Hello I'm trying to take time to make a choice on which version I should pick up. I would love to pick up the 70-200 gm ii but the price is off-putting for myself at the moment. In plan to use this kens for landscapes and a 1.4 tc from time to time. For those who had the original gm and upgraded to the gm ii do you notice much of a difference in iq?
Unless you absolutely have to have 200mm and TC compatibility, I'd look at the Tamron 70-180mm. You can get that and a 100-400 for the price of the Sony 70-200 II.
Zayne12 wrote:
Hello I'm trying to take time to make a choice on which version I should pick up. I would love to pick up the 70-200 gm ii but the price is off-putting for myself at the moment. In plan to use this kens for landscapes and a 1.4 tc from time to time. For those who had the original gm and upgraded to the gm ii do you notice much of a difference in iq?
Pretty significant difference. The version to is better than the original in just about every way. Most notably, image quality, AF speed, and weight.
I think the biggest difference in image quality is at the longer end. My original wasn’t bad at 200mm wide open. But when you see the new one at 200mm. There’s quite a difference.
The version 1 isn’t bad by any means. It gave me years of reliable service. At used prices, It is a good bargain IMO. But the new one though! It’s a beast!
Is it worth the substantial price difference? You’ll have to decide that for yourself.
I've tried Tamron and wasn't a fan of their build quality. And if Sony had a good 70-300 I would've gone with that but they don't and I usually don't need over 400mm.
jeffbuzz wrote:
Unless you absolutely have to have 200mm and TC compatibility, I'd look at the Tamron 70-180mm. You can get that and a 100-400 for the price of the Sony 70-200 II.
robert614 wrote:
Pretty significant difference. The version to is better than the original in just about every way. Most notably, image quality, AF speed, and weight.
I think the biggest difference in image quality is at the longer end. My original wasn’t bad at 200mm wide open. But when you see the new one at 200mm. There’s quite a difference.
The version 1 isn’t bad by any means. It gave me years of reliable service. At used prices, It is a good bargain IMO. But the new one though! It’s a beast!
Is it worth the substantial price difference? You’ll have to decide that for yourself.
Getting the version one for 1400 I feel is a bargain. I do love that the newer model is lighter and that is what attracts me the most. But I'm willing to settle with weight if iq is close enough. And on top of that I will be stopping down to 5.6 or f4 for most of my shots.
Zayne12 wrote:
Getting the version one for 1400 I feel is a bargain. I do love that the newer model is lighter and that is what attracts me the most. But I'm willing to settle with weight if iq is close enough. And on top of that I will be stopping down to 5.6 or f4 for most of my shots.
If you’re going to be stopping down a lot. Image quality is pretty close IMO. You could save yourself quite a bit of money going for the version 1.
Zayne12 wrote:
I've tried Tamron and wasn't a fan of their build quality. And if Sony had a good 70-300 I would've gone with that but they don't and I usually don't need over 400mm.
Zein--I think you will eventually get the Sony 70-200 mkII, as it is that much better than version I. Until then, if you are looking for something stopped down that provides a little more reach, the Tamron 70-300 is a reasonably priced zoom with surprisingly decent IQ and a relatively small form factor, or the Sony 70-200 mk I is better yet at some excellent deals on the B&S forum as more and more are selling it and getting version II. Good luck with your decision!
I've had two copies of the Version I and now have the Version II. The II is substantially better than the original. Substantially.
You mentioned that you would be using the lens for landscape. If you are stopping-down, perhaps the original would serve you well. I noticed that a used, like new, lens was listed for $1,400, recently on FM. If you do not need absolute current, state-of-the-art sharpness, this could be a good deal.
I found that the Version I did not tolerate the x1.4 converter as the images at 280mm f4 were too soft for my taste and the contrast took a really big hit. Conversely, my testing with the converter on the Version II show that it holds-up quite nicely.
FHi Frank, eventually down the line I would love to have it in my arsenal purely for the weight savings it provides. I don't know if at it's current price I can justify it, if I downgrade my body it would be an easier blow to my wallet. Thanks!
FJR1 wrote:
Zein--I think you will eventually get the Sony 70-200 mkII, as it is that much better that version I. Until then, if you are looking for something stopped down that provides a little more reach, the Tamron 70-300 is a reasonably priced zoom with surprisingly decent IQ and a relatively small form factor, or the Sony 70-200 mk I is better yet at some excellent deals on the B&S forum as more and more are selling it and getting version II. Good luck with your decision!
The main reason I'm looking at the gm is for use with a tc. I know the new version from user experience on the forums and reviews from websites have stated it is sharper faster and lighter. This makes the decision a little harder I do appreciate the input. Thank you!
InFocus2014 wrote:
I've had two copies of the Version I and now have the Version II. The II is substantially better than the original. Substantially.
You mentioned that you would be using the lens for landscape. If you are stopping-down, perhaps the original would serve you well. I noticed that a used, like new, lens was listed for $1,400, recently on FM. If you do not need absolute current, state-of-the-art sharpness, this could be a good deal.
I found that the Version I did not tolerate the x1.4 converter as the images at 280mm f4 were too soft for my taste and the contract took a really big hit. Conversely, my testing with the converter on the Version II show that it holds-up quite nicely....Show more →
InFocus2014 wrote:
I've had two copies of the Version I and now have the Version II. The II is substantially better than the original. Substantially.
You mentioned that you would be using the lens for landscape. If you are stopping-down, perhaps the original would serve you well. I noticed that a used, like new, lens was listed for $1,400, recently on FM. If you do not need absolute current, state-of-the-art sharpness, this could be a good deal.
I found that the Version I did not tolerate the x1.4 converter as the images at 280mm f4 were too soft for my taste and the contract took a really big hit. Conversely, my testing with the converter on the Version II show that it holds-up quite nicely....Show more →
I’ve rented Verson 1 many times. I never bought it and would not recommend anyone buying it now given Version II is amazingly better. Not sure on the Tammy but anyone thinking of Version II save up for it no question. I rented it and bought one right away
Zayne, I am in the same boat as you: I am looking for a high IQ landscape tele lens, don't mind spending 1500 grams and about 1500 dollars for it, but sometimes wondering if the GM Mark II isn't worth going for.
On one hand, the improved 70-200 Mark II will age gracefully with higher resolution sensors, TCs, and it's made itself out as a serious landscape lens with it's weight reductions & IQ. It's begging to be the centerpiece of every kit year over year...
On the other hand, I'd have to make a lot of changes to my kit to afford the lens currently, so not sure if it's worth it...
I am seriously considering the Canon 70-300L with a Metabones V adapter as my alternative. Still get water resistance, packability, good built quality, high IQ (it's an older lens that I haven't gotten a good pulse on from this forum, but seems to consistently pass the Flickr test for me - something the Sony 70-300 doesn't). And best of all, it helps me keep my 16-35 GM and Batis 85, both of which are my preferred lenses in their class (UW Zoom, Portrait Prime).
For the price of the 70-200 gm ii I could just get the 85 gm + 100-400 gm and call it a day but those two lenses put me over twice the weight and I rarely of ever need to go over 300 sometimes 400 and with the riv cropping is one button away. I've been thinking about downgrade to an riii and I'd still be able to crop just not as freely but it would make getting the gm ii that much easier. A hard decision to be made indeed.
akashyap wrote:
Zayne, I am in the same boat as you: I am looking for a high IQ landscape tele lens, don't mind spending 1500 grams and about 1500 dollars for it, but sometimes wondering if the GM Mark II isn't worth going for.
On one hand, the improved 70-200 Mark II will age gracefully with higher resolution sensors, TCs, and it's made itself out as a serious landscape lens with it's weight reductions & IQ. It's begging to be the centerpiece of every kit year over year...
On the other hand, I'd have to make a lot of changes to my kit to afford the lens currently, so not sure if it's worth it...
I am seriously considering the Canon 70-300L with a Metabones V adapter as my alternative. Still get water resistance, packability, good built quality, high IQ (it's an older lens that I haven't gotten a good pulse on from this forum, but seems to consistently pass the Flickr test for me - something the Sony 70-300 doesn't). And best of all, it helps me keep my 16-35 GM and Batis 85, both of which are my preferred lenses in their class (UW Zoom, Portrait Prime)....Show more →
It's hard to get around the weight/handling of the new GMII with or without the TCs onboard. It's so much better then the 100-400. The minute I twisted the zoom on the new 70-200 I couldn't get my 100-400 on the B&S fast enough.
I've thought about it a lot but I need to get to at least 300mm and with heavy cropping I can get the 135 to act like a 270 and still have 15mp left but I'm not too sure.
rd4tile wrote:
It's hard to get around the weight/handling of the new GMII with or without the TCs onboard. It's so much better then the 100-400. The minute I twisted the zoom on the new 70-200 I couldn't get my 100-400 on the B&S fast enough.
It's true. The 100-400GM was a favorite landscape lens of mine for awhile. Thought I'd never part with it. But the 70-200GMii is fantastic. I had the version one and at least mine was not that great. At least for what I was paying at the time. I have tried the 1.4x on the 100-400 with good results. But I could never find a good copy (or so I thought) of the 2x to use with that lens. Well maybe I finally got lucky as the 2x I picked up with the 70-200GMii is terrific. Not sure if it's just because the new GM is that much sharper to start with. Or I finally got a good 2x. Either way I'm excited about the results. The 70-200 can now pull double duty. Covering me from 70-400 with great image quality with the 2x. And being used as a 2.8 70-200 for anything else. Oh and even with crop mode (riv) on the 70-200GM + 2x that can get me to 600mm (26mp) if needed (and it still looks really good). It has changed up my bag completely. Now I just carry 3 lenses, 20mm G, 35mmGM, and the 70-200GMii. I can shoot basically anything with those 3. Bottom line is although expensive, it is so versatile I don't think you would be disappointed. But only you can figure out if it fits your style. Good thing is if you can find one and for some reason you do want to sell it. That will not be a problem
