Sony 300GM

If you would like to post, you'll need to register. Note that if you have a BCG store account, you'll need a new, separate account here (we keep the two sites separate for security purposes).

Member's gallery
Member's gallery
sh1209 said:
To be honest with you, I have never used a 2X converter on my 600 GM and only rarely use the 1.4 X. I find as you state cropping in is just as good and sometimes better. I’ll have to admit a sort of thought you and others were full of crap about that 300 prime but From what I’ve had it out so far I’m absolutely amazed by it the size and weight make it just a pleasure to hike with compared to the 600. The weather has been pretty terrible here for the last couple days so I’m hoping I will get some good light with it this week and try it with the 1.4 and 2X. I also want to see what it’s like with the bare lens. I can say without a doubt from using it inside the house yesterday that without any converter, the image quality is very noticeably better than the 600 GM and that is really saying something. I am not sure what a pristine used 600 GM would bring in the used market but I suppose I could test the waters and see I would imagine I could get between 11 five and 12 for it considering the condition but it’s hard to say nowadays.
Click to expand...

a little late to the thread and glad to hear you're enjoying the 300GM!

that being said, I think your pricing for a 600GM is pretty high unless you're in Canada or Australia or something. I've been watching mint condition copies sell for $9K or less recently.

when I was considering moving to Sony, I was budgeting $9.5K max for the 600GM and knew I could buy it for that price the same day, no matter if/when I decided to make the purchase.

that might help make your decision easier one way or another... (keep it because the value is already so low, or sell it before the value drops more)
 
Member's gallery
DavidT said:
Well we might be full of crap but you just have to learn to get that check book out and come along for the ride with the rest of us lol.
Click to expand...
Good crap doesn't come cheap:) this one cropped and shot through glass (300mm A9 lll), I love this crap:love:
DSC09672-Edit.jpg
You can only see EXIF info for this image if you are logged in.
 
Member's gallery
nmerc_photos said:
a little late to the thread and glad to hear you're enjoying the 300GM!

that being said, I think your pricing for a 600GM is pretty high unless you're in Canada or Australia or something. I've been watching mint condition copies sell for $9K or less recently.

when I was considering moving to Sony, I was budgeting $9.5K max for the 600GM and knew I could buy it for that price the same day, no matter if/when I decided to make the purchase.

that might help make your decision easier one way or another... (keep it because the value is already so low, or sell it before the value drops more)
Click to expand...
Might hold onto it for that much lol
 
Member's gallery
Doug Herr said:
Without reliable statistics I'm hesitant to say what most of my peers do but here in the States I'll use a blind (hide) with wary subjects at whatever distance they'll tolerate. The 300 is handy for those occasions when a tiny bird is closer than the 600's MFD but I'll use the 600 in a blind when appropriate. The blind allows me to observe over an extended period of time without influencing behavior.

For tiny birds the 300's MFD often makes this lens the better choice but the blind can block a portion of the light.

I use the 300 + 2xTC when exploring on foot. I use the 600 when I've found a good location and the MFD isn't a problem, blind or no blind.
Click to expand...
Beautiful photos.
 
Member's gallery
Douglas L said:
I have both the 300 GM and the 600 GM, the 2X TC is on the 300 GM 99% of the time, the 1.4TC is on the 600 GM 90% of the time. If Sony makes an 800mm as light as the Nikon 800 PF, I will sell the 600 GM in a heart bit.
Click to expand...
Definitely tempted to buy it. I think it handles both teleconverters better than the 600GM especially with focus speed. I can literally tell no difference in focus speed bare lens or either TC which is amazing
 
Member's gallery
I keep thinking to myself I've got way to many guitars and not enough 300mm 2.8's. Time to raise some $$$$ :) Been wanting the Sony 300mm real bad for a long time. I have a love hate relationship with the the 200-600......love it for video on my FX3, not so much love in terms of photography on my A7R5's. I've had a couple copies of the 200-600, both excellent.....really really good with ample light but most of my wildlife action happens at or near the dark and F6.3 in low light with the shutter speeds you need just doesn't cut it for photography.

However and where the 200-600 really shines is in terms of low light video on a body like the FX3 where you can just about shoot video in the dark at ISO 12800 which cleans up very good in post. I think I'd actually prefer the 200-600 for video over even a 300mm 2.8 or big 600mm f4. When you have deer at 20 to 100+ yards and everywhere in between at the same time just before dark the zoom (even though slow) covers you bases like a champ on the FX3. FX3 is simply a low light beast for video. Just need a better low light photography solution and pretty sure its going to be 300mm 2.8. Have to sell to many guitars to get the big 600mm f4 :)
 
Member's gallery
TomRC said:
I keep thinking to myself I've got way to many guitars and not enough 300mm 2.8's. Time to raise some $$$$ :) Been wanting the Sony 300mm real bad for a long time. I have a love hate relationship with the the 200-600......love it for video on my FX3, not so much love in terms of photography on my A7R5's. I've had a couple copies of the 200-600, both excellent.....really really good with ample light but most of my wildlife action happens at or near the dark and F6.3 in low light with the shutter speeds you need just doesn't cut it for photography.

However and where the 200-600 really shines is in terms of low light video on a body like the FX3 where you can just about shoot video in the dark at ISO 12800 which cleans up very good in post. I think I'd actually prefer the 200-600 for video over even a 300mm 2.8 or big 600mm f4. When you have deer at 20 to 100+ yards and everywhere in between at the same time just before dark the zoom (even though slow) covers you bases like a champ on the FX3. FX3 is simply a low light beast for video. Just need a better low light photography solution and pretty sure its going to be 300mm 2.8. Have to sell to many guitars to get the big 600mm f4 :)
Click to expand...
For video zooms really shine. Especially in wildlife when you do not have a complete control of a scene.
 
Member's gallery
Unfortunately, I have to pack this lens up and ship it back today. I probably spent close to 30 hours in all kinds of conditions with this lens and both teleconverters. I honestly don’t have anything bad to say about it. If it were 400 mm at this size and weight it would be a little easier to decide. Having said that, I am not sure if I will purchase the lens or not. The lens operation with both teleconverters is absolutely flawless, and I cannot tell any difference whatsoever in speed or focus acquisition with either teleconverter. This lens absolutely accepts teleconverters far better than the 600 GM. Like I said earlier in the thread, this lens would be to replace the 600 GM. I do not see any need in having both considering all the other lenses I have. If I bought this lens in conjunction with the 600 GM, I don’t think the 600 GM would ever come out of the cabinet. I rarely use a tele converter on the 600 GM so more than likely this would be a good replacement for me. I guess the biggest dilemma I have now is I’m not going to take less than $10,000 for the 600 GM. If I cannot get that I will keep it. I think this combination makes far more sense for many photographers over owning the 600 GM just because of the size and weight. For someone like me that hikes 95% of the time when out shooting for several miles at a time, This definitely makes more sense. I am definitely not the type of photographer that goes to a place and sits in one spot for hours and don’t ever foresee that happening. I guess at this point I’m going to have to see what the 600 GM will bring in the used market before making a move.
 
Member's gallery
sh1209 said:
Unfortunately, I have to pack this lens up and ship it back today. I probably spent close to 30 hours in all kinds of conditions with this lens and both teleconverters. I honestly don’t have anything bad to say about it. If it were 400 mm at this size and weight it would be a little easier to decide. Having said that, I am not sure if I will purchase the lens or not. The lens operation with both teleconverters is absolutely flawless, and I cannot tell any difference whatsoever in speed or focus acquisition with either teleconverter. This lens absolutely accepts teleconverters far better than the 600 GM. Like I said earlier in the thread, this lens would be to replace the 600 GM. I do not see any need in having both considering all the other lenses I have. If I bought this lens in conjunction with the 600 GM, I don’t think the 600 GM would ever come out of the cabinet. I rarely use a tele converter on the 600 GM so more than likely this would be a good replacement for me. I guess the biggest dilemma I have now is I’m not going to take less than $10,000 for the 600 GM. If I cannot get that I will keep it. I think this combination makes far more sense for many photographers over owning the 600 GM just because of the size and weight. For someone like me that hikes 95% of the time when out shooting for several miles at a time, This definitely makes more sense. I am definitely not the type of photographer that goes to a place and sits in one spot for hours and don’t ever foresee that happening. I guess at this point I’m going to have to see what the 600 GM will bring in the used market before making a move.
Click to expand...
Just do what I did....list your lens for sale at the price you are willing to accept. If someone is willing to pay it then you buy the 300GM.
In my case it was selling the 400GM before buying the 300GM. I had my 400GM listed for a few months. When it sold, I had the 300GM in hand within a week or so. Now a days you could have it overnight at any time you want as it is in stock everywhere.
 
Member's gallery
arbitrage said:
Just do what I did....list your lens for sale at the price you are willing to accept. If someone is willing to pay it then you buy the 300GM.
In my case it was selling the 400GM before buying the 300GM. I had my 400GM listed for a few months. When it sold, I had the 300GM in hand within a week or so. Now a days you could have it overnight at any time you want as it is in stock everywhere.
Click to expand...
Yeah that sounds like a good plan. I just refuse to take a beating on the 600. It’s just such a great lens but I think I would be better served by the smaller prime. You were definitely right, it is an amazing piece of glass.
 
Member's gallery
sh1209 said:
Unfortunately, I have to pack this lens up and ship it back today. I probably spent close to 30 hours in all kinds of conditions with this lens and both teleconverters. I honestly don’t have anything bad to say about it. If it were 400 mm at this size and weight it would be a little easier to decide. Having said that, I am not sure if I will purchase the lens or not. The lens operation with both teleconverters is absolutely flawless, and I cannot tell any difference whatsoever in speed or focus acquisition with either teleconverter. This lens absolutely accepts teleconverters far better than the 600 GM. Like I said earlier in the thread, this lens would be to replace the 600 GM. I do not see any need in having both considering all the other lenses I have. If I bought this lens in conjunction with the 600 GM, I don’t think the 600 GM would ever come out of the cabinet. I rarely use a tele converter on the 600 GM so more than likely this would be a good replacement for me. I guess the biggest dilemma I have now is I’m not going to take less than $10,000 for the 600 GM. If I cannot get that I will keep it. I think this combination makes far more sense for many photographers over owning the 600 GM just because of the size and weight. For someone like me that hikes 95% of the time when out shooting for several miles at a time, This definitely makes more sense. I am definitely not the type of photographer that goes to a place and sits in one spot for hours and don’t ever foresee that happening. I guess at this point I’m going to have to see what the 600 GM will bring in the used market before making a move.
Click to expand...
Keh and B&h both offer around $6500 for a mint condition lens. eBay mint are listed between $9.5k and $11k right now - not many mint ones listed so you may have a shot if you decide to go ahead. But clearly, you take a bath if you trade in with the big guys. You might do better with a smaller regional shop and buy the 300mm in the same transaction but I doubt it will be sufficiently different.
 
Member's gallery
Yep. Almost all hobby gear is not an investment, even though some like to think of it that way.

Except Leica rangefinder stuff. Man, some of that just explodes in value over time compared to regular lenses and bodies.
 
Member's gallery
FB101 said:
Keh and B&h both offer around $6500 for a mint condition lens. eBay mint are listed between $9.5k and $11k right now - not many mint ones listed so you may have a shot if you decide to go ahead. But clearly, you take a bath if you trade in with the big guys. You might do better with a smaller regional shop and buy the 300mm in the same transaction but I doubt it will be sufficiently different.
Click to expand...
Yeah, there’s no way in the world I would ever sell to one of those places. I think their offers are absolutely insulting. I have always sold items on my own and turned out far better. I realize they have to stay in business and make a profit, but I can’t stomach losing that much money lol
 
Member's gallery
carbon said:
Yep. Almost all hobby gear is not an investment, even though some like to think of it that way.

Except Leica rangefinder stuff. Man, some of that just explodes in value over time compared to regular lenses and bodies.
Click to expand...
Yeah, I realize that that’s the reason I said I am perfectly content holding onto it if I don’t get what I want for it. The lens I have is absolutely mint 10/10 and I mean not a single spot or blemish anywhere so it’s definitely not going to bother me to keep it
 
sh1209 said:
Yeah that sounds like a good plan. I just refuse to take a beating on the 600. It’s just such a great lens but I think I would be better served by the smaller prime. You were definitely right, it is an amazing piece of glass.
Click to expand...

We have a hard time recognizing that the market value and how we view our equipment's value aren't the same. The market value drops as soon as you drive it off the dealer's lot, nothing we can do about that.

The question I ask myself when faced with this kind of choice is how many photos will I miss by not having more suitable equipment, and what's the value of the photos, if the value can be quantified? For myself, opportunities are often once-and-gone, and my timeline is finite. I'd sell the lens I'm not using to fund the more suitable lens, and go outside to make more photographs. I traded the 100-400 I wasn't using (didn't take a TC well and the zoom was too stiff for my hands) to partially fund the 300 + 2x TC, with absolutely no regrets. I'm keeping the 600 because I often find myself in the sit-and-wait photo scenarios.
 
Member's gallery
Doug Herr said:
We have a hard time recognizing that the market value and how we view our equipment's value aren't the same. The market value drops as soon as you drive it off the dealer's lot, nothing we can do about that.

The question I ask myself when faced with this kind of choice is how many photos will I miss by not having more suitable equipment, and what's the value of the photos, if the value can be quantified? For myself, opportunities are often once-and-gone, and my timeline is finite. I'd sell the lens I'm not using to fund the more suitable lens, and go outside to make more photographs. I traded the 100-400 I wasn't using (didn't take a TC well and the zoom was too stiff for my hands) to partially fund the 300 + 2x TC, with absolutely no regrets. I'm keeping the 600 because I often find myself in the sit-and-wait photo scenarios.
Click to expand...
Yeah all good points for sure. I guess like the old saying goes it’s paid for and not eating any hay, so if I have to keep it then that’s fine. I do realize I’m gonna have to sell it for less than what I paid for it obviously but there’s a mental point in my mind going below that I’d rather just keep it. I might possibly just get a smaller hood for it to at least decrease the size is a bit if I do keep it. Honestly, the size is more of a hindrance than the weight which is why the 300 is so darn nice that would fit in most any camera bag, which would really be a good point.
 
Member's gallery
I have definitely decided to keep the 600 F4 I’m just going to add the 300 mm lens sometime between now and spring. I purchased the 2.0 TC this morning to get that out of the way. I have owned probably 30–35 lenses in my life Most of which being Nikon until a couple years ago. Having said that a handful of the lenses I have owned have been very special. One of the first that comes to mind is the Nikon 200 mm F4 macro lens, the second is the Nikon 105 mm 1.4 portrait lens, The third being the Nikon 500 m PF, the fourth being the Sony 600 mm GM, the fifth being the Sony 70–200 mark two zoom lens and finally the 300 mm GM that I just borrowed. I would say the 300 mm GM is the most impressive lens I have ever shot with for many reasons to be honest. I can’t think of a single fault other than I wish it had some way to put in a snap in front lens cover. Other than that, it is perfect in my eyes.
 
Member's gallery
sh1209 said:
I have definitely decided to keep the 600 F4 I’m just going to add the 300 mm lens sometime between now and spring. I purchased the 2.0 TC this morning to get that out of the way. I have owned probably 30–35 lenses in my life Most of which being Nikon until a couple years ago. Having said that a handful of the lenses I have owned have been very special. One of the first that comes to mind is the Nikon 200 mm F4 macro lens, the second is the Nikon 105 mm 1.4 portrait lens, The third being the Nikon 500 m PF, the fourth being the Sony 600 mm GM, the fifth being the Sony 70–200 mark two zoom lens and finally the 300 mm GM that I just borrowed. I would say the 300 mm GM is the most impressive lens I have ever shot with for many reasons to be honest. I can’t think of a single fault other than I wish it had some way to put in a snap in front lens cover. Other than that, it is perfect in my eyes.
Click to expand...
This cover works for me:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top