a superb verstial lens， the new one lens to rule them all，i can see it will be the standard lens for product photography, and its good for portrait landscape
As a hobbyist, I can't justify or afford the F2.8 GM. So I got myself Tamron 70-180mm. And I am disappointed to be honest. It's OK at shorter focal lengths, but at 180mm at F2.8 the chromatic aberration is just brutal. Also focusing is a hit and miss really... It seems that for people like me, this new Sony lens might be a great alternative. If you will ever do a comparison video, could you take the Tamron lens into account please? :)
This thing costs 2x the Tamron where I'm at. It costs as much as the original 70-200 GM currently does. As a hobbyist, I'm getting an older Sony lens or the Tamron.
@@Vantrakter Older 70-200 F4 is worse image quality wise. As for the price - I understand. In Europe it's 1200 euro for Tamron and 2000 for Sony. That price won't hold up as RF equivalent is 1600 euro. Sony will soon realize that and these lenses will be on "special offer" soon. In that case, I think I would be willing to pay extra 400euro for less chromatic aberration, image stabilization, further reach and converter compatibility.
@@lesiakadam1977 I can hope so but I'm not. No recent Sony lens has dropped in price since release here (Sweden). The 70-200 GM II costs the same as on launch day in the second half of last year.
@@Vantrakter The F2.8 GM didn't drop in price because its RF counter part costs exactly the same (3000 euro). However the RF F4 70-200 is 1500euro. Sony F4 gen1 is going for 1170euro with cashback. I don't believe that 2000euro price for gen2 will hold very long. :)
Great video, high production elements. I love how you approach your reviews, I am a long time fan and you have persuaded to purchase three to four lenses. God Bless You! Patrick
Thanks for the review on the new 70-200 G. I was wondering why you haven't posted a Samyang/Rokinon 35-150mm f/2-2.8 review when all the other folks posted theirs? I'm waiting to hear how it compares to the Tamron.
@@DustinAbbottTWI Has it been difficult for you to get Samyang lenses in the past? I wonder if there's an issue with the 35-150, and they're nervous about letting you review one. I'll be happy to write Samyang for you, if you think it will help!
Wonderful insight and points..but do you think some consumers who have the 2.8GM feel ripped off by Sony..in the sense that this F4 has that "Macro capabilities"..and that Sony should have put this in the 2.8 first..especially for the price point that the 2.8GM cost..you would think this is and should be in the lens..rather than an F4..that cost less..now you have to consider have a choice or losing a stop of light and getting that "macro capability", especially good for wedding photographers..detail shots..etc..and lesser price point as well..or would you people still consider the 2.8GM?
In my mind this lens does not take away from the GM II, which remains the most remarkable lens of its kind. And yes, the 70-200G II does have superior macro performance, though I will point out that the GM II has class leading magnification (0.30x) for an F2.8 lens. It is still the logical choice for a lot of people who need the faster maximum aperture. I think that Sony has actually done a remarkable job of giving the F4 level lens its own unique identity.
Great Review as always - I am looking at putting this on A6700 with a 1.4 teleconverter for a total focal length of 420mm at F5.6. This would be an awesome lightweight package for me. However, 420mm for birding is sometime not enough. Can you explain how Sony's Clear Image zoom works? I am told you do not lose any image quality - I DO NOT want a Digital zoom because I know that would ruin shots... But if this function can actually keep quality the same, I could zoom in a bit more to 500mm or higher and get the bird shot I am looking for.. any comments on this idea would be greatly appreciated. Thank you
I'm pretty sure clear image zoom works only for video, not stills. Often video doesn't use the entire sensor, so there's some room to zoom just in using the additional pixels not needed for 4K video.
The fact that it can take TC's but both of Canon's RF 70-200's can't, has very limited focus breathing especially given the lenses max magnification, AND has that 1:2 macro ability is just icing on the cake. I still can't believe Canon didn't add TC support on any of the RF 70-200 zooms, I really think that's a big miss imo. I also like how Sony is differentiating their F4 zoom trio instead of just making the F4 zooms cheaper versions of the F2.8 zoom.
Yes , converter is very important with 70-200mm . 200mm is to short for a lot of thing like for sport and travel. But with RF Canon lens there are a lot of restriction and problèm that WE don't have with old EF Lens. But is every Time. Thé perfect modern caméra Can be Canon body with Sony GM Lens.
How important is having a one lens solution for you? If you don't do a ton of macro (this lens is great, but not as good as your 90 for pure macro), then I'd make that move.
I presently own three Sony cameras (A7iii, A6400 and, A6600) and plan to downsize to a single A6700. My two Sony telephoto lenses are the 70-200mm f/4 E OSS and 70-350mm f/5.6-6.3 OSS. I like the 70-200mm f/4 for portrait work better than the 70-350mm but. even with a crop format, 200mm is just not quite long enough for some shots. I am wondering how the 70-200mm f/4 G OSS plus Sony 2x converter would work on the A6700. I could probably sell all three cameras plus the two Sony lens and get close to enough to fund the A6700 plus 70-200mm f/4 II and 2x adapter.
@@DustinAbbottTWI Thanks for the reply. When I shot Canon, I used a 1.4x TC with all three of my telephoto zoom lenses (70-200mm f/4 L IS, 300mm f/4L IS and even the 100-400mm f/5.6-6.3 L IS) with quite decent results. However, I never used the 2x TC with any lens. The 1.4x TC was a good addition to my travel kit to use when I needed a bit more reach. This was especially useful on my Canon 7D Mark Two, crop format camera. However, the 2x Sony converter would give me an equivalent 210mm to 600mm f/8 lens on my A6600 and possibly a new A6700 camera. I suspect that this combination would be also quite useful for photographing stinging insects like bees or wasps and for wary little birds like hummers.
Dustin, is it worth the upgrade from the Tamron 70-180 principally for travel and general (not event) photography?? You indicated this is a better lens but not why. Thanks!
I am curious if you feel the same way over the new Tamron 70-180 2.8 G2. I recently purchased the G2 lens but also just purchased this lens as well and will be debating on which 1 I keep after some testing.@@DustinAbbottTWI
I just watched Tony Northrup’s review of this lens and it is not sharp at 200mm. I’m really disappointed in the overall image quality. I’ll have to pass.
I saw the same review. A couple of odd things...at 70mm Tony reported the center of the F/4 was sharper then the f/2.8 at f/4. This was odd to me and inconsistent with the MTF chart from each lens. At the 200mm setting, the center of the f/4 was softer than the f/2.8 at f/4 by a large margin. I can sorta see this as the 2.8 was set to f/4 (based on EXIF data in the video) and a number of good lenses are even better. However, Tony next indicated the new lens at the same settings had better corners (and much better to my eye), again inconsistent with the MTF charts. I am sure Tony reported what he saw. But, If I did not know any better Tony either got a bad copy or somehow got some of the images mixed up, or something else was going on. Because Tony uses pixel shift for his resolution tests perhaps some firmware issue. At very least Tony introduces another variable into the equation with good intentions. So far Dustin's and Christopher's results seem consistent with the MTF information, so think I would wait until a few more reviews are completed before coming to a conclusion.
This video is sponsored by Fantom Wallet. Visit store.fantomwallet.com and use code DUSTIN15 to get 15% off
I see Dustin, I click Like 😊
Well, for that I gave you a like :)
a superb verstial lens， the new one lens to rule them all，i can see it will be the standard lens for product photography, and its good for portrait landscape
Exactly.
Great review! I finally bought the Sony 200-600mm for my A7iii and it's amazing (you recommended it). This lens looks like a winner too :)
Hope you enjoy it!
As a hobbyist, I can't justify or afford the F2.8 GM. So I got myself Tamron 70-180mm. And I am disappointed to be honest. It's OK at shorter focal lengths, but at 180mm at F2.8 the chromatic aberration is just brutal. Also focusing is a hit and miss really...
It seems that for people like me, this new Sony lens might be a great alternative. If you will ever do a comparison video, could you take the Tamron lens into account please? :)
This thing costs 2x the Tamron where I'm at. It costs as much as the original 70-200 GM currently does. As a hobbyist, I'm getting an older Sony lens or the Tamron.
@@Vantrakter Older 70-200 F4 is worse image quality wise.
As for the price - I understand. In Europe it's 1200 euro for Tamron and 2000 for Sony. That price won't hold up as RF equivalent is 1600 euro. Sony will soon realize that and these lenses will be on "special offer" soon. In that case, I think I would be willing to pay extra 400euro for less chromatic aberration, image stabilization, further reach and converter compatibility.
@@lesiakadam1977 I can hope so but I'm not. No recent Sony lens has dropped in price since release here (Sweden). The 70-200 GM II costs the same as on launch day in the second half of last year.
@@Vantrakter The F2.8 GM didn't drop in price because its RF counter part costs exactly the same (3000 euro). However the RF F4 70-200 is 1500euro.
Sony F4 gen1 is going for 1170euro with cashback. I don't believe that 2000euro price for gen2 will hold very long. :)
I do think that a little patience will see some better pricing in the Euro markets.
Great video, high production elements. I love how you approach your reviews, I am a long time fan and you have persuaded to purchase three to four lenses. God Bless You! Patrick
Glad you like them!
Great review as always. Also exctied to see that Dustin got the A7RV!
For sure. I sold both my a6400 and my a7IV to fund the upgrade.
Looking good. The weight and size especially. The marco capability is bouns
The macro is so much fun with this lens.
Thanks for the review on the new 70-200 G. I was wondering why you haven't posted a Samyang/Rokinon 35-150mm f/2-2.8 review when all the other folks posted theirs? I'm waiting to hear how it compares to the Tamron.
Write Samyang and request that review. I've been asking for a review copy for six months.
@@DustinAbbottTWI Has it been difficult for you to get Samyang lenses in the past? I wonder if there's an issue with the 35-150, and they're nervous about letting you review one. I'll be happy to write Samyang for you, if you think it will help!
Superb as it is, If I’d known this was coming I probably wouldn’t have bought the 70-200 GM2
You probably aren't alone...but there will always be something better coming in the future. You have a superb lens...enjoy it!
Wonderful insight and points..but do you think some consumers who have the 2.8GM feel ripped off by Sony..in the sense that this F4 has that "Macro capabilities"..and that Sony should have put this in the 2.8 first..especially for the price point that the 2.8GM cost..you would think this is and should be in the lens..rather than an F4..that cost less..now you have to consider have a choice or losing a stop of light and getting that "macro capability", especially good for wedding photographers..detail shots..etc..and lesser price point as well..or would you people still consider the 2.8GM?
In my mind this lens does not take away from the GM II, which remains the most remarkable lens of its kind. And yes, the 70-200G II does have superior macro performance, though I will point out that the GM II has class leading magnification (0.30x) for an F2.8 lens. It is still the logical choice for a lot of people who need the faster maximum aperture. I think that Sony has actually done a remarkable job of giving the F4 level lens its own unique identity.
Appreciate the review. My only question...should I wait a little longer on the sigma 70-200mm to be released, or pull the trigger on this lens?
Tough call. So far Sigma hasn't gone there.
Great Review as always - I am looking at putting this on A6700 with a 1.4 teleconverter for a total focal length of 420mm at F5.6. This would be an awesome lightweight package for me. However, 420mm for birding is sometime not enough. Can you explain how Sony's Clear Image zoom works? I am told you do not lose any image quality - I DO NOT want a Digital zoom because I know that would ruin shots... But if this function can actually keep quality the same, I could zoom in a bit more to 500mm or higher and get the bird shot I am looking for.. any comments on this idea would be greatly appreciated. Thank you
I'm pretty sure clear image zoom works only for video, not stills. Often video doesn't use the entire sensor, so there's some room to zoom just in using the additional pixels not needed for 4K video.
Clear image zoom works with photography. Only in jpeg format, not raw.
The fact that it can take TC's but both of Canon's RF 70-200's can't, has very limited focus breathing especially given the lenses max magnification, AND has that 1:2 macro ability is just icing on the cake. I still can't believe Canon didn't add TC support on any of the RF 70-200 zooms, I really think that's a big miss imo. I also like how Sony is differentiating their F4 zoom trio instead of just making the F4 zooms cheaper versions of the F2.8 zoom.
Exactly on all counts. Sony is really taking it to Canon right now.
Yes , converter is very important with 70-200mm . 200mm is to short for a lot of thing like for sport and travel. But with RF Canon lens there are a lot of restriction and problèm that WE don't have with old EF Lens. But is every Time. Thé perfect modern caméra Can be Canon body with Sony GM Lens.
Afaik the first Sony 70-200 F4 also didn't work with TC so until a few days ago Canon didn't have a disadvantage here ;-)
Oh man, so shouldi sell my 70 200 v1 and 90mm macro and buy this?
How important is having a one lens solution for you? If you don't do a ton of macro (this lens is great, but not as good as your 90 for pure macro), then I'd make that move.
I presently own three Sony cameras (A7iii, A6400 and, A6600) and plan to downsize to a single A6700. My two Sony telephoto lenses are the 70-200mm f/4 E OSS and 70-350mm f/5.6-6.3 OSS. I like the 70-200mm f/4 for portrait work better than the 70-350mm but. even with a crop format, 200mm is just not quite long enough for some shots.
I am wondering how the 70-200mm f/4 G OSS plus Sony 2x converter would work on the A6700.
I could probably sell all three cameras plus the two Sony lens and get close to enough to fund the A6700 plus 70-200mm f/4 II and 2x adapter.
I haven't tested with 2.0x, so I can't comment there. It worked well with the 1.4x, however.
@@DustinAbbottTWI Thanks for the reply. When I shot Canon, I used a 1.4x TC with all three of my telephoto zoom lenses (70-200mm f/4 L IS, 300mm f/4L IS and even the 100-400mm f/5.6-6.3 L IS) with quite decent results.
However, I never used the 2x TC with any lens.
The 1.4x TC was a good addition to my travel kit to use when I needed a bit more reach. This was especially useful on my Canon 7D Mark Two, crop format camera.
However, the 2x Sony converter would give me an equivalent 210mm to 600mm f/8 lens on my A6600 and possibly a new A6700 camera.
I suspect that this combination would be also quite useful for photographing stinging insects like bees or wasps and for wary little birds like hummers.
I like the size and weight of it but it is competing with the Tamron 70 to 180 f2.8.
Yes, though this is the better lens without question.
Dustin, is it worth the upgrade from the Tamron 70-180 principally for travel and general (not event) photography?? You indicated this is a better lens but not why. Thanks!
I am curious if you feel the same way over the new Tamron 70-180 2.8 G2. I recently purchased the G2 lens but also just purchased this lens as well and will be debating on which 1 I keep after some testing.@@DustinAbbottTWI
Take my money
No kidding
Just when i thought my wallet was safe😢
LOL - Sony seems intent on making sure none of our wallets stay safe!
How many blade for sunstar?
Nine - so 18 pointed star
I just watched Tony Northrup’s review of this lens and it is not sharp at 200mm. I’m really disappointed in the overall image quality. I’ll have to pass.
I'm not sure what Tony saw, but it wasn't what I saw. It is very sharp at 200mm, even on a 61MP a7RV
Watch Christopher Frost's review. He came to the same conclusion as Dustin. Seems Tony was either being sloppy or he had a bad sample.
I saw the same review. A couple of odd things...at 70mm Tony reported the center of the F/4 was sharper then the f/2.8 at f/4. This was odd to me and inconsistent with the MTF chart from each lens. At the 200mm setting, the center of the f/4 was softer than the f/2.8 at f/4 by a large margin. I can sorta see this as the 2.8 was set to f/4 (based on EXIF data in the video) and a number of good lenses are even better. However, Tony next indicated the new lens at the same settings had better corners (and much better to my eye), again inconsistent with the MTF charts.
I am sure Tony reported what he saw. But, If I did not know any better Tony either got a bad copy or somehow got some of the images mixed up, or something else was going on. Because Tony uses pixel shift for his resolution tests perhaps some firmware issue. At very least Tony introduces another variable into the equation with good intentions.
So far Dustin's and Christopher's results seem consistent with the MTF information, so think I would wait until a few more reviews are completed before coming to a conclusion.
Bee AF!
Absolutley!