First thread here, I’m new to the forum. I’ve been researching 70-200 lenses for a couple weeks now and I’m still having a hard time deciding on which 70-200 lens to go with. I mainly do automotive photography and I use a 24-70 GM for that, but I’m planning a trip later this month (thinking out west toward Utah/Colorado) and I want another lens to bring with. I’m thinking 70-200 because I have an A7iii so there’s not much resolution to be able to crop in if I need to, and I really like what I’ve seen people do with that focal length.
Here’s where I’m stuck; should I go with the 70-200 GMii or would the 70-200 Gii be “good enough”? Or is the 70-200 not as versatile as I’m thinking for my use case and it would just be a waste? Let me know, I’ve almost purchased the GMii but stopped myself because it almost seems like a wasteful purchase lol. I’ve also been recommended to just upgrade to an A7RV instead and use APS-C mode with my 24-70. Too many options!
If you are going to be using it for traveling and hiking around and don't have a specific need for f2.8, go with the 70-200 GII. It's less expensive, more compact, lighter and has some additional macro capabilities. I have both the G II, and the GM II. In my personal experience the GII performs a bit better optically closer to 70mm and the GM II better as close in on 200mm, but both are excellent. The GM II probably works better with TCs as well, but I haven't used my TC on the G II yet.
Pretty much all of the 70-180/200 mm lenses are good options. But living in Colorado, I will say you need a good CPL. The sun is very bright here.
Duramaxjon wrote:
First thread here, I’m new to the forum. I’ve been researching 70-200 lenses for a couple weeks now and I’m still having a hard time deciding on which 70-200 lens to go with. I mainly do automotive photography and I use a 24-70 GM for that, but I’m planning a trip later this month (thinking out west toward Utah/Colorado) and I want another lens to bring with. I’m thinking 70-200 because I have an A7iii so there’s not much resolution to be able to crop in if I need to, and I really like what I’ve seen people do with that focal length.
Here’s where I’m stuck; should I go with the 70-200 GMii or would the 70-200 Gii be “good enough”? Or is the 70-200 not as versatile as I’m thinking for my use case and it would just be a waste? Let me know, I’ve almost purchased the GMii but stopped myself because it almost seems like a wasteful purchase lol. I’ve also been recommended to just upgrade to an A7RV instead and use APS-C mode with my 24-70. Too many options!...Show more →
In my experience, when shooting moving subjects, the longer the lens the more important a brighter aperture is. While the 70-200 GMii does not weigh much more than the 70-200 Gii, it is considerably physically longer when in the camera bag.
This means you probably want to use a camera backpack or roller to carry it. The 70-200GMii will fit into a peak design 10L sling, but this is horizontally with the lens attached to the camera. You will not be able to carry an additional lens with the sling situation
If you intend to shoot landscapes off a tripod, then you can use a slower lens
Thanks for the information so far. I should have specified that I don’t intend on hiking with the camera, but rather just stopping at scenic views and grabbing some photos handheld or on a tripod.
To anyone that has both the GMii and Gii, are the colors and sharpness very similar or is the G lens a bit softer throughout? I notice the GM lenses to always provide a super crisp image and very accurate colors that I don’t see in other lenses
Duramaxjon wrote:
To anyone that has both the GMii and Gii, are the colors and sharpness very similar or is the G lens a bit softer throughout? I notice the GM lenses to always provide a super crisp image and very accurate colors that I don’t see in other lenses
I suspect it's highly unlikely you'll find someone owning both lenses since they're so similar. But as others have said, the 70-200mm zooms from all major manufacturers have been fantastic for a very long time. I own the f/2.8 GM II version which is phenomenal. But prior to that I was adapting the Canon 70-200m f/2.8L III zoom from 7-8 years ago, and it was similarly spectacular, and prior to that I used the 15 year old 70-200mm f/4 L, which was also fantastic. This tells me that the optical formulas for such a zoom have been ironed out a long time ago, so you can't go wrong with any of them.
Also, I am not sure that a G-lens would be automatically inferior to a GM counterpart. I have the 40mm G and I've rented the 20mm G. They're slower than GM primes I have, but otherwise are comparable optically and have a similar build quality.
TLDR: I am not pushing you towards the f/4 version, but suggesting that perhaps the only difference worth paying attention to is the weight/speed trade-off and, of course, the price.
I had the same question about half a year ago. Here, this thread: https://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/1903192/0#16820183. I ended up with the Tamron 70-180 and added a third party lens collar with an Arca-Swiss foot on it. Very happy.
I have the 70-200 GM II and it’s fantastic. Renders beautifully, is super sharp, etc. I use it for landscapes, portraits, some wildlife, etc. I live in Colorado and I use it just a little bit less than my 24-70 GM II, although I’m starting to gravitate more towards telephoto landscapes lately.
My only two gripes with it are that I wish it wasn’t internally zooming (makes it harder to put in a bag and makes the lens large all the time) and I wish it was black (would make it appear less big and stand out less). For these two reasons I use it a little less than I otherwise would.
The GMII and GII are being made to sound a lot closer in all-around performance than they actually are. The GMII is a fantastic all-arounder with more resolution from portrait length to landscape distances regardless of focal length or aperture setting and has significantly better mid-range bokeh. The GII is usable for those purposes, but you have to be more selective on foreground and background when using it midrange and you pick up more CA and some minor astigmatism at longer distances. Where the GII excels is in close focus, both optically and from an AF/OSS perspective. If capturing bugs in flight or tracking little critters around isn't your goal, the GMII makes more sense.
That said, does the choice have to be between the two? Sigma makes an excellent 70-200/2.8 that's less expensive than either and is only 300g heavier than the GMII. There's also the 100-400 GM that's ridiculously priced new for its age, but used prices are generally good. Alternatively to that, there's the Tamron 50-400 and Sigma 100-400 C that are both very solid lenses that will save you hundreds over the OEM gear, even though you'll have to purchase the tripod mounts separately if you need one. The big downside to the third party lenses when used on the a7III is that they don't accept TCs, but any of the lenses reaching 400 will give you equal or better (mostly better) performance at the long end than either the GMII or GII with the 2x TC.
I have had the GM 70-200mm f2.8 II lens since it was first released and find it to be truly stellar, in all respects.
I also had the G 70-200mm f4 II for awhile, but never really warmed-up to it. Nothing bad, as it is a very good lens, but it just doesn't compete with the GM lens and I didn't like the f4 maximum aperture when shooting in a variety of conditions; plus, the diminished subject isolation with f4.
Also, the GM lens tolerates x1.4 converters well, but the G II lens lost too much sharpness & contrast, for my taste.
I think if you can afford it, and are only going to get one 70-200 lens, just get the GMII. Buy it used here on the buy/sell forum for around $2,300. It’s so good at so many things - portraits, landscapes, weddings, family, travel (if you don’t mind the size), and it even does quite well up close (but obviously not as good as the f4 version).
The 70-200GMII is a lens that wows you every time you see the images in Lightroom. Buy it because it’s the best 70-200/2.8 lens available. You’ll never have to wonder if you made the wrong decision. And for what it is, it’s very LIGHT.
Update: I bought the 70-200 GMii. If I didn’t get it, I would have always felt like I was missing out on something. Now I know this is as good as it gets so I have nothing to worry about.
My initial impressions are that it’s lighter than I was expecting with the way people talk about a 70-200 being so heavy and bulky. I like the color too, I thought it would be more of a white than gray. I opted for a Leofoto SF-01 tripod foot so that it can just mount right onto my tripod without an extra adapter hanging off the bottom of the OEM foot.
I’ll be taking it along this week and next week for some traveling across the US. I’m excited to see what it can do with all the hype that surrounds it.
Duramaxjon wrote:
Update: I bought the 70-200 GMii. If I didn’t get it, I would have always felt like I was missing out on something. Now I know this is as good as it gets so I have nothing to worry about.
My initial impressions are that it’s lighter than I was expecting with the way people talk about a 70-200 being so heavy and bulky. I like the color too, I thought it would be more of a white than gray. I opted for a Leofoto SF-01 tripod foot so that it can just mount right onto my tripod without an extra adapter hanging off the bottom of the OEM foot.
I’ll be taking it along this week and next week for some traveling across the US. I’m excited to see what it can do with all the hype that surrounds it....Show more →
Nice! You won’t regret it. I used mine today for a wedding of a friend and the images are all excellent. It’s a lens that won’t let you down when you do your part.
