I have the 2.8 Mk2 and it is amazing, I never own a Mk1 but I did rent it a couple of times and the copy I used was very good. I also have the 100-400 which is another great lenses which when out and about doubles up as a macro as you can get so close to your subjects with it.
Local store happened to get 1 MK2 in stock so I jumped on it. Initial impressions, wow its light compared to the v1. Focus is fast, and otherwise..... its a lens :-) . Looking forward to field testing.
peasant_slave wrote:
Does the AF of 70-200 mk2 rival the 135 gm?
As I understand it, the GM 135mm has dual linear motors and the 70-200mm Mk II has four motors. In normal use, I cannot tell a difference. I have shot sports with the 135 and never had a problem with it keeping up.
Chuck Coyne wrote:
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!
