sungphoto wrote:
Your repair article showing that potential for serious internal damage with very little apparent external signs of a drop was what concerned me far more than MTF charts re the GM 70-200. I've dropped my canon 70-200 f2.8 L II a couple times this past year, once on gravel and the other on concrete, and aside from a couple scuffs it still performs flawlessly. I'm pretty confident I could use it to defend myself in a zombie apocalypse and still put it back on my camera without issues.
That said, I agree with the rest here that understand that AF performance (speed and accuracy in non-ideal light) has a far greater affect on apparent sharpness than perhaps a slight difference at sharpness for some copies, at certain focal lengths. For now the GM 70-200 f2.8 is the only native option and adapted glass just can't compare in challenging conditions (even if adapted glass can perform quite well in ideal light)....Show more →
My 70-200 F2.8 GM is pretty good and I mostly shoot it wide open. Just a few days ago I got the new Commlite F to FE adapter. My Nikkor 70-200 (E) FL F2.8 will AF with the Commlite and my A9. The Nikkor lens feels much lighter although the zoom ring is at the end. The Nikkor is also sharper (really sharper than ANY other 70-200 tho).
So waiting for my next show to see if it will AF fast enough for dance action. Certainly fast enough for studio posted shots. However, realize that the 70-200 GM has a rated T Stop of 2.8 and the other zooms (CaNikon) are something like 1/3 stop slower (ref DxO tests).
Thank you! The first is high ISO (the casualty of field shooting in a remote area and switching from dark to light in seconds), and yet I think there's detail in the noise and I really do feel some extra care in how it renders.
elizabeth77 wrote:
This seems like a fair request since you have told us what did NOT impress
If one wants to see what a truly impressive 70-200/2.8 looks like they can always rent Nikon 70-200/2.8E from LensRentals, like I did, and see it for themselves. After renting both it and Sony I permanently passed on ever purchasing Sony and definitely feel Sony ... well ... overwhelmingly under-impressed me.
P.S. Funny how saying something is not that impressive never fails to result in chest puffing and chip on the shoulder parading by those that (over?)paid so much money for their pride and joy.
I don't think it's chest pounding. To me it would be just disappointment if I purchased the Sony and found it to be inferior to the Nikon or Canon version. Sony is asking top dollar and as it's the newest design, really should have been at least as good as the others, if not better. All of them will deliver usable shots but it's hard to swallow spending so much on something that you can see may be inferior.
ZoranC wrote:
If one wants to see what a truly impressive 70-200/2.8 looks like they can always rent Nikon 70-200/2.8E from LensRentals, like I did, and see it for themselves. After renting both it and Sony I permanently passed on ever purchasing Sony and definitely feel Sony ... well ... overwhelmingly under-impressed me.
P.S. Funny how saying something is not that impressive never fails to result in chest puffing and chip on the shoulder parading by those that (over?)paid so much money for their pride and joy.
I'm not sure how a couple of us asking for samples that DID impress you is "chest puffing" or "parading" when you quite flatly stated that the samples you'd seen posted by forum members were unimpressive. One of the reasons I prize this forum is its relative lack of Internet snark.
For my purposes the native GM is always going to be the best option in 70-200 as I need every bit of light, speed, and AF for sports, but it has turned out to be strong enough for portraits. It's not the 85, but it is a great lens, for me.
elizabeth77 wrote:
I'm not sure how a couple of us asking for samples that DID impress you is "chest puffing" or "parading" when you quite flatly stated that the samples you'd seen posted by forum members were unimpressive. One of the reasons I prize this forum is its relative lack of Internet snark.
For my purposes the native GM is always going to be the best option in 70-200 as I need every bit of light, speed, and AF for sports, but it has turned out to be strong enough for portraits. It's not the 85, but it is a great lens, for me.
I had every version of Canon 70-200 at one point or another, and GM is better the all of them. I have zero interest in Nikon version as I want a lens that actually works reliably on my camera.
elizabeth77 wrote:
['m not sure how a couple of us asking for samples that DID impress you is "chest puffing" or "parading" when you quite flatly stated that the samples you'd seen posted by forum members were unimpressive. One of the reasons I prize this forum is its relative lack of Internet snark.
It's very simple how: Look at the way sentences are phrased and it is obvious. You can then try to "One of the reasons I prize this forum is its relative lack of Internet snark" but what has been said prior to that, and how it has been said, makes it a rather transparent cheap demagogy.
Life is too short for me to respond to every 'net "chip on the shoulder", I have better things to do with it, like go out and put lenses to use, sorry.
stevesanacore wrote:
I don't think it's chest pounding. To me it would be just disappointment if I purchased the Sony and found it to be inferior to the Nikon or Canon version. Sony is asking top dollar and as it's the newest design, really should have been at least as good as the others, if not better. All of them will deliver usable shots but it's hard to swallow spending so much on something that you can see may be inferior.
To _you_ it would be disappointment. Some people though can't accept their prized top dollar possession can be anything but the best and react very personally when someone says they don't feel that way.
ZoranC wrote:
It's very simple how: Look at the way sentences are phrased and it is obvious. You can then try to "One of the reasons I prize this forum is its relative lack of Internet snark" but what has been said prior to that, and how it has been said, makes it a rather transparent cheap demagogy.
I said absolutely nothing like that.
One of the reasons I prize this forum is the hide feature
ZoranC wrote:
To _you_ it would be disappointment. Some people though can't accept their prized top dollar possession can be anything but the best and react very personally when someone says they don't feel that way.
It seemed that you came in with a prenotion and solicited feedback from users. When a few offered their opinion based on their first-hand experience you labeled their post as "chest pounding" or "chip on the shoulder". It doesn't look like this lens is for you then. No big deal, let's just move on.
ZoranC wrote: Life is too short for me to respond to every 'net "chip on the shoulder", I have better things to do with it, like go out and put lenses to use, sorry.
stevesanacore wrote:
I don't think it's chest pounding. To me it would be just disappointment if I purchased the Sony and found it to be inferior to the Nikon or Canon version. Sony is asking top dollar and as it's the newest design, really should have been at least as good as the others, if not better. All of them will deliver usable shots but it's hard to swallow spending so much on something that you can see may be inferior.
The hardest part to stomach is that Sony went out to make the best 70-200/2.8 they could, but due to the sheer complexity of the design, wound up middle of the pack, and at the same time have to charge substantially.
At the very least, however, Sony did successfully produce a professional tool that excels in all areas except perhaps maximum acuity, and for most professional uses of a 70-200/2.8, they now have the proper native tool available for their customers.
Life is too short for me to respond to every 'net "chip on the shoulder", I have better things to do with it, like go out and put lenses to use, sorry.