p.1 #1 · New member asking for help with choosing a 70-200 lens
Hello everyone,
I've recently upgraded from an 6400 to an a7cII, and I've got a 70-350G that I'm planning to sell and get a full frame lens instead. I've got some options on the table:
- Sony 70-200 f2.8 GMII ~2200$
- Sony 70-200 f4 GII ~1400$
- Tamron 70-180 f2.8 G2 ~1000$
I was almost decided on the GMII, but then made some tests and it would be a very tight fit into my venture 10L if I want to put the camera in the bag as well, so I was considering the other two lenses.
It's hard to find discussion around those lenses, as most of the forum posts go over the first model of the tamron, that did not have in lens stabilisation, and on top of that also the GII has a previous version that I think was not on par with the latest model.
Size wise, the two lenses are very similar.
I don't shoot indoor sport, and the macro capability of the GII sounds like a nice to have, but I also think that the 2.8 of the tamron would open up some opportunities for evening shooting.
So I think it boils down to image quality, and I've heard very conflicting informations on which one is the best.
A lot of people mention that they didn't like that much the images that the tamron produces, and that the GII has some "character" and produces better images. Is that the case? any real life experiences with those lenses?
p.1 #2 · New member asking for help with choosing a 70-200 lens
I used to own the 70-200mm f2.8 GM II and it produces stellar images that are very punchy. It is expensive but it has no compromises on IQ or usability.
If cost is a concern as well as size the Tamron 70-180mm is probably the way to go. It has very good IQ, smaller and is even lighter.
The Sigma 70-200mm f2.8 Art rivals the GM II for IQ and is much cheaper buts its heavier.
p.1 #3 · New member asking for help with choosing a 70-200 lens
ksnlll wrote:
Hello everyone,
I've recently upgraded from an 6400 to an a7cII, and I've got a 70-350G that I'm planning to sell and get a full frame lens instead. I've got some options on the table:
- Sony 70-200 f2.8 GMII ~2200$
- Sony 70-200 f4 GII ~1400$
- Tamron 70-180 f2.8 G2 ~1000$
[...]
Half a year or so I had the same question. Here is a link to the 3 page long thread back then: https://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/1903192/0#16820183
I ended up with the tamron 70-180 G2 and a third party tripod collar. If anything is wrong with that lens I still haven't found out what that may be.
p.1 #4 · New member asking for help with choosing a 70-200 lens
SNJOps wrote:
I used to own the 70-200mm f2.8 GM II and it produces stellar images that are very punchy. It is expensive but it has no compromises on IQ or usability.
If cost is a concern as well as size the Tamron 70-180mm is probably the way to go. It has very good IQ, smaller and is even lighter.
The Sigma 70-200mm f2.8 Art rivals the GM II for IQ and is much cheaper buts its heavier.
Yeah I've evaluated the sigma but it's even bigger/heavier, not a big fan!
Jonas B wrote:
I ended up with the tamron 70-180 G2 and a third party tripod collar. If anything is wrong with that lens I still haven't found out what that may be.
Thanks, that's a very relevant topic indeed! happy to hear that you like your tamron
p.1 #5 · New member asking for help with choosing a 70-200 lens
The main reason I follow the Sony forum on FM is that I’m considering a possible move to Sony from my olde Canon system at some point.
I have used Canon’s excellent EF 70-200mm L lenses for years. In terms of image quality, their f/4 L is excellent, so much so that I sold my f/2.8 version of the lens and moved to the f/4. I primarily use it for landscape photography, so the smaller size and lighter weight is of more value than the larger f/2.8 aperture.
What I’ve had a hard time figuring out by reading Sony users’ posts is whether the same holds true with the Sony 70-200mm lenses — namely that the f/4 versions are optically in the same league as the f/2.8 versions.
Making this more complicated is the fact that there is a tendency (not just among Sony users!) to presume that the f/2.8 versions much be better because they cost more… when they may just be bigger.
So I’m interested in any information that objectively addresses this question.
p.1 #6 · New member asking for help with choosing a 70-200 lens
The 70-200/4 G2 is an absolute gem. For landscape use, its pretty excellent for everything but sports/low light. Its also on the light end of all the 70-200's out there. Not the lightest, but close enough. Add in the tons of buttons, 72mm filter thread, and OSS and it is pretty great. Its 1:2 macro is really nice, too.
Oct 18, 2025 at 10:38 AM
Steve Spencer Offline • • • • • • • Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #7 · New member asking for help with choosing a 70-200 lens
gdanmitchell wrote:
The main reason I follow the Sony forum on FM is that I’m considering a possible move to Sony from my olde Canon system at some point.
I have used Canon’s excellent EF 70-200mm L lenses for years. In terms of image quality, their f/4 L is excellent, so much so that I sold my f/2.8 version of the lens and moved to the f/4. I primarily use it for landscape photography, so the smaller size and lighter weight is of more value than the larger f/2.8 aperture.
What I’ve had a hard time figuring out by reading Sony users’ posts is whether the same holds true with the Sony 70-200mm lenses — namely that the f/4 versions are optically in the same league as the f/2.8 versions.
Making this more complicated is the fact that there is a tendency (not just among Sony users!) to presume that the f/2.8 versions much be better because they cost more… when they may just be bigger.
So I’m interested in any information that objectively addresses this question....Show more →
The first thing to know is there is a big difference between the first and second versions of both the f/2.8 and f/4 versions of these lenses on Sony. The first f/2.8 version seems to have been hard to build and has a reputation for having a lot of variation between copies and variation in performance based not the focal length. The second version has a reputation for being excellent.
The first f/4 version was adequate, but had the reputation for being a bit weaker in the corners and edges and at the longest focal length. All pretty typical stuff for a zoom. The second version has near macro capabilities as the new addition making it fairly unusual in that capability. It give 1 to 2 magnification across the whole focal length range and higher magnification with the TCs. It too has a stellar reputation, but not surprisingly is especially adored by those who value its near macro capabilities.
p.1 #8 · New member asking for help with choosing a 70-200 lens
TheEmrys wrote:
The 70-200/4 G2 is an absolute gem. For landscape use, its pretty excellent for everything but sports/low light. Its also on the light end of all the 70-200's out there. Not the lightest, but close enough. Add in the tons of buttons, 72mm filter thread, and OSS and it is pretty great. Its 1:2 macro is really nice, too.
That’s encouraging, given that I much prefer a smaller, lighter f/4 version at this point and for the photography that I would likely do with a possibly Sony system.
p.1 #9 · New member asking for help with choosing a 70-200 lens
I owned the original version of the Tamron 70-180 and it produced nice images but then I had an accident and broke it. When it was time to replace it I went with the Sony 70-200 f4 GII and have no regrets (I'm actually going to use it in a couple of hours on a shoot). My use case is in the studio where I don't need f/2.8 or faster, landscapes and the occasional outdoor shoot like I have today where I won't need the fast aperture.
p.1 #10 · New member asking for help with choosing a 70-200 lens
BillD208 wrote:
I owned the original version of the Tamron 70-180 and it produced nice images but then I had an accident and broke it. When it was time to replace it I went with the Sony 70-200 f4 GII and have no regrets (I'm actually going to use it in a couple of hours on a shoot). My use case is in the studio where I don't need f/2.8 or faster, landscapes and the occasional outdoor shoot like I have today where I won't need the fast aperture.
The second version of the Tamron 70-180 is way better than the first version. For example is OSS added. It's a parallel to the Sony lenses; don't buy the version one of these zooms.
p.1 #11 · New member asking for help with choosing a 70-200 lens
I don't have experience with the other lenses, but my f4 II is a fantastic lens. The size/weight is very important to me since I backpack with it, so that was the main selling point for me. Sharpness and contrast are excellent. The II is a big upgrade to the first version with the macro capabilities, and it can use tele-converters. For landscape work (my use) it was a no brainer.
Here is a shot I got this week in the North Cascades. A7Cr + 70-200mm + CP
p.1 #12 · New member asking for help with choosing a 70-200 lens
Jim Dockery wrote:
I don't have experience with the other lenses, but my f4 II is a fantastic lens. The size/weight is very important to me since I backpack with it, so that was the main selling point for me. Sharpness and contrast are excellent. The II is a big upgrade to the first version with the macro capabilities, and it can use tele-converters. For landscape work (my use) it was a no brainer.
Back in the day I had both the Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8L and the EF 70-200mm f/4L zooms — in both cases somewhat later and updated versions. There is no question that the f/2.8 lens is a great performer, but I was surprised that when I compared it with what I got from the f/4 version I could not tell which was which. (One exception in that case is that the f/4 wide open at MFD exhibited some halation, though that wasn't an issue for me.)
I'm hoping that the situation is similar between the Sony comparable pair of lenses.
p.1 #13 · New member asking for help with choosing a 70-200 lens
I had the old 70-200 f/4 and it was barely adequate tho stopped down to f/8, in the landscape it did reasonably well. I now have the 70-200 f/2.8 GMII and it's one of the best lenses I've used. It equals or beats my 135 f/2.8 Batis which is legendarily sharp. I did not look too seriously at the f/4 GMII but hear it's excellent. I like having the extra stop of light but YMMV.
p.1 #14 · New member asking for help with choosing a 70-200 lens
doc4x5 wrote:
I had the old 70-200 f/4 and it was barely adequate tho stopped down to f/8, in the landscape it did reasonably well. I now have the 70-200 f/2.8 GMII and it's one of the best lenses I've used. It equals or beats my 135 f/2.8 Batis which is legendarily sharp. I did not look too seriously at the f/4 GMII but hear it's excellent. I like having the extra stop of light but YMMV.
I wonder if you had one of the earlier models of the f/4 EF lens. Mine is very sharp at f/8, and the only place I have issues are at MFD and wide open... which is, of course ,not how I would typically use that lens.
However, here's pretty close to MFD... at f/8 in this case... (I would be happy to get at least equal performance from the Sony equivalent when/if I make the switch.)
BTW, the image area including the white margin is only 1176 pixels in this .jpg version, so if you look on a large screen it is going to be, well, like overly large .jgp images are!)
p.1 #15 · New member asking for help with choosing a 70-200 lens
gdanmitchell wrote:
The main reason I follow the Sony forum on FM is that I’m considering a possible move to Sony from my olde Canon system at some point.
I have used Canon’s excellent EF 70-200mm L lenses for years. In terms of image quality, their f/4 L is excellent, so much so that I sold my f/2.8 version of the lens and moved to the f/4. I primarily use it for landscape photography, so the smaller size and lighter weight is of more value than the larger f/2.8 aperture.
What I’ve had a hard time figuring out by reading Sony users’ posts is whether the same holds true with the Sony 70-200mm lenses — namely that the f/4 versions are optically in the same league as the f/2.8 versions.
Making this more complicated is the fact that there is a tendency (not just among Sony users!) to presume that the f/2.8 versions much be better because they cost more… when they may just be bigger.
So I’m interested in any information that objectively addresses this question....Show more →
The second editions of these lenses are both spectacular, hard to choose between for imaging qualities. The f4 also does an excellent close-focus, which can be handy, especially when traveling.
