Sony FE 70-300mm f/4.5-5.6 G OSS lens review with samples

Sorry for the lack of APS-C test pictures! Mea culpa.

70-300mm don't normally cost over £1,000 - let's see if this Sony lens can possibly be worth its price tag.

Find it here (Amazon affiliate link):

All pictures taken by me on Sony a7R II and Sony a5100 cameras.

Equipment I use for making these reviews and other videos:
Equipment I use to make my videos (Amazon affiliate links):

Music:
Licensed under Creative Commons: By Attribution 3.0

[JamesJohnsonMusic]

Must say, I disagree with this review and the final verdict. Having owned both the 70-200 f4 and the 70-300, I can confidently say that I didn't notice any truly noticeable difference in autofocus or sharpness. My Rii tracked skiers perfectly using this lens. Add this to one of the upgraded autofocus systems in a newer camera and I'm sure the results will be much better. Truthfully, I found the 70-300 to be much more enjoyable to use. It is lighter, smaller, packs easier, has more zoom range, is just as sharp and stands out less. If you are looking for a decent travel lens, I would recommend this over the 70-200 f4 all day. The Tamron 70-180 will be a game changer, however.

[shang-hsienyang]

As an a9 user, I prefer to use the Canon 70-300 IS II Nano USM with an MC-11. The combo can still achieve 10fps reliably with support for Real-time AF, eye Af, etc.

[thedaniell]

In my experience, that lens is one of the best when it comes to autofocus. I use it with my A7III. It is extremely fast.

[sandyweaver]

I agree that Sony lenses are pricey in UK, but I have never had a moment of regret about buying this one. I have to say you have got it badly wrong in your review. This lens is absolutely superb. Fantastic IQ and sharp with it. Super fast autofocus too. I only take it off my Sony A7iii or A6300 when I want a wider FOV.

[randydietmeyer]

Value for the dollar is the main issue here. I think this lens would be acceptable in the $500-600 range but not for what is being asked for it. One of my favorite lenses is the Canon 55-250 for aps-c. It usually goes for $250-300 but bought my grey market copy off of Amazon for only $169. For that price (or even its normal retail price) it is an incredible value.

[GSC]

One of the best test-reviews I found - Thank you for your critical comments 👍👍

[stingom]

Hi Chris, great review from you as always. Thanks for the review and for sharing. If I may make a suggestion. For a telephoto zoom lens such as this one, you really need to test it at close range (test chart) as well as near infinity focus (photographic a football match for instance) to get a complete picture of its capability.

[blaizze]

I agree, the price of this lens is just ridiculous and the same story is with those new zooms for APS-C Sony cameras. Speaking of which, are you planning to do a review of them when they are released? :)

[planecrazy]

Sony's new APS-C G zoom lens offerings would be awesome to see. I'm especially curious of the 16-55 F2.8 G. Bummer about loosing the APS-C photos for this one, but I think I have a feel for how it would be. Love the videos!

[pipari]

I have had this lens for a while and I like it very much. Yes, it's not perfect but It's good enough for 99% of people. The mentioned 70-200 f4 is not as sharp as this lens from what I have seen in reviews and lacks the reach. The 100-400 should be superior in every way but much more expensive, big and heavy. So not ideal for travel.

[TheJudge]

Honestly, it seems to me that literally all Sony lenses are overpriced. It's the classic razor and blade model - they lure you in with great looking cameras on paper, then rob you buy forcing you to buy their lenses. It's a good thing there's competitive third party lenses for the system that cost less than half the price. (I'm talking about you 24-70 2.8 GM)

[brightsideproduction]

Another great review.. Good looking out for the UK. Thanks for helping me not waste money.

[yarontaub]

Finally the telephoto! Thank you so much :-) when will you review the 70-200/4 you mentioned? And I can't wait for the new 16-55/2.8 review :-)

[walterblaj]

Great review, as always. Thank you! I really like your objectivity and honest opinions. I'm becoming really tired and somehow unhappy seeing al those although fine reviewers, becoming slowly but certainly just selling platforms for the big names in the industry... I understand that objectivity doesn't always put a bread on the table, but I can't stop hoping that maybe, somebody still has principles in this world. I would consider to contribute some kind of subscription plan, in order to monetize your activity and help you keep your independence. Best wishes!

[SandekarSt]

harganya masih mahal min, coba review lensa tamron

[SuperBuickregal]

Not a Sony user here but they seem awfully proud of some of their lenses. They make tremendous cameras and they have overtaken Nikon and Canon in that race. I still use Canon and did not have a lot of glass invested so I went with 3rd party with Sigma and IRIX but I am entertaining the idea of 15-30, 24-70 and a 70-200 in the G2 line from Tamron. I own a Canon AE-1, AT-1, RP and 6D which in reality are entry level compared to a modern Sony but I taught myself on that AT-1 back in 1980 so I have been a Canon user since then but enough rambling another great video and presentation by Christopher.

[alchemist_x]

I used to love this lens and think it got a bad rap, but I accidentally trashed my 100-400GM (and my RIII with it...) and have been waiting for Sony to give me an estimate of the cost of repair. In the meantime I've been shooting with the 70-300G again on the RIV because I can "gain" that extra focal-length shooting in crop at 26mp, and it's really night and day IQ-wise. From 70mm to ~200mm it's actually quite tack sharp for me, especially in the center, but most people are here for what it can do at 200-300mm and maybe I was spoiled by the 100-400GM but it's... lacking unfortunately. I will say, the AF is really fast on the RIV and the RIII. I also have the RII and it's indeed the camera not the lens.

[timj.]

Great review! Thank you for your review it was excellent. Yes I had both and kept the 70-300mm. Main reason because I like the longer reach, 2nd because it is smaller and 3rd because the closeup distance is a alot better.
Also, the Nano lens coatings are amazing and I believe a better overall build quality . . .

[Gijz]

Great video. Thank for reminding Sony again to stop those foolish price differences between the US and Europa. Same for the A7iii. 2000 USD vs 2300 Euros. Even taking the taxes in consideration the gap is enormous.

And for this lens: it really points out the big problem with the Sony FF eco system. Great (somewhat) affordable cameras with extremely expensive overpriced lenses. Same for the 100-400 which is really good but at 2800 Euros way too expensive.

Fortunately Tamron joined the party. I already own the 28-75 and am really waiting for their upcomming telelens.

[TheThinFrame]

Great review, did u test the new tamron 70-300 for sony?? I am hesitant between these 2 lenses. Thanks