Is anyone using the newest Canon 70-200mm F4L IS II on a Sony A7/A7R series camera? This lens has universally gotten rave reviews, unlike the comparable Sony F4 70-200mm.
I would use it as an all around lens, hiking, landscape, travel, some family portraits. I owned the previous version of the 70-200mm f4L IS about a decade ago when I was using Canon 5D and 5DII cameras and loved the lens.
Should the optical quality of the new Canon be equivalent on a Sony and Canon camera notwithstanding the different thickness of the Sony sensor cover glass? Or, do you expect that, even though it's a telephoto lens there will still be some optical degradation by using it on a Sony vs. Canon body?
I realize that autofocus performance won't be nearly as good as a native lens, but I'm more interested in the optical performance.
I'm using the original Canon 70-200/4L, not even the first IS version, and it is extremely good on the A7III, and when I compared it to the Sony head to head, the Canon was better at the wide and long ends, and maybe a touch behind at 135mm. The IS II will be even better. (Also the Sony shortens a LOT at moderate focus distances....200mm on the Sony focused to about 2m was the same as 163mm on the Canon. )
AF might not be quite as fast as the Sony, but mine been very good on the MC-11, and I haven't had any problems. Relatively quick and quite accurate. The Metabones wasn't quite as good with my lens, but the newer lens could be different, who knows.
httivals wrote:
Is anyone using the newest Canon 70-200mm F4L IS II on a Sony A7/A7R series camera? This lens has universally gotten rave reviews, unlike the comparable Sony F4 70-200mm.
I would use it as an all around lens, hiking, landscape, travel, some family portraits. I owned the previous version of the 70-200mm f4L IS about a decade ago when I was using Canon 5D and 5DII cameras and loved the lens.
Should the optical quality of the new Canon be equivalent on a Sony and Canon camera notwithstanding the different thickness of the Sony sensor cover glass? Or, do you expect that, even though it's a telephoto lens there will still be some optical degradation by using it on a Sony vs. Canon body?
I realize that autofocus performance won't be nearly as good as a native lens, but I'm more interested in the optical performance.
Even the really old Canon EF 70-200mm f4L and 70-200mm f4L IS lenses perform better (AF speed aside) on the Sony cameras than the Sony FE 70-200mm f4 G, so there's no reason this new Canon lens would not be even better. The only real benefit to the native Sony lens is the convenience of not having to use an adapter.
If you want better image quality in the native Sony E mount, pick up an FE 70-300mm f4.5-5.6 G OSS instead.
You suggested that I consider the FE 70-300mm. ("If you want better image quality in the native Sony E mount, pick up an FE 70-300mm f4.5-5.6 G OSS instead.")
I have considered and would be very interested in the FE 70-300mm lens except that I've read mixed review of it as well, about the same as the Sony 70-200mm f4, or maybe not as good? I keep debating getting these two lenses, the much heavier/larger Sony 100-400mm, and/or other alternatives.
Price is not my biggest concern. My biggest concerns are size/weight and optical quality.
I have relatively small and light high quality optics through 135mm (the Batis at that focal length), and would like to add an optically high quality zoom that is not as heavy/large as the 100-400mm for when I want a zoom and for additional reach. I'm pretty sure that I would rarely bring the 100-400mm with me because of its size/weight.
A 70-200mm f4 or 70-300mm variable aperture are the largest/heaviest lenses that I would bring with me (and even those are a bit larger/heavier than I'd like, but I get that this is the minimium size/weight for what I want). I'd also rather use a modern 70-200mm f4 or high quality 70-300mm variable aperture lens to the Contax 100-300mm.
You suggested that I consider the FE 70-300mm. ("If you want better image quality in the native Sony E mount, pick up an FE 70-300mm f4.5-5.6 G OSS instead.")
I have considered and would be very interested in the FE 70-300mm lens except that I've read mixed review of it as well, about the same as the Sony 70-200mm f4, or maybe not as good? I keep debating getting these two lenses, the much heavier/larger Sony 100-400mm, and/or other alternatives.
Price is not my biggest concern. My biggest concerns are size/weight and optical quality.
I have relatively small and light high quality optics through 135mm (the Batis at that focal length), and would like to add an optically high quality zoom that is not as heavy/large as the 100-400mm for when I want a zoom and for additional reach. I'm pretty sure that I would rarely bring the 100-400mm with me because of its size/weight.
A 70-200mm f4 or 70-300mm variable aperture are the largest/heaviest lenses that I would bring with me (and even those are a bit larger/heavier than I'd like, but I get that this is the minimium size/weight for what I want). I'd also rather use a modern 70-200mm f4 or high quality 70-300mm variable aperture lens to the Contax 100-300mm.
From my experience, the FE 70-300G does not match the performance of the 70-200/4G and the latter is not strong off-axis either...I've tried many copies of them and if I was pressed to pick one for IQ alone, it would be the 70-200G.
The Canon 70-200/4L IS performs better than the Sony and the new version II is even better. The only weaker focal length is 70mm and only at the very corners. (I've only tried one copy)
The 100-400GM is the better lens here but it's heavier and more expensive. It's my choice even for landscapes though. At 135mm, it's very similar to the performance of the CV 110 and Batis 135 lenses which is incredible.
Thanks, Fred. Given your experience with all of these lenses, and your testing of many of them (and multiple samples), I appreciate your summary and assessment. It helps a lot. Howard
You suggested that I consider the FE 70-300mm. ("If you want better image quality in the native Sony E mount, pick up an FE 70-300mm f4.5-5.6 G OSS instead.")
I have considered and would be very interested in the FE 70-300mm lens except that I've read mixed review of it as well, about the same as the Sony 70-200mm f4, or maybe not as good? I keep debating getting these two lenses, the much heavier/larger Sony 100-400mm, and/or other alternatives.
Price is not my biggest concern. My biggest concerns are size/weight and optical quality.
I have relatively small and light high quality optics through 135mm (the Batis at that focal length), and would like to add an optically high quality zoom that is not as heavy/large as the 100-400mm for when I want a zoom and for additional reach. I'm pretty sure that I would rarely bring the 100-400mm with me because of its size/weight.
A 70-200mm f4 or 70-300mm variable aperture are the largest/heaviest lenses that I would bring with me (and even those are a bit larger/heavier than I'd like, but I get that this is the minimium size/weight for what I want). I'd also rather use a modern 70-200mm f4 or high quality 70-300mm variable aperture lens to the Contax 100-300mm.
I've owned several copies of each lens, and every copy of the 70-300 G was noticeably better than even the best copy of the 70-200 f4, especially at the long end - in some cases the difference was like night and day.
Unfortunately, the FE 70-200 f4 falls in the same category as the FE 24-70 f4 kit lens in terms of being high price for low performance. Since you're putting a premium on optical quality, that rules out the Sony 70-200 right off the bat. You also mentioned weight being a key factor, and there the Canon lenses win again - they are quite a bit lighter than the Sony (not counting the required adapter, of course...).
Personally, I settled for the FE 100-400mm GM, which is optically the best of the lot, but much bigger, heavier, and more expensive.
If you already have the Batis 135mm f2.8, you might consider adding a Canon EF 200mm f2.8L to complement it - the 200mm f2.8L isn't as sharp as the Batis, but it's not bad, and it's small, light, and takes teleconverters...
Another option is the Canon EF 70-300mm f4-5.6L IS - it's a bit heavier, but sharper than either of the Sony 70-xxx zooms.
The 70-200 f/4 IS II is a significant improvement over the first version in terms of full-field performance. It's stabilization was also improved. I did a full infinity/landscape test series of the lens on an A7rIII here:
Yes, you'll always get the best AF performance with native lenses. That said, the adapted performance of the Canon 70-200's is pretty good, and may well be good enough for you.
Its on my future "try list",for wedding portraits. The Sony is too pricey for me.
Jman13 wrote:
Yes, you'll always get the best AF performance with native lenses. That said, the adapted performance of the Canon 70-200's is pretty good, and may well be good enough for you.
if my understanding is correct, you cannot attach the Sony 1.4x teleconverter to the Sony 70-200 f/4. Can you use the teleconverter with an MC-11 and a Canon 70-200 f/4 IS?
I tried the Canon 70-200 f4 L IS II very briefly on my Sony cameras, didn't do any test for sharpness or whatnot. As shown in the picture, with the Sigma MC-11 adapter, it's as long as the Sony 100-400 GM, but lighter and skinnier. I can handle the weight of the Sony GM so I would rather have the extra reach.
I went from the Sony 70-200 f4 to the Canon 70-300L f4-5.6 lens. If you can stand the loss of light at the far end, you will be thrilled at how good this lens truly is. You can always try renting lenses and see how they work for you.
Yes, I'll definitely try them before deciding, because even the camera you will be using them on will have to be factored in the choice, as my experience is that on a 24MP camera, the Sony 70-200 F4 is more than capable to deliver the goods, and that most likely the difference with Canon's offerings would be more apparent on higher res sensors. Colors and contrast are also pretty good for my tastes.
And unless you plan to use it exclusively for landscaping, I'd trade a bit of sharpness for its blazing fast and accurate AF and 10fps continuous shooting any day, something that you will never achieve with an adapted solution (even if it's quite good as the Canon 70-200 F4 seem to be).
Coming back to this thread. I just received a Canon 70-200mm f4is L II from lens rentals, and am using it with a Sigma MC11 I bought. Focus is suprisingly good with latest firmware. Eye AF even works well with my dog. Maybe not as quick and sure as my Sony 24-105mm zoom, but very good.
However, I took some test images on a tripod to compare the Canon zoom at infinity focus to my 85 ZM f4, and Voitglander 180mm F4 primes. I did them at f4, f5.6, f8, and f11, all at inifinity focus.
Unfortunately, the primes trounce the Canon Zoom at all apertures. The Zoom looks badly decentered/tilted at the longer setting. At 175mm , the left side is significantly softer than the right. Actually, the right side matches the prime, but as soon as you get on the left side of center (not even to the midfield, just left of center), the zoom falls off quickly to mush, at all apertures.
At 82mm for the zoom (vs. 85mm ZM), the zoom just looks commensurately softer once you get off center, even at f11 compared to the prime. In the center, they're comparable.
Did I get a bad copy of the zoom from lens rentals? I am really discouraged now trying to find a good zoom for landscapes. I previously rented a Sony 70-200mm f4 from lensrentals which was totally unacceptable for infinity focus; I asked and lensrentals later confirmed to me that it was in spec when they got it back. . . . I'm thinking that the lens from lensrentals probably get banged around quite a bit and that they're fine for things like weddings/events (both zooms have worked fine for me at moderate focus distances [not infinity]), but not infinity focus. . . . Or is it that the primes are going to always be that much better than the zooms on a high density camera like the A7Riii? Is the only solution other than primes to carry a big, heavy zoom like the Sony 100-400 GM and give up the 70mm - 100mm range? What I'd like is a great zoom from 70-200mm or 70-300mm to use for infinity focus, as reasonably small and lightweight as possible.
Bummer. Back to the drawing board, I guess. Sorry for my long rant/post, but it's frustrating. Figured the Canon 70-200mm F4L IS II might be my answer.
I guessing you got a damaged lens. Let LensRentals know and they should replace it for you.
I can't imagine the new zoom being notably soft unless it's out of whack. It may not match the two primes (those are both very good lenses), but it should be pretty darn close. My old 70-200L is extremely sharp on my A7 III.
Thanks, Jordan. I called lensrentals. They're shipping me out a different copy of the Canon zoom to try out and will restart my rental period. They're great to deal with it. They told me that in their experience they think the zoom should come close to prime performance especially at the long end. I'll report back.
