SRHEdD

    SRHEdD TalkEmount Veteran

    492
    Nov 25, 2012
    Viera, Florida, USA
    Steve
    I love the 70-300. You can easily crop the difference between 300 and 400mm. I prefer the 70 on the other end over 100mm. There is also a decent aftermarket tripod collar for the 70-300.
     
    • Informative Informative x 2
  14. orlcam88

    orlcam88 TalkEmount Regular

    134
    Dec 24, 2017
    Long Island, NY
    I have the 100-400mm and love it. I had the Canon version for years and wanted to have a similar setup I had with Canon. I did compared it to the 70-300 first but that extra 100mm does make a difference especially with the 1.4 tele converter. Also, I didn't want to have any overlap between lenses as I have the 24-105mm.
     
    • Like Like x 2
  15. Kiwi Paul

    Kiwi Paul TalkEmount Top Veteran Subscribing Member

    978
    Feb 14, 2016
    Aberdeen, Scotland
    Paul
    I've been thinking and it really depends on your use of a tele zoom. If you are an enthusiastic sports or wildlife photographer and are out lots shooting those things then the 100-400 probably makes sense, but if you are like me and dabble in a bit of everything and just want a long tele for those occasions you do sports or wildlife then the 70-300 is possibly a better choice.
     
    • Agree Agree x 2
  16. SRHEdD

    SRHEdD TalkEmount Veteran

    492
    Nov 25, 2012
    Viera, Florida, USA
    Steve
    I shoot my son's travel lacrosse games from my sideline chair. Having 70mm at the short end helps when they come close, and the diff between 300 and 400 at the far end of the field wouldn't matter as much to me.

    DSC03526b.jpg
    Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)
     
    • Like Like x 3
  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.