p.9 #1 · Official: Sony FE 70-200mm f/4 G OSS II Lens
Erichimedes wrote:
Was full time DMF switched on or off? With such a smooth focus ring it'd be easy to bump it, especially with moving subjects like you have there.
Sorry for the late reply. I made a lot of test shots (around 400) and the results were pretty consistant but in the bad side. More than 80% were OOF. Installed the sony app to check the focus point and no, it just didn't focus properly.
Back to the shop, put some more money and bought the 70-200 2.8 II for second time haha
p.9 #3 · Official: Sony FE 70-200mm f/4 G OSS II Lens
For my part, I am more than happy with the 70-200mm f4 II. It's not as versatile as the f2.8 II and the pictures are, in some cases, less distinctive, but for a walk-about lens, shooting mainly at f5.6, it's as good as I need and practical to carry around. It's less obtrusive than the f2.8 II, at least when pulled down to 70mm, and slightly lighter. The stabilization seems a bit better than the f2.8 II, but that may just be an illusion.
Anyway, when I'm on my travels, this is the 70-200mm that will come with me.
p.9 #4 · Official: Sony FE 70-200mm f/4 G OSS II Lens
Have you guys tried our your new 70-200 f4 II yet? I went out the the backyard and shot some 'wildlife'. The light wasn't great. But I get the feeling that, wide open, it is not as biting as the GMs. Do you feel the same?
p.9 #5 · Official: Sony FE 70-200mm f/4 G OSS II Lens
Goodrich wrote:
For my part, I am more than happy with the 70-200mm f4 II. It's not as versatile as the f2.8 II and the pictures are, in some cases, less distinctive, but for a walk-about lens, shooting mainly at f5.6, it's as good as I need and practical to carry around. It's less obtrusive than the f2.8 II, at least when pulled down to 70mm, and slightly lighter. The stabilization seems a bit better than the f2.8 II, but that may just be an illusion.
Anyway, when I'm on my travels, this is the 70-200mm that will come with me.
That's the problem with F4 zooms - they don't provide that look that F2.8 zooms are capable of.
I had similar experience with Canon EF 70-200 f4 IS. I had it for a week and immediately substituted it with Canon EF 70-200 f2.8 II IS. [email protected] always delivers.
I always felt 70-200 2.8 is a sort of a cheater lens. Easiest to take great pictures with. You just start with [email protected] and if it is too tight you just zoom out a bit staying at 2.8. Best possible result almost guaranteed.
p.9 #7 · Official: Sony FE 70-200mm f/4 G OSS II Lens
I decided to give this lens a try as I like the idea of a compact lens that can do double duty for macro and pair up with my 20-70 G to make an f/4 duo. This will likely replace my 70-200 GM II for the size/weight reduction and 0.5 magnfication.
p.9 #8 · Official: Sony FE 70-200mm f/4 G OSS II Lens
chez wrote:
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.
That was a valid concern back in the late 1960's and early 1970's, when Canon started using natural fluorite lens elements - but since the subsequent development of synthetic fluorite glass, the white lens barrels have been more of a brand identification marketing gimmick than anything else.
I'm a bit surprised by the high price tag for the new 70-200 f4 ($2.399 here in Canada) but from a practical standpoint, this would replace the 90mm f2.8 G and 100-400mm f4.5-5.6 GM lenses in my bag when I'm out and about with the 200-600 zoom, which would save a lot of money as well as a lot of weight.
As for the less than stellar test chart results, I wonder if any of those testers have compared the results from different RAW converters? I'm seeing more and more anecdotal evidence that using Adobe RAW may contribute to image quality issues with some lenses, and this lens being newly introduced may not have given Adobe time to refine their lens corrections...
p.9 #9 · Official: Sony FE 70-200mm f/4 G OSS II Lens
I would test them against each other before selling off the 2.8. Mine on hand not sure anything could beat it but im not traveling much with it and that maybe more important for some.
p.9 #10 · Official: Sony FE 70-200mm f/4 G OSS II Lens
I tested and bought this lens the day it was released, returning the f2.8 70-200 GMII, for a trip to Alaska where weight and space were at an absolute premium. (I also liked that I was able to hold the camera body with one hand and use the other hand to adjust the manual focus ring, which I couldnt with the GM).A few representative results are attached - these pictures were just "auto" processed on Lightroom on my iPad, pending getting back and doing proper adjustments.
I'm a first time poster, so the photos can be seen here https://www.amazon.com/photos/groups/share/rXMpYXGYQUufqH2AR3esxw.rM6hHH6ppChFwSLqOiGRKT
Update: I have the a7iv, and the other lens I took was the newish Sony G 20-70 f4. For my purposes, I’ve generally found that in terms of light, if it’s took dark for f4, f2.8 isn’t really enough, and have found that as amazing as some of the G Master lenses are, the slight step down in quality to a slower aperture is acceptable for the weight savings.
p.9 #14 · Official: Sony FE 70-200mm f/4 G OSS II Lens
1st one...This isn't a true test because I just mounted & shot ignoring all sorts of parameters. I wouldn't base much on these shots but if you want a macro flash the Sigma can be had pretty cheap. I got this when they were still making them for A Mount for a little over $100 ( I doubt you could find a used one for that price though).
p.9 #17 · Official: Sony FE 70-200mm f/4 G OSS II Lens
I think I was having the same issue. Shot with f4 and f5.6 and both were a little out of focus. Shot at f8 and everything was sharp.
Just like you I got the gm ii again
Bizhouse wrote:
Sorry for the late reply. I made a lot of test shots (around 400) and the results were pretty consistant but in the bad side. More than 80% were OOF. Installed the sony app to check the focus point and no, it just didn't focus properly.
Back to the shop, put some more money and bought the 70-200 2.8 II for second time haha
p.9 #19 · Official: Sony FE 70-200mm f/4 G OSS II Lens
IQ is similar imo, and you'll be getting f2.8 with the 70-200.
One of the biggest differences to me is the zoom ring. The 100-400's zoom ring has much more resistance to turn and is more difficult to work with when photographing fast moving subjects.
TravelinBriNY wrote:
I am still trying to understand how this compares to the 100-400 GM in overlapping focal lengths...
p.9 #20 · Official: Sony FE 70-200mm f/4 G OSS II Lens
Think he's talking about the 70-200 f/4 G Macro.
ktchiu1017 wrote:
IQ is similar imo, and you'll be getting f2.8 with the 70-200.
One of the biggest differences to me is the zoom ring. The 100-400's zoom ring has much more resistance to turn and is more difficult to work with when photographing fast moving subjects.
