timgangloff wrote:
Pretty much agree. For college and pro sports, 400 is a better option. If you are shooting HS football and are able to follow the action up and down the field, the 300 is great for it's weight as you can shoot monopod free and probably follow the action a bit more accurately and quickly. The 300's probably also better for soccer if shooting from the endline and mostly shooting stuff inside the 18 where the 400 is often too tight unless you are shooting 2 bodies, etc. Anything outside the 18 and the 400 for the clear win. For baseball, 300 is barely enough depending on shooting locations but then again, sometimes, the 400 is too tight for some action. If you add in TC's, the 300 is probably fine for day games. For basketball, it might be a better option, especially considering the size of 300 is so nice for tight quarters on the baseline. I hate my 400 with TCs.
I don't see selling my 400 anytime soon, but I can see where the budget limited folks could make it work and it could even be a bit better in some situations. If Sony had a 120-300 2.8 that took TC's really well, the 400 could be in trouble. ...Show more →
For work, you do what the job needs. The majority of the market is hobby these days, however. Has nothing to do with money. I would never touch a lens of the size and weight as the 400. That is the opposite of fun, and traveling with it would be even less fun.
I would never be watching other people play sports, let alone shoot it.
Nate9982 wrote:
Thanks for all the replies. Everything said above makes sense. For me the 300 is in a very weird range. I don’t see much need in a prime 300. Maybe if Sony came out with a 100-300 f2.8 I could agree with the tc argument. But for field sports 400 can actually be a little short depending on your shooting location.
300mm is indeed tricky. I've been using the XF 200mm F2 for the past couple years for golf and it has been brilliant. But that's because I can usually position myself at the right distance with my subject. The silent shutters on X-H2s, A1, and A9 are perfect because there's little to no rolling shutter so it doesn't disturb the players and the IQ is great. But for wildlife and other sports where you can't really move around much, it would be very tricky.
shadow9d9 wrote:
I have the 200-600 on one camera and 300 on another here. Again, the 400 is just not a comfortable weight to handhold for long periods of time. Are people going to use a tripod in the forest?
While driving for a week in Etosha, I had both of these lenses, with a camera each, on my lap, while being the driver.
The 600 makes sense for people staying near their home or doing road trips, oe use a tripod, for birding..but some people here on FM seem to prefer the 300 +2x tc. I stopped doing birding at home, and hate tripods. ...Show more →
It's fine for hiking with a monopod if it's the only lens you bring. I do it all the time stashing the lens in a case and putting the case into a hiking pack.
I sold my 400GM to buy the 300GM. I also have 600GM. But there are surely subjects I have throughout the year where the 400 is the ideal lens over the 300/600. I could use all 3 lenses. Just didn't want to have that much invested into lenses at this time. I did make sure the local guy I sold it to will give me right of first refusal if he ever decides to sell it
The 400 was an AMAZING 400mm lens. But it didn't take the 2xTC well and it took the 1.4TC okay.
The 300 is an AMAZING 300mm lens and takes both TCs better than I've ever seen from any of the Sony lenses.
I wanted something smaller and lighter to use in the kayak but I do use it a lot with TCs. If it hadn't performed so well with the 2xTC when I tested my friend's lens I wouldn't have bought the 300.
For many people, the 100mm extra length isn't enough to warrant the extra 3.5lbs of weight and $3000 - $7000 of cost (depending on used vs new).
The 300GM is every bit as sharp as the 400GM, if not sharper. And it takes TC's as well, if not better.
I know a number of people who had the 400GM as their only big prime and sold it to go 300GM. I also know a number of people who owned both the 400GM and 600GM, and sold the 400GM for the 300GM so it can pair better with the 600GM.
Especially with camera bodies in the 40-60MP range, I don't really see much of a reason to buy a 400GM anymore. Even more so if you're someone who's mainly interested in handholding.
The biggest remaining draw of the 400GM is being able to have 800 f5.6 on the long end vs 600 f5.6.
The Sony 300GM is -THE- Sony lens to have. Every single person I know who shoots Sony and wildlife or sports wants or has gotten one. Even a lot of us shooting Nikon have them.
From a Nikon perspective, we have the 400TC which would retain a little bit more value than a naked 400mm hopefully, but even then I think our lenses are next on the chopping block if Nikon releases a modern 300 f2.8 with or without built in TC.
The market was different a couple years ago. New 400/600GMs had long wait lists because of supply chain issues and other factors. A used lens could sell for almost as much as a new one, because buying new was not an option. The market is more saturated now.
I would be very surprised if Sony is not developing a next gen 400 f/2.8 that is at least 0.5kg lighter. It was once said by Canon the relative weight savings on the 300mm lens would always be a lot less than for the 400 f/2.8 and 600 f/4, yet Sony has just done what I'm sure most would have thought impossible with the weight of the 300 GM. I would say they could do a 400 f/2.8 at 2.2kg max even with TC built-in.
As good as the 300 GM sounds, I'd still prefer a 400 f/4 as my baseline FL for birding and mostly stick to 1.4x TC. 400 f/4 would be just as light and only a tad longer. With 50MP+, 400 + 1.4x will be adequate for a lot of birding.
Nate9982 wrote:
Thanks for all the replies. Everything said above makes sense. For me the 300 is in a very weird range. I don’t see much need in a prime 300. Maybe if Sony came out with a 100-300 f2.8 I could agree with the tc argument. But for field sports 400 can actually be a little short depending on your shooting location.
The catch is that a 100-300 f/2.8 is going to be substantially heavier than the 300 GM, and probably going to take an image quality hit, too. And there's the question of how well it can work with TCs - zooms don't work as well with TCs as primes.
I was delighted that Sony managed to create a 300 f/2.8 that weighs what a 70-200 f/2.8 used to weigh.
Fully understandable that you don't want to switch, anyway.
I know of one photographer who added the 300 GM to the 400 and 600, and he was surprised how much easier it was use when tracking moving subjects, because it's lighter and (physically) shorter - I can understand that.
I can't afford a 400 f/2.8, but I was able to afford the 300 - I'm enjoying using it.
Nate9982 wrote:
That's an interesting point about the 300GM. I know it's a fantastic lens but I can't believe it could ever replace the 400 for IQ. Granted I don't have one or used one for that matter, but will never believe that it can replace a pure 400. Similarly I can't see a 400 + TC replacing a 600 F4.
300mm f/2.8 primes lenses have traditionally (regardless of brand) been the sharpest telephoto lenses made. A couple of friends of mine use the Sony 300 + 1.4-- other than it being a stop slower, from what I could see the IQ of the 300mm + 1.4x is the same as a bare 400mm 2.8.
It's a 6 year old lens in 2024, and a luxury good. Most people can't go and mindlessly drop $11,998 for a camera lens, many more people are in the market for less expensive zoom lenses instead, so you already have a relatively small target market. And as many people have said, the 300 GM is a better option for many, further reducing the target market.
And then you have the sector of the market who refuses to buy used at any price, and have made up their mind if they will spend such an amount for a lens, it will be a brand new copy.
I'd say 1/3 depreciation is actually much better than most luxury hobby items. Yes, you could argue that it is a professional tool, but even used tools lose value with time.
This isn't a few years ago anymore, when used cars sold for more than new and you couldn't buy a new 400/600mm lens of any brand unless you waited for a year.
