They are comparing 2 Sony lenses, G and the GM. Stop whining about Tamron or other brands, this is not the point! Otherwise it would say Sony versus Tamron. 😏
Thank you. Decided to add this lens specifically for travel and landscape even though I have the GM II f/2.8 version. I plan to pair it with my A7CR and A7CII. Dedicated landscape photographers all seem that f/4 is not an issue for landscape since they appear to shoot a f/5.6 to f/8 or even f/11 so I’m giving it a try. I found a mint used one at a great price. Wish me luck.
I would get a stunt double the next time you have to run Tony. That was sad :( I should hit the gym but I don't think it would help. Love all the content you guy do.
I owned the Tamron 70-180 and I hated it. Anytime I zoomed past 135mm if I didn’t have a shutter faster than 1/500 I would always get at least 1 image blurry. The Tamron quickly got full of dust inside after a handful of months, and the sun flares were terrible. Sure the Tamron did the job but on every shoot I noticed something wrong. Maybe it was my copy who knows.
I mainly shoot motocross, so the internal zoom (especially because I’ve been on the receiving end of dirt covering my entire setup) has been phenomenal. Idk why anyone would want the lens to extend, seems weird for Sony to do that in the second version 😅
So helpful to distinguish the differences and make up my mind and my decision between the two .. both are expensive pieces of gear that is why such video are so important to watch .. thanx guys.. keep it up .. we need you ☺️♥️
At 5:18 the shot of the mannequin with the strobe behind it, the shadow detail is clearly better with the GM lens. Low light is where you need to get more light in. I do not see a comparison of these two under that condition. opening up F4 to 2.8 is a lot of light to get when there isn't much available. The F4 would leave you flat when the 2.8 will get you what you need. This is why you buy the 2.8.
Not for the beach or any harsh windy conditions, as that zooming mechanism will suck in sand, dusts, fungus, whatever into the lens groups, gaskets, and even camera sensor.
I have seen a few test/reviews of this new lens, and in MTF-sharpest tests they do confirm what you saw, that at 200mm f4 the new lens is not it's sharpest, a real bummer for some of what I shoot. Love the macro capability but I wont spend $1700 USD and have a 70-200mm lens not sharp at 200mm. Sony why couldn't you get this lens sharp at 200mm ? A deal-breaker for me with my A1 and A7RIV. Cheers
Quick question just on a macro standpoint do you think this lens is better at macro then the Sony G 90 mm F/2.8 or The Tamron 17 to 70 f/2.8. ?? And I know the tamrom 17-70MMS f/2.8 isn't a true macro lens but you can get insanely close to items and subjects and still Focus sharply at 17mm. Wanted to ask y'all guys thoughts on that
Great video Tony & Chelsea! It would be nice to see a Sony 70-200 f4 II VS. Tamron 70-180 f2.8 comparison video. Even if its not an f2.8, but they are more close when it comes to price ($1200 vs $1700)... also if this lens worth the upgrade and the extra $500 for Tamron owners.
Hi Tony, looked at a couple of other reviews and your sharpness results at the long end seem inconsistent with some other reviewers. Granted, none that I have seen so far compare directly to the GM 2.8, but based on reviews and MTF charts just wondering if you had the same results if you stopped down the lens one or two stops. Just to be clear, not suggesting anything wrong with your tests/testing, as you are very good at double checking things, but just can help but wonder if perhaps if something like sample variation is in play. Again, it would be useful to know if when the lens is stopped down at the long end, are you getting the same results. Appreciate any feedback. Regards
It's possible we had a bad sample. The sharpness isn't objectively bad; it looked fine in real-world shooting. It just isn't as good as the GM lens in controlled conditions, so unless someone else compared it to a GM II lens with 240 MP pixelshift, their results aren't directly applicable.
@@TonyAndChelsea Thank you for your reply, it is greatly appreciated. Your points are correct and as best I can see to date, you are the only one who compared the 2.8 to the f4. So, point taken. However, I'm looking at trends among the reviews using the MTF charts as a guide. I've found over time that the calculated ones (which most are today) are still very good guides as what to expect from a lens often correlating well with what reviewers find, very much realizing MTF is not everything. My query was in regard to what I felt were two outliers in your result (Abbot & Frost): the center results you got at 70mm, and center/corner result at 200mm. Based on the MTF guide, the center of the f/2/8 should have beaten the f4, epically based on the video the 2.8 was closed down to f/4. So, that alone makes me wonder. At 200mm, considering the 2.8 was closed down to f4 the 2.8 being better is not a surprise, but that much difference is. Granted, closing any good lens down even one stop can make a huge difference, so a surprise but perhaps explainable. However, the f/4 being (to my eye) considerably better on the edge at 200mm I just can't reconcile based on prior reviewers along with their consistency with the MTF chart. Something I need to reiterate, in no way am I saying your observations are wrong. Based on methodology, testing environment, ... differences will happen. What I am asking is when making your resolution tests did you stop down the f/4 lens 1) As an indicator the differences were/are consistent 2.) to see how well the lenses compare at lower apertures. Based on the MTF information the lenses should compare quite well. Just so you are aware, I'm sure you get many individuals commenting on your methodology and process and such, that is not my interest. Because of my shooting style doing mostly landscapes (so shooting at landscape apertures) and travel with a few other things now and again, and being a pixel peeper (I've owned Leica's, Hasselblad) knowing the middle apertures work well for me is very important as a buying decision. Hence, why it would be useful to know if the MTF charts are a good guide, or perhaps your results are some type of sample variation (or as a long shot, perhaps some of the pictures you presented are at different apertures - some type of firmware issue?) so perhaps should wait. Again, just want you to realize I think you and Chelsea do a great job, but I'm just trying to get the best information In can. Regards
@@TonyAndChelsea in some other reviews. the center sharpness @200mm comparing @70mm is very slightly different. @70 is just a touch sharper. But when I see your test @200, it is so so soft ..... I think you might get a bad sample ?!??
@TonyAndChelsea I wonder if the pixel shift introduced just the tiniest amount of shake with the lens extended? What about a plain single shot comparison?
This lens should be compared with the Tamron 2.8/70-180 which aims at the same goals: lightweight, close focus. If they are both optically excellent, as it seams, then the choice is between f/2.8 or 20mm more telephoto.
That's a tough one. My buddy has the tamron, I have the old F4G and new F2.8GMii. I shot with his Tamron a few times and found it really impressive. Personally, I think the Tamron would get my vote, but not by much. I do like the size of this and would love to try it out, but that 200mm center sharpness comparison made me happy to see I didn't waste my money on the F2.8GMii which was miles better. The old F4 used is still a great value and performer in my opinion even for it's age. I have mine up for sale asking $800 and have seen many go for that.
Thank you for the informative video! :-) This lens would also make a great travel telephoto zoom for the Alpha 6600, possibly with the 1.4x teleconverter to make it suitable for macro as well! What do you think? :-) Best regards
Dear Chelsea and Tony, Thank You for Your inspiring tutorials! You are irreplaceable! What in your opinion is the highest ISO for Sony Alpha 7rIII I can go to without loosing too much of the quality of my pictures? Thank You in advance for Your reply and keep on inspiring us! 🙂 All the best!
I honestly don't think they will be comparable. This lens will blow that one out of the water optically with better focus and macro ability but at the expense of having 100mm less focal range.
Does the lens lock only work at 70mm? Or can it be used at any focal length? (Thinking down the road when lens has been used and might run the risk of changing focal length when camera is tilted vertically)
I think either a lens or even a sensor could use some cleaning. There's a spot at the bottom during the side by side f/2.8 and f/4 comparison at 0:37 😉 And I already checked: it wasn't my screen
Constant 0.5x magnification as a big feature. "got closest at the long end near 200mm". Man, those reviews are not what they once were. Also, that focus distance for the sharpness test is a weird choice, and then the fact that the 70-200 f4 is way sharper in the corner and the F2.8 is way sharper in the center at 200mm, honestly just seems like field curvature and improper focusing.
We did not find constant 0.5x magnification. At 70mm magnification was significantly lower than at 200mm. The sharpness test is flat specifically to highlight any field curvature problems. The set also includes depth to allow us to verify focusing accuracy and consistency, and I can say the focus was accurate.
The 135 is smaller, lighter, and has that 1.8 aperture, so stepped down it'll be sharper at 135 f4 as well. You're also more likely to find the 135 used if you want it under retail.
I've debated this myself. the 135's seem like the sharpest option in this focal length range. Yet, shooters who own both seem to say the 135 stays at home and the 70-200 gets to play. @@vtxgenie1
I thought to get my get first camera with tele lens because ccloser cann covered with iPhone 15, 70-200 f4 can shoot macro which is more capability, butAPSC 70-350 has more zoom, which should i choose? How about Rx100 Vii and RX10 iV, are they worth it, I hope ew version with Exmor T going to release tho. I thought to get 20-70mm F4 and pair with 70-200 F4 but as I realoised closer can cover with iPhone 15, I also noot surre if A7Cii/A7CcR are worth it since the big lens wont get benefit from smaller camera body and the EVF experience isn't going to be as good as full size A7. I also.thought to get Hasselblad X2D with single 28mm (22mm FF eq.) because I love its image quality and color and I can crop in a lot too, I also thought to get Leica Q3 which is good overall in one package, also Leica D Lux 7 which is ggoodd enough in a small beautiful package but I hope fixed lens camera can start at ultrawide with good macro too. I focus on Sony because it has that unique ultrawide to tele 20-70mm F4 lens and I Love Sony more, but if I won't get it but a super tele, should I get other brand? Any other brands has small super tele that has macro too like Sony 70-200mm F4 and good in video with minimum rolling shutter? But I still not sure, any advices and suggestions?
At this price and size, I wish they made the focal range 50-200 or 70-250, even at the expense of losing the teleconverter compatibility and some macro capabilities, and kept the aperture ring like on all new G lenses.
A great lens but too expensive for most. The Tamron 70-180 F2.8 works for me. I don't need IS for outdoor sports with the F2.8 aperture and it's cheaper than this F4, and it has the 0.5 macro functionality.
@@HagaishiSamathe 17-70 is an apsc lens so it doesn’t compare 1 to 1 to the 70-180 unless you’re putting it on a crop body. If you are using a crop body, and don’t plan on moving to full frame, get the 17-70 2.8. You will see much better image quality due to the sensor being able to use the full capabilities of the lens as opposed to just half of it. If you plan on moving to full frame, get the 70-180. It will serve you better in the long run as the 17-70 will not translate well to a full frame camera without, again, seeing serious degradation to your image and giving up all advantages of full frame.
@@questioneverything680 me personally I'm going to stay with aps-c. But I own the Sony G 90mm and the tamron 17-70 f2.8 and I'm not ignorant like most photographers who look down on aps-c. Aps-c Sony cameras do just fine and I've done plenty of professional work with them. I just wanted to know people thoughts on as a macro is this just as good as the 90 or the 17-70 Tamron 2.8 when it comes to macro. The 90mm of course is sharper than all of them but I can get much closer with the tamron. I don't think this new lens is better than the 90 macro but I wanted to get other people feelings when it comes to comparing to lenses for their macro capabilities. But thanks for you input
I agree. At this price point, it's difficult to justify purchasing it. I was hoping it would be 100g less. Don't need to attach teleconverters and I don't care about macro. Still envious of Canon's 70-200 RF f4.
Thanks for this. The GM is expensive for sure. I'm just a little weary of buying cheaper lenses, that don't hold up over time. After all, photography is an expensive profession/hobby (privilege). I'll save more for the GM.
Canon remaking his 70-200 with internal focusing, sony making same mistake as canon did with external focusing. At the end, dust manage to get inside no matter what…
GM I or II, because in my opinion you shouldn't have gotten the I in the first place. The Tamron is a much nicer lens. The GM II on the other hand is marvelous
are comparing 2 Sony lenses, G and the GM. Stop whining about Tanron or other brands, this is not the point! Otherwise it would say Sony versus Tamron. 😏
Who's going to drop that much cash for an F4 lens. Macro users will get a proper Macro lens. Sony should have updated their ancient 90mm Macro to a GM spec instead.
We showed the maximum magnification. Check the table of contents. There's not much else to say other than that it does indeed have excellent maximum magnification.
I have heard from several reviewers on youtube, i.a. that if you have a Sony FE 70-200mm F2.8 GM OSS II with OSS = built-in stabilization in the lens, this MUST COOPERATE with that in the camera = IBIS. But I get this message: !Lens Invalid with this lens. Perform the action on the lens if the lens has a SteadyShot switch. How should I interpret this? Is it a "bug" in the firmware? Is the information about collaboration between the two just nonsense? Now when everyone reviews the new 70-200 f4 macro it sounds the same: They work together, BOTH US in the lens AND IBIS in the camera work together. Listen. ".... and I saw very little difference between the lens using both OSS and IBIS and the lens relying on just the IBIS..." So: What about that thing? Does anyone really KNOW how it works? Grateful for answers ! There must be a REASON for the message I get on the camera display. Either I have been misled to believe that OSS+IBIS = TRUE or I have misunderstood everything.
I think they saw what a smart choice it was for most people to go with a more compact/carry friendly external zoom option. There's a rumor that Canon is working on a special 70-180ish 2.0.
Wow, I bet it cost $150.00 but probably 10% that amount. Don’t these people know that we are moving into a recession? Who can afford such a nice new lens? Besides, I’m still rocking in the 70D. Like you always tell us, the best camera to have is the one in your hand. Thanks for the video.
sharpness section of the review is way too amateurly done. go out and take some big dof landscapes than compare lenses..not books lined 2meters away. lol. wow also big shock at macro comparison, get gm ii at 200mm then shoot at min.distance and let us know the fram.dude you screwed up the entire review.
They are comparing 2 Sony lenses, G and the GM. Stop whining about Tamron or other brands, this is not the point! Otherwise it would say Sony versus Tamron. 😏
Been out of the game for a few years now and I'm scanning the gear market. Great to see that you two still deliver these straight to the point videos👍
I liked the use of black and white for the out of focus photos in your test!
Thank you. Decided to add this lens specifically for travel and landscape even though I have the GM II f/2.8 version. I plan to pair it with my A7CR and A7CII. Dedicated landscape photographers all seem that f/4 is not an issue for landscape since they appear to shoot a f/5.6 to f/8 or even f/11 so I’m giving it a try. I found a mint used one at a great price. Wish me luck.
- Do you practice any sport ?
tony: - "I run towards cameras " 😂
I would get a stunt double the next time you have to run Tony. That was sad :( I should hit the gym but I don't think it would help. Love all the content you guy do.
I think with its smaller size and macro capability, it is ideal for travel and lanscape photography.
Vs Tamron 70-180 2.8 ? I ask because they make different compromises for portability and budget.
I wonder, how it is compared to the Tamron 70-180?
I owned the Tamron 70-180 and I hated it. Anytime I zoomed past 135mm if I didn’t have a shutter faster than 1/500 I would always get at least 1 image blurry. The Tamron quickly got full of dust inside after a handful of months, and the sun flares were terrible.
Sure the Tamron did the job but on every shoot I noticed something wrong. Maybe it was my copy who knows.
it was yours copy for sure, mine copy is spot on, no dust and sharp af. own this for about a year and used in many conditions@@Akiidan
I think a lot of people wanted to see the 70-200 g2 vs tamron 70-180
Exactly
No Lens is perfect and the new ones are always getting better, but I think most people would agree the f4 G1 is still a great lens.
I mainly shoot motocross, so the internal zoom (especially because I’ve been on the receiving end of dirt covering my entire setup) has been phenomenal. Idk why anyone would want the lens to extend, seems weird for Sony to do that in the second version 😅
what about 70-200 f4 II vs 70-200 f2.8 first gen???? which should I get?
The shorter focus throw on internal zoom 70-200 is crucial for sports photography.
Was that Tony's first time running?
So helpful to distinguish the differences and make up my mind and my decision between the two .. both are expensive pieces of gear that is why such video are so important to watch .. thanx guys.. keep it up .. we need you ☺️♥️
Love you videos, think you may have left out that this new lense is also compatible with the 2x and 1.4x converter . I think this is also a big plus .
At 5:18 the shot of the mannequin with the strobe behind it, the shadow detail is clearly better with the GM lens. Low light is where you need to get more light in. I do not see a comparison of these two under that condition. opening up F4 to 2.8 is a lot of light to get when there isn't much available. The F4 would leave you flat when the 2.8 will get you what you need. This is why you buy the 2.8.
On this shot, I thought the F4 was sharper than the f2.8 . I got the f4 . I do portraits and headshots.
Not for the beach or any harsh windy conditions, as that zooming mechanism will suck in sand, dusts, fungus, whatever into the lens groups, gaskets, and even camera sensor.
yeah 2470 gm ii sucking dust even though the tiniest external zooming movement. can't imagine how this one will do, it has huge travel in & out
With this price point, I would be intrigued to see how things line up between the F4 G II vs the first gen F2.8 GM and the value at around $1700.
My problem with this lens is the absurdly high price. An f4 70-200 for $2000 is insanity.
I have the 70-200 gm I and 90 mm macro. Do you think it's a good move to sell both and buy this new 70-200 f/4 macro?
I have seen a few test/reviews of this new lens, and in MTF-sharpest tests they do confirm what you saw, that at 200mm f4 the new lens is not it's sharpest, a real bummer for some of what I shoot. Love the macro capability but I wont spend $1700 USD and have a 70-200mm lens not sharp at 200mm. Sony why couldn't you get this lens sharp at 200mm ? A deal-breaker for me with my A1 and A7RIV. Cheers
Editing lens dust out? I didn't think it ever showed up. ..Edit maybe it can get all the way through to the sensor, my mistake!
Quick question just on a macro standpoint do you think this lens is better at macro then the Sony G 90 mm F/2.8 or The Tamron 17 to 70 f/2.8. ??
And I know the tamrom 17-70MMS f/2.8 isn't a true macro lens but you can get insanely close to items and subjects and still Focus sharply at 17mm.
Wanted to ask y'all guys thoughts on that
To get true 1:1 macro like the 90mm, you would need to use the 2x converter.
so the 70-200 is not a true macro? sad :( @@jasonzakszewski3718
Great video Tony & Chelsea! It would be nice to see a Sony 70-200 f4 II VS. Tamron 70-180 f2.8 comparison video. Even if its not an f2.8, but they are more close when it comes to price ($1200 vs $1700)... also if this lens worth the upgrade and the extra $500 for Tamron owners.
Exactly the factors I'm considering!
Me too waiting for this
Can I use this macro lens for wildlife Safari photos and videos? Or which lens is good for wildlife
Guess I’ll stick to my 70200 gm ii.
Haha
Hi Tony, looked at a couple of other reviews and your sharpness results at the long end seem inconsistent with some other reviewers. Granted, none that I have seen so far compare directly to the GM 2.8, but based on reviews and MTF charts just wondering if you had the same results if you stopped down the lens one or two stops.
Just to be clear, not suggesting anything wrong with your tests/testing, as you are very good at double checking things, but just can help but wonder if perhaps if something like sample variation is in play. Again, it would be useful to know if when the lens is stopped down at the long end, are you getting the same results.
Appreciate any feedback.
Regards
It's possible we had a bad sample. The sharpness isn't objectively bad; it looked fine in real-world shooting. It just isn't as good as the GM lens in controlled conditions, so unless someone else compared it to a GM II lens with 240 MP pixelshift, their results aren't directly applicable.
@@TonyAndChelsea Thank you for your reply, it is greatly appreciated. Your points are correct and as best I can see to date, you are the only one who compared the 2.8 to the f4. So, point taken.
However, I'm looking at trends among the reviews using the MTF charts as a guide. I've found over time that the calculated ones (which most are today) are still very good guides as what to expect from a lens often correlating well with what reviewers find, very much realizing MTF is not everything. My query was in regard to what I felt were two outliers in your result (Abbot & Frost): the center results you got at 70mm, and center/corner result at 200mm.
Based on the MTF guide, the center of the f/2/8 should have beaten the f4, epically based on the video the 2.8 was closed down to f/4. So, that alone makes me wonder. At 200mm, considering the 2.8 was closed down to f4 the 2.8 being better is not a surprise, but that much difference is. Granted, closing any good lens down even one stop can make a huge difference, so a surprise but perhaps explainable. However, the f/4 being (to my eye) considerably better on the edge at 200mm I just can't reconcile based on prior reviewers along with their consistency with the MTF chart.
Something I need to reiterate, in no way am I saying your observations are wrong. Based on methodology, testing environment, ... differences will happen. What I am asking is when making your resolution tests did you stop down the f/4 lens 1) As an indicator the differences were/are consistent 2.) to see how well the lenses compare at lower apertures. Based on the MTF information the lenses should compare quite well.
Just so you are aware, I'm sure you get many individuals commenting on your methodology and process and such, that is not my interest. Because of my shooting style doing mostly landscapes (so shooting at landscape apertures) and travel with a few other things now and again, and being a pixel peeper (I've owned Leica's, Hasselblad) knowing the middle apertures work well for me is very important as a buying decision. Hence, why it would be useful to know if the MTF charts are a good guide, or perhaps your results are some type of sample variation (or as a long shot, perhaps some of the pictures you presented are at different apertures - some type of firmware issue?) so perhaps should wait.
Again, just want you to realize I think you and Chelsea do a great job, but I'm just trying to get the best information In can.
Regards
This is what I am wondering too. Thanks for addressing this point.
@@TonyAndChelsea in some other reviews. the center sharpness @200mm comparing @70mm is very slightly different. @70 is just a touch sharper. But when I see your test @200, it is so so soft ..... I think you might get a bad sample ?!??
@TonyAndChelsea I wonder if the pixel shift introduced just the tiniest amount of shake with the lens extended? What about a plain single shot comparison?
You should compare this one to the tamron 70-180 gii… because of the price I mean and there are no reviews of those two. Thanks for your videos!
This lens should be compared with the Tamron 2.8/70-180 which aims at the same goals: lightweight, close focus. If they are both optically excellent, as it seams, then the choice is between f/2.8 or 20mm more telephoto.
And about a thousand dollars..
@@donschiffer7400 The price difference between the Sony 70-200 f/4 II and Tamron 70-180 f/2.8 (Now G2) is less than $500.
I absolutely dislike zoom lenses that extends the barrel. 😔
I absolutely dislike zoom lenses that don't collapse down for travel purposes. 😂
But is the f4 lens worth buying over the small and light Tamron 70/180 f2.8 ?
That's a tough one. My buddy has the tamron, I have the old F4G and new F2.8GMii. I shot with his Tamron a few times and found it really impressive. Personally, I think the Tamron would get my vote, but not by much. I do like the size of this and would love to try it out, but that 200mm center sharpness comparison made me happy to see I didn't waste my money on the F2.8GMii which was miles better. The old F4 used is still a great value and performer in my opinion even for it's age. I have mine up for sale asking $800 and have seen many go for that.
this is exactly how I felt when the 200-600 came out, it feels like a GM. I own 7 GM lenses and build quality is on par
Thank you for the informative video! :-) This lens would also make a great travel telephoto zoom for the Alpha 6600, possibly with the 1.4x teleconverter to make it suitable for macro as well!
What do you think? :-)
Best regards
What camera did you get a 240MP image from? :O
a7RV in PIxelShift mode
Does the focus change when you zoom, on 70-200GII ?
I have the Tamron, but I'm still getting this lens.
I wonder when the 70-180 mk2 will come out.
from tamron you mean?
Dear Chelsea and Tony,
Thank You for Your inspiring tutorials! You are irreplaceable! What in your opinion is the highest ISO for Sony Alpha 7rIII I can go to without loosing too much of the quality of my pictures? Thank You in advance for Your reply and keep on inspiring us! 🙂
All the best!
Would love a comparison with the 70-300.
I honestly don't think they will be comparable. This lens will blow that one out of the water optically with better focus and macro ability but at the expense of having 100mm less focal range.
Does the lens lock only work at 70mm? Or can it be used at any focal length? (Thinking down the road when lens has been used and might run the risk of changing focal length when camera is tilted vertically)
Great review!
I think either a lens or even a sensor could use some cleaning. There's a spot at the bottom during the side by side f/2.8 and f/4 comparison at 0:37 😉 And I already checked: it wasn't my screen
It’s the sensor i guess . And the lens are also with caps they too need some cleaning now 😂.
Yeah it's time!
I don’t like zoom lens that extends its length when zoomed.
I like it in my bag but not in my hands.
Constant 0.5x magnification as a big feature. "got closest at the long end near 200mm". Man, those reviews are not what they once were.
Also, that focus distance for the sharpness test is a weird choice, and then the fact that the 70-200 f4 is way sharper in the corner and the F2.8 is way sharper in the center at 200mm, honestly just seems like field curvature and improper focusing.
We did not find constant 0.5x magnification. At 70mm magnification was significantly lower than at 200mm. The sharpness test is flat specifically to highlight any field curvature problems. The set also includes depth to allow us to verify focusing accuracy and consistency, and I can say the focus was accurate.
Pls compare with tamron and sigmas
Please compare new 70-200mm f4 lens against 135mm 1.8f gm
The 135 is smaller, lighter, and has that 1.8 aperture, so stepped down it'll be sharper at 135 f4 as well. You're also more likely to find the 135 used if you want it under retail.
I've debated this myself. the 135's seem like the sharpest option in this focal length range. Yet, shooters who own both seem to say the 135 stays at home and the 70-200 gets to play. @@vtxgenie1
I thought to get my get first camera with tele lens because ccloser cann covered with iPhone 15, 70-200 f4 can shoot macro which is more capability, butAPSC 70-350 has more zoom, which should i choose? How about Rx100 Vii and RX10 iV, are they worth it, I hope ew version with Exmor T going to release tho. I thought to get 20-70mm F4 and pair with 70-200 F4 but as I realoised closer can cover with iPhone 15, I also noot surre if A7Cii/A7CcR are worth it since the big lens wont get benefit from smaller camera body and the EVF experience isn't going to be as good as full size A7. I also.thought to get Hasselblad X2D with single 28mm (22mm FF eq.) because I love its image quality and color and I can crop in a lot too, I also thought to get Leica Q3 which is good overall in one package, also Leica D Lux 7 which is ggoodd enough in a small beautiful package but I hope fixed lens camera can start at ultrawide with good macro too. I focus on Sony because it has that unique ultrawide to tele 20-70mm F4 lens and I Love Sony more, but if I won't get it but a super tele, should I get other brand? Any other brands has small super tele that has macro too like Sony 70-200mm F4 and good in video with minimum rolling shutter? But I still not sure, any advices and suggestions?
If the F4 didn’t telescope, it would have been better than F2.8.
Thanks for perfect! 🤓👌 review lens Sony 70-200.
Tony runs like Steven Seagal! 😂 We love you, Tony!
The spot on the screen i cant unsee it 😂😂😂
At this price and size, I wish they made the focal range 50-200 or 70-250, even at the expense of losing the teleconverter compatibility and some macro capabilities, and kept the aperture ring like on all new G lenses.
I cannot believe Sony did NOT include a case for this $1,700 lens in the US. Come on Man!
Thank you
It was unfair comparison. The guy ran more happily in the video of F/4
A great lens but too expensive for most.
The Tamron 70-180 F2.8 works for me. I don't need IS for outdoor sports with the F2.8 aperture and it's cheaper than this F4, and it has the 0.5 macro functionality.
Own and love that lens. Good for photo and video (if you don't intend to zoom while you shoot.)
Have you ever used to Tamron 17 to 70 F 2.8? And if so do you think it performs better than the tamron 70-180?
@@HagaishiSamathe 17-70 is an apsc lens so it doesn’t compare 1 to 1 to the 70-180 unless you’re putting it on a crop body. If you are using a crop body, and don’t plan on moving to full frame, get the 17-70 2.8. You will see much better image quality due to the sensor being able to use the full capabilities of the lens as opposed to just half of it. If you plan on moving to full frame, get the 70-180. It will serve you better in the long run as the 17-70 will not translate well to a full frame camera without, again, seeing serious degradation to your image and giving up all advantages of full frame.
@@questioneverything680 me personally I'm going to stay with aps-c. But I own the Sony G 90mm and the tamron 17-70 f2.8 and I'm not ignorant like most photographers who look down on aps-c.
Aps-c Sony cameras do just fine and I've done plenty of professional work with them. I just wanted to know people thoughts on as a macro is this just as good as the 90 or the 17-70 Tamron 2.8 when it comes to macro. The 90mm of course is sharper than all of them but I can get much closer with the tamron. I don't think this new lens is better than the 90 macro but I wanted to get other people feelings when it comes to comparing to lenses for their macro capabilities.
But thanks for you input
I agree. At this price point, it's difficult to justify purchasing it. I was hoping it would be 100g less. Don't need to attach teleconverters and I don't care about macro. Still envious of Canon's 70-200 RF f4.
2:03 funny you talk about dust and editing it out and your cameras have dust in the bottom center!
Thanks for this. The GM is expensive for sure. I'm just a little weary of buying cheaper lenses, that don't hold up over time. After all, photography is an expensive profession/hobby (privilege). I'll save more for the GM.
Be realistic, who would buy an f4 for $1700? It just makes no sense.
I bought it because it's light weight, easy to carry and I use for landscapes and i don't need f2.8 and it's not as expensive as the gm lens.
Good stuff and I can safely state Usain Bolt’s world record is safe.
Good Option For Sigma ❤
Canon remaking his 70-200 with internal focusing, sony making same mistake as canon did with external focusing. At the end, dust manage to get inside no matter what…
Wow just bought the 70-200mm f2.8 looks like I should have waited a couple of months 😢
GM I or II, because in my opinion you shouldn't have gotten the I in the first place. The Tamron is a much nicer lens. The GM II on the other hand is marvelous
@@saiiiiiii1 True. I never even tried the Tamron . The GM II is very good I used it photographing Sand Martins in flight, amazing focus acquisition 😥
@@CamillaI but I mean if it suits your needs, why not just be happy with it. It sure as hell is a nice enough lens to take stunning pictures 👍
are comparing 2 Sony lenses, G and the GM. Stop whining about Tanron or other brands, this is not the point! Otherwise it would say Sony versus Tamron. 😏
I don’t understand how zooming in on magazine covers tells the real story of lens capability?? Too expensive for my photography needs.
Who's going to drop that much cash for an F4 lens. Macro users will get a proper Macro lens. Sony should have updated their ancient 90mm Macro to a GM spec instead.
Ironic that you say how easy it is to remiove dust while you post a video with a huge dust spot on your B roll
Not a single example of macro photo in the macro-capable lens review... I am not even sure they had the actual lens for the review.
We showed the maximum magnification. Check the table of contents. There's not much else to say other than that it does indeed have excellent maximum magnification.
dang you guys are really aging well together!
I have heard from several reviewers on youtube, i.a. that if you have a Sony FE 70-200mm F2.8 GM OSS II with OSS = built-in stabilization in the lens, this MUST COOPERATE with that in the camera = IBIS.
But I get this message: !Lens Invalid with this lens. Perform the action on the lens if the lens has a SteadyShot switch.
How should I interpret this? Is it a "bug" in the firmware? Is the information about collaboration between the two just nonsense?
Now when everyone reviews the new 70-200 f4 macro it sounds the same: They work together, BOTH US in the lens AND IBIS in the camera work together.
Listen. ".... and I saw very little difference between the lens using both OSS and IBIS and the lens relying on just the IBIS..."
So: What about that thing? Does anyone really KNOW how it works? Grateful for answers ! There must be a REASON for the message I get on the camera display. Either I have been misled to believe that OSS+IBIS = TRUE or I have misunderstood everything.
2.8 all the way
Very bad Barel out lens 😆
Why do you shoot out of focus book covers? Shoot real objects
Sony is trying to catch up to the Canon RF l lens....
I think they saw what a smart choice it was for most people to go with a more compact/carry friendly external zoom option. There's a rumor that Canon is working on a special 70-180ish 2.0.
Canon dropped the ball on RF 70-200 f2.8, thankfully, Sony kept theirs internal zoom.
@@maxipadthai You post in a thread on a new external zoom offering 🤡
@@pgsanta who's the 🤡 brought up a rumoured Canon "70-180ish 2.0" in a Sony product video?
@maxipadthai Nope, it isn't internal zoom, please check that out..
Seems like a concession that for most people Canon's choice of an external zoom on a 70-200 is a better option.
100 grams heavier, and $200 more than the Canon RF version, they should have kept it internal focus for that weight.
Mr. and Mrs. Sleepy Time.
no internal zoom!!!!!! fu^* that.
It is too bad it is larger than the previous version and has more points of failure.
Wow, I bet it cost $150.00 but probably 10% that amount. Don’t these people know that we are moving into a recession? Who can afford such a nice new lens? Besides, I’m still rocking in the 70D. Like you always tell us, the best camera to have is the one in your hand. Thanks for the video.
sharpness section of the review is way too amateurly done. go out and take some big dof landscapes than compare lenses..not books lined 2meters away. lol. wow also big shock at macro comparison, get gm ii at 200mm then shoot at min.distance and let us know the fram.dude you screwed up the entire review.
No.
Such an useless zoom range. 200 is not enough for anything. At least 400. Ugh