Definitely sharper than f4, has much faster AF, and can use 1.4 (f4) / 2.0x (f5.6) for longer reach. Weight is only slightly heavier with GM2. Min focus is 0.4m @ 70mm / 0.8m @ 200mm (GM2) vs 1.0m MF / 1.3m AF (f4 G).
I bought it yesterday, knowing the v2 was better in so many ways, just because it's not going to be my main lens, and I couldn't see myself spending the extra $800.
@@riparianlife97701 same here, actually on control light both the v1 and v2 have the same level of sharpness; indistinguishable. For Backlight, speed, weight, chromatic aberration, and focus distance the v2 is much better. The 70-200 2.8 V1 open box at best buy for $1500 is a better deal for someone that is going to used 15% of the time. Spend the money for the lens you used the most.
I was waiting for this comparison, THANK YOU for this ! The 2.8 always attracted me most cause you know, lower f stop, more light and more beautiful bokeh 🙈 but the price of the V1 was not on par with the quality offered... They have corrected this with the V2, for sure, so I’ll save to get this lens ! Thank you !
I primarily care about image quality, not weight, nor short focus distance. That said, I’m worried your photo edge sharpness test could simply be out of focus, as the corner of the fence is clearly farther from the lens than the center, where’s the lens is presumably focused. That would also explain how stopping down helps, as stopping down increases depth of field. At least consider also giving us a landscape test, where everything is virtually at infinity, to eliminate the focus distance disparities.
I bought a 70-200 GM v1 yesterday, and carried it arround on my camera for 5 hours. I really didn't mind. You do feel like you've put a camera on your lens, instead of a lens on your camera, but for a, $800 savings, I don't mind.
There is one thing NO ONE ever mentions! You can use the Teleconverters 1.4X and 2x. Never mind the 1.4x because you can go APS-C and get 1.5x. The 2x gives you 140 - 400mm and add the APS-C of 1.5x 210- 600mm, yea just a crop But it uses center of sensor for faster AF. I do this with the 200-600 but hard to track a flying bird, But using this lens with the 2x you can push the APS-C button for a fast zoom in and still crank back to follow. With a Sony no need to fear f/# using 2x!!! I know they are white for reduced heat but a white lens says money so get a camo lens skin. Yea I also will get the new greater than great lens.
so I know I want the f/2.8 cause. I often use a high shutterspeed so that bit extra f/ light coming in is very much appreciated.. Now deciding do I just purchase the v1 or save some more and go v2, prob v1 cause I don't mind the weight and in the end it's the person behind the lens that makes a photo good or great, and not necessarily the little extra quality the v2 brings along
@@Nine.siixxx the 2.8. v2, I opted to invest so I can use it for a long time since I'll be professionally shooting with it. It's my absolute favorite lens so far and don't regret buying it for a second, its so insanely sharp! I also recently purchased the 24-70mm v1, which, with the little use I've got out of it so far, does not seem to be as sharp as this one is, so maybe I should've invested in the v2 for that one aswell ... idk . next on the agenda to purchase is either the 200-600 for sports or the 16-24mm
@@XricheeX okay thanks for the reply, I’m trying to decide what route to go with my A7iv I just shoot for fun mates on there motorbikes etc, here in Australia there is quite a fair few good sales on the V1 it’s around $2400 vs the v2 being $3300-$3500 I’m leaning towards the v1 for me using it maybe once a month
Great review!! The price difference is SO high that I’m still worried about that kind of expense 😅 but it’s definitely a super lens 😍 Thanks for your video!!
Thanks for the vid! I know you definitely loved the new 2.8 (who wouldn’t) but for those of us a little further down the food chain body wise, do you think the f/4 is still worth it? I’ve got wide aperture primes for documentary and event work, so the 2.8 doesn’t do anything for me there, and the price is agonizing; I could almost get into a nice used f/4 and 16-35 for the same money to round out the landscape and travel side of the lens arsenal. Running an A7iii body currently for reference.
So I went on a huge rant while filming this and it ultimately didn't make the final cut because I wasn't sure how interesting it is, but the f/4 was the first zoom lens I ever bought myself and I STILL use it to this day. I just used it on a professional project in January, in fact. Short answer: I absolutely love that lens and 1,000% do not regret buying it.
@@Nateinthewild that’s honestly a relief to hear. I’ve got absurdly sharp lenses (the 135 gm is a dream), but as someone just trying to build right now, I’d rather get something that would work and upgrade eventually if I need to. People crapping on the image quality scared me off though, and I didn’t want to end up getting something I regretted.
nice, finally a proper review demonstrating and discussing the quality difference in these lenses, i would love to see how the Sony 70-300 compare to these :D, i own one but feel it's too soft, but don't know it's worth jumping on the 70-200 wagon (unless it's f2.8 ii)
This was a really good video, thank you, but I was really hoping you were going to actually compare ALL of them - including the original A-mount Sony lenses (SAL70200G and SAL70200G2). You need an adapter for E-mount, but I'd love to see how they compare too. Thanks again!
I've been looking into the F4 for in the forrest shooting mountain biking. Fast action, lower light. I'm worried the F4 may not be fast enough. Those cats looked fast, did you find any issues with the performance and that moving action?
Honestly for mountain biking I would do the f/2.8 GM II. f/2.8 is TWICE as much light as f/4, which means you'll be able to shoot 1/1000 instead of 1/500 which will make a huge difference for the final image. Or, you can shoot 1/1000 at half the ISO, which again will be a huge life saver. The new GM is pretty light, and for me I'll always prioritize image quality over all else.
Thank you for this, I am stuck choosing between the Vii f/2.8 0r the original f2.8, I shoot mainly wildlife and occasionally landscapes. I purchased the f/4 but have sent that back as I was a little disappointed with it. Here in the UK prices are crazy but looks like I will opt for the vii, best price I have seen is £2,000... hell, that's a lot of money to me but needs must :)
Been feeding the cats for over a year.. yet they still wont let you pet the LOLOL GERAT review! I've been considering the new 70-200mm. Welp, gotta start saving money now lol Maybe next month I'll buy it! THANK YOU!!
Have you had any problems with any of these at temps below 50degF. I bought the Mk1 in 2017 and it is awesome except below 50degF. The lens gets cold and loses communication with body.
I have never seen that, no. Have you checked if your contacts are perhaps dirty? I'm not sure what to make of that, as I rarely ever use these in temps ABOVE 50ºF and they always work flawlessly.
It does, that's just the focusing element moving when the lens is powered off due to the XD linear focusing motors not having any mechanical attachment points. Nothing to be concerned about :)
17:18 You absolutely nailed it. Wouldn't be here if we weren't all going "which one is better, and which one will burn the biggest hole in my wallet?" lol. Great review though!
So I have the opportunity to get the original 2.8 for $1600. Would you say pull the trigger on that and save the money? Or wait, save, and get the gen ii?
@@wingcreator you’re right, I got the Gen ii a couple months ago and love it so much. I had to get rid of a couple good lenses to get it but it’s worth it
@@tannerswan9885 Well, it is a little pricy. Sometimes in photography, we have to do it this way. But damn, you are right, 70200GM2 is the best 70-200mm I have ever owned. I recently got the 2.0x TC (it is very good - slightly soft but I think 1.4x TC will be slightly better. Before when using v1, 2.0x TC was not an option at all - poor AF and unacceptable IQ.
Not at all. You might not be able to see the sharpness quite as well, but all the other features like faster AF, lighter weight, closer focusing distance etc will still be a huge benefit!
I own the f4 and use it together with my A9. I primary use it for concerts and it’s sharp enough. I made a1 prints with that Setup and it’s razor sharp. Sometimes it’s important to remember that nobody ever watch a picture in 100 or 400% in photoshop or Lightroom. Always judge by the final print. Everything else is useless. I also shoot with Hasselblad 50 megapixel with the best lenses you can get. That’s sharp as hell but in many situations my costumers can’t tell the difference in sharpness. The most important thing in that case, is the noise, dynamic range and the different look because the Hasselblad sensor is larger physic than the full frame Sony. And hey if you really want to judge sharpness, get a test chart with a resolution chart on with lines. That’s the only way to judge sharpness. Try it, make a print and watch it from the right distance and you will be shocked. Actually you don’t need 50, 60 or even 100 megapixel to get razor sharp prints. 24 is in many cases overkill so if we cut into the bone, you can’t tell the difference between the f4 or the f2.8 😊
I have no interest in being another TH-cam gear reviewer who sits in a dark basement and shoots photos of grid lines on paper to test sharpness. I take photos out in the real world and look at them with my eyeballs, everything else is useless.
I’ve been waiting for this comparison. From a landscape perspective it makes a lot of sense to compare with an F4.
That's what I thought as well. Thanks for watching!
Definitely sharper than f4, has much faster AF, and can use 1.4 (f4) / 2.0x (f5.6) for longer reach. Weight is only slightly heavier with GM2. Min focus is 0.4m @ 70mm / 0.8m @ 200mm (GM2) vs 1.0m MF / 1.3m AF (f4 G).
I bought the original f2.8 G Master and I have really been enjoying it. It is heavy, but it's really sharp.
I bought it yesterday, knowing the v2 was better in so many ways, just because it's not going to be my main lens, and I couldn't see myself spending the extra $800.
@@riparianlife97701 same here, actually on control light both the v1 and v2 have the same level of sharpness; indistinguishable. For Backlight, speed, weight, chromatic aberration, and focus distance the v2 is much better. The 70-200 2.8 V1 open box at best buy for $1500 is a better deal for someone that is going to used 15% of the time. Spend the money for the lens you used the most.
I have been trying to decide between the f2.8 vs the f4. Your image of the cats really helps. Thank you.
I was waiting for this comparison, THANK YOU for this !
The 2.8 always attracted me most cause you know, lower f stop, more light and more beautiful bokeh 🙈 but the price of the V1 was not on par with the quality offered... They have corrected this with the V2, for sure, so I’ll save to get this lens ! Thank you !
Dude thank you so much for this video. Gosh. I want that gm OSS ii roll off but also want that f4 price tag. Life is tough
This is so informative. The only review one needs if your on the market for this Sony G-master glas! Love your honest and professional opinion, Nate.
I always value Chris Jericho's opinion, I'll have to rewatch this a few times before i buy!!
I primarily care about image quality, not weight, nor short focus distance.
That said, I’m worried your photo edge sharpness test could simply be out of focus, as the corner of the fence is clearly farther from the lens than the center, where’s the lens is presumably focused. That would also explain how stopping down helps, as stopping down increases depth of field. At least consider also giving us a landscape test, where everything is virtually at infinity, to eliminate the focus distance disparities.
I bought a 70-200 GM v1 yesterday, and carried it arround on my camera for 5 hours. I really didn't mind. You do feel like you've put a camera on your lens, instead of a lens on your camera, but for a, $800 savings, I don't mind.
Got this lense a few weeks ago and it’s such a step up! Glad I opted for the mark 2 despite the price as a step up from my f4 💕
There is one thing NO ONE ever mentions! You can use the Teleconverters 1.4X and 2x. Never mind the 1.4x because you can go APS-C and get 1.5x. The 2x gives you 140 - 400mm and add the APS-C of 1.5x 210- 600mm, yea just a crop But it uses center of sensor for faster AF. I do this with the 200-600 but hard to track a flying bird, But using this lens with the 2x you can push the APS-C button for a fast zoom in and still crank back to follow. With a Sony no need to fear f/# using 2x!!! I know they are white for reduced heat but a white lens says money so get a camo lens skin. Yea I also will get the new greater than great lens.
Awesome video!! It would be nice to hear your thoughts of this same lineup now adding the second generation of the F4.
so I know I want the f/2.8 cause. I often use a high shutterspeed so that bit extra f/ light coming in is very much appreciated.. Now deciding do I just purchase the v1 or save some more and go v2, prob v1 cause I don't mind the weight and in the end it's the person behind the lens that makes a photo good or great, and not necessarily the little extra quality the v2 brings along
What did you end up getting?
@@Nine.siixxx the 2.8. v2, I opted to invest so I can use it for a long time since I'll be professionally shooting with it. It's my absolute favorite lens so far and don't regret buying it for a second, its so insanely sharp! I also recently purchased the 24-70mm v1, which, with the little use I've got out of it so far, does not seem to be as sharp as this one is, so maybe I should've invested in the v2 for that one aswell ... idk . next on the agenda to purchase is either the 200-600 for sports or the 16-24mm
@@XricheeX okay thanks for the reply, I’m trying to decide what route to go with my A7iv I just shoot for fun mates on there motorbikes etc, here in Australia there is quite a fair few good sales on the V1 it’s around $2400 vs the v2 being $3300-$3500 I’m leaning towards the v1 for me using it maybe once a month
Thank you so much for this! It’s hard to make a decision when it’s thousands of dollars on the line.
Great review!! The price difference is SO high that I’m still worried about that kind of expense 😅 but it’s definitely a super lens 😍
Thanks for your video!!
Alright dude. Bringing this next time I see you!
Would have love to see the new 70-200 GM II tested with some DSO astrophotography. Haven't been able to find anyone using it with a star tracker.
Thinking of replacing my 135 1.8 with this 70-200 version II. Looking for review tho. Thanks for this! Your reviews are so underrated.
I thought about doing the same but I fear I’d miss it too much.
Need to have both.
I’m mulling over this move..
just wait a while and keep both lol
Great comparison, appreciate the time you put into it!
Thanks for the vid! I know you definitely loved the new 2.8 (who wouldn’t) but for those of us a little further down the food chain body wise, do you think the f/4 is still worth it? I’ve got wide aperture primes for documentary and event work, so the 2.8 doesn’t do anything for me there, and the price is agonizing; I could almost get into a nice used f/4 and 16-35 for the same money to round out the landscape and travel side of the lens arsenal. Running an A7iii body currently for reference.
So I went on a huge rant while filming this and it ultimately didn't make the final cut because I wasn't sure how interesting it is, but the f/4 was the first zoom lens I ever bought myself and I STILL use it to this day. I just used it on a professional project in January, in fact. Short answer: I absolutely love that lens and 1,000% do not regret buying it.
@@Nateinthewild that’s honestly a relief to hear. I’ve got absurdly sharp lenses (the 135 gm is a dream), but as someone just trying to build right now, I’d rather get something that would work and upgrade eventually if I need to. People crapping on the image quality scared me off though, and I didn’t want to end up getting something I regretted.
nice, finally a proper review demonstrating and discussing the quality difference in these lenses, i would love to see how the Sony 70-300 compare to these :D, i own one but feel it's too soft, but don't know it's worth jumping on the 70-200 wagon (unless it's f2.8 ii)
This was a really good video, thank you, but I was really hoping you were going to actually compare ALL of them - including the original A-mount Sony lenses (SAL70200G and SAL70200G2). You need an adapter for E-mount, but I'd love to see how they compare too. Thanks again!
I've been looking into the F4 for in the forrest shooting mountain biking. Fast action, lower light. I'm worried the F4 may not be fast enough. Those cats looked fast, did you find any issues with the performance and that moving action?
Honestly for mountain biking I would do the f/2.8 GM II. f/2.8 is TWICE as much light as f/4, which means you'll be able to shoot 1/1000 instead of 1/500 which will make a huge difference for the final image. Or, you can shoot 1/1000 at half the ISO, which again will be a huge life saver. The new GM is pretty light, and for me I'll always prioritize image quality over all else.
Thank you for this, I am stuck choosing between the Vii f/2.8 0r the original f2.8, I shoot mainly wildlife and occasionally landscapes. I purchased the f/4 but have sent that back as I was a little disappointed with it. Here in the UK prices are crazy but looks like I will opt for the vii, best price I have seen is £2,000... hell, that's a lot of money to me but needs must :)
That’s the exact review I needed
Been feeding the cats for over a year.. yet they still wont let you pet the LOLOL GERAT review! I've been considering the new 70-200mm. Welp, gotta start saving money now lol Maybe next month I'll buy it! THANK YOU!!
i have original gm.i will keep it and hope to add the 135 gm for my kit.my other lenses are 14 gm and 50 gm.
Nice video! What was the distance from the fence on the photos?
Have you had any problems with any of these at temps below 50degF. I bought the Mk1 in 2017 and it is awesome except below 50degF. The lens gets cold and loses communication with body.
I have never seen that, no. Have you checked if your contacts are perhaps dirty? I'm not sure what to make of that, as I rarely ever use these in temps ABOVE 50ºF and they always work flawlessly.
@@Nateinthewild maybe I got a bad copy. It is also too old to pay $600 just to get it evaluated.
Does your SEL70200GM2 make any soft clunking noise when you move the lens up and down?
It does, that's just the focusing element moving when the lens is powered off due to the XD linear focusing motors not having any mechanical attachment points. Nothing to be concerned about :)
Welcome back to the 'tubes, my dude
Thank you! It's been awhile, but it was nice to be busy again after the disaster that was 2020!
@@Nateinthewild Busy is a good way to be!
I don't see a very big sharpness or even IQ difference between the two GMs to be honest. Both look great to me.
You're correct, all the hypes from TH-cam most are paid by sony ..
17:18 You absolutely nailed it. Wouldn't be here if we weren't all going "which one is better, and which one will burn the biggest hole in my wallet?" lol. Great review though!
Enjoyed your video
And now we have f4 mark II with
Is $850 a great price ? a refurbished gen 1 ?
If it has no issues and you don’t do any pro work it’s perfect at 800
So I have the opportunity to get the original 2.8 for $1600. Would you say pull the trigger on that and save the money? Or wait, save, and get the gen ii?
II ALL THE WAY
@@wingcreator you’re right, I got the Gen ii a couple months ago and love it so much. I had to get rid of a couple good lenses to get it but it’s worth it
@@tannerswan9885 Well, it is a little pricy. Sometimes in photography, we have to do it this way. But damn, you are right, 70200GM2 is the best 70-200mm I have ever owned. I recently got the 2.0x TC (it is very good - slightly soft but I think 1.4x TC will be slightly better. Before when using v1, 2.0x TC was not an option at all - poor AF and unacceptable IQ.
youre using the A1 a have the A9, 24 mgp vs 50 mgp should be the diffence less?
Not at all. You might not be able to see the sharpness quite as well, but all the other features like faster AF, lighter weight, closer focusing distance etc will still be a huge benefit!
@@Nateinthewild thanks for the info...
Any one ever consider the 70-300..? yh its f5.6 at tele end, but its 840g ish, and 100mm more gives freaking crazy bokeh.
I own the f4 and use it together with my A9. I primary use it for concerts and it’s sharp enough. I made a1 prints with that Setup and it’s razor sharp.
Sometimes it’s important to remember that nobody ever watch a picture in 100 or 400% in photoshop or Lightroom. Always judge by the final print. Everything else is useless.
I also shoot with Hasselblad 50 megapixel with the best lenses you can get. That’s sharp as hell but in many situations my costumers can’t tell the difference in sharpness. The most important thing in that case, is the noise, dynamic range and the different look because the Hasselblad sensor is larger physic than the full frame Sony.
And hey if you really want to judge sharpness, get a test chart with a resolution chart on with lines. That’s the only way to judge sharpness. Try it, make a print and watch it from the right distance and you will be shocked. Actually you don’t need 50, 60 or even 100 megapixel to get razor sharp prints. 24 is in many cases overkill so if we cut into the bone, you can’t tell the difference between the f4 or the f2.8 😊
I have no interest in being another TH-cam gear reviewer who sits in a dark basement and shoots photos of grid lines on paper to test sharpness. I take photos out in the real world and look at them with my eyeballs, everything else is useless.
how large of a print can you do with 24mp?,
tbh looked like the wood wasnt high enough resolution
boca? its boh (not bow) - keh. equivalent of bokké
Subscribed *cause called me a beautiful nerd* 😎
Y you gotta cuss at us?