Sony 70-300 G SSM Lens

andyred

andyred

Suspended / Banned
Messages
11,116
Name
And
Edit My Images
No
Hi

Question for my father-in-law, he's looking for a decent lens for his Minolta DSLR, popped into Jessops yesterday and he was able to try the Sony 70-300 G SSM lens on his body (it works fine) and he was very impressed with the speed of focus, how quiet and smooth the lens is.

Has anyone got / used one of these, any advice, things to look out for, problems or even alternative lenses to look at would be much appreciated for him.

Thanks in advance and all the best for Christamas and New year :thumbs:
 
the 70-300mm G SSM is the standout telephoto lens for MAF/Sony Alpha mount at around the ~£500 mark new (if you use quidco you can get -5%-6% off atm at Jessops).

If he can afford to go to ~ £1100 & needs the reach then the 70-400 G SSM is even better.
Alternatively if he doesn't need quite that reach but could use a wider max. aperture then both Sigma & Tamron do 70-200/2.8s for ~£600.
 
Thats great, thanks

Think the £1100 is out of his price range, but will let him know about the Sigma / Tamron choice - do you know id one is better than the other, also do you know if they do an F4 lens, I've been looking, but haven't had much success.

Thanks again heidfirst :thumbs:
 
I think the 70-300 SSM is a bit weak for the money. I mean its *ok* but its over-priced for what it is. £500 is silly money for a variable aperture 70-300. £350 would be different.

I tried one (bere in mind that I'm used to Nikkor glass, and a lot of Pro stuff) and I would not pay £500. Actually I'd feel miffed if I paid £300, considering the price and performce of the Nikon 70-300 VR.
 
Cheers puddleduck, could you possibly recommend another option for him to look at instead ??

Thanksagain
 
andyred said:
Cheers puddleduck, could you possibly recommend another option for him to look at instead ??

Thanksagain
Click to expand...

Bit of a tricky one for me, as for full disclosure I'm used to much better glass in this area. So I'm a picky sod, and for me the 70-300 SSM just doesn't cut it. However...that doesn't make it a bad lens, but it is a poor value lens for £500. £350 and I'd be kinder to it.

Too be honest, the 70-300 SSM probably is the best 70-300 for Sony fit, although Jessops are doing a Tamron 70-300 for £99 at the moment. It won't be as good as the Sony, but it'll be better value for an occasional long shooter (the Sony isn't 5 times better!)

Sigma also do a 70-300 APO lens, and I think they've done a new version with stabilisation (even for Sony fit) - could be worth a thought.

Added: I should also add that your father in law has tried the Sony and likes it, and that counts for a lot too.
 
Last edited:
puddleduck said:
Bit of a tricky one for me, as for full disclosure I'm used to much better glass in this area. So I'm a picky sod, and for me the 70-300 SSM just doesn't cut it. However...that doesn't make it a bad lens, but it is a poor value lens for £500. £350 and I'd be kinder to it.

Too be honest, the 70-300 SSM probably is the best 70-300 for Sony fit, although Jessops are doing a Tamron 70-300 for £99 at the moment. It won't be as good as the Sony, but it'll be better value for an occasional long shooter (the Sony isn't 5 times better!)

Sigma also do a 70-300 APO lens, and I think they've done a new version with stabilisation (even for Sony fit) - could be worth a thought.

Added: I should also add that your father in law has tried the Sony and likes it, and that counts for a lot too.
Click to expand...

Just to ask how good is the Tamron 70-300? I've noticed the Jessops price too but never really heard it mentioned, only the Sigma 70-300.
 
puddleduck said:
Added: I should also add that your father in law has tried the Sony and likes it, and that counts for a lot too.
Click to expand...

Absolutely, was just making sure there weren't other lenses about that we hadn't found that would be either a close match or better than the Sony lens, especially when he's spending that sort of money.

Thanks for your help, have a good Christmas & New year :thumbs:
 
puddleduck said:
Actually I'd feel miffed if I paid £300, considering the price and performce of the Nikon 70-300 VR.
Click to expand...
you would be miffed by either then as the Nikon is £400+ & no better optically & I would say not as well built ;).

andyred,
main other options

Sigma 70-300mm f4-5.6 Macro DG ~£125 - probably the weakest optically & potentially at risk of AF ring failure

===============

Tamron 70-300 mm F4-5.6 Di LD Macro - normally ~£125 but apparently £99 at Jessops atm

Sony 75-300mm f4.5-5.6 - normally ~£165-175 but currently Sony have £50 cashback on this

tbh imo these both perform pretty similarly & normally I would therefore recommend the Tamron due to vfm.

================

Sigma 70-300mm f4-5.6 APO Macro Super DG ~£175 - optically better than all the above but potential problems with AF ring failure on Alphas


++++++++++++++++
s/h option
Minolta 100-300mm APO -~£200 - optically as good as/better than any of the above.
 
The two samples of the Nikon I've used have certainly been equal to my 70-300mm SSM G - it's a much better lens than its rather functional barrelly sort of exterior indicates. The Tamron is much faster across the focal length range in terms of how the maximum aperture decreased as you zoom, and within some ranges (around 100mm) you can squeeze 2/3rds of a stop more speed - or stop down 2/3rds and get better results. The downside of the Tamron is fairly marked residual aberration creating a visible halo effect round a sharp core of detail at full aperture and 300mm - a setting you are very likely to use.

However, I'm considering getting another £99 Tamron. My 70-300mm Sony G is simply not turning in what I expect at f/8 and 300mm from a lens of its price, because it back focuses on distant subjects. I can adjust this using micro AF adjustment, but that throws off the truly excellent short focal lengths and closer distances. So for £99 from Jessop the soon-to-be-replaced clockwork drive AF Tamron is worth a try, in case I get a really good one. Also, it's half the size for travelling!

David
 
reading a digital photo review, it acdtually beat the nikon 70-300mm and the canon 70-300mm but the only downside is that it is expensive, i did read somewhere that it should only be around £350 because the canon and nikon versions are around £450 and apparently 25% of the cost accounted on the canon and nikon versions are for image stabilisation which the sony lens doesnt need.
 
andyred said:
Thats great, thanks

Think the £1100 is out of his price range, but will let him know about the Sigma / Tamron choice - do you know id one is better than the other, also do you know if they do an F4 lens, I've been looking, but haven't had much success.

Thanks again heidfirst :thumbs:
Click to expand...

Have you looked at the Sigma 100-300 F4?
 
if he can't afford the 70-400 G he can't afford the 100-300/4.
& having both my Sony kills my Sigma.
 
Bloody hell that's gone up a bit, used to be cheaper than the 70-200 2.8
 
Thanks everyone for your thoughts, he has had a look at some of the shots he fired off in store and is very pleased with them - think we are going to go back and have another look after Christmas - pity Sony aren't offering any cashback on the lens :razz: as they are on some of the bodies.

Cheers :thumbs:
 
heidfirst said:
main other options

Sigma 70-300mm f4-5.6 Macro DG ~£125 - probably the weakest optically & potentially at risk of AF ring failure

===============

Tamron 70-300 mm F4-5.6 Di LD Macro - normally ~£125 but apparently £99 at Jessops atm

Sony 75-300mm f4.5-5.6 - normally ~£165-175 but currently Sony have £50 cashback on this

tbh imo these both perform pretty similarly & normally I would therefore recommend the Tamron due to vfm.

================

Sigma 70-300mm f4-5.6 APO Macro Super DG ~£175 - optically better than all the above but potential problems with AF ring failure on Alphas


++++++++++++++++
s/h option
Minolta 100-300mm APO -~£200 - optically as good as/better than any of the above.
Click to expand...

Thanks heidfirst

He already has the "standard" 70/75-300 Minolta lens he got with the body and is struggling with it on occasions, at motorsport - struggling to focus fast enough etc and he's wishing to invest and upgrade to a decent lens - hence looking at the G lens.

Cheers :thumbs:
 
Hi all,
Just looking at this thread.
Wonder if Sony 70-300mm SSM is not worth 500 pounds
Anyone would lose the 200-300mm and get Sigma 70-200mm F2.8? or Tamron 70-200mm F2.8?
 
Hi

My father-in-law decided to go ahead and bought the 70-300G lens just after Christmas. He is very pleased with it and has noticed big difference in the quality of the photos he's getting - compared to his other 70-300 zoom he had. He is amazed at how much quicker it focuses and he's also geting sharper pictures - probably down to speed of focus and accuracy really.

He doesn't regret buying it, if you can pop down to a local shop that has one in and see if you can try it, we popped into our local Jessops who were very helpful and tried it out, came home and had a look at the pictures.

The big test will come in a month or so, when we get to Oulton Park etc :thumbs:
 
i use the 70-300G for speedway/superbikes etc on my A700, so fast action stuff, and have been mildly disappointed with the results, especially with the speedway in lower light.
the lens hunts a lot and really struggles under floodlights and the sharpness isn't what i was expecting.
having said that, on a bright sunny day the lens is very very good, although still has a tendancy to hunt a bit.

i have just got a Sony 70-200 2.8 so really looking forward to the season starting so i can compare the results!
 
I'm using the Minolta 80-200 f/2.8 APO HS and it seems excellent. Focus speed (on my A900) seems to be quicker than SSM!
 
the_womble said:
i have just got a Sony 70-200 2.8 so really looking forward to the season starting so i can compare the results!
Click to expand...

Superb lens, you wont be disappointed. I was using mine yesterday on a wooded track in the Cotswolds on a very grey, dark day and it performed really well, even if I did have to bump the ISO up to 640 to achieve a 1/60th shutter speed at f/2.8.

Whereabouts do you go to watch the speedway? I go to see the Somerset rebels occasionally but have never taken my camera.
 
the_womble said:
and have been mildly disappointed with the results, especially with the speedway in lower light.
the lens hunts a lot and really struggles under floodlights and the sharpness isn't what i was expecting.
Click to expand...
this could be partly AF system (the A700's is OK but not state of the art) & partly low light due to the highish max. aperture (f5.6) .
Your 70-200/2.8 will enable the extra AF sensor so it will be interesting to see what difference that does to your AF in the same conditions.

there are known to be some less sharp 70-300 Gs kicking about so you perhaps have 1 of them - have you tried comparing yours against another sample?
 
Last edited:
heidfirst said:
there are known to be some less sharp 70-300 Gs kicking about so you perhaps have 1 of them - have you tried comparing yours against another sample?
Click to expand...

in this thread >> http://www.talkphotography.co.uk/forums/showthread.php?t=202521 i have put some pictures from superbikes on, which i was happy with, but its the lower light stuff thats just not sharp.


onomatopoeia said:
Whereabouts do you go to watch the speedway? I go to see the Somerset rebels occasionally but have never taken my camera.
Click to expand...

take your camera .. Somerset is very good for pictures down the back straight, can get some very good results, in fact a lot of the time its better than being in the middle of the track as the lighting at Somerset is very low and hazy.
also, it's one of the best tracks in the country.

i go to Peterborough & Kings Lynn, but travel around to lots of tracks when i can.
Peterborough is another track that is good for pictures on the outside.
 
the_womble said:
but its the lower light stuff thats just not sharp.
Click to expand...
got an example?
you are probably shooting with a slower shutter speed & wider aperture so it could be subject movement/& or less DoF showing up as well as the AF struggling a bit.
 
Just to throw another option in, if 70-210mm is enough then consider the old Minolta beercan it's a lovely lens with it's constant F4 and con usually be picked up for a sensible price.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top