Home · Register · Join Upload & Sell

Moderated by: Fred Miranda
Username  

  New fredmiranda.com Mobile Site
  New Feature: SMS Notification alert
  New Feature: Buy & Sell Watchlist
  

FM Forums | Sony Forum | Join Upload & Sell

1
       2       3       4       5       end
  

Archive 2017 · Does Sony 70-200/2.8 "still suck"?

  
 
ZoranC
Offline
• • •
[X]
p.1 #1 · p.1 #1 · Does Sony 70-200/2.8 "still suck"?


I am considering getting Sony 70-200/2.8. Last time I was reading up on that lens (which was a while ago) I've, IIRC, seen tons of complaints about image quality from it, especially when compared to counterparts from CaNikon. So I am trying to find out was culprit of "sub-par" image quality identified and addressed since then or this lens "still suck" and you wouldn't recommend one getting it?

If knowing my criteria will help in answer, personally when I pay premium kind of money for product that is advertised as premium I expect matching level of value/performance. So when I pay X amount of dollars for Sony I expect to get same/similar (or at least close enough) kind of performance I would get if I turned around and spent same money at CaNikon.



Nov 01, 2017 at 01:20 PM
Mystik
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #2 · p.1 #2 · Does Sony 70-200/2.8 "still suck"?


The only people complaining about image quality are posting pictures of charts. The lens has never sucked when it comes to real world use in my experience. I owned the Canon 70-200II for years and have never found the Sony to be lacking. For what I shoot, a native 70-200 2.8 lens is an important lens to own. It gets the job done and the optical quality if very good based on what I've shot.

To answer your question though, I don't think there's ever been evidence of Sony lenses getting better in terms copy variance over time. But I think if you get caught up in all the noise regarding test chart performance and what-not, you miss out on a lot. I own the other black sheep of the FE lens line-up....FE 35 1.4. The images produced from the lens are great and its probably my favorite lens.



Nov 01, 2017 at 01:50 PM
ZoranC
Offline
• • •
[X]
p.1 #3 · p.1 #3 · Does Sony 70-200/2.8 "still suck"?


Mystik wrote:
The only people complaining about image quality are posting pictures of charts. The lens has never sucked when it comes to real world use in my experience. I owned the Canon 70-200II for years and have never found the Sony to be lacking. For what I shoot, a native 70-200 2.8 lens is an important lens to own. It gets the job done and the optical quality if very good based on what I've shot.


I've been going over FM threads, like this one https://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/1503419 , again and my impression is that people that have posted in are very experienced working professionals that used it in the field.



Nov 01, 2017 at 01:54 PM
Mystik
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #4 · p.1 #4 · Does Sony 70-200/2.8 "still suck"?


I primarily use this lens professionally, since its not something that is necessarily fun to shoot on because of the size. I've actually been impressed with the optical quality of the lens when it comes to real shots.

_DSC7153 by Carlo Alcala, on Flickr

_DSC4464-3 by Carlo Alcala, on Flickr

_DSC2486-2 by Carlo Alcala, on Flickr

Astral Orbiter by Carlo Alcala, on Flickr

_DSC0910-2 by Carlo Alcala, on Flickr





Nov 01, 2017 at 02:12 PM
ZoranC
Offline
• • •
[X]
p.1 #5 · p.1 #5 · Does Sony 70-200/2.8 "still suck"?


Mystik wrote:
I primarily use this lens professionally, since its not something that is necessarily fun to shoot on because of the size. I've actually been impressed with the optical quality of the lens when it comes to real shots.


I've taken at samples you've posted above (thank you!) and I hope you will not misunderstand me when I say performance of the lens in them did not impress me, quite the opposite.



Nov 01, 2017 at 02:21 PM
joema2
Offline

Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #6 · p.1 #6 · Does Sony 70-200/2.8 "still suck"?


ZoranC wrote:
I am considering getting Sony 70-200/2.8. Last time I was reading up on that lens (which was a while ago) I've, IIRC, seen tons of complaints about image quality from it, especially when compared to counterparts from CaNikon....


My documentary team has one of these which I compared closely to our Nikon and Canon 70-200 2.8 lenses. It was optically equal in every way I could tell.

We then got another Sony 70-200 2.8 GM and Sony 1.4x TC which was not that great. This was easy to compare since we had two identical Sony lenses, and I also did many test shots comparing it to my Canon 70-200 2.8 IS II (with and without Canon 1.4x TC) using the Metabones IV adapter on the same A7RII and A6500 bodies.

The 2nd 70-200 GM lens was just a poor copy, so I returned it. We will eventually get another one but I'll probably buy it from a local store and test it right there instead of dealing with returning one mail order.

These are a small sample of approx. 1,000 test shots we made with each lens. You may need to download the original full-res image to appreciate the difference. Despite the copy variation between the Sony lenses, I really like the good copy we have.

https://joema.smugmug.com/Photography/Sony-70-200-28-G-Master-Tests/n-HrBQXx/

https://joema.smugmug.com/Photography/Sony-70-200-28-GM-Test-2/n-JW5xGp/

There are only two minor negative things vs the Canon:

(1) The Sony is focus-by-wire. It's pretty fast as FBW systems go, but we do about 95% video and manually focus a lot, so it's not as fast as the Canon mechanical focus. OTOH the Sony autofocuses much better than the Canon using the Metabones IV adapter for stills. For video the Canon will not AF at all but the Sony is pretty good. So this offsets the slightly less responsive manual focus. We are getting two A7RIIIs and will be testing the Sony 70-200 2.8 GM on those, and we expect it to be even better.

(2) For video we must use a variable ND filter and our Heliopan filters will not fit inside the Sony lens hood. They will fit inside the Canon lens hood which is great, and they can be turned (carefully) without removing the lens hood.

The Sony lens hood has a notch cut out of the bottom to permit turning a filter, which is even better than the Canon -- if only we could find a quality variable ND which fit.



Nov 01, 2017 at 04:04 PM
stevesanacore
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #7 · p.1 #7 · Does Sony 70-200/2.8 "still suck"?


If I were you, I'd rent one from Lensrentals.com and if you like it, you can buy it. If you don't like it, just put it in the prepaid return box and ship it back. I've done this on quite a few lenses over the past few years. It's a bit unnerving to buy new Sony lenses given it's inconsistent quality history that I read on this forum and others.



Nov 01, 2017 at 04:54 PM
Wanny
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #8 · p.1 #8 · Does Sony 70-200/2.8 "still suck"?


"tons of complaints" is probably just Guy posting 5 times a day about it

I've rented the lens twice and it made wonderful results



Nov 01, 2017 at 05:03 PM
ZoranC
Offline
• • •
[X]
p.1 #9 · p.1 #9 · Does Sony 70-200/2.8 "still suck"?


joema2 wrote...

Thank you Joe for your thorough reply and samples you shared. I downloaded them and when I look at them side by side your first copy of Sony was not bad but I still preferred Canon's rendering (it seemed to render cleaner to me).

Also, I see problem with your second copy of Sony so Sony's copy-to-copy variation seems to strike again. If that will help with anything I have seen worse variation from Sony lenses over the years than this one.

Which makes me wonder how good really good copy of Sony would be?

And makes me wonder should my question be "which 70-200/2.8 mounted on A7RII is best" instead of "does Sony 70-200/2.8 suck".



Nov 01, 2017 at 05:22 PM
ZoranC
Offline
• • •
[X]
p.1 #10 · p.1 #10 · Does Sony 70-200/2.8 "still suck"?


Wanny wrote:
"tons of complaints" is probably just Guy posting 5 times a day about it

I've rented the lens twice and it made wonderful results


I "know" Guy (not personally but from forums over the years) and I always felt he says it like it is



Nov 01, 2017 at 05:24 PM
virtualrain
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #11 · p.1 #11 · Does Sony 70-200/2.8 "still suck"?


There is a thread here somewhere that dives into detail as to why this lens is flawed. It concluded that the number of asherics both front and back and the complex mechanical design added up to a lens that should perform well on paper but is very vulnerable to even the slightest misalignment. Current tolerances simply aren’t tight enough to ensure consistent performance. It explains why a few people have a good copy and the majority have had some complaints. As someone else suggested, if you want to get a good copy, you’re going to probably want to rent and evaluate it first or buy from a shop with a very flexible and forgiving return policy.


Nov 01, 2017 at 05:35 PM
ZoranC
Offline
• • •
[X]
p.1 #12 · p.1 #12 · Does Sony 70-200/2.8 "still suck"?


virtualrain wrote:
There is a thread here somewhere that dives into detail as to why this lens is flawed. It concluded that the number of asherics both front and back and the complex mechanical design added up to a lens that should perform well on paper but is very vulnerable to even the slightest misalignment. Current tolerances simply aren’t tight enough to ensure consistent performance. It explains why a few people have a good copy and the majority have had some complaints. As someone else suggested, if you want to get a good copy, you’re going to probably want to rent and
...Show more

I can see how very complex design would increase requirements on production tolerances, especially when coupled with very demanding (high MP) body, and I have seen it first hand how variation outside tolerances can significantly affect overall impression with particular copy, so everything seems to be pointing out it could be Sony's manufacturing process that is the culprit as Nikon has equally high MP body and equally non-trivial designs yet their 70-200/2.8 FL seems to be shining.

Maybe I should give a try to Sony 70-200/2.8 and see for myself. Or maybe I should try adapting Nikon.

Are there adapters that would let me use Nikon 70-200/2.8 FL on Sony body and still get Eye EF?



Nov 01, 2017 at 06:05 PM
sungphoto
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #13 · p.1 #13 · Does Sony 70-200/2.8 "still suck"?


The gm 70-200 is very sharp. I saw no difference in sharpnesss between it and my canon L 70-200 f2.8 II, and the 70-200 is my most used lens. Also it’s your only native option for an f2.8 constant 70-200. The f4 version is good stopped down to about f6.3, but wide open at f4 the 70-200 G is prone to CA in high contrast shooting situations and not nearly as sharp as the GM at f4.

If you can’t take a sharp photo with the GM 70-200 is suspect a flaw in the operator before I worried about slight manufacturing tolerances



Nov 01, 2017 at 06:31 PM
davewolfs
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #14 · p.1 #14 · Does Sony 70-200/2.8 "still suck"?


Lens rentals scored it as significantly inferior to Ca/Nikon. I’ve never used one.


Nov 01, 2017 at 06:56 PM
ZoranC
Offline
• • •
[X]
p.1 #15 · p.1 #15 · Does Sony 70-200/2.8 "still suck"?


sungphoto wrote:
If you can’t take a sharp photo with the GM 70-200 is suspect a flaw in the operator before I worried about slight manufacturing tolerances


I don't think you should be resorting to implying if somebody ends up with non-sharp photos from 70-200 GM it must be due to their lack of competence. Not only it is insulting but it is also, just like any other gross generalized assumption, way off target. Number of people, both here and elsewhere, that have posted on the topic are extremely experienced and respected. I do not have their level of experience but I still have enough of experience over the years to know when it is me and when it is gear. And I have personally experienced enough of performance variations with Sony lenses that I am confident haven't been due to me.

So lets not go derailing thread down that road, please, it won't lead into anything constructive. Instead I will welcome you sharing RAW files you consider sharp from your copy shot at 200mm wide open.



Nov 01, 2017 at 06:58 PM
ZoranC
Offline
• • •
[X]
p.1 #16 · p.1 #16 · Does Sony 70-200/2.8 "still suck"?


davewolfs wrote:
Lens rentals scored it as significantly inferior to Ca/Nikon. I’ve never used one.


I know but that was while ago and IIRC there have been rumors that later Sony worked with LensRentals on trying to identify culprit of such results, and that things might have changed since then, hence me asking have things changed or people still think it sucks.



Nov 01, 2017 at 07:00 PM
davewolfs
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #17 · p.1 #17 · Does Sony 70-200/2.8 "still suck"?


Don’t think they changed anything.

https://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2017/01/an-update-and-comparison-of-the-sony-fe-70-200mm-f2-8-gm-oss/

It might simply be that it doesn’t work well at infinity or the test was somehow flawed (I personally don’t think so).

I’ve read weird stuff too where people don’t go all the way to 200 eg stop at 190. Who knows?
ZoranC wrote:
I know but that was while ago and IIRC there have been rumors that later Sony worked with LensRentals on trying to identify culprit of such results, and that things might have changed since then, hence me asking have things changed or people still think it sucks.



Nov 01, 2017 at 07:13 PM
ZoranC
Offline
• • •
[X]
p.1 #18 · p.1 #18 · Does Sony 70-200/2.8 "still suck"?


davewolfs wrote:
Don’t think they changed anything.

https://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2017/01/an-update-and-comparison-of-the-sony-fe-70-200mm-f2-8-gm-oss/

It might simply be that it doesn’t work well at infinity.



That update was in January. IIRC I saw rumors of possible work with Sony and later corrections well after January. So if that was correct updates would have been relatively recent, later than January.

I wouldn't have a problem if this lens is not great at infinity as long as it is great at distances I use it at (people, near to medium distances).



Nov 01, 2017 at 07:29 PM
joelRichards
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #19 · p.1 #19 · Does Sony 70-200/2.8 "still suck"?


It kind of seems like you want someone to validate your harsh opinion that the lens sucks but then assure you that is now magically awesome and you will personally receive a perfect copy if you buy one.

That just isn't the case with any lens, and especially this one (it seems). If you really want to make buying decisions based on lens rentals' data then read Roger's articles about zooms vs primes and the inherent inconsistencies of zoom lenses—especially the very complicated 70-200 2.8s.

There isn't a general consensus on this lens. Some people love it. Some people hate it. Lens Rentals says it is subpar. DxO says it is the best. That doesn't mean any one of these people is lying or dissing you it just means user have different expectations, priorities, and testing methods. If it matters that much to you, rent it or but it from a store with a generous return policy.



Nov 01, 2017 at 08:37 PM
ZoranC
Offline
• • •
[X]
p.1 #20 · p.1 #20 · Does Sony 70-200/2.8 "still suck"?


joelRichards wrote:
It kind of seems like you want someone to validate your harsh opinion that the lens sucks ...


I don't Where did I say it is _my_ opinion this lens sucks? I have stated fact that there have been quite negative opinions on it. If I felt it guaranteed sucks I would not be considering buying it, would I?

joelRichards wrote:
... but then assure you that is now magically awesome ...


Where did I say "please assure me it is now magically awesome"? There is quite a leap between "are there any recent changes in opinion compared to initial ones" and "assure me it is now magically awesome". That is just you reading it wrong.

joelRichards wrote:
... and you will personally receive a perfect copy if you buy one.


I am pretty sure I did not anywhere say, nor imply, anything to the likes of "assure me I will get perfect copy if I buy it". That is just you again reading it wrong.

joelRichards wrote:
If you really want to make buying decisions based on lens rentals' data then read Roger's articles about zooms vs primes and the inherent inconsistencies of zoom lenses—especially the very complicated 70-200 2.8s.


No need to. Besides the fact I already read it and fact data in it just confirms what I already knew it is also not applicable to this particular thread.

joelRichards wrote:
If it matters that much to you, rent it or but it from a store with a generous return policy.


Are you suggesting people shouldn't be asking what opinion is, and does it still hold true, that they should not try to avoid unnecessarily burning money (either theirs or somebody else's), that they should redo work others have already done every time you don't like their question? If yes please send your suggestion to Fred he should close gear forums and hang up the sign "Nothing to discuss here, if it matters that much to you, rent it or but it from a store with a generous return policy, now move on".



Nov 01, 2017 at 09:01 PM
1
       2       3       4       5       end




FM Forums | Sony Forum | Join Upload & Sell

1
       2       3       4       5       end
    
 

You are not logged in. Login or Register

Username       Or Reset password



This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.