p.11 #1 · Sony FE 70-200mm F2.8 GM OSS II Image Thread
I wasn't going to buy this lens. My v.1 of the lens is really sharp. But then I saw some reviews and since this is probably my most used focal length, I thought I'd give it a try. I thought if it's as good as advertised, I'll could sell v1 70-200 and maybe even the 135.
p.11 #2 · Sony FE 70-200mm F2.8 GM OSS II Image Thread
Joe Colson wrote:
Female Northern Cardinal
Very nice shots, Joe! I also like the way you present your work, with the exif data and copyright in the bottom border. Very informative, and it doesn't detract at all from the image itself.
p.11 #4 · Sony FE 70-200mm F2.8 GM OSS II Image Thread
mmm55 wrote:
Very nice shots, Joe! I also like the way you present your work, with the exif data and copyright in the bottom border. Very informative, and it doesn't detract at all from the image itself.
Thanks Mike. I add the EXIF using my FrameShop script, described here running in Photoshop.
p.11 #5 · Sony FE 70-200mm F2.8 GM OSS II Image Thread
More thoughts/questions on this 70-200 as a 'replacement' for a 70-180 + 100-400:
Currently own the Tamron 70-180 which I love for its size and sharpness as well as the Sony 100-400. Shooting with an A1.
Have used the Sony for landscapes (mostly moon shots at 400mm - exactly 53 shots taken of 2617 total shared landscapes) as well as for daytime high school sports (JV football) - 488 of 1644 this season taken above 300mm.
I expect to shoot far more indoor/night games in the future as my son moves up to varsity. With the A1, I am fine with those shots being at APC-C crop mode and 21 MP. Is my thinking correct that the 70-200 gets me a 300/2.8 at 21 MP? [edit - no free lunch, looks like the field of view will approximate a 300mm f/4 lens in crop mode - but, that is better than the 100-400 at 300mm which is 5.6...right?]
This thought came in part as I looked at current 300/2.8 lenses from Canon and Nikon and realized those are twice the weight of my 100-400 not to mention longer. Not sure if APS-c lets me get the equivalent FOV with the sacrifice only being megapixels.
For landscapes, how big of a penalty is the 2x converter when shot at f/8 for a moonrise with foreground elements?
Thanks and my apologies if this touches on comments earlier in this thread. I read them but wasn't sure they fully covered these scenarios.
p.11 #6 · Sony FE 70-200mm F2.8 GM OSS II Image Thread
I do not lament my sale of the 100-400, as I have a 200-600 and the 70-200 II works nicely as a replacement for the 100-400 relative to focal length and pseudo-macro capabilities. Here are a couple shots taken this morning, 12/19/21, with the 70-200II in aps-c mode coupled with the 1.4X TC (goose in flight photo cropped on the ends).
p.11 #7 · Sony FE 70-200mm F2.8 GM OSS II Image Thread
eyal wrote:
More thoughts/questions on this 70-200 as a 'replacement' for a 70-180 + 100-400:
Currently own the Tamron 70-180 which I love for its size and sharpness as well as the Sony 100-400. Shooting with an A1.
Have used the Sony for landscapes (mostly moon shots at 400mm - exactly 53 shots taken of 2617 total shared landscapes) as well as for daytime high school sports (JV football) - 488 of 1644 this season taken above 300mm.
I expect to shoot far more indoor/night games in the future as my son moves up to varsity. With the A1, I am fine with those shots being at APC-C crop mode and 21 MP. Is my thinking correct that the 70-200 gets me a 300/2.8 at 21 MP or is there an apparent aperture difference with crop mode given that distance to object won't change as would be on sideline with either (can never wrap my head around that part)?
This thought came in part as I looked at current 300/2.8 lenses from Canon and Nikon and realized those are twice the weight of my 100-400 not to mention longer. Not sure if APS-c lets me get the equivalent FOV with the sacrifice only being megapixels.
For landscapes, how big of a penalty is the 2x converter when shot at f/8 for a moonrise with foreground elements?
Thanks and my apologies if this touches on comments earlier in this thread. I read them but wasn't sure they fully covered these scenarios....Show more →
I posted this in a different thread, which I believe also applies to your question:
Personally, I would rather crop later in PP than using the APS-C mode. The main reason for me to do it in PP is to be able to crop more effectively in terms of composition while the APS-C crop is baked in. Plus, in sport, you may would rather get more than not enough; in other words, you don’t want to clip hands if the action takes place nearby although you already set the zoom to the shortest setting. The end result, whether you crop later or do it APS-C mode is the same and also the same applies to using a 300mm f/2.8 lens. The obvious difference with the later is that you get the full 50MP resolution.
I am not sure about how much penalties for capturing moonrise with a 2X TC. There is no free lunch, of course but I would venture to guess that if you stop down 2-stop, the difference would be not too bad. So, at f/11 you should be okay, in other words. And since tripod is necessary for that kind of shot, the increased shutter speed as a result should not pose any issues.
p.11 #8 · Sony FE 70-200mm F2.8 GM OSS II Image Thread
eyal wrote:
I expect to shoot far more indoor/night games in the future as my son moves up to varsity. With the A1, I am fine with those shots being at APC-C crop mode and 21 MP. Is my thinking correct that the 70-200 gets me a 300/2.8 at 21 MP? [edit - no free lunch, looks like the field of view will approximate a 300mm f/4 lens in crop mode - but, that is better than the 100-400 at 300mm which is 5.6...right?]
Someone please correct me if I am wrong.
The way I understand it, when you use crop mode the image DOF and Field of View will look like 300mm at f/4. However, that is a different question than the low light capability which will remain at f/2.8. You are in fact shooting 300mm at f/2.8 which is a big advantage in your use case.
When you use a 1.4 X TC to get more reach you get the f/4 DOF, Field of View, and f/4 light gathering aperture.
So, by extension I think you can add the 1.4 TC, do the crop ,and end up with the low light capability of f/4 at a 420 Field of View.
I have tried the 1.4 X TC and the IQ holds up very well. I don't have a 2X TC to try, but have heard that even this still performs well.
So, there is still a strong advantage with the 70-200 f/2.8 in some cases. My expectation is that landscapes over 200mm will still have a strong advantage with the 100-400.
p.11 #9 · Sony FE 70-200mm F2.8 GM OSS II Image Thread
Love the Bokeh. If the F1.8 wasn't so nice at times I'd sell the 135GM and just use this. It's actually lighter in the hand and is easy to one hand shoot.
p.11 #10 · Sony FE 70-200mm F2.8 GM OSS II Image Thread
1bwana1 wrote:
Someone please correct me if I am wrong.
The way I understand it, when you use crop mode the image DOF and Field of View will look like 300mm at f/4. However, that is a different question than the low light capability which will remain at f/2.8. You are in fact shooting 300mm at f/2.8 which is a big advantage in your use case.
When you use a 1.4 X TC to get more reach you get the f/4 DOF, Field of View, and f/4 light gathering aperture.
So, by extension I think you can add the 1.4 TC, do the crop ,and end up with the low light capability of f/4 at a 420 Field of View.
I have tried the 1.4 X TC and the IQ holds up very well. I don't have a 2X TC to try, but have heard that even this still performs well.
So, there is still a strong advantage with the 70-200 f/2.8 in some cases. My expectation is that landscapes over 200mm will still have a strong advantage with the 100-400.
Since you’re throwing out half of the pixels captured you are also going to see an f/4 performance for noise. A genuine 300mm f/2.8 will have 1 stop better noise performance since the cropped image must be magnified to a greater extent for viewing.
p.11 #12 · Sony FE 70-200mm F2.8 GM OSS II Image Thread
I’m really hoping i get version II as a rental in like 3 weeks from lensrentals to shoot my runway gig instead of version 1. Hope they get it in time. Ive had limited luck with Version 1
p.11 #13 · Sony FE 70-200mm F2.8 GM OSS II Image Thread
In the selfless-pimping department, I was just at Competitive Cameras in Dallas—never mind why—and see they have several 70-200 GM II lenses remaining in stock. If you are looking, you might call Eugene there. 214-744-5511. You’ll like the way he works.
Tell him “old man Vroom” sent you. Eugene is way among the best!!
Nothing in it for me, except spreading Holiday GAS Joy!
p.11 #14 · Sony FE 70-200mm F2.8 GM OSS II Image Thread
Damnit looks like it's time to save up for the 70-200 2.8 gm ii. These images are so gorgeous. Can't believe what sony has created; prime like performance in a zoom. This lens could be a system seller.
p.11 #15 · Sony FE 70-200mm F2.8 GM OSS II Image Thread
I used this lens mainly for portraits and I posted a few here already. But I didn’t feel like posting too many of them. So, I noticed that there is a pair of probably mockingbirds that visited my backyard in the last several days. So, this afternoon, I setup my camera, this lens and a 2X TC. Here is a picture of it mid-air after jumping off the fence. I could detect a slight, very slight movement at certain parts but what is sharp, is sharp. Really, it is not caused by the lens but by the not high enough shutter speed. Like I mentioned somewhere in this thread, I would use the 2X TC in combo with the lens in a pinch for something like this, even at wide open, or even for landscape, where I will stop the lens down 2-stop or so. The results are surprisingly good.
Too bad, they didn’t stay long this time around and the weather will be bad starting tomorrow…
p.11 #18 · Sony FE 70-200mm F2.8 GM OSS II Image Thread
AGeoJO wrote:
I used this lens mainly for portraits and I posted a few here already. But I didn’t feel like posting too many of them. So, I noticed that there is a pair of probably mockingbirds that visited my backyard in the last several days. So, this afternoon, I setup my camera, this lens and a 2X TC. Here is a picture of it mid-air after jumping off the fence. I could detect a slight, very slight movement at certain parts but what is sharp, is sharp. Really, it is not caused by the lens but by the not high enough shutter speed. Like I mentioned somewhere in this thread, I would use the 2X TC in combo with the lens in a pinch for something like this, even at wide open, or even for landscape, where I will stop the lens down 2-stop or so. The results are surprisingly good.
Too bad, they didn’t stay long this time around and the weather will be bad starting tomorrow… ...Show more →
Joshua--there is both tension and grace in that image!
.
