p.23 #1 · Sony FE 70-200mm F2.8 GM OSS II Image Thread
Fboss wrote:
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.
You will find the 1.4tc to show barely any change in sharpness (by f5.6 it is outstanding with the 1.4tc) and the AF remains unaffected. With the 1.4tc you have a nice close range BIF lens especially with a higher mpx camera like the A1. Good luck
p.23 #2 · Sony FE 70-200mm F2.8 GM OSS II Image Thread
Really didn’t plan on this for BIF - was hoping to see some shoreline wildlife like a river otter or beaver. Dark and drizzly. Managed to catch a swallow at snack time. A1 in crop mode. Ran the jpeg through DeNoise. The af of this lens is outrageous. Not a great image but I’m really pleased with the lens so far.
p.23 #3 · Sony FE 70-200mm F2.8 GM OSS II Image Thread
Guys, I have the sigma 85mm f1.4 dg dn and 135mm gm. Thinking of replacing them with the 70-200mm gm mark 2.
One question is how does the bokeh esp the transitional bokeh compares? My 85 and 135 bokeh feels a bit harsh with a bit of outlining in the bokeh rings.
I know f1.4 vs f2.8 will result in bigger bokeh rings. Not really concerned about that but just how harsh, outlining of the rings are.
p.23 #4 · Sony FE 70-200mm F2.8 GM OSS II Image Thread
wind30 wrote:
Guys, I have the sigma 85mm f1.4 dg dn and 135mm gm. Thinking of replacing them with the 70-200mm gm mark 2.
One question is how does the bokeh esp the transitional bokeh compares? My 85 and 135 bokeh feels a bit harsh with a bit of outlining in the bokeh rings.
I know f1.4 vs f2.8 will result in bigger bokeh rings. Not really concerned about that but just how harsh, outlining of the rings are.
I am considering the same questions. Are there many scenarios for non-portrait photographers to need an 85/1.4 (GM or DG DN Art) or the Sony 135/1.8 GM if they have the new Sony 70-200/2.8 GM II?
I would rarely if ever shoot a telephoto indoors, so most of what I'd use the 70-200 for would be wildlife, events, hiking, landscapes, and general photography.
p.23 #5 · Sony FE 70-200mm F2.8 GM OSS II Image Thread
smpetty wrote:
I am considering the same questions. Are there many scenarios for non-portrait photographers to need an 85/1.4 (GM or DG DN Art) or the Sony 135/1.8 GM if they have the new Sony 70-200/2.8 GM II?
I would rarely if ever shoot a telephoto indoors, so most of what I'd use the 70-200 for would be wildlife, events, hiking, landscapes, and general photography.
Think indoor sports...I'd take the 70-200GM Mkii anyday over a prime. The flexibility is crucial to getting the shot. So yes there is indoor application
p.23 #6 · Sony FE 70-200mm F2.8 GM OSS II Image Thread
2.8 indoors is not enough generally,its a high ISO/noise reducing project afterwards. Low light and moving athletes?
Hockey rinks are nice and bright thanks to the ice but for all others I’d rather have the 135 1.8 for clean images.
Maxxus46 wrote:
Think indoor sports...I'd take the 70-200GM Mkii anyday over a prime. The flexibility is crucial to getting the shot. So yes there is indoor application
p.23 #8 · Sony FE 70-200mm F2.8 GM OSS II Image Thread
KarmaKramer wrote:
2.8 indoors is not enough generally,its a high ISO/noise reducing project afterwards. Low light and moving athletes?
Hockey rinks are nice and bright thanks to the ice but for all others I’d rather have the 135 1.8 for clean images.
Huh? Of course 2.8 is fast enough indoors . I have shot many indoor hockey games with a 70200 2.8 and noise was not an issue. With today's cameras that is just not true. You will find many pros shooting indoor hockey and other sports with a 70200 2.8..why ? Because that versatility of a zoom and extra reach over a prime like an 85 or 135 is gold. Good luck running up and down court trying to frame with prime. Your going to be cropping a ton, and exposing image flaws and noise that you speak of,and miss shots you could have had with a zoom. And shooting wide open at 1.8 isn't going to work well for fast moving sports. Too thin depth of field as they move closer to you. I have owned the 135gm and as impressive as the IQ is, it's a very niche lense so it's been sold. The 70-200Gm Mkii has 95% of that lens IQ and is far far more versatile
p.23 #9 · Sony FE 70-200mm F2.8 GM OSS II Image Thread
Hockey games,yes….I mentioned hockey,but all other sports….
Maxxus46 wrote:
Huh? Of course 2.8 is fast enough indoors . I have shot many indoor hockey games with a 70200 2.8 and noise was not an issue. With today's cameras that is just not true. You will find many pros shooting indoor hockey and other sports with a 70200 2.8..why ? Because that versatility of a zoom and extra reach over a prime like an 85 or 135 is gold. Good luck running up and down court trying to frame with prime. Your going to be cropping a ton, and exposing image flaws and noise that you speak of,and miss shots you could have had with a zoom. And shooting wide open at 1.8 isn't going to work well for fast moving sports. Too thin depth of field as they move closer to you. I have owned the 135gm and as impressive as the IQ is, it's a very niche lense so it's been sold. The 70-200Gm Mkii has 95% of that lens IQ and is far far more versatile ...Show more →
p.23 #10 · Sony FE 70-200mm F2.8 GM OSS II Image Thread
KarmaKramer wrote:
Hockey games,yes….I mentioned hockey,but all other sports….
Let's just say 2.8 is fine for indoor sports. I have shot many games, hockey, basketball, volleyball, swimming etc. 2.8 was never a crutch for me. That 70mm-200mm range is very versatile and I would never pick primes over such a useful range ...especially when you can go from 70 to 200 with a short flick of the zoom. Sports are fast .. there is no time for lense changes. Even when switching bodies with multiple prime lenses you will miss critical shots. This is why the 70-200 2.8 has been a staple for many sports, event photographers for decades now. There is no alternative
p.23 #11 · Sony FE 70-200mm F2.8 GM OSS II Image Thread
Maxxus46, You are so categorical! f / 2.8 suits you, but this is not enough for others. There is always little light in gyms. Very little. I always prefer 135mm f/1.8 for volleyball.
Sorry for my bad english.
p.23 #12 · Sony FE 70-200mm F2.8 GM OSS II Image Thread
Editorrr wrote:
Maxxus46, You are so categorical! f / 2.8 suits you, but this is not enough for others. There is always little light in gyms. Very little. I always prefer 135mm f/1.8 for volleyball.
Sorry for my bad english.
Categorical ?? Lol. Sounds to me that your the one trying to state the 135GM 1.8 will work better than a 70200 2.8mkii (after all this thread is about the 70-200 and not the 135). I've used a 70-200 2.8 for decades now, and your not going to convince me ever that a 135 is flexible, because it is not. I have owned the 135GM twice now, and sold it twice. Why? It's a niche lens and is inflexible compared to a high quality zoom. Period. Your photos do not convince me to run out and get a 135..I've seen better. Later
p.23 #14 · Sony FE 70-200mm F2.8 GM OSS II Image Thread
Maxxus46 wrote:
Categorical ?? Lol. Sounds to me that your the one trying to state the 135GM 1.8 will work better than a 70200 2.8mkii (after all this thread is about the 70-200 and not the 135). I've used a 70-200 2.8 for decades now, and your not going to convince me ever that a 135 is flexible, because it is not. I have owned the 135GM twice now, and sold it twice. Why? It's a niche lens and is inflexible compared to a high quality zoom. Period. Your photos do not convince me to run out and get a 135..I've seen better. Later ...Show more →
This is just your experience. Nothing more. But you don't have to make it absolute. The fact is that in gyms there is often not enough light and f / 2.8 aperture.
I'm glad you take the best sports photos. But for those who are not the best, sometimes there is not enough light
All the best! And sorry again for my bad english.
p.23 #18 · Sony FE 70-200mm F2.8 GM OSS II Image Thread
With 2x extender on A1, this was my first try with 2x on this lens to test it out for a trip which I cannot carry 200-600. So tried out this combo and pretty happy with it as my second camera and I don't need range beyond 400mm.
Not sure why exif not showing, I've it checked
p.23 #19 · Sony FE 70-200mm F2.8 GM OSS II Image Thread
shibutg wrote:
With 2x extender on A1, this was my first try with 2x on this lens to test it out for a trip which I cannot carry 200-600. So tried out this combo and pretty happy with it as my second camera and I don't need range beyond 400mm.
Not sure why exif not showing, I've it checked
They are all sharp and nice.
I have a trip to Yellowstone next month and will bring the 70-200 GMII + Tamron 28-75 G2 + 35GM.
I'm debating if I also rent a longer zoom (Sigma 150-600mm that might fit in my backpack, the 200-600mm unfortunately
would be too big), or just use the great cropping capability of this 70-200.
I rented the 1.4x or 2x extender recently and while these converters are quite good, they didn't really improve the results when I compared to the 70-200 + cropping and LR super-resolution.
here's an example of a heavy crop at 200mm f/3.5, processed/cropped in LR. Still very sharp on a 5k 27"
p.23 #20 · Sony FE 70-200mm F2.8 GM OSS II Image Thread
Fboss wrote:
They are all sharp and nice.
I have a trip to Yellowstone next month and will bring the 70-200 GMII + Tamron 28-75 G2 + 35GM.
I'm debating if I also rent a longer zoom (Sigma 150-600mm that might fit in my backpack, the 200-600mm unfortunately
would be too big), or just use the great cropping capability of this 70-200.
I rented the 1.4x or 2x extender recently and while these converters are quite good, they didn't really improve the results when I compared to the 70-200 + cropping and LR super-resolution.
here's an example of a heavy crop at 200mm f/3.5, processed/cropped in LR. Still very sharp on a 5k 27"
Yes! Bring the 150-600 or buy a bigger back pack for the 200-600. I can't imagine going to Yellowstone without at least a 500mm capable of taking at 1.4X TC. Wolves, bears, coyote, bison, badgers, antelope, pine martin, and the list goes on.
