The 300mm f/2.8 lens is better for sports photography than the 70-200mm f/2.8.

[@CHRIS_HITCHCOCK]

I’ve been a full-time sports photographer for 15 years, and during that time, I’ve only shot field or stadium sports seven or eight times. It’s very U.S.-centric to frame discussions about sports photography around stadium or gym settings. When you include sports like cycling, ultra-trail running, marathon running, mountain biking, triathlon, Ironman, obstacle racing, and open-water swimming in the conversation, a 300mm prime lens becomes far more limiting compared to a 70-200mm zoom. Don’t get me wrong-if I had a specific use case for a 300mm prime, I’d buy one in a heartbeat. But I know that, for the kind of sports I typically shoot, it would just sit in my safe

[@PMRTV]

Totally agree, it’s all about the specific sport!

[@Jonathantuba]

I have the 300 GM and it is awesome. I use for 90% of my images, sometimes using with the teleconverters which seems to work better on the 300 than any other Sony lens. Plus being so lightweight it is no problem handholding making responding to fast moving action a lot more fluid. I now rarely bother with a monopod, only to steady if taking video

[@PMRTV]

100%

[@markwalker8374]

Good to hear a well thought out justification from a working sports photographer. I'm more of a bird photographer but your insight is spot on

[@aronake]

When I shoot sports I have 400/2.8 on one body, and 70-200/2.8 on another. 1.4 and 2 X teleconverter if needed on the 400/2.8. Then swap the 400/2.8 for 16-35/2.8 for non game time, press conferences etc which team up well with 70-200/2.8.

[@PMRTV]

Nice!

[@JPwheelie]

I normally shoot field sports and I own the 300, My son started wresting in Highschool and for his first meet I took 2 bodies and my 85GM, my 135GM and my 70-200mmGM II. I found myself mostly using the 135mm and wishing I had brought my 300. Thanks for the video.

[@PMRTV]

that 135mm f/1.8 is like magic...

[@Dan.gibson.photographer]

The 300mm GM is also amazing for wildlife I use it extensively with 61mpx and the results are just stunning

[@Arnklars]

You hit me. This has been on my radar since launch. Merry Christmas 🎄🎅🏼🥂

[@Qamera]

Completely agree. I've stopped using the 70-200 (and the 400)...

[@3-piece129]

On my Canon R5, I have the RF 24-105 f/2.8 and on my R5m2, I have a Sigma 105-300 f/2.8. I love the ability to cover the field from 24-300mm. Thanks!

[@PMRTV]

Are you able to shoot over 10 fps with the Sigma lens on your R5MII?

[@3-piece129]

@ Yes, in full electronic mode. That’s what keeps me satisfied in not going after the Canon RF 100-300 f/2.8 and its $10k price tag. It’s definitely a want and not a necessity any longer. What makes the situation even better with the R5ii, is that I don’t get the banding and object distortion I got with the R5/R6 when I shot them in electronic.

[@emirhantemel9912]

​@@3-piece129 what ive heard from people is that third party lenses might cause af problems. I'm not getting paid but im into sports anyways. Also, im into astrophotography. Now, if i werent into sports, i would definitely buy sigma lenses but sports and this AF rumor makes me think twice. What do yo know about this and what do you suggest?

[@emirhantemel9912]

​@@3-piece129 by the way, im using r6 ii

[@3-piece129]

⁠@@emirhantemel9912Hello, sorry I’ve been a little busy. Funny that you should ask because I’ve been in another channel expressing some recent activity. Occasionally the R5mii locks up on me when I’m shooting. It’s happened before on the R6 & R5 as well. However, I can’t say that it is because of the Sigma lens only. It’s happened with my EF lenses (24-70 & 70-200) that I’ve used with the Canon EF to RF adapter. The camera just stops working and I have to wait for it to “unfreeze” or just slide out the battery tray from the battery pack. This usually clears it up but in the R5ii, it takes about an extra 5-10 seconds to restart. In case you or anyone wants specific details, in the R5 & R6, the camera just freezes to the point that pushing the shutter button or turning it off and on does not make a difference. In my R5ii, it does the same however, the image is frozen and can be seen in the viewfinder as “stuck”. However, the image is duplicated (same image top and bottom). In the other cameras, this doesn’t happen - the screens are blank. The issue can be my adapter contacts, the memory cards even though I use the recommended ones or maybe user error. Perhaps I’m moving the camera too fast to another scene while still holding down the shutter button. Perhaps this is causing the focus mechanism to jam up because I’m confusing it by not fully depressing the button before I move on to a different player. Too much spray and pray 😂 Anyway, I don’t mean to scare you or anyone away from buying 3rd party lenses or upgrading cameras because you already have said lenses. The R5ii is awesome and it has helped take certain pics I may have missed and I will continue using it with my Sigma lenses (50mm 1.4 & 120-300 f/2.8). I’ll try the firmware update to see if anything changes. Hope this helped.

[@marc-andre.casavant]

Your video couldn’t have come at a better time! Thank you! You covered the exact scenario I have been going over, and over, and over in my head for a while now trying to decide in which way to go with the purchase of Sony glass (currently switching systems). It is extremely tempting to go straight for the 300mm 2.8 which would allow me to produce pictures I have been dreaming about capturing for quite a while. Having depended on a 70-200 2.8 for so long I really wonder if I would miss the versatility of the zoom when shooting away from the field or in tighter areas.

[@sgpork]

Keep the 70-200 and buy this 300 you been dreaming of. You will thank me later. I am 100% sure.

[@PMRTV]

sweet! Let me know what you end up doing :)

[@uziuzi]

I primarily do volleyball, so the 70-200 works great for me... and the 1.4x teleconverter is enough for when I want to get tighter. I think only having a 300 in this specific case would be too limiting.

[@PMRTV]

Totally understand--it's all about the sport you shoot, and the 70-200 is a great lens!

[@paulgero]

Pat, great video and a very interesting perspective. I agree that the 300 and the 135 make a really amazing combination for so many sports. I used to shoot with the 70-200 2.8 GM II and it is -- without a doubt -- the best lens of it's type that I have ever used BUT I always feel (for sports anyway) that I'm often "underlensed" 😉. Cropping it to aps-c was okay, but it's not the same as the 300. That lens, is a revelation. It is so incredibly small and light for a lens of it's type (we both had the old Nikkor 300 2.8 which was probably over six pounds!!!)...it makes it more responsive because you're just not moving a lot of glass while on a monopod (I'm almost always hand held with it)...And the 135 1.8 is IMHO the best indoor sports lens for basketball, volleyball, etc. Couple that with an a1 or a9III and you've got a sports beast. I shoot a TON of prep sports and the light is not great. I'm often at 12,800 or more and having the 135 1.8 allows me to keep the ISO down to 8000 and 1/1250th at f1.8 for hoops and I can eeck out a 1/800th at f2.8 for the down court shot with the 300.... The key is that these lenses are magical. They have a look and can bring the viewer into a level of intimacy that is tough to match with a 70-200. That lens, again, is great, but for the work I do, the 300 and 135 are just the right fit.

[@PMRTV]

"these lenses are magical. They have a look and can bring the viewer into a level of intimacy that is tough to match with a 70-200." Dang man!!! 100% on all points--thanks for taking the time to comment :)

[@soholingo]

I agree with this! Sony just needs to make a 135GM that can take teleconvertors.

[@PMRTV]

100%

[@robwasnj]

I thought the exact same after buying the 135 and seeing how sharp it was. Having that ability could really pare down a kit for travel or carrying. Definitely a missed opportunity there.

[@sgpork]

Hopefully 1 day. ! But so far. None of the 135mm in the market is able to take a TC. Am i right?

[@stevenwaldstein2249]

If I remember right my Canon EF 135/2 L and 200/2.8 L took a TC but none of the lenses for mirrorless cameras have that equivalent. Not sure why. Guess it’s just quicker and easier to design and put into the market and has less design constraints to meet. Oh well.

[@PowerOnPlay]

"Barf : Oh, you're right. And when you're right, you're right. And you, you're always right."

[@dballering2]

Agree on all points. I tend to use the 300 as my mid range solution for college day football. I'll typically shoot the 400 with the 1.4, the 300, the 70-200 (or 135 at night, depending on the stadium), and of course some wide glass as well. You get points hewer the 400 with the 1.4 is too long, and the 300 is just right! Sometime for HS football, I'll go only with the 300 and 135, no monopod needed! I believe you have a video on the 300 paired with the 135. Thank you!

[@kelb89]

I have the opportunity to purchase the GM 300 2.8 or the 400 2.8 for half off. Which would you recommend?

[@PMRTV]

it's all about what you shoot. If you are a straight up sports shooter, then the 400GM probably makes more sense. If you shoot a great variety of things, the 300GM would likely be more useful.

[@kelb89]

@@PMRTV These two lenses were never on my radar because I'm primarily a wedding and portrait photographer. However, about 5% of my income for the year comes from photographing baseball, basketball and combat sports which is essentially the cost of either lens with my discount. I usually shoot only with my 70-200 2.8 and 24-70 2.8.

[@nogroove3819]

Are you happy with the way the 300 handled teleconverters

[@PMRTV]

kzbin.info/www/bejne/mIDYfqiAo8SthMk

[@danncorbit3623]

Small court sports like basketball and volleyball will be limited with 300mm.

[@AVerkhovsky]

There is some confusing statement here. 70-200 2.8 with 2x TC is 140-400 5.6 (it is not 140-400 2.8, but it really is 140-400 5.6), so at 400mm it would have less depth of field than 200-600 5.6-6.3 at 400mm, because this lens at 400mm has a maximum aperture of 6.3, not 5.6.

[@PMRTV]

nope. TC's do not affect depth of field, only field of view.

[@AVerkhovsky]

@@PMRTV Yep, you can say TCs do not affect depth of field, but it's not entirely true. The truth is they don't affect it in the same way as increasing focal length while keeping a constant aperture. I can put it this way: if you take an image at 200mm 2.8 and print it twice as large as the image taken at 400mm 6.3, the first image would have a shallower depth of field. TC does the same, only better because it does not reduce the pixel density. Another way to put it: imagine there is a variable aperture zoom 200-400mm 2.8-5.6. At the longer end of this zoom you would have the same image as with 200mm 2.8 and 2x TC and this image would have a shallower depth of field than the image at 400mm 6.3. However, 400mm 2.8 is different - the depth of filed is 4 times shallower than at 200mm 2.8, while at 400mm 5.6 it is only 2 times shallower than at 200mm 2.8. Depth of field depends linearly on f number, but quadratically on focal length and subject distance. Inside the quadratic dependence, one factor is due just to magnification: when you magnify the image you see better what's not in focus. This also depends on how we print of view the image, so we could sort of put it out of the equation and ignore in most situations. But in your case this led you to a wrong conclusion that 400mm 6.3 would have a better bokeh than 200mm 2.8 with 2x TC. Quadratic dependence on focal length given a constant aperture is due to the fact that a constant f number implies that the entrance pupil is actually becoming large in the same measure as the focal length. Thus the depth of field is decreasing due to both the magnification and to increase of the lens opening. Hope this makes it clear.

[@PhotoTrekr]

I'd love to have a 300 GM. But, I'm an amateur and can't justify 6K for a lens. I'd rather use the money toward a trip somewhere. But, I do have the 70-200 GM II which takes the teleconverters really well and the 70-200 f4 G Macro which I take when I travel.

[@CaveSkiSAR]

With a fixed focal length like 300mm you don't waste time zooming in and out. You can concentrate on following the action. Back in the film days photo journalists would often use a Lecia range finder with a 35mm lens set at F16 - depth of field is then about 1 m to infinity. Then they didn't have to worry about focus, just follow the action - take photos. With 36 shots per roll spray and pray wasn't done as much even if you had a motor drive. Back then who cared about the grain when Trix-X was pushed to ISO 1600. Even if the film grain was large enough to golf with, the photos were usually being printed in a newspaper not higher resolution magazine

[@robwasnj]

You make a great point, when I entered the Sony ecosystem the 300mm was not available. With Canon I had a 70-200 2.8 and really wanted something different so I purchased the 100-400 GM, not a bad lens and really it beat my old L series Canon in every way except for speed. I started getting into birding and wildlife photos so the 400 wasn't long enough, wound up buying the 1.4TC to get some more reach and honestly hated it, slow focusing but moreover cropping from 42 or 50 mp really gave me the same results as using the TC, it's just been gathering dust in my drawer now. So fast forward another year and the 200-600 comes out, it's a real bargain and I like that it zooms internally, slow but really a decent lens for someone starting into wildlife I thought. Now I see this 300 is available and after owning the 135GM, the 50, 85, 20 and 35mm primes it's so hard to grab a zoom for anything short of family snapshots. I am curious, how would you rate the 300mm with an attached 1.4 to something like the 200-600 putting speed aside? I haven't seen much talk of this but I wonder if it wouldn't be that great and might even fall short of the zoom that natively can do up to 600mm. I can't imagine even trying the 2.0 TC. One thing I really wish is the 135 could accept a TC, such a favorite lens, can't say enough about it. Happy holidays and thanks for giving some alternate takes on things like choosing gear wisely.

[@kevinahecht]

I’m giving the 300 GM some serious thought. My main use case would be for bird photography, a bit of sports. The 200-600 has been a great start for me but you need good lighting and the teleconverters don’t do great with them at all. I’m very encouraged by the consistency of reports of both the performance of the 300 and how well the teleconverters work with it. I *really* don’t want to lay out nearly $13K then deal with the bulk of the 600 GM, as much as I’d love to otherwise have that lens. I’ll probably rent the 300 to try with the teleconverters, but if it does better than the 200-600 at 600 with the 2X tele, I’ll probably spring for it.

[@PMRTV]

it is 100% better. Though not a direct comparison, here is a link to a video where I shot the 300GM with the 2X shooting rugby: kzbin.info/www/bejne/mIDYfqiAo8SthMk

[@kevinahecht]

@@PMRTV Thanks for this. Like many, I've been somewhat disappointed by the teleconverters in the past, so I'll try them with the 300 GM, which I just ordered. Really looking forward to its arrival.

[@sgpork]

Yea. The 300 GM is such a joy to use. Best lens Sony created. To me at least for now. So light and alot cheaper than 400 and 600 GM making this 2 not relevant unless you really need the reach. Because 300 GM takes TC very well. If the 400 and 600 GM can be smaller and lighter.. then i’ll be interested. Otherwise its just such a hassle to bring it around or on a plane. Just too long big and heavy. Not to mention you need specific bag to carry them around too. Also I really hope Sony can make 600 6.3 or lightweight 800mm like the Nikon.

[@PMRTV]

Totally agree--that 300mm GM is so great!

[@timkaiser385]

My Grandson is just starting in competitive soccer, I plan on shooting his matches, I have the Sony a7rv and the original a9, would you recommend the 300?

[@PMRTV]

if you can do it, yes! and pick up the 2x as well for field sports. If you want to spend less, go for the 200-600G BUT... if he will be playing under lights, 300GM all the way!

[@timkaiser385]

@ thanks I

[@TheAaronPerry]

As always great info!!!

[@PMRTV]

Thanks for watching!

[@duvalpenny100]

You got some good points. I think 70-200 2.8 and 2x teleconverter is a great start. I think the versatility from the 70-200 is just too good to pass up. I have no issue adding a touch of artificial blur in post to get that separation. After watching this video, I would skip the 200-600 and get the 300 2.8 though.

[@jochem_7414]

If you shoot only sports as an amateur this makes sense… but in my opinion the 70-200gmii makes a lot of sense if you shoot also other “things”. I love the lens, but I agree it’s to short for field games and adding the tc in bad weather conditions or night games isn’t fun. So I probably end up with the 70-200gmii and 300gm (if money and weight wasn’t an issue the 400gm (which are coming now to the used market for ok prices)).

[@PMRTV]

100% :)

[@MRBuDWiZe]

I picked this lens up new years eve on a insane boxing day sale for 7.5k aud. Its usually srpund 10k aud here. Now selling my 200-600 and 70-200f2.8 to pay part of it back. Was only a cpl of weeks ago I posted I would happily trade-in the 70-200 for this lol

[@bquinn722]

That was my exact trajectory. When I got the 300 I thought I would still use the 200-600. I think I have used it once since and am now considering selling it. The 300 produces such great images. Even for tball I turn that sucker vertical and shoot super tight 😂

[@dandaninglis]

300 2.8 and 135 1.8 is my favorite combo! Absolutely killer! 300 and an 85 prime is also really good depending on the sport. PS: thanks for justifying my purchases for me. Makes me feel better about spending way too much money on gear 🤣

[@PMRTV]

me too!!!

[@blakeparry1983]

Yes, and no The 300 is certainly something that should be in the bag if you dont have anything longer prime wise - and it does take TC's well (a lot better than the 70-200). For most new people though (or those that are predominantly doing inside sport), the 70-200 would still be my recommendation. Mine gets a lot more use than the 300 for team huddles/running onto the field (and of course event photos) - then the 400/500 for the field sports 300 is usually left in the bag or at home vs the other lenses. If on a budget, and you do go the 300mm, look at adding cheaper 24-105 F4 or such for the closer stuff.

[@imaclite]

I had to purchase the 300mm because 135GM does not take teleconverters, thanks for the video

[@instamauimatt]

I will always choose better glass over a camera body any day… it separates your work big time

[@PMRTV]

Totally agreed! High quality glass is always worth the investment.

[@kanaheiusagi]

It really depends. 50/61MP or 60/120fps are both night and day upgrades that will separate your work big time

[@Biosynchro]

I don't shoot sports but what you're saying checks out. You have two bodies anyway, so one can have the 135mm, and the other can have the 300mm.

[@PMRTV]

perfect!

[@dansmith4636]

100% agree. Great video. 80% of my sports shots are with either a 300 f/2.8 or 135 f/1.8. On a very bright day, I might use a 200-600 for a different perspective (like zooming in on the batter, catcher, umpire from the centerfield fence). In a very tight basketball gym an 85 f/1.4 often works better than a 135. The classic hold the camera over your head and spray shots of post game celebrations are best handled with a 24-70. A remote 24 f/1.4 set up right behind the basket is great for dunks, rebounds, and fighting for the ball under the basket. But, if I had to take pick just one it would be the 300 for field sports and the 135 for indoor sports. I had an old Canon 400mm f/2.8 that was ridiculously heavy (almost 12 pounds), but it was a great lens. I'd have a very tough time justifying $12k for a 400mm today, especially with the ability to crop in on shots taken with a high megapixel camera/300mm lens.

[@tedcalise6062]

I've got an A1, 70-200mm GMII, and the 200-600. I can only justify one of either the 300 or 400 for the foreseeable future. It'll be 90% for night football, soccer, and field hockey. I was basically set on saving for the 400 2.8, but is there any world in which I get the 300 and don't still feel like I need the 400?

[@SlipstreamDigital]

Yes - I have 600F4 and 300f2.8 - so in that set-up, there's no need for 400f2.8 . So just get the 1.4xTC and you'll do well with 420mmf4

[@sgpork]

In my country. My currency n the price. 300 GM is 9K. 400 GM is 16K. No brainer to me. I pick up the 300 GM in a heartbeat. 1) Buy new not buy old. 2) The 300 Gm is a marvel. Just 1400+ grams compare to almost 3Kg lens. The weight is different is massive. Try handhold both for long. You’ll understand. Sure. You can have tripod n monopod too. But then. Now You’ll have to lug that amount of gear. 3) Price. . Money is money. Unless you’re super rich. You dont care. 4) 400 GM is so much bigger n longer. Meaning to say you’lll have more trouble bringing it around on land or on air and you have to carry a bigger bag to keep it. Too much hassle imo. 5) 300 GM you slap on a 1.4 tc you get 420 F4 from the 300.. and it work so well with TC. So .. the 400Gm is only better if you need longer reach or you really need 400 at 2.8. Otherwise.. i dont see why people would get 400 over 300. At this time. Having said that. I hope 400 GM ii can be alot smaller and lighter than the GM i. Else I wont consider it. Really too much troublesome to bring it on aeroplane n out on the field.

[@LtDeadeye]

Does this follow for auto racing?

[@PMRTV]

for all car and bike racing that happens on pavement, yes, but probably not as much for those that shoot at dirt tracks as they can typically get much closer to the action.

[@SlipstreamDigital]

I've covered F1, NASCAR, IndyCar, Formula E and other motorsports - but most recently, F1. This year I used the 300f2.8GM more so than the 600f4 because of it's lightweight. Sometimes a lot of walking is involved in walking from one corner of the track to the other, so every pound saved makes a huge difference. However, I took out the 600f4 for Las Vegas GP and all the shots were homeruns and on another level. To sum up, yes, the 300mm is great for motorsports if it's a street track like Vegas. But the 600mm reach is most helpful where there is large run-off areas and are not very close to the track. Also, the 300mm with a 1.4TC is amazingly sharp - so that also works if you want to find a middle ground between the 300mm and 600mm. As it is always said: Marry the glass / date the cameras.

[@LtDeadeye]

@ Thanks for that. I had been considering a 400 but I’ve been hearing so much great things about the 300.

[@johnsoncityaerialphotograp7201]

I’m about to receive my latest Square Payments loan they send us every 8 months and I think I’m probably going to pull the trigger and get the 300 GM and the 2x teleconverter so I can get more use out of my 70-200 II and the 300.. not to mention the fantastic C1 button for crop mode on our a1 and a7RV.. cheers !

[@peterswellingtonthe3rd513]

Why would anyone think 70-200 is better i wonder?

[@philliphickox4023]

In Australia a 300 2.8 is over 10k.

[@MRBuDWiZe]

70-200 is great but yea I'll happily trade it in once I've saved towards the 300

[@AnastasTarpanov]

I think Canon did an amazing job with 100-300 f/2.8, yes it's very expensive, but perfect for sports and some wildlife.

[@LouisLuzuka]

U got me there 😢

[@GetDownTheGym]

Wish sony had the canon range either the 100-300mm 2.8 or 200-400

[@PMRTV]

I just don't want to pay an additional $4K for the zoom! I love the 300GM the way it is for $6k :)

[@maxipadthai]

Yeah, a friend used to shoot with 300 and 70-200, then he upgraded to the 100-300. That lens is a game changer as he describes.

[@bernardlanguillier7970]

The best lens for sports photography is by far the 100/120-300mm f2.8. No idea why Sony decided to go with a fixed 300mm f2.8. It is nice to have a light lens... but in terms of coverage it's close to useless vs the zoom.

[@AVerkhovsky]

Maybe 2 cameras, both relatively light, are more convenient than to wield one setup of around 3 kg.

[@bernardlanguillier7970]

@@AVerkhovsky when do get what you like, like what you get... No, it's not the same thing. In many cases there is no time to switch camera.

[@adamadamis]

I don't think there is a 'best'. The 100-300 is more flexible, being a zoom, so will get you some closer shots. But it's so heavy, it's tiring after some time, and you'd need a monopod. This will limit you too. It also costs more. The prime 300 is lightweight and very compact, it's like holding a 70-200. You can handhold it just fine. And it's sharper, so may be able to crop in a bit more for subjects that are further away. So it also depends on the sport and the photographer's style.

[@BoboMedia007]

just bought a 70-200 2.8 II, maybe I should of saved up.

[@bharp21]

I love that lens - guess it depends what your needs are

[@BoboMedia007]

@@bharp21 I own the 100-400 also, love that lens in the light but night games are tuff.

[@KellerFkinRyan]

you mean a $6000 lens is better than a $2000 lens when theyre for the same style of photography? shocking.

[@PMRTV]

lol

[@armandot9137]

I switched back to Canon for the RF100-300 so that I do not have to make a choice ;-) it helps that the companion lens is the 24-105/2.8...

[@FredBGG]

For several sports I enjoy photographing a 300 2.8 would be very very limiting.

[@PMRTV]

Totally depends on the sport, right?

[@PaulChoate-s4v]

70-200 for tight indoor sports events. 300 for outdoor.

[@francescogianniconsentino9301]

for most indoor its to dark

[@AndrewPalmerJazz]

This accounting is a little rigged. You can definitely skip teleconverters if you have a 70-200 and 200-600, saving you over a grand right there. These lenses are available used, with a GM I going for much cheaper than a new GM II. Depending on the sports you cover, a 300 is not actually versatile enough all by itself without at least one more lens. The first setup is lacking a wide aperture at 300mm, but IT REALLY IS MUCH CHEAPER after a full accounting, more like $3500 versus more like $8k. (A 70-200 is also not just useful for sports, but for other kinds of photography if you want to use your camera for other things.)

[@PMRTV]

You make some excellent points! I also used to love a 200-600mm lens. Really amazing glass.

[@evrythingis1]

Yeah, that's why it costs twice as much. It's not rocket science.