I'm using a different body, and adding a small fast prime, but otherwise you've described my 'heavy' travel kit - my light kit is just one body + one prime.
Excellent review of a very impressive lens, the added macro capability is a big plus. Love the images you captured with this lens, truly versatile and almost a magnificent rendering.
Great review! It's a nice lens, but in my opinion it should be considered too that the Tamron 70-180mm f2.8 is available at roughly half the price for those photographers that do not need macro capabilities.
Thanks as always, for the excellent and thorough review, Dustin! Great to finally see test chart performances with the 1.4x teleconverter, which makes this lens so useful for someone like me, who mostly uses telephotos to get up-close images of mountains. By any chance, have you tested this lens (or indeed, others) with the 2x teleconverter? I know it will cut down the light, but wondering about image quality at an equivalent 400mm f/8.
Tbh, i dont really care about macro, but I´m often caught not being able to get close enough to my model in portrait sessions. Reason to bring the Sony 90mm2.8. Well with this one ...
Thank you. Ended up purchasing this lens in June 2024 to add to my travel kit that has an A7CR and A7CII in it. It very well match to these bodies. On my larger full size full frame bodies I already own the Sony 70-200/2.8 GM II that I can now compare it too. I’m very impressed by the reduced size and weight which is why I jumped in. Take care.
It is one of the most versatile lenses given its macro capabilities at the entire range. This entails all kinds of composition possibilities as well as using mfd & compression to defocus. It is also marginally lighter than the 70-180 f2.8 tamron lens which only has macro features at the wide end. With their new ibis system (a7r5) one should get excellent combined stability. Given also the better light sensitivity of sony's newer technology the need for faster lenses is not there so much. This is where sony's lens design is becoming so much more versatile as these lenses are designed for their newer technology and based on a foundation of digital imaging. Canon & Nikon are still more rooted in the earlier 'analogue' framework. I find it more ergonomic to have a lens that recedes in size, particularly as it is so well sealed. As to macro on high res sensors one not only has cropping potential but macro is not only about eyes of insects - it is about the possibilities of perspective and composition. A lens like this means that one does not have to carry so many primes & when one works with such a versatile lens it also enables one ones creative versatile perspetivization & composing potential.
@@frankfeng2701 GM2 does not have the macro features. The tamron has great value & optics but does not have 1:2 macro at all focal lengths & no optical stabilization & no possibility to attach a teleconverter. The tamron is however a 2.8. However for architecture details - semi macro - landscape - design - travel this is a very versatile lens. With a TC it becomes 400 & lighter than a 400fl + I dont need to carry a macro. On the sony a7r5 the stabilization combines so a lot of handheld videos - photography is possible. I know of no other tele zoom which has semi macro at all fl. And the 180 f4 macros are heavy. Only the 135/1.8 sony & samyang lenses give a 1:2 macro. Getting closer opens up all kinds of composition possibilities & on a high res sensor one has the ability to crop.
@DustinAbbottTWI - Great review, as always. I have a Sony A7CR with the Tamron 28-75mm f/2.8 VC VXD G2 and am looking for a longer lens for state park travel photography (not for video). Image quality is really important to me, with size/weight also a consideration. What is your recommendation between this lens, the Tamron 70-180mm f/2.8 Di III VC VXD G2 or the Tamron 50-300mm f/4.5-6.3 Di III VC VXD for landscape/wildlife/family pictures?
So many good choices! How important will low light photography be to you? I'd go with the 70-180mm if you need the low light capabilities, but if having more reach is important, then the Tamron 50-300mm makes a lot of sense.
Thanks Sir for another great and detailed review of a great and versatile lens. I fell in love recently with Sony's 50mm f2.8 macro lens from 2016 that works great on my A7c for portraits, macro and product photography. This one is very tempting, it seems like a perfect lens for wildlife and nature.
I recently put the Sony 50mm f2.8 macro on my a7c since I had rarely used it. It is fun and sharp (although focusing is slow and noisy). I am glad I still have it and will use it more often. And it makes me question my consideration of the Samyang 45 f1.8 for a normal everyday-carry prime lens.
Thank you for the review, it was done perfectly. This lens is kind of breaking me because of the Macro capability, size and weigth and the TC support. I own the Tamy 70-180mm f 2.8 and I find its close up useful and fun but the field curvature is making it very difficult to use at times. I wonder how well would this lens compare to thr Sony FE 90mm f 2.8 Macro, yes I know it shouldn't be compared because of the 1:1 ability BUT with the extra working range and 1.4x and 2x TC it ahould get close enough to prefer a zoom then the 90mm.
I do think it could work as a 2 for 1 solution for you. Macro performance won't be 100% as good as the 90mm, but I suspect good enough to make you happy.
At this price and size, I wish they made the focal range 50-200 or 70-280, even at the expense of losing the teleconverter compatibility and some macro capabilities, and kept the aperture ring like on all new G lenses.
That's the challenge, as I love the TC and Macro - that's the standout for me. Different photographers have different priorities, which is a big part of what makes lens design tough.
@@DustinAbbottTWI I already owned the GM2 and Tamron 50-400, both of which can do 0.5x macro on the wide end. GM2 has better IQ and works better than G2 with TC, while Tamron covers more range and is cheaper than G2.
! Greetings from Greece! Quick question for you! I’m looking to buy zoom lens for my Sony a7II. Should I get the 70-200 f4 ii OR the 70-200 f2.8 first gen?? (Gen 2 is too expensive for me).
Fabulous review 👏 the big plus for me is the macro and overall flexibility I can get with this lens as I already own a 2 x teleconverter 😊 I was a bit worried that it’s an external zoom as my 24-105 Sony lens has pulled small particles of dust into it although it doesn’t appear to be affecting my photos for now 😅 so the additional sealing that this has will hopefully prevent this. Great info, thank you 🙏
@@briannicholson2971 hi Brian, I bought it to go with my 200-600mm lens, tripod results were ok but I seldom use a tripod and I didn’t like my hand held photos for birds in flight so the teleconverter has been sun its for the past year 😅. I do like close up and macro so the new 70-200 f4 sounds ideal for me and should hopefully get the teleconverter out of its case permanently. Sorry I couldn’t give positive or negative feedback for your purposes.
@@briannicholson2971 I bought the 2xTC as a set with this lens and the loss in IQ was not bearable. Checked it with another 2xTC copy with the same result. Will try the 1.4x TC tomorrow. Hope it'll work better. Maybe my lens is faulty and needs adjusting.....I'll wait and see.
Is it good setup if I use standard iPhone 15 with its 13mm, 26mm and 52mm for close photography and just get a single Sony 70-200 F4 macro with 2x tele converter for everything else? I thought to get Sony 20-70mm F4 before this because it is just a single lens and it cover ultra wide to short tele but realised it's not ultra wide enough and tele enough and not 1:1 macro (I not sure if crop can make it macro enough tho) and my smaller to carry and less intimidated and always be with you iPhone going to cover a lot of it. But what camera should I pair with the 70-200mm F4, it will be a waste and less usability experience to get A7CR than a full size A7RV isn't it? How about Sony RX100 and RX10, will they still make new one with Exmor T sensor technology? They looks like better phone camera across the zoom range than way better than phone camera aren't they? I also like Hasselblad color better and just get a single 28mm F4 (22mm FF eq.) can allow me to crop a lot like from 22-176mm, Leica Q3 is nice one package camera too, So are Leica D Lux 7 / Panasonic LX100II? I also thought to get Sony Xperia 1 V as pocketable camera and iPhone 15 as pocket computer because it's color is more real life than iphone but you end up carry 2 phones that aren't much better than each other much. What do you guys think? I shoot as hobbyist and sometime use for personal works like product shoot. I don't care much about bokeh too because I prefer to shoot photo and video with story and creativity and not blue everything else other than the subject. Should I just shot completely on standard iPhone 15 and use Moment macro, tele and anamorphic lens on the primary iPhone 15 lens? I feel like phone still is like having only one main camera and the others on it are just nice to have and convenient enough to use.
I got my copy two days ago and today I tried it with my 2x extender. Winter came back to South-Finland and we have now a lot snow and the birds have escaped somewhere but I managed get some pics of coal tits -with a7C ll the AF took instantly to birds eye. The first results look very promising with 2x ext. I am gonna use with both extenders for bird photography and the bare lens for butterfly photos. Thank you for an excellent review. Cheers
Good morning Dustin, it has interesting features.. One question: at 200mm (in comparison with GM2) does it behave similarly or is there a big difference? (especially in terms of sharpness contrast.... if not, this has very interesting features. Have you tried it with tc 1.4x?
@200 mm Tony & Chelsea Northrup's test result for the center sharpness is very poor and soft. On the other hand your test result @200 is so so sharp, I would say the center sharpness is almost equivalent to 70mm.
That really depends on your application. I would prefer the GM lens for portrait or event work. If you are looking for a travel lens or don't have a macro lens, the new G II is a better choice.
If you could help me here .. i own the 24-70 and tamron 35-150 I don’t shoot less than 35mm I see tamron is having very good sharpness starting from 2.8 How do you compare this lens with tamron 35-150 .. pleaaaase
@@DustinAbbottTWI I was thinking to sell 35-150.. for this one.. no idea why.. but may be close focusing distance .. may be the white color.. I have to go to 24-70 for close focusing distance some times .. and i love 100+ in product photography.
I bought the 70-200mm GM II for 2300€ (barely more then this F4 gII macro). It was a little bit before this lens was released. Quite honestly the GM is mind blowing good and F2.8 is more usefull then i thought, it also kills the need for 85/135mm primes for me. It's internal zoom (i really like this). Also 1045 gram for F2.8, so low, 800 gram for F4 while nice is not amazing, F4's never were more then 1000 gram, usually already 800-850 gram. For macro i already own 90mm sony macro and 100-400mm. Imo price is a bit to high even with the macro capability of the new f4 GII. As for images needing almost no editing: the GM II has that also :) at 200mm F2.8 you have similar bokeh to 85mm F1.4 imo, really creamy.
Do you not think focus tracking is more dependant on the camera model versus the lense? Why say the lens is great at tracking bees, the camera is doing that no?
Because there is also variability from lens to lens. If a lens does not have sufficient speed and accuracy, the focus system still cannot accurately keep up with moving action. I use the same camera bodies with many lenses, so my evaluations are based on how lenses compare on those cameras.
Hi, a bit late but perhaps someone can answer this question: I’m traveling a lot, and always think about whether I should invest in my gear more for light weight or more for lens quality. So in order to do some efficiency I’m looking for a new 70-200 that I can pair with a 2x teleconverter. However though this lens is perfect in terms of size and weight I’m worried about performance with the resulting f8 aperture. Can you give your opinion whether or not I should save up for a f2.8 GM II or still go with the f4. Had any experience (especially related to bokeh?) tyvm! PS: helpful links are appreciated as well. 😊
I usually shoot birds with my 200-600 at f8-f10 and as long as the lighting is good they come out sharp and look great. I'm in the same boat, I want to get rid of my 200-600 and get a lighter combo.
Thank you Dustin. I am not a Sony shooter but some of these lens releases are making me drool! Do you think you be covering the new RF 135mm F1.8? It seems like an incredible piece of glass, though the price seems to have (once again) jumped greatly.
Great and honest video as usual, tank you for this great informations. Something picked up my attention in the review. In macro, we often tend to shoot over f11 to gain depth of field. I often shoot at f16 with the 90mm. Did you notice this softening in macro would be a problem for someone mainly shooting macro with this lens? Thank you
Great review as always and the pictures you captured with this lens are fantastic. I was wondering if you are planning a review on the new Sony a6700. I’m waiting for your review before I order it.
This new f4 has a terribly loose focus ring and uneven resistance on the zoom. I recently uploaded a video on my channel that highlights the poor build quality. The original is still excellent IMHO.
That's unfortunate. I didn't notice that, myself, and you're the first to report back with that issue. Hopefully it is isolated to the copy you had for review.
@@DustinAbbottTWI Yes, unfortunately it is not an isolated issue, as I've handled 3 other copies exhibiting this flaw. Thanks again Dustin for your continued efforts!
Not sure how you managed to mount the lens on tripod in your intro. The lens foot will not accept a standard A/S plate and screw, plus, only one of the two holes in the foot is threaded. I think this is a manufacturing defect that no-one is talking about.
Hi Dustin… seeking your opinion for a two lens solution. I shoot primarily travel and landscape. Kit #1-Sony 16-35 f4-PZ with Tamron 35-150 F2-2.8, or Kit #2- Sony 20-70 f4 with Sony 70-200 f4 Macro. Looking forward to your comments. Glenn A
Hmmm, I would probably go with the latter kit. I love the Tamron as an event lens (my #1 go-to), but that's not part of your photography. The latter kit gives you a constant aperture to work with, adds macro performance, and gives great IQ across the whole range.
I have 16-35 F4 PZ and I'm also thinking about maybe switching out the standard zoom for 35-150 or maybe 50 f1.2 to go with this new 70-200. I find that most of the time if I need 50 mm I can just crop or use clear image zoom, and I'd rather have a f1.2 prime for personal portraits. It give you 105 f2.4 6x7 depth of field. I have to admit I mostly use 16-35 f4 PZ starting from 20 mm, but the lens gave me some incredible shots at 16 mm that I can't really trade it for 20-70 mm. Besides 20-70 is much worse in terms of image quality than 16-35 f4 PZ. 16-35 f4 is really a GM lens.
I saw that briefly, too, but the site seems to be back up and running properly. We are making some changes and there was obviously a short term glitch.
In your written review you mention that the minimum focus distance at 200mm is 42cm. Is this correct? Because two different online calculators say that 200mm on FF with a 42cm focus distance results in 1:1 or 1:1.1 magnification. This would be considerably higher than Sony's stated 0.5x and would be quite a big deal to a lot of people.
I took that information right off the lens barrel, so that is the correct MFD. The floating elements that allow for strong performance up close probably also result in a bit of focus breathing. The 0.5x magnification figure is correct.
@@DustinAbbottTWI Thanks for the reply! Would've been great to find Sony had been understating the performance. Wonder how much of an extension would be required to move it to 1:1, and how it would perform? A lot of people on forums seem very underwhelmed by this lens but I think it's a lens with a future cult following. It does so many different things and does them all well.
I had one, it broke, so I got this one. The depth of feild is noticed, if you enjoy the razor thin shots. Also the magnification is not as good. You need the 1.4x to get about the same, and you are at like f6 then, which is fine if you are shooting at f11-13 for total sharpness in one shot and not stacking. The ability to zoom though has been amazing for setting up quick macros. It's annoying to move the tripod all the time to get the right distance for that juicy 1:1 with the 90. As someone who just happens to take macros while out. It's been great. The 90 was a great lens, it just lacked versatility. This lens has been easy and great. Looking at the pictures the quality is maybe a bit less, but the time spent is less by a lot. And the shots I have gotten that wouldn't even be close with 90 have made me pretty happy with it, esp as single lense to take out. Honestly both quality lenses that feel gm.
Yes reading about breaking 90mm macros. Wonder if it's because all focusing moves the linked motor. Bad news iirc this lens does the same ( or maybe it was the mark I ).
Great review Dustin, do you have any plans to test it with the x2 teleconverter, i am considering getting to 400mm reach and considering all the options. Cheers. Brian.
@@briannicholson2971hey Brian I’m thinking to get the same combo, did you like the quality with the x2 TC? Since apparently the new 70-200g2 is super sharp I would like to know if it would be a good pair with x2 TC, specially for birding video “relatively close” with new full frame sensors with dual base ISO 12,800 also videos will be for social media, what do you suggest based on your experience? I really appreciate your thoughts on this, thanks
@@kevinl8791 Hi Kevin, I ended up going for the Tamron 50-400mm , it's a better all round lens for me and at 59 mm it has a 1:2 magnification at 50mm, I have recently got the Sony 24-50 mm so a great focal range with only 2 lenses.
I am sticking with my 70-200 F2.8 GMii. That is quite light enough, has the wider aperture and shoots quite close enough for my needs. I am also someone who does not like external zoom
Hello Dustin. Thanks for this review. Always a pleasure to see your material. Here's my dilemma, and hopefully you'll be able to offer your insight. I currently have the 20mm G f/1.8 and the Zeiss 55mm f/1.8. I used to have the Tamron 28-75 (1st gen) but gave it to my dad. I also had the 50-400 from Tamron but found it quite heavy, so I got rid of it. Now... here are my 4 possible combinations: Kit1: 20mm G, 55mm Zeiss, plus this new 70-200 Kit2: 20mm G, Tamron 35-150 (and for extra reach, APS-C mode on my a7r5) Kit3: sell the 20mm G and get the 20-70 f/4 plus this new 70-200 f/4 Kit4: same as 1 or 3 but... with the Tamron 70-180 instead of the 70-200 G. I'm particularly curious what you think about this one as an alternative to the reviewed lens. Or... perhaps you'd suggest yet another combination? EDIT: street and travel/landscape photography
For your application I think I would go with the kit 3 option. It gives you solid coverage from 20-200mm with very high IQ, plus some macro-ish performance.
@@DustinAbbottTWI Thank you, Dustin. Have you had a chance to compare the 20mm g and the 20-70 on the wide end? I’m tempted to keep the prime (it’s a fantastic lens) but… the budget may not allow it. I’m also wondering whether getting the Tamron 28-75g2 and keeping the prime instead of buying the 20-70 could be worth considering.
That could work, too. I've heard great things about the 20-70mm, but haven't tested it yet. I'm expecting one within the next week, however, for review.
The old 70-200mm f/2.8 GM sells at more than 500 bucks less. If one already owns a macro lens, wouldn't it make more sense to go for that? I feel the 70-200mm f/4 II is far overpriced.
What is your opinion on using this with a 1.4x Tele converter in comparison to the tamron 50-400 for example? I have recently been getting into more wildlife/birding. Do you think the 280mm would be enough reach?
![ลองสั่งของจากแอพ temu ถูกจริงหรอ?? [โกงไหมครับ ep.88 ] | DOM](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/RTcZSQTiDZw/mqdefault.jpg)
Great review! Another video comparing this lens to its competitor, Tamron 70-180mm f/2.8 would be great as well. Thank you!
I can't make any promises as I don't have either lens on hand now!
Together with the Sony G4/20-70mm, a 1.4x teleconverter and the Sony a7IV in my opinion the perfect travel system.
Pretty much!
I'm using a different body, and adding a small fast prime, but otherwise you've described my 'heavy' travel kit - my light kit is just one body + one prime.
agreed, this seems like the ideal kit for me now!
Excellent review of a very impressive lens, the added macro capability is a big plus. Love the images you captured with this lens, truly versatile and almost a magnificent rendering.
Glad it was helpful!
Great review! It's a nice lens, but in my opinion it should be considered too that the Tamron 70-180mm f2.8 is available at roughly half the price for those photographers that do not need macro capabilities.
Fair enough.
Thanks as always, for the excellent and thorough review, Dustin! Great to finally see test chart performances with the 1.4x teleconverter, which makes this lens so useful for someone like me, who mostly uses telephotos to get up-close images of mountains. By any chance, have you tested this lens (or indeed, others) with the 2x teleconverter? I know it will cut down the light, but wondering about image quality at an equivalent 400mm f/8.
I don't own the 2x, so no.
Tbh, i dont really care about macro, but I´m often caught not being able to get close enough to my model in portrait sessions. Reason to bring the Sony 90mm2.8. Well with this one ...
Exactly. It's not just macro, it is the ability to have pretty much unlimited framing.
Impressive imagine if Sony made a 400mm f5.6 prime that also took the 1.4 tele it would make the perfect lightweight wildlife duo.
That would be great!
Thank you. Ended up purchasing this lens in June 2024 to add to my travel kit that has an A7CR and A7CII in it. It very well match to these bodies. On my larger full size full frame bodies I already own the Sony 70-200/2.8 GM II that I can now compare it too. I’m very impressed by the reduced size and weight which is why I jumped in. Take care.
It's very useful!
It is one of the most versatile lenses given its macro capabilities at the entire range. This entails all kinds of composition possibilities as well as using mfd & compression to defocus. It is also marginally lighter than the 70-180 f2.8 tamron lens which only has macro features at the wide end. With their new ibis system (a7r5) one should get excellent combined stability. Given also the better light sensitivity of sony's newer technology the need for faster lenses is not there so much. This is where sony's lens design is becoming so much more versatile as these lenses are designed for their newer technology and based on a foundation of digital imaging. Canon & Nikon are still more rooted in the earlier 'analogue' framework. I find it more ergonomic to have a lens that recedes in size, particularly as it is so well sealed. As to macro on high res sensors one not only has cropping potential but macro is not only about eyes of insects - it is about the possibilities of perspective and composition. A lens like this means that one does not have to carry so many primes & when one works with such a versatile lens it also enables one ones creative versatile perspetivization & composing potential.
I do agree on the versatility.
Still not as versatile as GM2, or as value-friendly as Tamron 70-180.
@@frankfeng2701 GM2 does not have the macro features. The tamron has great value & optics but does not have 1:2 macro at all focal lengths & no optical stabilization & no possibility to attach a teleconverter. The tamron is however a 2.8. However for architecture details - semi macro - landscape - design - travel this is a very versatile lens. With a TC it becomes 400 & lighter than a 400fl + I dont need to carry a macro. On the sony a7r5 the stabilization combines so a lot of handheld videos - photography is possible. I know of no other tele zoom which has semi macro at all fl. And the 180 f4 macros are heavy. Only the 135/1.8 sony & samyang lenses give a 1:2 macro. Getting closer opens up all kinds of composition possibilities & on a high res sensor one has the ability to crop.
Thanks! Amazed by the thoroughness of your review!
Glad it was helpful!
@DustinAbbottTWI - Great review, as always. I have a Sony A7CR with the Tamron 28-75mm f/2.8 VC VXD G2 and am looking for a longer lens for state park travel photography (not for video). Image quality is really important to me, with size/weight also a consideration. What is your recommendation between this lens, the Tamron 70-180mm f/2.8 Di III VC VXD G2 or the Tamron 50-300mm f/4.5-6.3 Di III VC VXD for landscape/wildlife/family pictures?
So many good choices! How important will low light photography be to you? I'd go with the 70-180mm if you need the low light capabilities, but if having more reach is important, then the Tamron 50-300mm makes a lot of sense.
Thanks Sir for another great and detailed review of a great and versatile lens.
I fell in love recently with Sony's 50mm f2.8 macro lens from 2016 that works great on my A7c for portraits, macro and product photography.
This one is very tempting, it seems like a perfect lens for wildlife and nature.
Definitely!
I recently put the Sony 50mm f2.8 macro on my a7c since I had rarely used it. It is fun and sharp (although focusing is slow and noisy). I am glad I still have it and will use it more often. And it makes me question my consideration of the Samyang 45 f1.8 for a normal everyday-carry prime lens.
Thank you for the review, it was done perfectly. This lens is kind of breaking me because of the Macro capability, size and weigth and the TC support. I own the Tamy 70-180mm f 2.8 and I find its close up useful and fun but the field curvature is making it very difficult to use at times. I wonder how well would this lens compare to thr Sony FE 90mm f 2.8 Macro, yes I know it shouldn't be compared because of the 1:1 ability BUT with the extra working range and 1.4x and 2x TC it ahould get close enough to prefer a zoom then the 90mm.
I do think it could work as a 2 for 1 solution for you. Macro performance won't be 100% as good as the 90mm, but I suspect good enough to make you happy.
Thank you for your exhaustive review. This lens and the 20-70 seem like the perfect landscape kit.
It’s a great combo
Good one, your losing weigh looking good brother
I don't think I actually have, but thanks!
At this price and size, I wish they made the focal range 50-200 or 70-280, even at the expense of losing the teleconverter compatibility and some macro capabilities, and kept the aperture ring like on all new G lenses.
That's the challenge, as I love the TC and Macro - that's the standout for me. Different photographers have different priorities, which is a big part of what makes lens design tough.
@@DustinAbbottTWI I already owned the GM2 and Tamron 50-400, both of which can do 0.5x macro on the wide end. GM2 has better IQ and works better than G2 with TC, while Tamron covers more range and is cheaper than G2.
Go ahead and purchase this Sony or wait for news on the Sigma 70-200 f2.8 ?
! Greetings from Greece! Quick question for you! I’m looking to buy zoom lens for my Sony a7II. Should I get the 70-200 f4 ii OR the 70-200 f2.8 first gen?? (Gen 2 is too expensive for me).
If those are your options, go with this lens. It's fantastic.
Fabulous review 👏 the big plus for me is the macro and overall flexibility I can get with this lens as I already own a 2 x teleconverter 😊 I was a bit worried that it’s an external zoom as my 24-105 Sony lens has pulled small particles of dust into it although it doesn’t appear to be affecting my photos for now 😅 so the additional sealing that this has will hopefully prevent this. Great info, thank you 🙏
It is a seriously versatile lens. I think you'll enjoy it.
Hi Tommy, how does the x2 teleconverter work with the lens.... I was originally looking at the f2.8 version with the x2
@@briannicholson2971 hi Brian, I bought it to go with my 200-600mm lens, tripod results were ok but I seldom use a tripod and I didn’t like my hand held photos for birds in flight so the teleconverter has been sun its for the past year 😅. I do like close up and macro so the new 70-200 f4 sounds ideal for me and should hopefully get the teleconverter out of its case permanently. Sorry I couldn’t give positive or negative feedback for your purposes.
@@tommykeenan4930 no worries Tommy
@@briannicholson2971 I bought the 2xTC as a set with this lens and the loss in IQ was not bearable. Checked it with another 2xTC copy with the same result. Will try the 1.4x TC tomorrow. Hope it'll work better. Maybe my lens is faulty and needs adjusting.....I'll wait and see.
Is it good setup if I use standard iPhone 15 with its 13mm, 26mm and 52mm for close photography and just get a single Sony 70-200 F4 macro with 2x tele converter for everything else? I thought to get Sony 20-70mm F4 before this because it is just a single lens and it cover ultra wide to short tele but realised it's not ultra wide enough and tele enough and not 1:1 macro (I not sure if crop can make it macro enough tho) and my smaller to carry and less intimidated and always be with you iPhone going to cover a lot of it. But what camera should I pair with the 70-200mm F4, it will be a waste and less usability experience to get A7CR than a full size A7RV isn't it? How about Sony RX100 and RX10, will they still make new one with Exmor T sensor technology? They looks like better phone camera across the zoom range than way better than phone camera aren't they? I also like Hasselblad color better and just get a single 28mm F4 (22mm FF eq.) can allow me to crop a lot like from 22-176mm, Leica Q3 is nice one package camera too, So are Leica D Lux 7 / Panasonic LX100II? I also thought to get Sony Xperia 1 V as pocketable camera and iPhone 15 as pocket computer because it's color is more real life than iphone but you end up carry 2 phones that aren't much better than each other much. What do you guys think? I shoot as hobbyist and sometime use for personal works like product shoot. I don't care much about bokeh too because I prefer to shoot photo and video with story and creativity and not blue everything else other than the subject. Should I just shot completely on standard iPhone 15 and use Moment macro, tele and anamorphic lens on the primary iPhone 15 lens? I feel like phone still is like having only one main camera and the others on it are just nice to have and convenient enough to use.
That really depends on your photography needs, but it's not a bad starting point
Is it better than tamron 70 180 f 2.8 g2 for landscape and portrait? Please give me answer.
Not really. The Tamron will give you a shallower depth of field for portraits, and both lenses are brilliantly sharp for landscapes.
Great review as always, guess I know where the next pay is going haha.
I got my copy two days ago and today I tried it with my 2x extender. Winter came back to South-Finland and we have now a lot snow and the birds have escaped somewhere but I managed get some pics of coal tits -with a7C ll the AF took instantly to birds eye. The first results look very promising with 2x ext. I am gonna use with both extenders for bird photography and the bare lens for butterfly photos. Thank you for an excellent review. Cheers
It's definitely impressively sharp and takes extenders well.
On my 35-150, after 4 months, I already have dust inside.
That's strange. I've had one since release and don't have that problem at all.
Good morning Dustin, it has interesting features.. One question: at 200mm (in comparison with GM2) does it behave similarly or is there a big difference? (especially in terms of sharpness contrast.... if not, this has very interesting features.
Have you tried it with tc 1.4x?
I do show results with the 1.4x in this review. There is not a significant difference between the F2.8 and F4 lenses at 200mm.
@200 mm
Tony & Chelsea Northrup's test result for the center sharpness is very poor and soft.
On the other hand your test result @200 is so so sharp, I would say the center sharpness is almost equivalent to 70mm.
My results are more consistent with the MTF charts.
Would you prefer this or the 70-200 F2.8 GM II? Price is not a consideration
That really depends on your application. I would prefer the GM lens for portrait or event work. If you are looking for a travel lens or don't have a macro lens, the new G II is a better choice.
If you could help me here .. i own the 24-70 and tamron 35-150
I don’t shoot less than 35mm
I see tamron is having very good sharpness starting from 2.8
How do you compare this lens with tamron 35-150 .. pleaaaase
They are both so incredibly sharp that sharpness is not really a concern. Use other metrics to determine which lens to buy/own.
@@DustinAbbottTWI
I was thinking to sell 35-150.. for this one.. no idea why.. but may be close focusing distance .. may be the white color.. I have to go to 24-70 for close focusing distance some times .. and i love 100+ in product photography.
I bought the 70-200mm GM II for 2300€ (barely more then this F4 gII macro). It was a little bit before this lens was released. Quite honestly the GM is mind blowing good and F2.8 is more usefull then i thought, it also kills the need for 85/135mm primes for me. It's internal zoom (i really like this). Also 1045 gram for F2.8, so low, 800 gram for F4 while nice is not amazing, F4's never were more then 1000 gram, usually already 800-850 gram. For macro i already own 90mm sony macro and 100-400mm.
Imo price is a bit to high even with the macro capability of the new f4 GII.
As for images needing almost no editing: the GM II has that also :) at 200mm F2.8 you have similar bokeh to 85mm F1.4 imo, really creamy.
The GM II is an amazing lens for sure.
Barely more? The GM II is $1100 more than the F4 GII.
@@user-qd4tj3cd1q read my comment. I payed 700eur less then new price of GM. Thus only 300€ more then gII.
Do you not think focus tracking is more dependant on the camera model versus the lense? Why say the lens is great at tracking bees, the camera is doing that no?
Because there is also variability from lens to lens. If a lens does not have sufficient speed and accuracy, the focus system still cannot accurately keep up with moving action. I use the same camera bodies with many lenses, so my evaluations are based on how lenses compare on those cameras.
If I don't have a 70-200, would you recommend this F4 or go with the bigger brother 2.8 II?
I think you'll be delighted with either lens. You would know better than I if you actually need the F2.8 aperture
Hi, a bit late but perhaps someone can answer this question: I’m traveling a lot, and always think about whether I should invest in my gear more for light weight or more for lens quality. So in order to do some efficiency I’m looking for a new 70-200 that I can pair with a 2x teleconverter. However though this lens is perfect in terms of size and weight I’m worried about performance with the resulting f8 aperture. Can you give your opinion whether or not I should save up for a f2.8 GM II or still go with the f4. Had any experience (especially related to bokeh?) tyvm! PS: helpful links are appreciated as well. 😊
I usually shoot birds with my 200-600 at f8-f10 and as long as the lighting is good they come out sharp and look great. I'm in the same boat, I want to get rid of my 200-600 and get a lighter combo.
I only tested with the 1.4x TC, but it definitely handled that very well.
I would have preferred an aperture ring instead of a tripod collar on such a lightweight lens.
Fair enough.
Thank you Dustin. I am not a Sony shooter but some of these lens releases are making me drool!
Do you think you be covering the new RF 135mm F1.8? It seems like an incredible piece of glass, though the price seems to have (once again) jumped greatly.
I would like to review it, but I'll have to work something out with a retailer as Canon's loaner program here in Canada seems to have died.
Great review. I’m wondering if this lens is sharper then Sony’s 70-200 F2.8 GM II lens
They are both incredibly sharp, so I wouldn't make my decision based on that.
Great and honest video as usual, tank you for this great informations. Something picked up my attention in the review. In macro, we often tend to shoot over f11 to gain depth of field. I often shoot at f16 with the 90mm. Did you notice this softening in macro would be a problem for someone mainly shooting macro with this lens? Thank you
Diffraction affects all lenses, so if you are comfortable with what you get at F16 on the 90mm, it shouldn't be different on this lens.
Thanks for the review. Lots of great image quality examples of macro shots. But how is the image quality for landscapes?
There are plenty of those in the image gallery. It definitely is more than strong enough optically for any type of photography.
Thanks for the great review Dustin, would you say that this lens is as sharp as the canon RF70-200 f4 ?
Absolutely.
Great review as always and the pictures you captured with this lens are fantastic. I was wondering if you are planning a review on the new Sony a6700. I’m waiting for your review before I order it.
I'm just awaiting my review loaner.
This new f4 has a terribly loose focus ring and uneven resistance on the zoom. I recently uploaded a video on my channel that highlights the poor build quality. The original is still excellent IMHO.
That's unfortunate. I didn't notice that, myself, and you're the first to report back with that issue. Hopefully it is isolated to the copy you had for review.
@@DustinAbbottTWI Yes, unfortunately it is not an isolated issue, as I've handled 3 other copies exhibiting this flaw. Thanks again Dustin for your continued efforts!
Not sure how you managed to mount the lens on tripod in your intro. The lens foot will not accept a standard A/S plate and screw, plus, only one of the two holes in the foot is threaded. I think this is a manufacturing defect that no-one is talking about.
Hmmm, I don't remember having any issues.
Hi Dustin… seeking your opinion for a two lens solution. I shoot primarily travel and landscape. Kit #1-Sony 16-35 f4-PZ with Tamron 35-150 F2-2.8, or Kit #2- Sony 20-70 f4 with Sony 70-200 f4 Macro. Looking forward to your comments. Glenn A
Hmmm, I would probably go with the latter kit. I love the Tamron as an event lens (my #1 go-to), but that's not part of your photography. The latter kit gives you a constant aperture to work with, adds macro performance, and gives great IQ across the whole range.
I have 16-35 F4 PZ and I'm also thinking about maybe switching out the standard zoom for 35-150 or maybe 50 f1.2 to go with this new 70-200.
I find that most of the time if I need 50 mm I can just crop or use clear image zoom, and I'd rather have a f1.2 prime for personal portraits. It give you 105 f2.4 6x7 depth of field.
I have to admit I mostly use 16-35 f4 PZ starting from 20 mm, but the lens gave me some incredible shots at 16 mm that I can't really trade it for 20-70 mm. Besides 20-70 is much worse in terms of image quality than 16-35 f4 PZ.
16-35 f4 is really a GM lens.
Another fantastic review, Dustin! Thank you.
I tried to read the text review, but the link leads to nonsensical characters.
I just checked the link to the text review from my desktop, and it works perfectly. Must be a flaw with my phone.
I saw that briefly, too, but the site seems to be back up and running properly. We are making some changes and there was obviously a short term glitch.
Which is the tripod in the video?
Oben Tabletop Tripod shown in video: bhpho.to/3vL8YWy
@@DustinAbbottTWI thank you for answering
In your written review you mention that the minimum focus distance at 200mm is 42cm. Is this correct? Because two different online calculators say that 200mm on FF with a 42cm focus distance results in 1:1 or 1:1.1 magnification. This would be considerably higher than Sony's stated 0.5x and would be quite a big deal to a lot of people.
I took that information right off the lens barrel, so that is the correct MFD. The floating elements that allow for strong performance up close probably also result in a bit of focus breathing. The 0.5x magnification figure is correct.
@@DustinAbbottTWI Thanks for the reply! Would've been great to find Sony had been understating the performance. Wonder how much of an extension would be required to move it to 1:1, and how it would perform? A lot of people on forums seem very underwhelmed by this lens but I think it's a lens with a future cult following. It does so many different things and does them all well.
@@IanHobday the 2x telecoverter gives the lens a 1:1 macro ratio throughtout the zoom range.
In terms of sharpness, how does it compare with a 90mm macro G lens ? Which one is the sharpest ? I don't shoot in low light situation.
It's been too long since I've done the review of the 90G Macro to give a fair assessment.
I had one, it broke, so I got this one. The depth of feild is noticed, if you enjoy the razor thin shots. Also the magnification is not as good. You need the 1.4x to get about the same, and you are at like f6 then, which is fine if you are shooting at f11-13 for total sharpness in one shot and not stacking. The ability to zoom though has been amazing for setting up quick macros. It's annoying to move the tripod all the time to get the right distance for that juicy 1:1 with the 90. As someone who just happens to take macros while out. It's been great. The 90 was a great lens, it just lacked versatility. This lens has been easy and great. Looking at the pictures the quality is maybe a bit less, but the time spent is less by a lot. And the shots I have gotten that wouldn't even be close with 90 have made me pretty happy with it, esp as single lense to take out. Honestly both quality lenses that feel gm.
Yes reading about breaking 90mm macros. Wonder if it's because all focusing moves the linked motor. Bad news iirc this lens does the same ( or maybe it was the mark I ).
❤❤❤❤
:)
Great lens but that external zooming design is no go for me.
There is definitely a demographic of photographers that are completely dead set against externally zooming lenses
Great review Dustin, do you have any plans to test it with the x2 teleconverter, i am considering getting to 400mm reach and considering all the options. Cheers. Brian.
Hi Brian, I don't, as I A) don't have a 2x TC and B) had to send the lens back to Sony after my review!
@@DustinAbbottTWI okay thanks...I am planning to hire both options soon for my own research.. thanks for your help
@@briannicholson2971hey Brian I’m thinking to get the same combo, did you like the quality with the x2 TC? Since apparently the new 70-200g2 is super sharp I would like to know if it would be a good pair with x2 TC, specially for birding video “relatively close” with new full frame sensors with dual base ISO 12,800 also videos will be for social media, what do you suggest based on your experience? I really appreciate your thoughts on this, thanks
@@kevinl8791 Hi Kevin,
I ended up going for the Tamron 50-400mm , it's a better all round lens for me and at 59 mm it has a 1:2 magnification at 50mm, I have recently got the Sony 24-50 mm so a great focal range with only 2 lenses.
Thank you for this fantastic review
My pleasure.
I am sticking with my 70-200 F2.8 GMii. That is quite light enough, has the wider aperture and shoots quite close enough for my needs. I am also someone who does not like external zoom
i don't recall him telling ppl to chuck their GM2's for this, it's just a better value proposition for most ppl
Fair enough. It's an exceptional lens, so I doubt I would sell the GM II, either.
Great review!
Glad you enjoyed it
Hello Dustin. Thanks for this review. Always a pleasure to see your material. Here's my dilemma, and hopefully you'll be able to offer your insight. I currently have the 20mm G f/1.8 and the Zeiss 55mm f/1.8. I used to have the Tamron 28-75 (1st gen) but gave it to my dad. I also had the 50-400 from Tamron but found it quite heavy, so I got rid of it. Now... here are my 4 possible combinations:
Kit1: 20mm G, 55mm Zeiss, plus this new 70-200
Kit2: 20mm G, Tamron 35-150 (and for extra reach, APS-C mode on my a7r5)
Kit3: sell the 20mm G and get the 20-70 f/4 plus this new 70-200 f/4
Kit4: same as 1 or 3 but... with the Tamron 70-180 instead of the 70-200 G. I'm particularly curious what you think about this one as an alternative to the reviewed lens.
Or... perhaps you'd suggest yet another combination?
EDIT: street and travel/landscape photography
For your application I think I would go with the kit 3 option. It gives you solid coverage from 20-200mm with very high IQ, plus some macro-ish performance.
@@DustinAbbottTWI Thank you, Dustin. Have you had a chance to compare the 20mm g and the 20-70 on the wide end? I’m tempted to keep the prime (it’s a fantastic lens) but… the budget may not allow it. I’m also wondering whether getting the Tamron 28-75g2 and keeping the prime instead of buying the 20-70 could be worth considering.
That could work, too. I've heard great things about the 20-70mm, but haven't tested it yet. I'm expecting one within the next week, however, for review.
@@DustinAbbottTWI Looking forward to your review. I wonder whether the 20-70 is cannibalizing some of the 20 G sales...
The old 70-200mm f/2.8 GM sells at more than 500 bucks less. If one already owns a macro lens, wouldn't it make more sense to go for that? I feel the 70-200mm f/4 II is far overpriced.
It really depends on what your needs are. This new lens is superior at everything save opening up to F2.8.
Someone is a perennial gardener.
Yup.
What is your opinion on using this with a 1.4x Tele converter in comparison to the tamron 50-400 for example? I have recently been getting into more wildlife/birding. Do you think the 280mm would be enough reach?
Optically it is very good with the teleconverter, though obviously 280mm is not 400mm if you really need that reach.
No internal zoom? Boo.
Can’t have everything
I know right! i didn’t think the size was a big enough deal to make that compromise, sony is already a light weight system
@@tylermoffat2480 I disagree... the lighter the better. I was actually hoping it would be 100g lighter.
That's the one thing that's lost from this generation in order to make the lens smaller and lighter.
@@Someone-lc6dcaccording to Sony, they couldve made it even lighter, but it wouldve meant that the teleconverters wouldnt have worked.