p.22 #2 · Sony FE 70-200mm F2.8 GM OSS II Image Thread
Douglas L wrote:
You are right! I actually prefer the 70-200's bokeh more than the 90 macro's. I thought the 90 macro is known for its nice bokeh.
Agreed. Took the 70-200GM MKII with the 1.4tc attached out over the weekend. With the excellent MFD I ended up with some nice close-up shots. I realized we have a .42x magnification with the 1.4tc attached, up from .30x bare lense. This is better than the 100-400GM bare which is .35x. The F4 aperture is also still excellent, and stopped down to f5.6 still offers outstanding sharpness. This is the 70-200 I've wanted for some time
p.22 #5 · Sony FE 70-200mm F2.8 GM OSS II Image Thread
TimMunsey wrote:
I see the exif, the 70-200 is shot at 176mm and 90 obviously at 90. You perhaps should do both at 90mm?
F2.8 is f2.8 if we shoot both at 90mm. That said, the modern GM mkii should still have superior bokeh and fall off .. it's a more efficient design with 11 Aperture blades. Would like to see the comparison as well. For me, I would always shoot at longer focal lengths if available... Especially when dealing with skittish critters where 90-105mm macros tend to scare them away due to having get excessively close to the subject
p.22 #6 · Sony FE 70-200mm F2.8 GM OSS II Image Thread
Maxxus46 wrote:
F2.8 is f2.8 if we shoot both at 90mm. That said, the modern GM mkii should still have superior bokeh and fall off .. it's a more efficient design with 11 Aperture blades. Would like to see the comparison as well. For me, I would always shoot at longer focal lengths if available... Especially when dealing with skittish critters where 90-105mm macros tend to scare them away due to having get excessively close to the subject
Focal length effects depth of field too, eg a subject 2m away with 90mm lens has DOF of 0.08m whereas with a 176mm DOF 0.02m.
Yes of course, DoF is affected by focal length but having to be excessively close for 1:1 with a dedicated macro like a 90mm or 105mm isn't great for subjects that move...my point is the lense has to be very close which scares the subjects away. Hence why I rarely use a dedicated macro for any moving subjects...I'd rather lose some magificaton and be further away with a telephoto that still retains a decent level of close focus ...at least I get the shot. In practice, whether a 90mm macro or 180mm telephoto both will require significant stopping down for acceptable depth of field. Even after stopping down depth of field will still be narrow , that's where focus stacking comes into play, but unfortunately does not work well with moving subjects
p.22 #8 · Sony FE 70-200mm F2.8 GM OSS II Image Thread
Maxxus46 wrote:
Yes of course, DoF is affected by focal length but having to be excessively close for 1:1 with a dedicated macro like a 90mm or 105mm isn't great for subjects that move...my point is the lense has to be very close which scares the subjects away. Hence why I rarely use a dedicated macro for any moving subjects...I'd rather lose some magificaton and be further away with a telephoto that still retains a decent level of close focus ...at least I get the shot. In practice, whether a 90mm macro or 180mm telephoto both will require significant stopping down for acceptable depth of field. Even after stopping down depth of field will still be narrow , that's where focus stacking comes into play, but unfortunately does not work well with moving subjects ...Show more →
My piece was more about the comparison shown between the lenses, I just thought it was an unfair comparison.
I totally agree with the fact that a longer focal length makes it a lot easier to capture moving subjects.
p.22 #9 · Sony FE 70-200mm F2.8 GM OSS II Image Thread
TimMunsey wrote:
I see the exif, the 70-200 is shot at 176mm and 90 obviously at 90. You perhaps should do both at 90mm?
You are right, Tim. The shooting distance from the flowers are different, I stood closer to the flowers with the 90 macro. I should have shot both at 90mm from the same distance. I will try that at home to see how they compare.
p.22 #10 · Sony FE 70-200mm F2.8 GM OSS II Image Thread
TimMunsey wrote:
My piece was more about the comparison shown between the lenses, I just thought it was an unfair comparison.
I totally agree with the fact that a longer focal length makes it a lot easier to capture moving subjects.
Tim
Agree it's not a one for one comparison at all... I was thinking more about usability differences when tracking skittish critters. It will be interesting to see both the bokeh and falloff when both lenses are compared at 90mm @f2.8...but even then the MFD on these two lenses are quite different and that will also impact the results.
Regardless, I can say that I'm very pleased with the new 70-200GM Mkii close focus abilities though...enough so that I've sold my 100400gm. The previous 70-200GM V1 was lacking in this regard so much so I sold that lens in favor of the 100400 at the time. Now with the V2 and the 1.4tc attached we get a .42x magnification at a starting aperture of F4 with much shorter MFD. It's excellent
Take care
p.22 #14 · Sony FE 70-200mm F2.8 GM OSS II Image Thread
hi all, going on a trip soon to Costa Rica and hoping to get some "casual" macro shots of frogs and reptiles. currently torn between bringing the sigma 105 / sony 90 or this new 70-200. seems like the 70-200 is a wonderful lens with good magnification and versatility - though not true macro. also considering the 100-400 but don't want to steer away from the purpose of this thread too much.
p.22 #16 · Sony FE 70-200mm F2.8 GM OSS II Image Thread
jorjacman wrote:
hi all, going on a trip soon to Costa Rica and hoping to get some "casual" macro shots of frogs and reptiles. currently torn between bringing the sigma 105 / sony 90 or this new 70-200. seems like the 70-200 is a wonderful lens with good magnification and versatility - though not true macro. also considering the 100-400 but don't want to steer away from the purpose of this thread too much.
any thoughts/recommendations? thanks!
I’m headed there in November and plan to use the 70-200 in lieu of a dedicated macro lens. Since macro isn’t my strong suit, I doubt it will make much difference, and the lens could come in handy for other things while there, especially with the 1.4tc.
This is a low res transfer SOOC shot at 180mm handheld and using autofocus. It is about a 1:1 reproduction - the photo is uncropped. Sorry about the lousy photo, but consider it just to be an example of what the setup will do.
Here is the seedpod next to the camera for reference scale. The subject is a metasequoia seed pod, so unfortunately the curvature of the pod prevents much of it from being in focus even at f/9.
jorjacman wrote:
hi all, going on a trip soon to Costa Rica and hoping to get some "casual" macro shots of frogs and reptiles. currently torn between bringing the sigma 105 / sony 90 or this new 70-200. seems like the 70-200 is a wonderful lens with good magnification and versatility - though not true macro. also considering the 100-400 but don't want to steer away from the purpose of this thread too much.
p.22 #19 · Sony FE 70-200mm F2.8 GM OSS II Image Thread
Some heavy cropping of the Condors and still lots of details (also applied the LR super resolution).
Will test the 1.4x and 2x teleconverters during next week-end. Will see how it helps.
