The F4 use perfect for travel. Not only is the size very compact, but also you gain a "good enough" macro lens. Also, f4 is fine for me because whenever I take photos I want to show MORE of the environment, not blur it out so I'll often stop down even if I had a 2.8.
A great review as usual. This lens appears to be excellent value for money. A combined macro and 70-200mm. Modern sensors allow shooting at higher ISO’s so f4 doesn’t appear to be an exposure issue. The close focus provides bokeh opportunities, and in those cases where you can not get close the lens has smooth background subject separation.
I am going for the A6700. I decided to cull my photo gear down to two APSC cameras. I carry two cameras will keep the A6600 and sell the A73 and A6400 - replacing them with the A6700. I have decided to go 100% to APSC because of the lighter weight of the crop system. I am getting old and no longer have the physical capabilities I once had. I wish that Sony would introduce a mid-range telephoto zoom in the area of 70-200mm or perhaps 50-150mm with a constant f/4 aperture specifically for the APSC format. I like carrying a light weight mid-range f/2.8 zoom (I have settled on the 18-50mm f/2.8 Sigma) and team this up with the 70-200mm f/4 Mark-I lens. On a second APSC camera. When I shot Canon, I traveled the world with two 7d Mk2 cameras and the Canon 17-55mm f/2.8 IS lens and the 70-200mm f/4 L IS lens. I loved that combination except for the weight. The Mark-II version of the Sony 70-200 looks nice but, I would love it if Sony could cut down the size by making it for APSC exclusively. However, I understand that this might not be viable commercially. I do have and use the 70-350mm Sony lens but, it is just not a great lens for portraiture. I would accept a scaled down 135mm f/2.8 prime lens for APSC to combine with my 18-50mm. I have two Legacy primes in 135mm f/2.8 and if they had AF - they would be great as my tele glass on the second APSC camera.
_I would accept a scaled down 135mm f/2.8 prime lens for APSC_ Unfortunately, this is where the advantage for size/weight with crop sensor stop. *Fast* telephoto lenses can't be built smaller just because it's designed for a crop sensor. Btw you may want to consider the Sigma 90mm 2.8, its super tiny/light and very sharp on APSC, even if it's a full frame lens.
I've done something similar but went "the other way". I've replaced my A6000 and A7R (OG) with an A7R IV, but am keeping both my FF and APSC lenses. This was done purely as a cost cutting measure to replace both aging cameras. For me, the limiting factor for portability has always been the lenses and the weight and size differences in Sony mirrorless bodies always seemed negligible (at least to me). A pleasant surprise from this setup has been the 70-200mm. Shooting APSC with the full frame lens, in a full frame body basically adds 50% to your equivalent zoom range. I don't know why this didn't occur to me given how obvious this is but really loving the 70-300 equivalent that I can now get.
Thank you for a great review. I just took delivery of a mint used copy in June 2024. And after one day very happy with its size and the small bag space it takes up on either my A7CII or A7CR. I do own the bigger and brighter 70-200/2.8 GM II but I bought specifically for use on my compact C camera bodies. Actually owned the original version one back when I started with Sony 10 years ago. So far so good. Take care.
Not sure if it's just me, but in your side by side comparisons, the left image (new lens) is considerably softer and less contrasty than the right. I'm considering the older lens used, and if these sharpness tests are accurate, I'd opt for the older lens any day. TH-cam may be the weakness here. The newer one has a slight green hue and maybe better skin tones. But that's about as far as my pixel analysis goes.
This is a really helpful review - definitely appreciate the actual comparison v.s. "on paper" comparison of spec advantages. I don't think the improvements are enough to tempt me to upgrade. But then again, I am not a professional and don't really need to use the macro functionality.
Hey, excellent video as always. Does this lens replace your Sony 90mm macro 2.8 the excalibur you always bragged about? That would be a great video for those who own the 90mm macro and the New 70-200 GM 2
I never had a 90 or referred to anything as Excalibur! You're mistaking me for someone else! The 90 is long overdue for replacement. Where are the Sony macros?
Just before GII macro came out, i bought Sony GM F2.8 mark ii for insanely good price (300€ more then macro GII). normally it's 800 more (at least). I must say this lens is so good that i no longer am even tempted by GII. Especially weight was, the GMII is more impressive then GII (macro). It lost 500 gram, and F4 gII only 50? gram, 100Gram compared to dslr 70-200mm f4 and you loose internal zoom. F2.8 is more impressive then i thought, it was tour of flanders (cycling also) and clouded, F2.8 helped me way more then i thought (also bokeh wise), the weight is non issue so close to 1000 gram that it's basically same as my nikon 70-200mm F4 (900 gram), while having extra stop. Internal zoom, speedy af, nice bokeh better close focus then earlier GM :) This lens will last me a long long time :) But the GII is amazing choice, especially if you want to skip macro lens like 90mm from Sony wich i have. I also have 100-400mm GM wich can macro bit, so not as tempted.
I still love the original! 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.
Great video once again Gordon. I was waiting for someone to do this comparison. I have used the mk1 for years; it's crazy sharp with what appears to be parfocal operation on the A7R2 and A7R4. I simply don't see any reason to upgrade and the telescoping zoom on the mk2 is a deal breaker for me personally.
Hello, and in comparison with GM2, at 200mm in terms of sharpness and contrast, the GM2 what can you tell me? AF speed is the same in both gm2 and G2 macro?
This new lens is triggering my GAS lol. I do have the Tamron 50-400mm (covers the potential zoom range even without a teleconverter, but less ideal magnification ratio and weight) and the Sony 70-200 GMII (faster but again less macro potential and cannot be packed into a smaller size). Would you trade in one of these for the F4 macro version?
Makes the Mark 1 basically useless IMHO, if you have the money go for the mark 2. Only downside is it has external focusing rather than internal focus = more dust :( But it gets the job done. Just not for professional use in all weathers.
I thought it proved the opposite, then again I'm in the EU. The ver 1 is less than half the price of the ver 2 currently with Sony cashbacks and quite honestly I think the ver 2 has rather a long zoom throw and much prefer the gen 1's in that regard, although the 0,5x magnification throghout the zoom range is nice.
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.
Yes, I would also trade TC compatibility, tried already teleconverters and I won't buy them again, too much sacrifice of quality and AF speed/accuracy, would trade TC for more reach, even would trade F4 to F5.6, 100-300 with 0.5x magnification would be ideal :D
Thanks for asking! I'm on holiday (see my Instagram!) and there's not many new products in August. I did make a new video on my Dino Bytes channel though.
Hi Gordon, thanks for this definitive review....I have the original one and until I saw this release was considering upgrading to the 100-400 lens , do you have any feedback on how it works with the x2 teleconverter in terms of image quality...I shoot mainly landscape and the f8 min would be ok for me. Cheers
🎈 If it were anywhere in the financial range I would still prefer the recently published 2.8 version over this 4.0 M2. Nevertheless it's weight and very compact format is quite convincing ❗☝️
The F4 use perfect for travel. Not only is the size very compact, but also you gain a "good enough" macro lens. Also, f4 is fine for me because whenever I take photos I want to show MORE of the environment, not blur it out so I'll often stop down even if I had a 2.8.
Couldn’t agree more about the’bokeh’, environmental context is so important in creating / adding to the narrative of a thousand words.
A great review as usual. This lens appears to be excellent value for money. A combined macro and 70-200mm. Modern sensors allow shooting at higher ISO’s so f4 doesn’t appear to be an exposure issue. The close focus provides bokeh opportunities, and in those cases where you can not get close the lens has smooth background subject separation.
I am going for the A6700. I decided to cull my photo gear down to two APSC cameras. I carry two cameras will keep the A6600 and sell the A73 and A6400 - replacing them with the A6700.
I have decided to go 100% to APSC because of the lighter weight of the crop system. I am getting old and no longer have the physical capabilities I once had.
I wish that Sony would introduce a mid-range telephoto zoom in the area of 70-200mm or perhaps 50-150mm with a constant f/4 aperture specifically for the APSC format.
I like carrying a light weight mid-range f/2.8 zoom (I have settled on the 18-50mm f/2.8 Sigma) and team this up with the 70-200mm f/4 Mark-I lens. On a second APSC camera.
When I shot Canon, I traveled the world with two 7d Mk2 cameras and the Canon 17-55mm f/2.8 IS lens and the 70-200mm f/4 L IS lens. I loved that combination except for the weight.
The Mark-II version of the Sony 70-200 looks nice but, I would love it if Sony could cut down the size by making it for APSC exclusively. However, I understand that this might not be viable commercially.
I do have and use the 70-350mm Sony lens but, it is just not a great lens for portraiture.
I would accept a scaled down 135mm f/2.8 prime lens for APSC to combine with my 18-50mm. I have two Legacy primes in 135mm f/2.8 and if they had AF - they would be great as my tele glass on the second APSC camera.
I know what you mean, the 70-350 is not as classy
_I would accept a scaled down 135mm f/2.8 prime lens for APSC_
Unfortunately, this is where the advantage for size/weight with crop sensor stop. *Fast* telephoto lenses can't be built smaller just because it's designed for a crop sensor. Btw you may want to consider the Sigma 90mm 2.8, its super tiny/light and very sharp on APSC, even if it's a full frame lens.
I've done something similar but went "the other way". I've replaced my A6000 and A7R (OG) with an A7R IV, but am keeping both my FF and APSC lenses. This was done purely as a cost cutting measure to replace both aging cameras. For me, the limiting factor for portability has always been the lenses and the weight and size differences in Sony mirrorless bodies always seemed negligible (at least to me).
A pleasant surprise from this setup has been the 70-200mm. Shooting APSC with the full frame lens, in a full frame body basically adds 50% to your equivalent zoom range. I don't know why this didn't occur to me given how obvious this is but really loving the 70-300 equivalent that I can now get.
@@JimIBobIJones yes, I love shooting my old 70-200 on my A6400 for closeish range sports.
Thank you for a great review. I just took delivery of a mint used copy in June 2024. And after one day very happy with its size and the small bag space it takes up on either my A7CII or A7CR. I do own the bigger and brighter 70-200/2.8 GM II but I bought specifically for use on my compact C camera bodies. Actually owned the original version one back when I started with Sony 10 years ago. So far so good. Take care.
You're welcome! I still have my original 70-200 f4G and use it for school sports on an APSC body.
Excellent review and comparison with the mk1 model!
Macro capability is a game changer, and that it can accept TCs as well.
Not sure if it's just me, but in your side by side comparisons, the left image (new lens) is considerably softer and less contrasty than the right. I'm considering the older lens used, and if these sharpness tests are accurate, I'd opt for the older lens any day. TH-cam may be the weakness here. The newer one has a slight green hue and maybe better skin tones. But that's about as far as my pixel analysis goes.
Well done Gordon, great overview and comparison.
Thanks!
Thank you Gordon! I am waiting to see the definitive review that compares this with the Tamron 70-180/2.8
Fantastic rewiew well done!🎉
Thanks!
This is a really helpful review - definitely appreciate the actual comparison v.s. "on paper" comparison of spec advantages.
I don't think the improvements are enough to tempt me to upgrade. But then again, I am not a professional and don't really need to use the macro functionality.
Thank you for the review ! just the got the v1 for 600$ and i think it’s a great deal. Thanks !!
Nice! I still have mine too!
7:00 you have dust on your sensor ahah (btw I thought it was on my screen at first lol)
Yes, I borrowed the camera and it had a couple of large dust spots I couldn't blow away, sorry!
I can see at f4.
the older version is softer and less contrast in the middle of the frame noticeably.
Just purchased yesterday
Hope you enjoy it!
Thanks!
Thankyou!
Thanks!
Thanks for your support!
Hey, excellent video as always. Does this lens replace your Sony 90mm macro 2.8 the excalibur you always bragged about? That would be a great video for those who own the 90mm macro and the New 70-200 GM 2
I never had a 90 or referred to anything as Excalibur! You're mistaking me for someone else! The 90 is long overdue for replacement. Where are the Sony macros?
Just before GII macro came out, i bought Sony GM F2.8 mark ii for insanely good price (300€ more then macro GII). normally it's 800 more (at least). I must say this lens is so good that i no longer am even tempted by GII. Especially weight was, the GMII is more impressive then GII (macro). It lost 500 gram, and F4 gII only 50? gram, 100Gram compared to dslr 70-200mm f4 and you loose internal zoom. F2.8 is more impressive then i thought, it was tour of flanders (cycling also) and clouded, F2.8 helped me way more then i thought (also bokeh wise), the weight is non issue so close to 1000 gram that it's basically same as my nikon 70-200mm F4 (900 gram), while having extra stop. Internal zoom, speedy af, nice bokeh better close focus then earlier GM :) This lens will last me a long long time :)
But the GII is amazing choice, especially if you want to skip macro lens like 90mm from Sony wich i have. I also have 100-400mm GM wich can macro bit, so not as tempted.
Where did you find a good offer like that in europe?
Gordon the best!
Thankyou!
I still love the original! 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.
Great video once again Gordon. I was waiting for someone to do this comparison. I have used the mk1 for years; it's crazy sharp with what appears to be parfocal operation on the A7R2 and A7R4. I simply don't see any reason to upgrade and the telescoping zoom on the mk2 is a deal breaker for me personally.
Me too, although I do like the closeups.
Gordon. Where have you been my friend? I can't buy either of the new Sony A7C bodies until I've seen your reviews!!😆 I hope all is well.
Thanks! I've been away all Summer in South America - see my Instagram! - so I missed these ones, sorry!
@@cameralabs OK, I guess I'll forgive you.🙂
Does the lenshood from the mark 2 fits the mark 1 ( and visa versa ) Just asking thx in advance.
Good question and I'm embarrassed to say I didn't try
@@cameralabs because you told us the mark1 lenscap is better then the mark2.
Great review ... like always! Thank You Gordon!
You're welcome!
Hello, and in comparison with GM2, at 200mm in terms of sharpness and contrast, the GM2 what can you tell me? AF speed is the same in both gm2 and G2 macro?
everything I know is in this video
@@cameralabsi was asking about the 70-200GM2 f/2.8 in comparison with 70-200 F4 G2 macro. Not in comparison of older 70-200 F4 G Oss
Not a fan of external focus lenses...I make due with the original model (internal focus) used...
This new lens is triggering my GAS lol.
I do have the Tamron 50-400mm (covers the potential zoom range even without a teleconverter, but less ideal magnification ratio and weight) and the Sony 70-200 GMII (faster but again less macro potential and cannot be packed into a smaller size).
Would you trade in one of these for the F4 macro version?
I traded mine for build quality
Makes the Mark 1 basically useless IMHO, if you have the money go for the mark 2.
Only downside is it has external focusing rather than internal focus = more dust :(
But it gets the job done. Just not for professional use in all weathers.
I thought it proved the opposite, then again I'm in the EU. The ver 1 is less than half the price of the ver 2 currently with Sony cashbacks and quite honestly I think the ver 2 has rather a long zoom throw and much prefer the gen 1's in that regard, although the 0,5x magnification throghout the zoom range is nice.
New sony lenses have extensive weather sealing so not a problem these days
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.
There is the Tamron 50-400. However the aperture will be the challenge.
Yes, I would also trade TC compatibility, tried already teleconverters and I won't buy them again, too much sacrifice of quality and AF speed/accuracy, would trade TC for more reach, even would trade F4 to F5.6, 100-300 with 0.5x magnification would be ideal :D
I'm waiting for you A7Cii review
I'm skipping it as I have been away, sorry!
And where are you?😮... so long time with silence🤔
I hope you are fine.😊
Thanks for asking! I'm on holiday (see my Instagram!) and there's not many new products in August. I did make a new video on my Dino Bytes channel though.
If I'm buying such an expensive lens I'd prefer internal zoom for sure. So if the older model is also cheaper, easy choice for me!
Can’t have everything I guess. Light, compact and internal zoom. It’s always a trade-off. But now with the macro capabilities… quite tempting I‘d say.
Hi Gordon, thanks for this definitive review....I have the original one and until I saw this release was considering upgrading to the 100-400 lens , do you have any feedback on how it works with the x2 teleconverter in terms of image quality...I shoot mainly landscape and the f8 min would be ok for me. Cheers
I'm afraid I've not tested it with a TC yet, so can't say, sorry! But the 100-400 is very good!
@@cameralabs Thanks a lot Gordon, I appreciate your reply...may to a test on both my my needs.... cheers
🎈 If it were anywhere in the financial range I would still prefer the recently published 2.8 version over this 4.0 M2. Nevertheless it's weight and very compact format is quite convincing ❗☝️
Great review! I think I'll pick one up in a year or two so when they inevitably go on sale.
do someone knows why this lenses are white? that the only think I don't like haha
Sometimes to reduce heat absorption. Sometimes to not look like a weapon.
@@cameralabs no way, really? that'c clever
@@robertoandres4642 that's what I've been told!