p.6 #2 · Official: Sony FE 70-200mm f/4 G OSS II Lens
It might be worth adding a line to the above table:
Color: White, White, Black
For street and travel, the white color of the 70-200 lenses can be a significant deterrent.
I wonder why the new 70-200 F4 GII should be white? This does not make any sense to me.
p.6 #4 · Official: Sony FE 70-200mm f/4 G OSS II Lens
ruthenium wrote:
It might be worth adding a line to the above table:
Color: White, White, Black
For street and travel, the white color of the 70-200 lenses can be a significant deterrent.
I wonder why the new 70-200 F4 GII should be white? This does not make any sense to me.
I’ve travelled a lot with my Canon 70-200 f4 lens and never felt its colour attacked extra attention. A big lens is a big lens no matter its colour. How one acts while shooting has much more impact on being noticed than the colour of equipment.
p.6 #5 · Official: Sony FE 70-200mm f/4 G OSS II Lens
ruthenium wrote:
It might be worth adding a line to the above table:
Color: White, White, Black
For street and travel, the white color of the 70-200 lenses can be a significant deterrent.
I wonder why the new 70-200 F4 GII should be white? This does not make any sense to me.
I added the color... theres always vinyl wrap or lenscoat though
p.6 #6 · Official: Sony FE 70-200mm f/4 G OSS II Lens
White lenses reflect sunlight and in sunny, hot climates will be cooler than black ones. The physics of a lens barrel can change the relationships of the lens elements in the presence of heat.
Jul 14, 2023 at 11:11 AM
berimbolo Offline • • • [X]
p.6 #7 · Official: Sony FE 70-200mm f/4 G OSS II Lens
Does the magnification of the GMII also increase when a TC is added?
p.6 #8 · Official: Sony FE 70-200mm f/4 G OSS II Lens
chez wrote:
I’ve travelled a lot with my Canon 70-200 f4 lens and never felt its colour attacked extra attention. A big lens is a big lens no matter its colour. How one acts while shooting has much more impact on being noticed than the colour of equipment.
I got the hunch that it is more the operator that feels like that his/her lens attracts attention. Overconscientious comes to mind…
p.6 #11 · Official: Sony FE 70-200mm f/4 G OSS II Lens
doc4x5 wrote:
White lenses reflect sunlight and in sunny, hot climates will be cooler than black ones. The physics of a lens barrel can change the relationships of the lens elements in the presence of heat.
A good point, but then why white lenses are exceptionally rare? Why aren't these matched by white bodies designed for hot climes? I have much doubt about the choice of color for the new 70-200 GII was decided on the basis of some physics.
p.6 #12 · Official: Sony FE 70-200mm f/4 G OSS II Lens
ruthenium wrote:
A good point, but then why white lenses are exceptionally rare? Why aren't these matched by white bodies designed for hot climes? I have much doubt about the choice of color for the new 70-200 GII was decided on the basis of some physics.
Is plastic originally black and white color paint is extra production process/cost?
They still had to paint metal bodies of 70-200 and super teles. White is a more reasonable choice.
When you come to places such as Southern Turkey - you will see that 80% cars are white.
You can feel how much heat a 1kg 135mm lens can accumulate under direct hot sun. I never used super teles but can imagine that heavy lens body and large heavy glass will get hot and stay hot.
p.6 #13 · Official: Sony FE 70-200mm f/4 G OSS II Lens
ruthenium wrote:
A good point, but then why white lenses are exceptionally rare? Why aren't these matched by white bodies designed for hot climes? I have much doubt about the choice of color for the new 70-200 GII was decided on the basis of some physics.
Actually there is physics behind the choice of white paint for larger lenses. White reflects heat keeping the lens cooler than say black. Heat generated in larger lens can result is slight warping of the elements throwing off the alignment thus producing sub optimal images. This does not occur in smaller lenses to any degree that would affect the quality of images.
p.6 #14 · Official: Sony FE 70-200mm f/4 G OSS II Lens
berimbolo wrote:
Does the magnification of the GMII also increase when a TC is added?
By definition that’s what a TC does… it increases the magnification for any lens it’s attached to, by exactly the stated magnification factor, 1.4 or 2x depending on the TC you picked
However in theory on a sensor with unlimited resolution and a perfect TC, you can simply crop and get the same results as a TC.
In practice the TC is not perfect… there’s resolution loss to the additional optics. The way to think about this, is that the higher the sensor resolution, the less value the TC beings to the table
Personally it’s just annoying taking the TC on and off 😅 I think a built in one is much more palatable
p.6 #15 · Official: Sony FE 70-200mm f/4 G OSS II Lens
Price aside, it comes down to whether f/2.8, internal zoom and the aperture ring is worth carrying a 5cm longer, 200g heavier lens that has less magnification. People are going to value these things differently
Personally I can live without the aperture ring, it’s more of a tie breaker type feature.
However I would take one stop (f/2.8) in exchange for a mere 250g extra weight any day. Back in the day a 70-200/2.8L was 1500g and the f/4 was 760g… a more significant 750g difference!
Notice the weight difference between the 35GM and the 35/1.8 is also 260g, so to be internally consistent someone who picks the 70-200/4 for weight reasons would also pick the 35/1.8 over the 35GM
I would also value internal zoom over a mere 5cm extra length, because both lenses require minimally a 10L sling anyway and will not fit into a 6L. Therefore there is no practical change in bag size for me. Maybe the 5cm difference will let me put two filter boxes under the lens.
It’s the longer lenses like the 200-600 which I find troublesome to pack due to its length… if that could be made 20cm long it would be amazing
Regarding magnification more is always better, but there are also diminishing returns with magnification. We are taking filling the frame vertically with a 2.4/0.5x = 4.8cm object (f/4G) vs a 2.4/0.3x = 8cm object (f/2.8 GMii).
If one is shooting small stuff a majority of a time, a true macro fills the frame with a 2.4cm object and can’t be beaten.
For the occasional macro one would have to crop in more if the subject is smaller than 12cm vertically on the GMii, it’s the equivalent of having to punch into apsc mode for the macro shot to match the f/4 in magnification
p.6 #16 · Official: Sony FE 70-200mm f/4 G OSS II Lens
This new lens is certainly intriguing. I have a A7RV and 2x TC which makes this lens have a range of 70-600 (in APS-C mode) with macro capability while being smaller/lighter than the GM II. That would be incredibly versatile for travel.
Losing F2.8 is the only downside... though if I sell the GM II and pick up the new F4 II + used Tamron, I'll get the best of both worlds. In situations where I'd want to use F2.8 (indoor sports/theatre for my kids) a black lens would definitely attract less attention.
p.6 #17 · Official: Sony FE 70-200mm f/4 G OSS II Lens
aCuria wrote:
Notice the weight difference between the 35GM and the 35/1.8 is also 260g, so to be internally consistent someone who picks the 70-200/4 for weight reasons would also pick the 35/1.8 over the 35GM
Weight affects handling more than packing for me. I can comfortably grip the newer Sony bodies with a 600-700g lens. 800g would be pushing it but still OK for short stints. 1045g + the extra length of the GM II puts way too much stress on my wrist without an external grip, which also adds 300g+ to the total weight. So the 260g difference is more like a 550g+ difference in actual use. YMMV.
p.6 #18 · Official: Sony FE 70-200mm f/4 G OSS II Lens
snappu wrote:
This new lens is certainly intriguing. I have a A7RV and 2x TC which makes this lens have a range of 70-600 (in APS-C mode) with macro capability while being smaller/lighter than the GM II. That would be incredibly versatile for travel.
Losing F2.8 is the only downside... though if I sell the GM II and pick up the new F4 II + used Tamron, I'll get the best of both worlds. In situations where I'd want to use F2.8 (indoor sports/theatre for my kids) a black lens would definitely attract less attention.
If you are carrying a 2x TC the GMii is already a 140mm 0.6x macro, or a 210 0.9x macro if you punch into apsc
Meanwhile the Tamron autofocus isn’t nearly as good for the sports use case
p.6 #19 · Official: Sony FE 70-200mm f/4 G OSS II Lens
That's not the same as the F4 II that does 1:2 macro throughout the zoom range though. A 1:2 macro at 70mm, for example, is quite useful for product photos. Honestly I don't think I'd miss the F2.8 that much. All my other zooms are F4.
p.6 #20 · Official: Sony FE 70-200mm f/4 G OSS II Lens
snappu wrote:
That's not the same as the F4 II that does 1:2 macro throughout the zoom range though. A 1:2 macro at 70mm, for example, is quite useful for product photos. Honestly I don't think I'd miss the F2.8 that much. All my other zooms are F4.
I have found that the lens speed affects tracking performance sadly… I did make a post about this some months ago
This was comparing 200/2.8 to 200/5.6 when tracking birds flying over water
It’s unlikely the f/4 will match the 2.8 for sports just because of this alone
...
: