p.1 #1 · How's the size, weight, and handling of the Sony 70-200 gm ii f/2.8?
I've been wanting to get a telephoto for awhile and I'm deciding between Sony 70-200 2.8 gm ii, Sony 70-200 f4 g ii, and Tamron 70-180 2.8 g2. I like to shoot a bit of everything including portraits, landscapes while hiking, travel, etc. Everything I've seen from the 2.8 gm ii has been incredible and I'm leaning that way, but I do wonder about the size, weight, and handling of it. I know it's the smallest 70-200 2.8, but it's still not a small lens. My main set up is a a7rv with the 24-70 gm ii and while it's not the world's smallest set up, I haven't been too bothered by it at all. So how do people find the 70-200 2.8 gm ii? Price is less of a concern.
p.1 #3 · How's the size, weight, and handling of the Sony 70-200 gm ii f/2.8?
I've had a number of 70-200 range lenses starting with the old Nikon 80-200 manual focus through the Nikon 70-200 f/2.8 with my Nikon D800E, the Sony 70-200 f/4 G (underrated lens) and now the 70-200 f/2.8 GMII.
The new GMII really is as good as people say it is. Yes, it's not small but these days folks almost seem more focused (pun intended) on weight than simple image quality. I'm a bit old school, as in elderly, but recall carting around a 4x5, film holders, lenses, and a huge Gitzo 3 series aluminum tripod on hikes on Mt Hood. I'd not be able or willing to do that these days but certainly most people can easily handle the weight of the GMII. The internal zooming and focusing is great.
I have no experience with the new Sony 70-200 f/4 or the Tamron but suspect that in most situations, you'd be hard pressed to see significant differences without absurd pixel peeping and certainly not at f/5.6-8 or in a reasonable size print.
If you want no regrets or second thoughts and money is not critical, as you say, get the 70-200 f/2.8 GMII. You'll not look back.
Good luck whatever you choose.
Once again, autocorrect changed Tamron to Tampon :-)
