ZoranC wrote:
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....Show more →
A lot more goes into making a sharp photo than pure optical construction. The GM holds up against class-leading glass like the Canon L 70-200 f2.8 II. That's good enough for me.
If you really want to prove whether it's sharp enough for you, stop wasting time on a forum and rent or buy the lens. It doesn't seem like people posting up images on this thread that are pretty dang sharp is enough for you, so not sure what else you're looking for.
sungphoto wrote:
A lot more goes into making a sharp photo than pure optical construction.
Could you please point to me where exactly in this thread did I start involving what goes into making of a sharp photo into this thread that you felt the need to start lecturing me about it? In the meantime please feel free to go and tell Guy he shouldn't have been unhappy with copies he tried, that it must have been his error because "a lot more goes into making a sharp photo than pure optical construction" and let us know what was his response.
sungphoto wrote:
The GM holds up against class-leading glass like the Canon L 70-200 f2.8 II. That's good enough for me.
Could you please point me in the direction of info that seriously supports your claim? If you can that will be good enough for me. Until then I will take it as just words when data from such heavy weights as LensRentals and words from such heavyweights as Guy indicates opposite might be the case.
sungphoto wrote:
If you really want to prove whether it's sharp enough for you, stop wasting time on a forum and rent or buy the lens.
Forgive me for wasting my time trying to research performance of the photography gear on the forum intended for discussions about performance of photography gear. What do you suggest one should instead do on this forum, what is its purpose?
sungphoto wrote:
It doesn't seem like people posting up images on this thread that are pretty dang sharp is enough for you, so not sure what else you're looking for.
I'm sorry if my comment hurt your ownership feelings but I do not consider samples posted "pretty dang sharp". I have seen enough of very sharp and not so sharp images over the years and number of samples posted early are IMHO not anywhere near "sharp", or even averagely sharp, I find them very un-sharp. Ones Mystik posted were all as dull as an old butter knife is, ones from joema2's first copy were not bad but still Canon was noticeably better, and ones from his second copy were ... well ... he said it himself.
Roger roams these forums so maybe if we throw up the LensRental bat signal he'll chime in! I was ready to dip my toes back into the Sony system (owned an A7r plus 3 lenses alongside my Nikon setup... kicking the tires) and the GMs were the lenses that almost tempted me back. The lackluster reviews from actual testers put me off (combined with the quality of the new Nikon 70-200). Hope this lens is better than initially tested or a mk2 comes out in short order as I'm still interested in the system.
Happy shooting!
PPS. I've noticed a bit of snippy comments/rude/talking down to and hope it's just the winter weather getting to everyone! I don't need this forum turning into DPReview! 😬
ZoranC wrote:
Could you please point to me where exactly in this thread did I start involving what goes into making of a sharp photo into this thread that you felt the need to start lecturing me about it? In the meantime please feel free to go and tell Guy he shouldn't have been unhappy with copies he tried, that it must have been his error because "a lot more goes into making a sharp photo than pure optical construction" and let us know what was his response.
Could you please point me in the direction of info that seriously supports your claim? If you can that will be good enough for me. Until then I will take it as just words when data from such heavy weights as LensRentals and words from such heavyweights as Guy indicates opposite might be the case.
Forgive me for wasting my time trying to research performance of the photography gear on the forum intended for discussions about performance of photography gear. What do you suggest one should instead do on this forum, what is its purpose?
I'm sorry if my comment hurt your ownership feelings but I do not consider samples posted "pretty dang sharp". I have seen enough of very sharp and not so sharp images over the years and number of samples posted early are IMHO not anywhere near "sharp", or even averagely sharp, I find them very un-sharp....Show more →
ZoranC wrote:
Could you please point to me where exactly in this thread did I start involving what goes into making of a sharp photo into this thread that you felt the need to start lecturing me about it? In the meantime please feel free to go and tell Guy he shouldn't have been unhappy with copies he tried, that it must have been his error because "a lot more goes into making a sharp photo than pure optical construction" and let us know what was his response.
Could you please point me in the direction of info that seriously supports your claim? If you can that will be good enough for me. Until then I will take it as just words when data from such heavy weights as LensRentals and words from such heavyweights as Guy indicates opposite might be the case.
Forgive me for wasting my time trying to research performance of the photography gear on the forum intended for discussions about performance of photography gear. What do you suggest one should instead do on this forum, what is its purpose?
I'm sorry if my comment hurt your ownership feelings but I do not consider samples posted "pretty dang sharp". I have seen enough of very sharp and not so sharp images over the years and number of samples posted early are IMHO not anywhere near "sharp", or even averagely sharp, I find them very un-sharp. Ones Mystik posted were all as dull as an old butter knife is, ones from joema2's first copy were not bad but still Canon was noticeably better, and ones from his second copy were ... well ... he said it himself....Show more →
Source is myself. Look on my website. About half of the portraits are with the GM 70-200. Do some leg work yourself.
I've owned two copies of the GM 70-200. First was stolen in Spain, bought the second one immediately upon returning home. Both were razor sharp and capable of producing high rez prints - a few of which were in the WSJ a few months ago.
I acquired this lens soon after it’s release. It was really soft compared to my Canon 70-200mm II, so I returned it... a little depressed that I wouldn’t have such a lens for my A7RII’s.
Two months ago, I purchased another copy, after studying DXO’s Sharpness Field Maps, which reveal outstanding sharpness (as apposied to the Lens Rental tests). This copy is really sharp,,, possibly sharper than the Canon lens. I couldn’t be happier with this lens, which also works great on my A9.
I’m becoming accustomed to this procedure. It took four copies to get a sharp 35mm f1.4, two copies of the 55mm f1.8 and two copies of the GM 85.
InFocus2014 wrote:
I acquired this lens soon after it’s release. It was really soft compared to my Canon 70-200mm II, so I returned it... a little depressed that I wouldn’t have such a lens for my A7RII’s.
Two months ago, I purchased another copy, after studying DXO’s Sharpness Field Maps, which reveal outstanding sharpness (as apposied to the Lens Rental tests). This copy is really sharp,,, possibly sharper than the Canon lens. I couldn’t be happier with this lens, which also works great on my A9.
I’m becoming accustomed to this procedure. It took four copies to get a sharp 35mm f1.4, two copies of the 55mm f1.8 and two copies of the GM 85. ...Show more →
Exactly.
I wish people would stop saying this lens or that lens is sharp. If I’ve learned anything in my short time as a Sony shooter with a high-res sensor it’s that there are sharp copies of any lens and terrible copies of every lens. While some designs are more consistent than others, there’s absolutely no guarantee any lens you buy is going to be perfect. Quite the contrary in my experience. Anyone who’s tested only one copy is in absolutely no position whatsoever to comment on the quality of that lens in general. Period.
Zooms are not going to be equally sharp at all focal lengths - guaranteed - so to say any zoom is sharp across the entire focal range implies you’re not looking very hard or you have the unicorn of lenses. Similarly, expecting prime like sharpness from a zoom across the entire range is just setting yourself up for disappointment (although the 12-24 sounds close to a unicorn).
Anyway, the problems with the 70-200 GM have been thoroughly discussed, even recently, and both Roger and Brandon have revealed in detail why this particular lens is problematic and particularly prone to wild copy variation after testing and restestng and tear-downs... and it all makes perfect sense. I’m mobile these days or I’d search for the threads myself, but trust me, there is plenty of insight in this forum into the issues with this lens.
I've had the Canon 70-200 2.8 L II and now have the Sony 70-200 GM. I can say I like the images I've gotten from the Canon better in regard to bokeh and micro contrast (subjects have more pop). At one point I shot them side by side on different events, there definitely was something about the Canon for portraits. I shoot with the A7R II and have zero complaints about sharpness. I even use the 2x adapter with pretty good success. So that being said it's quite close and I've kept the gm for native autofocus performance. I do lean towards primes for dedicated portraits anyhow and get very good results with the gm with sports, events and when i need quality tele zoom.
I wish people would stop saying this lens or that lens is sharp. If I’ve learned anything in my short time as a Sony shooter with a high-res sensor it’s that there are sharp copies of any lens and terrible copies of every lens. While some designs are more consistent than others, there’s absolutely no guarantee any lens you buy is going to be perfect. Quite the contrary in my experience. Anyone who’s tested only one copy is in absolutely no position whatsoever to comment on the quality of that lens in general. Period.
In this instance people are saying it because it's true. LR's results are based on many tested samples of both the GM and its Canikon peers. That said, I'm sure the absolute best copy of the GM will outperform the absolute worst copy of the Canon but that's not a very useful to the data point for those deciding between the two designs for their Sony body.
snapsy wrote:
The truth is that over a large sample of LRs' tested copies, the Sony GM materially underperforms its Canikon peers.
I see. Yes that was the result. And as I’ve pointed out, LR was asked by Sony to do more testing after this was revealed because Sony believed the performance would be better, and it became clear that the lens design on paper did not materialize in reality and Brendan actually explained his theory as to why this is the case in some detail which all makes perfect sense. It’s a very complicated optical and mechanical design that is vulnerable to even the slightest misalignment and current manufacturing tolerances therefore mean getting a good copy of this lens will be the luck of the draw. Those that have a good copy, should consider themselves lucky but refrain from implying that just because their copy is adequately sharp for them at some focal lengths, that this lens is generally sharp for all.
sungphoto wrote:
Source is myself. Look on my website. About half of the portraits are with the GM 70-200. Do some leg work yourself.
I'm an engineer by training so I don't implicitly trust anyone just because they said so. I always do my homework (even when others assume I didn't) and I have checked your site before I posted. While I was very impressed with the work in your portfolio it didn't tell me anything about lens. Besides the fact one can't say what is taken with which lens all of shots posted were very skilfully post processed, are approximately no more than 1200 pixels on the long side, and (at that size I can't say with certainty) at least number of them seems to be shot stopped down to optimal aperture and does not seem to be shot at 200mm.
So how is that supposed to tell me anything about performance of this particular lens when mounted on A7RII shot wide open at 200mm? Honestly, at Instagram sizes even portraits from my m43 body with cheap lens shot stopped down looked great once post-processed right. They looked great even when printed 8.5 x 11 @ 360 dpi, which any 12+ MP body can do. Never mind the fact that printing hides imperfections that are easily visible on screen (noise, etc.) so I don't use prints as indicator how good or bad particular gear is.
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.
Rumors, trying, might, hence me asking - all in one sentence; to make a case for Sony?
pdmphoto wrote:
Rumors, trying, might, hence me asking - all in one sentence; to make a case for Sony?
I prefer to give everyone a benefit of a doubt unless facts show otherwise and when I am not in possession of undeniable facts I don't form sentences in a manner that present something we are not 100% certain about as facts.
Perceived sharpness when talking about copies of lenses in the hands of different users is a very subjective thing.
Much like ZoranC stated earlier about the samples posted, sharpness and rendering were underwhelming at best (to us) while it may be considered acceptable or even good by another user with different standards.
I can assure you that I am not a chart or brick shooter. I've never done it before and I certainly won't start now. Regardless of the results of any such testing, they won't change how I feel about the results I am getting out of the lens when using it the way that I would normally use it in the real world.
For my uses, the GM at 200mm wide open has been underwhelming (especially when I am at a distance far enough for full-body and/or environmental portraits. Up close, it seems to do much better. Taken as a whole (with regard to performance), my copy does not perform as well as any of the copies of the Canon I have had in the past at 200. This is not to say that the performance of the GM at 200 isn't acceptable. It is. But to a great number of us, it isn't up to par for a 2600 dollar lens. The only reason my copy remains in the stable is because much like another poster stated, there is only one option for a native lens of this focal length and aperture.
The OP also mentions the question of which 70-200 would be best mounted on the Sony system. You cannot beat native for functionality at this point. The Canon renders well, but I was not able to acquire focus (multiple copies) on either the A7R2 or the A9 (with both the Metabones IV T and MC-11) outside of the central 60-65% of the frame. This (for my uses) makes a lens of this type useless. So in the end, I am a member of the captive audience when it comes to the GM tele zoom.
Lensrentals copy of the lens, wide open at 200mm. The softness in the center of the elephant's face and on the baby's flank is not present until I downsample the image for the forum.
I bought my 85mm GM on this trip and barely used it even for portraits because of the quality I felt I was getting from the 70-200
Personally was such a big fan of this lens that I nearly bought the LR copy. That said, I have cured myself of pixel peeping tendencies and am focused on my images.
Blakehfreeman wrote:
Roger roams these forums so maybe if we throw up the LensRental bat signal he'll chime in!
Where is the signal on switch, please, huh, huh, huh? I keep finding Roger's articles / contributions extremely valuable.
Blakehfreeman wrote:
I was ready to dip my toes back into the Sony system (owned an A7r plus 3 lenses alongside my Nikon setup... kicking the tires) and the GMs were the lenses that almost tempted me back. The lackluster reviews from actual testers put me off (combined with the quality of the new Nikon 70-200). Hope this lens is better than initially tested or a mk2 comes out in short order as I'm still interested in the system.
Happy shooting!
Thank you for your input Unfortunately I know what you mean, I had to go away from my Nikon due to certain features it doesn't have and Sony does but I keep believing Sony keeps being incomplete rough edges experience. That whole debacle with 12-bit lossy compressed RAW was just one part of it. Eventually that particular one got addressed but unfortunately it is not only one.and others keep being unaddressed. Year is almost 2018, A7 series has been out for years yet Sony does not allow for more than two ratios (3:2, 16:9) even in their most recent and most expensive cameras ($3,300 for A7RIII, $4,500 for A9) while much cheaper m43s had them for years. It is as if those responsible for design at Sony do not engage in any serious photography themselves and/or do not consult / listen to those that do. Nobody in Sony ever needed/used, or heard of people needing/using number of other ratios?! I can't find any logically justifiable explanation for that.
So I keep saying if Nikon was to launch thoughtfully designed mirrorless EVF body with F mount I would be very easily tempted back.
Blakehfreeman wrote:
PPS. I've noticed a bit of snippy comments/rude/talking down to and hope it's just the winter weather getting to everyone! I don't need this forum turning into DPReview! 😬
Have no fear, nothing can ever turn into DPR, DPR is one of a kind! It's just that I am not of the kind that takes an uncalled for slap,turns back the other cheek and says "Thank you Sir, may I have another, please?".
elizabeth77 wrote:
Lensrentals copy of the lens, wide open at 200mm. The softness in the center of the elephant's face and on the baby's flank is not present until I downsample the image for the forum.
I bought my 85mm GM on this trip and barely used it even for portraits because of the quality I felt I was getting from the 70-200
Personally was such a big fan of this lens that I nearly bought the LR copy. That said, I have cured myself of pixel peeping tendencies and am focused on my images.
I too have cured myself of pixel peeping in recent years (for the most part) which is one of the reasons I dumped the GM 85 and brought back the Canon 85 II for general rendering preferences at the cost of a significant resolution/sharpness loss.
However, that is not necessarily related to my dismay in the lackluster performance of a lens that should perform more admirably at it's respective price point (especially when compared to competing brands). One of the biggest motivating factors for many of us in the GM 70-200 is high performance across the range with some consistency across multiple copies in the production line. These were some of the things Sony was touting when they started producing the GM line which to many of us, justifies the price point (assuming the claims are true).
I know how to compose an image, wait for light/moments, and how to completely manipulate my rig to make the images I want. That part is what I am comfortable with. What I am not comfortable with is paying $2600 for a lens that performs (and is produced at tolerance/variance levels) at the $1800 level which is what many copies of the GM have proven themselves to be.
I hate these kind of "is it still crap.." threads as the title itself is a presumption and gets me uprising.
We had a poll recently how many people were happy with their 1st, 2nd,... copy and I believe that was like 90+% happy with their lens?? Now are all these people just incompetent? I don't think so.
MaTiHH wrote:
The lens is great, pixel peeping or not.
I hate these kind of "is it still crap.." threads as the title itself is a presumption and gets me uprising.
We had a poll recently how many people were happy with their 1st, 2nd,... copy and I believe that was like 90+% happy with their lens?? Now are all these people just incompetent? I don't think so.
While I agree that titles to posts like these are rather presumptuous, I don't know that they are worthy of "uprising." These are mere words and opinions of others on the interwebs. Life is too short....
Anyhow, there are plenty of people that are happy with the lens. But again, there are an infinite number of use cases and varying levels of experience. No one is discounting the happy user's experience here. Conversely, the experience of the less content shouldn't be either. At the price point the lens sits at, we should almost all be pretty darn happy. lol.
To put things into perspective, I am the happy owner of an FE 50/1.8 which basically cost me nothing. I find the AF to be more than sufficient and I love the way it renders. I would've happily paid more for it than I did. It is in my experience the biggest bang for the buck in the FE system and also happens to be the lens I use the most on my A9. It simply punches well above its weight class for me while the GM 70-200 punches well under. Not everyone will agree with this. But that is the beauty of our diversity of experience and perspective.
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.
