p.5 #1 · Official: Sony FE 70-200mm f/4 G OSS II Lens
Our eval copies are supposed to come in the next couple of weeks. I'm excited about it. If it's as substantial an update optically as it is from a usability perspective, the 70-200 GM II may have some real competition for my heart.
I think the size and weight and the ability to use TCs is going to make this lens a favorite addition for people already in love with the 20-70G. Round it off with a fast prime in your most-used focal length and you'd have a nicely compact, highly versatile travel kit.
p.5 #2 · Official: Sony FE 70-200mm f/4 G OSS II Lens
Wow impressive design and features. I opted for an RF 70-200 F4 thanks to the form factor and IQ. Absolutely love the feel of it, but drooling over this with 1.4TC.
p.5 #3 · Official: Sony FE 70-200mm f/4 G OSS II Lens
Alan Parker wrote:
Reading Marc's conclusion from Sonyalpha.blog makes sense to me:
"It absolute term it is an excellent lens but at this price tag : +50% vs V1 and +50% vs the Tamron and only 33% less than the F2.8 GM II it is a difficult sell unless you absolutely need a super efficient AF and a very compact form factor"
It's by all means a good lens, but at 2000 euros I don't see the value being that good for the costumer; picking up a Tamron 70-180 on sale might be a better deal at 1000 euros. Typical case of European pricing hurting customers.
Interesting point that Marc makes is that the lens seems to be a bit better suited for 42MP vs 61MP, which is a bit of a 'yikes' for a 2000 euro lens....Show more →
While I have a great deal of respect for Marc and his testing, as his results generally parallel my own experience with various lenses - such is not always absolute. When the Tamron 35-150mm f2-f2.8 was released, I initially passed on this lens due to his mediocre rating. Based upon other testers' results, I finally acquired this lens and was really pleased with the IQ, which closely rivals my GM II lenses in that range in highly critical testing on 61mp. Perplexed, I chalked the perceptual differences up copy variation. Single copy tests will never be fully valid, statistically speaking.
With Sony's recent string of lens releases, all with outstanding performance characteristics, I find it really difficult to believe that the new Sony f4 lens does not perform better than what Marc showed in his charts, but I guess I will just wait and see.
I also respect Christopher Frost's testing and his tests show the lens to be generally, outstanding.
I do not need this lens (that has never stopped me ), but do find the macro capabilities a bit compelling. We'll see. I'm in no hurry.
p.5 #5 · Official: Sony FE 70-200mm f/4 G OSS II Lens
WillR wrote:
So I bought a used Tamron 70-180 a few months ago for a trip, and I was prepared to feel buyer's remorse when the new Sony 70-200 f/4 came out.
But actually I'm not. Both lenses are about the same size, and while the external buttons and switches on the Sony are nice, I'm pretty surprised that there is no aperture ring. I don't use teleconverters, so really the main advantage of the Sony is the built in OSS. But I'd losing a stop of brightness compared to the Tamron, and the Sony filter thread is different than most of my other lenses.
Even if the new Sony had been available a couple of months ago, I don't know that i would have gone for it, especially given the cost.
I'm with you and several posters as well as the SonyAlphaBlog. Considered in isolation, this is no doubt a high-performing lens with top notch AF, OSS, ergonomics, and a white body that you would covet. Compared with the massive bang-for-buck and equally compact size you would get from the Tamron 70-180 however, the Sony is a hard sell.
Personally I had skipped the Sony F2.8 and F4 and gone for the 70-180 for much the same reasons, but later migrated to the 35-150 which I find much more versatile. I would argue that being in the same price point, the 35-150 is a valid comparator the Sony 70-200 II - the Tamron is somewhat heavier but similar length too the Sony, and at the short end the Tamron at F2.5 has a 1 1/3 stop advantage.
My use cases involve more low light and portraits so naturally I'm in the brighter the better camp, but can see the attraction of the Sony F4 II for those who shoot more daylight stuff and macro.
Finally if I were being super picky, the Sony is not probably not as compact or light as they could have made it (the Canon RF F/4 is some 100g lighter and 30cm shorter) but I suspected they prioritised macro as the USP.
p.5 #6 · Official: Sony FE 70-200mm f/4 G OSS II Lens
Nice. 30cm shorter would be great!
Why do people keep comparing this to the Tamron? Obviously, you pay less because it's 3rd party and has some shortcomings ... It doesn't mean it's a better lens.
Each has their own priorities. In the Sony land, you can choose.
p.5 #9 · Official: Sony FE 70-200mm f/4 G OSS II Lens
dljor23 wrote:
Nice. 30cm shorter would be great!
Why do people keep comparing this to the Tamron? Obviously, you pay less because it's 3rd party and has some shortcomings ... It doesn't mean it's a better lens.
Each has their own priorities. In the Sony land, you can choose.
Why do they compare it to the Tamron? Because it's the same size, same weight, generally the same range, is a full stop faster and significantly cheaper. It's also optically outstanding. Why wouldn't you compare them? It doesn't mean everyone will come to the same conclusion about which is right for them, but they are 100% in the same discussion with each other.
p.5 #10 · Official: Sony FE 70-200mm f/4 G OSS II Lens
EU prices have always been on the high side, the weak yen probably doesn't help in this regard either.
As for the lens, it's a nice update over the old, admittedly long in the tooth 70-200G. I was surprised to see them make this a 0.5x macro throughout the range. However, since the camera makers don't make long macro primes anymore, this certainly fills a niche. Albert has shown a nice range of use cases already.
Personally, I've been very happy with my GM2, so no interest here, but it's a nice addition to the e-mount line-up.
Any bets on what's next? The long rumored 85 GM successors, the second iteration of the 16-35 GM or something else?
p.5 #11 · Official: Sony FE 70-200mm f/4 G OSS II Lens
Uncle Chip wrote:
2.8 vs f4 with stabe, I believe the stabe will be slightly better overall in low light, so the 2.8 is for background blur,
Uh, the stabilizer doesn't do squat about the subject moving...
p.5 #12 · Official: Sony FE 70-200mm f/4 G OSS II Lens
obudu wrote:
I just saw this lens review on Christopher Frost YouTube. Interesting lens but I just got 70-200 GM ii lens last week and love it. I am not even sure this lens can surpass old 70-200 GM 1.
“Surpass” is definitely up to each photographers interpretation. The 2 areas where I see the 70-200 f2.8 “Surpass” the new f4 Macro version are that it can shoot at f2.8 and the corners are a bit sharper up until about f8. Maybe these are the most important things for you and that is fine, no argument from me. Enjoy your new 70-200 f2.8, it is a beautiful lens.
But for me and my intended use of the 70-200 f4 for traveling as my longer FL zoom I see 6 ways it “Surpasses” the 70-200 f2.8 GM V1 or II. I have listed these advantages in my order of preference:
1. Smaller size and compactness. This lens fits mounted to my A7RIV standing up in only 1 slot of my travel bag. The 70-200 f2.8 either version will not fit mounted in my travel bag and requires a larger and heavier bag. I can fit 2 bodies with mounted lenses in my bag standing up, so either is ready at a moments notice to shoot away.
2. Cost Savings. In the US the f4 version is $1,100 less than the f2.8 V II. With this savings I plan on buying the brand new A6700 AND the 70-200 f4 lens for only $298 more than the 70-200 f2.8 V II alone. I now have instantly a 105-300mm f4 lens at the ready on the 2nd body in my travel bag.
3. Full 1:2 Macro capabilities at all focal lengths. Plus with my existing 1.4x TC and in the crop mode of the A6700 or my A7RIV it is a 1:1 macro. The 70-200 f2.8 does not have any way near the Macro capabilities on this new lens.
4. Weight savings. When traveling via air, every ounce counts and the 251 grams savings of the f4 vs the f2.8 V II (no tripod collars) means I can bring another fast small prime lens in my kit for the same weight. For 99% of my intended shooting it will be used without the collar and when needed on a tripod the setup can be used via mounting the camera body to the tripod. With the 70-200 f2.8 you need to add the tripod collar for shooting on a tripod and that adds over 100 grams.
5. Close focus ability. The new 70-200 f4 can close focus at less than 1 foot, the 70-200 f2.8 close focus is approx. 2 times longer at the short end and 3 times longer at 200mm.
6. AF speed acquisition. Per the 2 videos Patrick Murphy Racy put out yesterday, he is Sony’s US top sports shooter Ambassador, he says the new 70-200 f4 AF speed is the best of any Sony lens he has and surpasses the 70-200 f2.8 VII.
p.5 #13 · Official: Sony FE 70-200mm f/4 G OSS II Lens
SpecFoto wrote:
“Surpass” is definitely up to each photographer interpretation. The 2 areas where I see the 70-200 f2.8 “Surpass” the new f4 Macro version are that it can shoot at f2.8 and the corners are a bit sharper up until about f8. Maybe these are the most important things for you and that is fine, no argument from me. Enjoy your new 70-200 f2.8, it is a beautiful lens.
But for me and my intended use of the 70-200 f4 for traveling as my longer FL zoom I see 6 ways it “Surpasses” the 70-200 f2.8 GM V1 or II. I have listed these advantages in my order of preference:
1. Smaller size and compactness. This lens fits mounted to my A7RIV standing up in only 1 slot of my travel bag. The 70-200 f2.8 either version will not fit mounted in my travel bag and requires a larger and heavier bag. I can fit 2 bodies with mounted lenses in my bag standing up, so either is ready at a moments notice to shoot away.
2. Cost Savings. In the US the f4 version is $1,100 less than the f2.8 V II. With this savings I plan on buying the brand new A6700 AND the 70-200 f4 lens for only $298 more than the 70-200 f2.8 V II alone. I now have instantly a 105-300mm f4 lens at the ready on the 2nd body in my travel bag.
3. Full 1:2 Macro capabilities at all focal lengths. Plus with my existing 1.4x TC and in the crop mode of the A6700 or my A7RIV it is a 1:1 macro. The 70-200 f2.8 does not have any way near the Macro capabilities on this new lens.
4. Weight savings. When traveling via air, every ounce counts and the 251 grams savings of the f4 vs the f2.8 V II (no tripod collars) means I can bring another fast f2 prime lens in my kit for the same weight. For 99% of my intended shooting it will be used without the collar and when needed on a tripod the setup can be used via mounting the camera body to the tripod. With the 70-200 f2.8 you need to add the tripod collar for shooting on a tripod and that adds over 100 grams.
5. Close focus ability. The new 70-200 f4 can close focus at less than 1 foot, the 70-200 f2.8 close focus is approx. 2 times longer at the short end and 3 times longer at 200mm.
6. AF speed acquisition. Per the 2 videos Patrick Murphy Racy put out yesterday, he is Sony’s US top sports shooter Ambassador, he says the new 70-200 f4 AF speed is the best of any Sony lens he has and surpasses the 70-200 f2.8 VII. ...Show more →
With regards to point 6, I think this lens could be amazing for macro video of wildlife.
p.5 #14 · Official: Sony FE 70-200mm f/4 G OSS II Lens
Daran wrote:
Uh, the stabilizer doesn't do squat about the subject moving...
If you hand hold a 200mm lens without stabe then they say minimum shutter is the FL so 200th
If you hand hold a 200mm lens with 2 stops of stabe then you should get a shutter of 50th all things being equal,
I did say “low light” in the post, on a bright day with higher shutter speeds the stabe plays less into it,
Sure if you do fast action the GMii would be the way to go, but I was comparing to the tammy 180-200 where many reviews says the AF isn’t good enough for fast action, this then reduced the 2.8 advantage from my perspective
p.5 #15 · Official: Sony FE 70-200mm f/4 G OSS II Lens
I love the 70-200 GM II. The IQ is really great and when I travel I commonly take this lens. The original f4 is not optically as good across the frame and would like to see how much improvement with the new version. However, when doing street shooting when traveling the narrower DOF at 2.8 can make the difference of a good vs great shot.
p.5 #16 · Official: Sony FE 70-200mm f/4 G OSS II Lens
I'm giving it some serious consideration.
The lack of teleconverter compatibility put me off the original and the Tamron 70-180.
A smaller and lighter weight telephoto lens is something I've been wanting to go with my 100-400.
My use case will be for landscapes with a bit of wildlife thrown in and I can also use it for macro shots in the forest as well.
I've already got both teleconverters and it's also short enough to fit in my Evoc Hip Capture 7 camera waist pack that I cycle with.
Nothing else will offer me 70-400 along with macro at this size. I'm also curious to try macro with longer focal lengths, as mentioned already no one is really making long macros these days. The really hard to get OM 90mm the only one that springs to mind.
p.5 #17 · Official: Sony FE 70-200mm f/4 G OSS II Lens
The Sony 70-200 G f/4 II looks like another very good lens option, although I will happily stick with my Tamron 70-180.
Sony 70-200 GM f/2.8 II: Excellent image quality, OSS, f/2.8, relatively light for what it is although the heaviest of this group, takes teleconverters. On the downsides, relatively low maximum magnification (although not unusual for its class), expensive.
Sony 70-200 G f/4 II: Gives up a stop of aperture. Still has OSS and takes teleconverters. Cheaper than the GM f/2.8 II but still fairly expensive. Is more compact than the GM f/2.8 II, relatively light for what it is (although not as much lighter than the GM f/2.8 II as I, and I think many others, were anticipating), and has relatively high maximum magnification.
Tamron 70-180 f/2.8: Gives up 20mm at the long end, OSS and the ability to take teleconverters. Not as good for tracking fast moving action as the GM and the G(?) (My Tamron has been fine for tracking moving subjects but equally I haven't yet used it to try to photograph fast, erratically moving subjects.) However, it is f/2.8 but at a size and weight, and with a relatively high maximum magnification, similar to the G f/4 II (although the maximum magnification is not as high as the G f/4 II can get when used with a teleconverter), and is the cheapest lens of this group.
Pick your poison.
EDIT: As noted in a later post, I overlooked the fact the Tamron 70-180's maximum magnfication matches that of the G f/4 II only at 70mm and using manual focus. Otherwise, the Tamron actually has lower maximum magnification than the G and GM (atlhough I believe not much that lower than the GM f/2.8 II).
p.5 #18 · Official: Sony FE 70-200mm f/4 G OSS II Lens
I have a dumb question, if I take a picture of a coin with the Sony 90mm macro lens at MFD, then take a picture of the same coin with the new Sony 70-200 G II at 200mm and MFD, which picture will have a bigger coin? I know the 90mm macro's magnification is 1:1, the 70-200 is 1:2, but at 200mm.
p.5 #19 · Official: Sony FE 70-200mm f/4 G OSS II Lens
Douglas L wrote:
I have a dumb question, if I take a picture of a coin with the Sony 90mm macro lens at MFD, then take a picture of the same coin with the new Sony 70-200 G II at 200mm and MFD, which picture will have a bigger coin? I know the 90mm macro's magnification is 1:1, the 70-200 is 1:2, but at 200mm.
The former picture will display a bigger coin. The FL is irrelevant at the MFD when the lens "magnification" tells how the subject is going to be scaled. 1:1 "magnification" means that the subject is reproduced 1:1 on the sensor. 1:2 "magnification" means that the subject is reduced in size by 50% on the camera sensor.
p.5 #20 · Official: Sony FE 70-200mm f/4 G OSS II Lens
JD07 wrote:
The Sony 70-200 GM f/4 II looks like another very good lens option, although I will happily stick with my Tamron 70-180.
Sony 70-200 GM f/2.8 II: Excellent image quality, OSS, f/2.8, relatively light for what it is although the heaviest of this group, takes teleconverters. On the downsides, relatively low maximum magnification (although not unusual for its class), expensive.
Sony 70-200 GM f/4 II: Gives up a stop of aperture. Still has OSS and takes teleconverters. Cheaper than the GM f/2.8 II but still fairly expensive. Is more compact than the GM f/2.8 II, relatively light for what it is although not as much lighter than the GM f/2.8 II as I, and I think many others, were anticipating), and has relatively high maximum magnification.
Tamron 70-180 f/2.8: Gives up 20mm at the long end, OSS and the ability to take teleconverters. Not as good for tracking fast moving action as the GMs(?) (My Tamron has been fine for tracking moving subjects but equally I haven't yet used it to try to photograph fast, erratically moving subjects.) However, it is f/2.8 but at a size and weight, and with a relatively high maximum magnification, similar to the GM f/4 II (although the maximum magnification is not as high as the GM f/4 II can get when used with a teleconverter), and is the cheapest lens of this group.
For semi-macro, I find myself more interested in the Tamron 50-400mm f/4.5-6.3 Di III VC VXD lens.
It features
Minimum Object Distance 0.25m (9.8 in) (WIDE) /1.5m (59.1 in) (TELE)
Maximum Magnification Ratio 1:2 (WIDE) / 1:4 (TELE)
Thus, the lens has the "maximum magnification ratio of 1:2 (half-macro) shooting with an MFD of 0.25m (9.8 in) at the 50mm zoom setting and 0.27m (10.6 in) at the 70mm."
I actually like the MFD of 1.5 m (59.1 in) at 400 mm when the magnification is still reasonably decent at 0.25. The MFD of 1.5 m is convenient when photographing insects, butterflies, and similar, in a natural environment, when too often one must maintain a certain distance from the subject, and 1.5 m is almost "the right distance" for such cases.
), but do find the macro capabilities a bit compelling. We'll see. I'm in no hurry.