MaTiHH wrote:
I hate these kind of "is it still crap.." threads as the title itself is a presumption and gets me uprising..
Please notice that in English when you put quote marks around word it means word is not to be treated literally but as questionable. Sucks without quotes means sucks. "Sucks" with quotes means "maybe it does, maybe it does not". Thus your uprising might not be due to (non-existing) presumption but due to your (mis)reading of the title.
elizabeth77 wrote:
That said, I have cured myself of pixel peeping tendencies and am focused on my images.
I do not judge _picture_ based on it's sharpness but I do judge lens based on what it is supposed to deliver vs. what it does deliver, and criteria for that is its performance against competitors in same price class.
In other words, if you allow me a metaphor, by now I have cured myself from pure speed (well, kinda, not completely) and am focused on my driving skillset/experience. My little car is quite capable for the price I paid for it and that price is much lower than a price of a Porsche. However, if I paid for it as much as Porsche costs I would expect it to be as capable as Porsche, even if I was using it just to get groceries. I don't pay for Porsche, get Yugo, and then say "Yeah, that's fine" (well ... Yugo might be too harsh but I am sure you know what I mean)
Man, I try to take a day off and everything goes wild
Let me resummarize my previous summaries and such.
When the lens first came out, computer generated MTF curves suggested it would smack down all other 70-200 f/2.8 lenses. Fanboys beat their drums, Sony was declared grand champion of the optical universe and such. Just before then, the Nikon 70-200 f/2.8 ED VR whatever (latest version) came out. It actually did smack around everything else in real world tests.
When the Sony arrived in quantity, real world testing said it was just a really good 70-200 f2.8 zoom. It wasn't as good as the Nikon (Nothing other than a couple of Leica $6,000 zooms are). It was about as good as the Canon 70-200 f/2.8 IS II, which is an excellent lens. Sony fanboys said our results must be wrong because it had to be The BEST. Sony themselves said pretty much the same thing although they worded it nicer. Since this lens has some really new technology (2 focusing motors among them) and at the time we were developing new technology to test Sony electromagnetic focus lenses, we pulled our results, said we must be wrong, and retested, changing 6 different parameters at different time, waiting for second run lenses, you name it. But every time the results came up the same. For a year. So we decided it wasn't us. So did lots of outside consultants including some who helped us from Sony.
During that year we did a lot of other work on that lens internally, including optical adjustments and major repairs. We became absolutely positive our results were correct. We've reposted them quietly, but as I've mentioned here, Sony fanboys on some forums have become so absolutely obnoxious that I rarely respond to comments from them anymore. So I publish the results, 7 zillion Sony fanboys say I must be wrong, and I go do other things.
So it's a good 70-200 f/2.8 lens, about as good as the Canon Mk II, not quite as good as the Nikon Mk III. But that's just the lens. On a really good camera it performs really well. It's not any different now than it was at first. It does have a fair bit of copy-to-copy variation right at 200mm. But I should add most of that variation is at the edges, and many people shooting at 200mm are shooting centered subjects; the edges don't matter that much to them.
Thanks for chiming in. What’s your opinion of Sony lens variance in general these days relative to the other manufacturers? About the same or would you say Sony runs with their lens manufacturing with looser tolerances?
RCicala wrote:
Man, I try to take a day off and everything goes wild
Let me resummarize my previous summaries and such.
When the lens first came out, computer generated MTF curves suggested it would smack down all other 70-200 f/2.8 lenses. Fanboys beat their drums, Sony was declared grand champion of the optical universe and such. Just before then, the Nikon 70-200 f/2.8 ED VR whatever (latest version) came out. It actually did smack around everything else in real world tests.
When the Sony arrived in quantity, real world testing said it was just a really good 70-200 f2.8 zoom. It wasn't as good as the Nikon (Nothing other than a couple of Leica $6,000 zooms are). It was about as good as the Canon 70-200 f/2.8 IS II, which is an excellent lens. Sony fanboys said our results must be wrong because it had to be The BEST. Sony themselves said pretty much the same thing although they worded it nicer. Since this lens has some really new technology (2 focusing motors among them) and at the time we were developing new technology to test Sony electromagnetic focus lenses, we pulled our results, said we must be wrong, and retested, changing 6 different parameters at different time, waiting for second run lenses, you name it. But every time the results came up the same. For a year. So we decided it wasn't us. So did lots of outside consultants including some who helped us from Sony.
During that year we did a lot of other work on that lens internally, including optical adjustments and major repairs. We became absolutely positive our results were correct. We've reposted them quietly, but as I've mentioned here, Sony fanboys on some forums have become so absolutely obnoxious that I rarely respond to comments from them anymore. So I publish the results, 7 zillion Sony fanboys say I must be wrong, and I go do other things.
So it's a good 70-200 f/2.8 lens, about as good as the Canon Mk II, not quite as good as the Nikon Mk III. But that's just the lens. On a really good camera it performs really well. It's not any different now than it was at first. It does have a fair bit of copy-to-copy variation right at 200mm. But I should add most of that variation is at the edges, and many people shooting at 200mm are shooting centered subjects; the edges don't matter that much to them.
The bat signal works!!! Thanks for chiming in Roger... I'll forgive you now for not testing my Nikon 28mm 1.4E!
RCicala wrote:
Man, I try to take a day off and everything goes wild
Let me resummarize my previous summaries and such.
When the lens first came out, computer generated MTF curves suggested it would smack down all other 70-200 f/2.8 lenses. Fanboys beat their drums, Sony was declared grand champion of the optical universe and such. Just before then, the Nikon 70-200 f/2.8 ED VR whatever (latest version) came out. It actually did smack around everything else in real world tests.
When the Sony arrived in quantity, real world testing said it was just a really good 70-200 f2.8 zoom. It wasn't as good as the Nikon (Nothing other than a couple of Leica $6,000 zooms are). It was about as good as the Canon 70-200 f/2.8 IS II, which is an excellent lens. Sony fanboys said our results must be wrong because it had to be The BEST. Sony themselves said pretty much the same thing although they worded it nicer. Since this lens has some really new technology (2 focusing motors among them) and at the time we were developing new technology to test Sony electromagnetic focus lenses, we pulled our results, said we must be wrong, and retested, changing 6 different parameters at different time, waiting for second run lenses, you name it. But every time the results came up the same. For a year. So we decided it wasn't us. So did lots of outside consultants including some who helped us from Sony.
During that year we did a lot of other work on that lens internally, including optical adjustments and major repairs. We became absolutely positive our results were correct. We've reposted them quietly, but as I've mentioned here, Sony fanboys on some forums have become so absolutely obnoxious that I rarely respond to comments from them anymore. So I publish the results, 7 zillion Sony fanboys say I must be wrong, and I go do other things.
So it's a good 70-200 f/2.8 lens, about as good as the Canon Mk II, not quite as good as the Nikon Mk III. But that's just the lens. On a really good camera it performs really well. It's not any different now than it was at first. It does have a fair bit of copy-to-copy variation right at 200mm. But I should add most of that variation is at the edges, and many people shooting at 200mm are shooting centered subjects; the edges don't matter that much to them.
RCicala wrote:
Man, I try to take a day off and everything goes wild
I found switch for signal to summon Lensman and it worked! Yay! BTW, been a big fan of how you express yourself ("Fanboys beat their drums, Sony was declared grand champion of the optical universe and such.") for a while.
RCicala wrote:
Let me resummarize my previous summaries and such.
...
On a really good camera it performs really well. It's not any different now than it was at first.
Thank you, that helps a lot!!!
RCicala wrote:
It does have a fair bit of copy-to-copy variation right at 200mm. Most of that variation is at the edges, and many people shooting at 200mm are shooting centered subjects; the edges don't matter that much to them.
Thank you again, that also helps a lot. Effects of misalignment (or something else) being more pronounced toward edges is expected by me. Alas, I am one of those guys that likes to often likes to position his subjects toward edges (rule of thirds, golden rule, and all that) so if lens does not behave reasonably well there it is a no go for me.
So I might after all rent a copy of it to try to get an approximate idea what I can expect out of decent copy.
While we are talking, what is your take on 70-200/2.8 vs.70-200/4 both at F4 200mm?
And have you played with / tested Sony 100-400/4.5-5.6 yet? If yes what is your take on it, please?
davewolfs wrote:
Thanks for chiming in. What’s your opinion of Sony lens variance in general these days relative to the other manufacturers? About the same or would you say Sony runs with their lens manufacturing with looser tolerances?
I don't think of it so much as looser tolerances as I do designing right on the edge of tolerance. A designer often has a decision that (greatly simplified) is something like "do we want 3% better MTF or 5% less variation". Sony GM lenses seem to go for the 3% better MTF every time. Non-GM lenses seem less driven to do that.
It's always a compromise. For another example, Sigma might say 'make the glass a little bigger, that way we can keep the MTF and still have less variation'.
But overall Sony has more variation than Canon, Nikon, Sigma, Zeiss.
ZoranC wrote:
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?
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.
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.
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.
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". ...Show more →
Unless I'm mistaken you don't have any personal experience with this lens but seem very quick to dismiss any opinion that doesn't agree with the idea that the lens is lacking. That, as well as your choice of an ambiguous and inflammatory title, suggests you do have an opinion.
I'm not suggesting you shouldn't ask for others opinions. Didn't you just get upset when I read something into what you said that you felt wasn't there? Please treat others with the respect you want to be treated. My point is that you're being very dismissive of opinions that don't agree with your own.
JohnDizzo15 wrote:
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. ...Show more →
I agree that at GM prices these variances should not exist; otherwise, my response to Zoran below is kinda what I'd say to you as well.
ZoranC wrote:
I do not judge _picture_ based on it's sharpness but I do judge lens based on what it is supposed to deliver vs. what it does deliver, and criteria for that is its performance against competitors in same price class.
In other words, if you allow me a metaphor, by now I have cured myself from pure speed (well, kinda, not completely) and am focused on my driving skillset/experience. My little car is quite capable for the price I paid for it and that price is much lower than a price of a Porsche. However, if I paid for it as much as Porsche costs I would expect it to be as capable as Porsche, even if I was using it just to get groceries. I don't pay for Porsche, get Yugo, and then say "Yeah, that's fine" (well ... Yugo might be too harsh but I am sure you know what I mean) ...Show more →
Not sure how any of the above is related to the point I was making, which was:
personally I love this lens, I certainly do not think it "sucks", with or without quotation marks, and it's worth more than $1800 in my eyes (I shoot primarily GM lenses, so this statement is in relation to both that line and the general world of Sony and non-Sony lenses used on an Alpha body).
Is it worth $2500? It might be a touch overpriced as Sony knows the market for this particular range of focal length, especially combined with a fast camera like the a9, will pay.
I have the 70-200 GM, and I'm happy with it. Corners aren't a big concern for me as I'm using it mostly for sports & indoor events. If I need corners to be the best they can be, I'm typically reaching for one of my primes.
Another advantage for me relates to the 1.4TC, which is comically small, and gives me approx. a 100-280mm f/4 lens that is hardly bigger than the 70-200.
My only complaint is actually the size/weight on a mirrorless body. Until I picked up the 70-200 GM, I had a 70-200 for a DSLR, which felt better to me. Think I'm going to pick up a grip for the upcoming A7R3, giving me the option of having a bigger form-factor camera when I'm using the 70-200 for sports, but then turning it back into the small mirrorless camera I like the rest of the time.
MTF chart data is what it is...what I tend to question is the materiality of it all when it comes to actual photos being taken. The danger of putting too much weight into MTF charts and what not is the potential for confirmation bias....and basically looking for problems because of the reputation a particular lens has.
I can't speak for everyone, but I've had two copies of the FE 35 ZA, and own the 70-200 GM. I regularly shoot both of these lenses in tandem with some other highly regarded glass...85GM, Loxia 21, and the Canon 24-70II. Not once have I looked back at a wedding or something else I shot and felt that the images coming out of the 70-200 GM were not up to par with everything else. I'm not the type to apologize for glass that doesn't perform well either....i.e. I find the performance of the 70-200 GM with the 1.4 tc to be pretty poor actually, and am actually going to probably sell the 70-200 GM because I need something sharper at 200MM+ for reception shots and the 70-200 with the teleconverter isn't cutting it. But without the teleconverter the lens holds it's own next to everything else I own.
The bokeh is not the greatest and the rendering is flatter than I prefer, but I've never found issue with sharpness and overall I'm happy with the lens as it gets the job done. Again's my own personal experience and I'm not speaking for anyone else so take that for how you will.
Mystik wrote:
MTF chart data is what it is...what I tend to question is the materiality of it all when it comes to actual photos being taken. The danger of putting too much weight into MTF charts and what not is the potential for selective bias....and basically looking for problems because of the reputation a particular lens has.
I can't speak for everyone, but I've had two copies of the FE 35 ZA, and own the 70-200 GM. I regularly shoot both of these lenses in tandem with some other highly regarded glass...85GM, Loxia 21, and the Canon 24-70II. Not once have I looked back at a wedding or something else I shot and felt that the images coming out of the 70-200 GM were not up to par with everything else. I'm not the type to apologize for glass that doesn't perform well either....i.e. I find the performance of the 70-200 GM with the 1.4 the to be pretty poor actually, and am actually going to probably sell the 70-200 GM because I need something sharper at 200MM+ for reception shots and the 70-200 with the teleconverter isn't cutting it. But without the teleconverter the lens holds it's own against everything else I own and I'm happy with it. Again that's my own personal experience and I'm not speaking for anyone else so take that for how you will....Show more →
Yup, with the TC it is a whole other conversation. I'm bringing my 2xTC in next week when I drop into Support for a camera cleaning because the lens without the TC is great.
ZoranC wrote:
While we are talking, what is your take on 70-200/2.8 vs.70-200/4 both at F4 200mm?
And have you played with / tested Sony 100-400/4.5-5.6 yet? If yes what is your take on it, please?
I haven't touched the 100-400 yet. We've been doing some really cool experimental stuff as we roll out new software that I bet you'll like. There will be some stop-down MTF comparisons in a post today, but next week we'll be showing two new kinds of testing no on has seen before. I guarantee y'all will like "best possible MTF at each point tests".
The 70-200 f/4 is not quite as good at 70mm and f/4 as the GM is at 70mm and f/2.8. At other focal lengths the f/4 is as good or slightly better at f/4 as the GM is at f/2.8. Of course, stopped down to f/4 the GM is better at all distances. Personally I like the f/4 because that focal length tends to be a vacation / walk around lens for me and the smaller size is important there.
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. ...Show more →
Wow, that certainly doesn't instill confidence in anyone looking at moving to Sony. Why is this the case? Why do you think if it's sharp when you buy it, it will stay that way? Maybe it's poor design of construction that's causing this and after traveling with it for a while, they all get bad? Makes me want to stick with Canon and Zeiss until Sony get's it's issues resolved.
Mystik wrote:
The bokeh is not the greatest and the rendering is flatter than I prefer, but I've never found issue with sharpness and overall I'm happy with the lens as it gets the job done. Again's my own personal experience and I'm not speaking for anyone else so take that for how you will.
I think this is where the disconnect is when people disagree about the performance of the lens on the interwebs. Personally, I don't think the lens sucks. I think it is underwhelming for its price point. The rub is when content owners of the lens are offended by the harsh wording used by those that are underwhelmed by the lens for the given price point.
When I pick up a 70-200, I would like for it to perform well consistently and at varying distances at 200mm wide open. It's not that the GM "sucks" at 200. It's that it is underwhelming and not as good as several copies the Canon I previously owned at that FL.
In general, outside of 200mm, it has performed pretty well for me as it certainly "gets the job done" across the range. But is it impressive? Certainly not. It does exactly what you stated, make relatively flat and not the greatest bokeh images that are not at the sharpness level one would hope for at 200mm for a 2600 dollar lens. But again, this is not to say that it sucks. It is simply underwhelming but still gets the job done (especially if you need a native option for the range).
stevesanacore wrote:
Wow, that certainly doesn't instill confidence in anyone looking at moving to Sony. Why is this the case? Why do you think if it's sharp when you buy it, it will stay that way? Maybe it's poor design of construction that's causing this and after traveling with it for a while, they all get bad? Makes me want to stick with Canon and Zeiss until Sony get's it's issues resolved.
There are some design issues (IMHO) that make it a lens that definitely won't take a drop well. But outside of that I've not seen lenses just loose sharpness over time. Whenever we work on one (including this one) that suddenly got 'less sharp' we almost always find something has broken inside. If I had one, I'd treat it rather carefully, but wouldn't worry that it would change optically over time.
I think a good way to consider lenses like this is take a step back and realize a new lens is made by committee. The designers, if they're aggressive want to make a best ever statement. The accountants want to bring it in under budget. The marketing people want amazing computer generated MTF curves they can pre-sell. That's where the power is.
The manufacturers division (and much of this is outsourced) are asked if they can meet specs, and often say yes even if they can't - because to say no means not getting the business or getting labelled 'can't do' within the company.
Sometimes this ends up with a lens designed to extremely tight tolerances that make amazing theoretical optics, but that can't be consistently manufactured to the needed tolerances. Preventing this actually comes from the bean counter businessman who, if they are old experienced hands may tell those young aggressive designers and marketers they've seen financial disasters when lenses don't meet expectations. Sony doesn't have old, experienced bean counters who have seen financial disasters yet, their lens arm is new and churning out new designs at a never seen before rate.
I think we're seeing a bit of 'wisdom comes from experience and experience comes from bad judgement' here. I think going forward the GM division may back away from the cutting edge, tiny tolerance designs, stop believing when outside manufacturers promise to meet specs they can't possibly meet, and consistency will improve. But that doesn't generally happen half-way through a lens manufacturing run. It mostly happens when Version II comes out.
RCicala wrote:
But overall Sony has more variation than Canon, Nikon, Sigma, Zeiss.
I am not sure should I be happy or sad that you confirm what has been my experience with Sony lenses over the years (happy cause it confirms I was right, and sad because I was right).
stripedrex wrote:
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..
That was my take from earlier side-by-side shots posted of cat. Without putting finger on specific technical reason ones from Canon were just rendered nicer IMHO.
joelRichards wrote:
Unless I'm mistaken you don't have any personal experience with this lens but seem very quick to dismiss any opinion that doesn't agree with the idea that the lens is lacking.
You are not mistaken that I do not have any personal experience with this lens (if I did I would not be asking for data around, i would've already had my own opinion on it) but you are mistaken that I am very quick dismiss any opinion that doesn't agree that the lens is lacking. I am just very quick to dismiss any opinion that offers "just trust me" without anything to support it, or offers pictures that are extremely underwhelming. There is a huge difference there.
joelRichards wrote:
That, as well as your choice of an ambiguous and inflammatory title, suggests you do have an opinion.
It seems you too missed quotes around word "sucks" and quotes around word mean. I guess I should've known better when picking words, way too many owners of anything are too easy to misread and rile up over any word, quotes or not, that might even remotely imply what they own might not be greatest.
joelRichards wrote:
Didn't you just get upset when I read something into what you said that you felt wasn't there? Please treat others with the respect you want to be treated.
I got upset in my reply to you? No. I just re-read it and I still do not see anything that would imply I was upset. Did I say what I meant without walking on eggshells? Yes. Was I upset? No. I don't get upset over standard Web talk.
elizabeth77 wrote:
Not sure how any of the above is related to the point I was making, which was:
personally I love this lens, I certainly do not think it "sucks", with or without quotation marks, and it's worth more than $1800 in my eyes (I shoot primarily GM lenses, so this statement is in relation to both that line and the general world of Sony and non-Sony lenses used on an Alpha body).
Is it worth $2500? It might be a touch overpriced as Sony knows the market for this particular range of focal length, especially combined with a fast camera like the a9, will pay.
My interpretation of your words was that you were suggesting one shouldn't judge this lens if it underwhelms sharpness wise, that one judges a picture. Thus I did feel my response was related to it because a) this thread is not about pictures, it is about lens, and lenses are judged based on their technical performance, and b) to be able to tell how "good" or "bad" certain lens is one has to compare it against competitors in same class and class is typically determined by price ballpark. Yugo was never in class of Porsche, nor it aspired to be, neither through price nor through name (_Grand Master_ Yugo). But if it was it would've been judged based on performance against Porsche.
BTW, been a big fan of how you express yourself ("Fanboys beat their drums, Sony was declared grand champion of the optical universe and such.") for a while.