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.
I sure know what you mean. After using the new 70-200mm, and even the 200-600mm, with internal short-throw zoom, the 100-400mm is just annoyingly clunky.
I can't say enough good things about the 70-200 gm ii. It's just that good as others have said too. The smooth zoom ring is a joy to turn compared to the 100-400. The sharpness, af speed and weight make it a must have. Don't bother with the v1. Save up for the v2 and just get it over with 😁
Sony GM 70-200/2.8 MK2 is clearly sharper and more contrasty throughout the entire range of focal lengths and apertures compared to the MK1.Not only the center and edges, but especially the image corners. 200mm fl is the best example.
MK2 has a significantly faster and more accurate autofocus, particulary in worse lighting.
MK2 has even less visible spherical and chromatic aberrations plus a little warmer colour rendition.
OSS effectiveness is about the same.
Miraculously low weight.Just a little over 1kg.Makes a huge difference.
In short: It is worth replacing the old with a new one, because it has a clearly better overall image quality, autofocus and is much lighter.
BTW: The Mk1 is still a very good lens though and the quality of photos taken with it is more than satisfactory.
Wide open sharpnes throughout the range and for most of the picture area is very good.Only sides and corners lag behind.Stop it down to f8 and it is very sharp across the frame at any fl for landscape.
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?
I have the II. I looked at the I, but it didn't impress. The combination of significantly lighter, linear XD motors, and superior performance is worth the money.
If you are using this Telezoom exclusively for landscapes, why buy a expensive and heavy 2,8 lens? Normally you will step down anyhow for sharpness and depth of field. If really only used for landscapes I would recommend the Sigma 100-400. It's only 3 ounces heavier than the GM, has the same dimensions and you don't need the teleconverter. Sharpness stepped down should be the same or even better at 300mm without TC. Downside is the reduced flexibility due to the lower aperture and you loose the 70 to 100 mm range. But you can save a lot of money, in Europe it's 3500 Euro for Sony including TC and 950 Euro for the Sigma.
Cheers, Erich
Tony Ross wrote:
I have the II. I looked at the I, but it didn't impress. The combination of significantly lighter, linear XD motors, and superior performance is worth the money.
Unless it's costing you a kidney, get the GM II.
While the cost is high it's manageable. Would you recommend I sell my riv and get an riii instead? This would help soften the blow for me.
Gandalf2401 wrote:
If you are using this Telezoom exclusively for landscapes, why buy a expensive and heavy 2,8 lens? Normally you will step down anyhow for sharpness and depth of field. If really only used for landscapes I would recommend the Sigma 100-400. It's only 3 ounces heavier than the GM, has the same dimensions and you don't need the teleconverter. Sharpness stepped down should be the same or even better at 300mm without TC. Downside is the reduced flexibility due to the lower aperture and you loose the 70 to 100 mm range. But you can save a lot of money, in Europe it's 3500 Euro for Sony including TC and 950 Euro for the Sigma.
Cheers, Erich ...Show more →
I like having 1st party lenses and I don't like to veer off too much.
Peire wrote:
Sony GM 70-200/2.8 MK2 is clearly sharper and more contrasty throughout the entire range of focal lengths and apertures compared to the MK1.Not only the center and edges, but especially the image corners. 200mm fl is the best example.
MK2 has a significantly faster and more accurate autofocus, particulary in worse lighting.
MK2 has even less visible spherical and chromatic aberrations plus a little warmer colour rendition.
OSS effectiveness is about the same.
Miraculously low weight.Just a little over 1kg.Makes a huge difference.
In short: It is worth replacing the old with a new one, because it has a clearly better overall image quality, autofocus and is much lighter.
BTW: The Mk1 is still a very good lens though and the quality of photos taken with it is more than satisfactory.
Wide open sharpnes throughout the range and for most of the picture area is very good.Only sides and corners lag behind.Stop it down to f8 and it is very sharp across the frame at any fl for landscape. ...Show more →
Thabks for the detailed answer my friend. I'm giving it a lot of thought and the weight savings is nothing to overlook. My question is would you recommend I sell my riv and settle for an riii? It'll soften the blow for me and at the same time I could complete out my kit.
nhsonyshooter wrote:
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's will not be a problem...Show more →
Thanks you for your response. If it really works well with a 2x tc it might make it worth it a bit more. Doing landscapes and being on a tripod I can step down definitely. What body are you using your lens on? I'm thinking of downgrading to an a7riii from an riv and calling it a day.
nhsonyshooter wrote:
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's will not be a problem...Show more →
I agree 100% with your conclusions. I never thought I would let the 100-400 GM go but this 70-200 GM II is all around just that much better when I compare it to the 100-400 GM for landscape and travel use. Like you, I often just take my 20mm G, 35 GM, and the 70-200 GM II in my messenger bag with a 67mm and 77mm CPL's and 67/82 and 77/82 step-up rings and my 82mm 2-5 and 6-9 stop Variable ND's. I have all I need for 90%+ of what I shoot. I throw the 1.4x teleconverter in and if I think I might shoot some wildlife/birds the 2x as well. The kit is light enough to carry and hike very easily for many hours. If I feel like taking both my A1 and A7R4, I'll put the 70-200 GM II on my A1 and my 16-35 GM on the R4.
I'd say the new 70-200 GM II is an impressive bit of engineering by Sony to get this much image quality in a 70-200 f/2.8 lens and manage to drop the weight 29% from the version 1 model!
I’m down to 20,35 and zoom now. I have the 1.4 coming today. Seriously I hated these 70-200 for years. After renting it and buying it I’m excited to have it. I have a ZV-10 and two good lenses for me stuff. I’m kinda done now unless I finally decide on the A1
Honestly, I think if you are only gonna shoot landscapes the Gen I is good enough, the Gen II is better in every way, but would it be worth the x2 price tag? That really depends on what and how you gonna shoot and where your photos gonna end up. Sharper? Yes! But I don't think anyone will be able to tell the difference if you just post the photos online.
Better AF? Yes! This is the reason I upgrade, I don't care about the IQ that much but AF means everything to me(within the same focal range), but better AF doesn't make any real difference for landscapes.
Lighter? Yes! That's great, but is this worth the extra price? Different answers to different people.
You can't go wrong with the Gen I since it's around 1400 right now, can always upgrade to the Gen II in another year or two when the Gen II price comes down a bit.
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?
IMHO the main reason to get first party lenses is to get the whole potential out of the camera. Potential in terms of maximum shutter speed (20 or 30 shots per second for A9 or A1) or for speed and accuracy of autofocus. Both matter for wildlife, sport and probably event fotography but hardly for landscapes with manual focus and slow operations.
There portability and image quality stepped down are important.
And there is the reason GAS to reach for the newest and best. 😊
Please don't take this the wrong way, Gas is a valid reason to purchase gear, I'm susceptible for it too:
A7R3,A9,1224G,2875G2,100400Sigma,
200600Sony,1,4TC,24GM,90G macro, 85 viltrox 1,8... Zayne12 wrote:
I like having 1st party lenses and I don't like to veer off too much.
No offense taken my friend. But if I have a weak point this is it. To me I feel like first party will always be top tier and unfortunately that's what I'm chasing. Does it cost an arm and leg? Sometimes haha but honestly in the end when you're out in the field and getting the shots you love that's what matters. Fortunately I was able to find a copy of 70-200 gm for 600 due to one of the elements having what appears to be dots the seller said it doesn't look like fungus but rather it looks like wear on the coating I took the jump and for now the main ones I'm wait for from Sony is a gm macro whenever they decide to release that. Until that the me it's off to getting more photos
Gandalf2401 wrote:
IMHO the main reason to get first party lenses is to get the whole potential out of the camera. Potential in terms of maximum shutter speed (20 or 30 shots per second for A9 or A1) or for speed and accuracy of autofocus. Both matter for wildlife, sport and probably event fotography but hardly for landscapes with manual focus and slow operations.
There portability and image quality stepped down are important.
And there is the reason GAS to reach for the newest and best. 😊
Please don't take this the wrong way, Gas is a valid reason to purchase gear, I'm susceptible for it too:
A7R3,A9,1224G,2875G2,100400Sigma,
200600Sony,1,4TC,24GM,90G macro, 85 viltrox 1,8...
I have the 70-200/2.8GMv1 and it is nice on my A9mkI. It is heavy though.
I also had the 70-200/4 as a light weight alternative for when I didn't need f2.8, but I sold it and got the Tamron 70-180/2.8 as a light weight alternative that I also bought a 3d party lens collar for.
The Tamron is image quality wise a tad better than the GMv1 and a lot lighter.
It is actually lighter than the GMv2.
But the Tamron only makes 15 fps on A9/A9II and A1.
At times I think I shall stay with my two lens setup and at times I think I should sell them and get the GMv2. But I think I'll wait until I get a high fps body with more than 24 Mpix as my A9 is.
I have owned bought and sold the 70-200 f4 a couple times. For some reason I'm not all that impressed with it but I love it for it's light weight. Another thing is the fact that it can't take TC's which seems like an odd omission for a tele lens. I think the new 70-200 gm ii would fit better for you but even after selling both lenses you'd still need to out a few hundred dollars on top. If you already have TC's you're set to go.
lattesweden wrote:
I have the 70-200/2.8GMv1 and it is nice on my A9mkI. It is heavy though.
I also had the 70-200/4 as a light weight alternative for when I didn't need f2.8, but I sold it and got the Tamron 70-180/2.8 as a light weight alternative that I also bought a 3d party lens collar for.
The Tamron is image quality wise a tad better than the GMv1 and a lot lighter.
It is actually lighter than the GMv2.
But the Tamron only makes 15 fps on A9/A9II and A1.
At times I think I shall stay with my two lens setup and at times I think I should sell them and get the GMv2. But I think I'll wait until I get a high fps body with more than 24 Mpix as my A9 is....Show more →
