Goooood Morning! What are your thoughts on this lens?! ▹ Print your work today & get 10% OFF with code "PIERRE-YT10": pierretlambert.com/to/whitewallus (valid until 01/31/24) ▹ How I edit my photos (NEW presets pack): pierretlambert.com/presets ▹ Become a Better Photographer in 30 Days with me: pierretlambert.com/30daytogreatphotos ▹ Get Free Access to my bi-monthly TOP 5 email with tips, gear, inspiration and more - Join the tribe: pierretlambert.com/top5 PS. Note at 00:36 made an edit mistake, this was taken with the built in b&w strong contrast profile not edited with the presets see around 09:00 again when I take the photo. I did however redit some raw into B&W too.
When it comes to macro and wildlife, working distance is important. If you have the 90mm macro lens, working distance at maximum magnification is 5" or 125mm. What is the working distance on this 70-200mm macro? Petapixel says it's 7.5" at full extension 200mm. Yes, that's better, but not significantly better. I have the 100-400mm GM. The working distance is a whopping 27" or about 69 cm. The magnification is 0.35x. Compare that to the 0.5x of this 70-200 lens. You can use teleconverters on both. With a 2x teleconverter, the 70-200 maximum aperture will be f/8. For the 100-400, the max aperture is f/11. And sure, you want to stop down to increase the DOF, but the advantage of the 90mm Macro lens is that you can shoot it at f/2.8 and get the depth of field you want by focus bracketing if you have the A7RV or the new A56700. Bottom line. If you want a travel lens that can do general photography at 70-200mm with some semi-macro thrown in, this is your lens. If you want to get serious about full macro, the 90mm is the better choice. If you want maximum working distance for semi-macro subjects, the 100-400mm works best.
I don’t mind the weight. I’m more concerned by lenses with barrel extension which is potentially a point of failure which can collect dust or humidity orwhen you are in the field. The 2.8 version doesn’t extend , the 200-600mm neither. When you are in a harsh environment it is a point to consider.
Hi Pierre, have you thought about trying the Tamron 35-150 mm F2-2.8 ? I would really like to hear if this lens can fully utilize the very fast autofocus speeds of the A7rV or A1. Would be interesting to know from you how the Tamron Autofocus abilities compare to Sony GM lenses 👍🏻
The auto focus on that lense is good, and it will keep up just fine. That being said of course it wont be as good as Sony's lenses, Nothing really will be as Sony designs it for their cameras. But youll have no issues if you go with the tamron! Beware though, that is a large and very heavy lense.
@@anonym5510 Agreed. I have the Tamron and it's a beast. I bought it for filming my daughter's indoor gymnastics meets and now I'm strongly considering getting the lighter 70-200 F4 for hiking, etc. No way I want to carry the Tamron in those situations. In fact, when we went hiking and waterfall hunting in the NC mountains a few weeks ago I found myself with the A1 and a Sony 18-135 APS-C lens mounted up most of the time. That combo actually took some awesome waterfall pictures.
I have the 35-150 and some GM lenses. This is a real good all around lens. It has a bit of softness in the highlights like a black promist filter which is fine unless you like sharpy images. The speed of autofocus on the A1 is good but hunts sometimes (I used it on weddings and corporate coverage). You are also limited to 10fps by Sony. For a medium telephoto lens, the 135GM is in another league! Blazing fast with its 4 AFmotors, light and with a really nice and creamy bokeh. One of the best Sony lens made to this day. It's a joy to work with.
1:50 its not macro mode. Its macro autofocusing range. The f4 is great for everything. Minus that tiny bit on portraits, which just get a freaking 85 1.4 at that point. The barrel extension means it fits in my bag on camera for faster shooting. Which on location is dope.
Great video, I now have the sony a6700 and still shooting with my SEL 18-200 I purchased in 2013. Great lens for travelling, only problem is, when zooming to the max pictures aren't sharp daytime and get even worse when low light. I then discovered this 70-200 F4 OSS II and could be the best travel companion as it's small and I mainly do outdoor and animals photography when travelling, the 2.8 OSS II is way too expensive and aswell too big, and as I am not really into portrait photography.... The choice is obvious.
for me, I always shoot landscape or nature or simple outdoor without a model, so F4 is quite good for me, F2.8 just for low light while a A7S3 can solve the high iso problem
Dang as someone who primarily does macro but wants to start shooting people and better wildlife stuff I think this would be perfect and would stay on my camera 100% of the time. But what about macro tubes on the 1.8?
I have some tubes for a vintage lens but i ended up keeping the lens in my hand in front of the sensor, because the tubes were never at the desired length and it was a hassle to change them
I would say get the Sony 100-400 4.5-5.6. It has 0.35X magnification. Most of the time it’s more than enough for close up shot. If it’s not, then get extension tubes.
I shoot with the 70-200 f/2.8 GM OSS II for the sharpness it provides throughout the aperture range. It's also a phenomenal video lens and pairs well with both my a1 and a7SIII though I find it lives on my a1 99% of the time. I was fortunate enough to be in the market for a 70-200 right when they announced the GM OSS II so I was able to snag one up pretty early on without ever having held the previous version. 100% would buy it again and again, such an amazing and sharp lens!
During my Sony days, used 70-200mm f/4 for almost 80% of my wok, even when I could afford a 2.8, I stuck with f/4, it was lighter, and just somehow better for my work.
@@rafhanismail I did several night time & low light shoots from Travel, Portrait, Events to even few Weddings, boosted my ISO to 1600-2000 on A7III, never had any issue.
Hey Pierre, i'm currently using a 100-400mm f5.0 sigma lense (because of budget) and i'm happy so far. But at some time i really want to switch to sony and the corresponding lenses. But i have one question. you mention your 30 day photography thing every video, do you have any estimate when the next one will be? Would really like to participate.
I bought 20-70 f4 bcs it was for “28-75 tamron price” i dont shoot a lot of portraits, its lighter, smaller, sharp as hell with crazy AF and have better focus range fo my needs. This 70-200 f4 would be perfect combo for traveling!
On my recent trip to Europe I basically walked around with two cameras, one with the 20-70 and the other with the 70-200. Pretty much did anything I wanted short of birds in flight. I still kept the wonderful Sony 35/1.8 around for low light work.
mine gonna arrive tomorrow... cant wait to test it for the little subjects... also want to use it in general landscape photography as well... thanks for the info though :D
I love my Sony 70-200mm f/4 G OSS lens for a variety of uses. I use it for landscape, portraiture and, general photography. However, I do not use it for most wildlife or macro shooting. It is simply not long enough for wildlife and it doesn't focus close enough for macro work. The macro capability of this new lens would ( with the addition of a TC ) cover those last two uses. What is the IQ of the lens with the 2X TC if used on a new A6700 camera. Since the aperture will be reduced to f/8; will the A6700 be able to autofocus?
I own the 70-200 f4 v1 and the 90mm macro. Do you think if I sell them both and get the new V2 I will be happy with it? I don't shoot much macro but I do product photos and I use the 70 200 for video and photo work at events.
The 70-200 f4 v1 has internal zoom which could be better for video work if you want to use a gimbal for example, it doesn’t change the weight distribution as much. It’s also harder to get dust particles and such inside the lens.
@@lillswanne yeah I'm gutted about the barrel. But everything else is amazing about it. I think best thing to do is wait till it's released and test it out
A lens that has shorter minimum focus is not better than the 90mm macro you mentioned with longer focusing distance. Because the 90mm macro still has better magnification (it's a 1:1 macro) and the longer focusing distance allows you to stay further from moving subjects, like insects, etc
I have this lens. I freakin love it. Super sharp, great IS, and the macro capability is killer. Is it technically better than my 100-400? No, though the macro capability is better. But, I love taking pictures of birds AND flowers AND insects, and this can do all three while being a lot smaller and lighter. And, with a 1.4X extender, it is basically a 100-300 F5.6, which isn't that different from the zoom and aperture capabilities of the 100-400 while being an even better macro lens. Definitely not a replacement for my 200-600 for birds in flight or for taking pictures of the moon or solar eclipses, but for travel, the 70-200 is perfect.
I shoot the d500 with the 70-200 vr ii 2.8 and a d750 with the same lens yes I have 2 because I shoot that lens for equine and rodeo so having ff and crop sensor
I have a current 70~200 f4 version. Its my only zoom and I do use it quite a lot. (I don't shoot video at all). I think i will upgrade to the new f4 version. Part of reason of course the price difference is a factor. If they were the same price.....hmmm.
F4 has one advantage. Takes up less space in the backpack. In everything else version 2.8 is better. But I am portrait photographer and landscapes are my hobby. For landscape photographers F4 is a great choice.
I think the F2.8 is the more versatile option which exceeds the F4 in most points. That being said, the price and weight and size are very important points. For travelling (with limited space) the F4 is a great option. However, I will save money for the F2.8 because it, to me, is one of the most important and versatile lenses out there. With range extenders it can cover 70-400mm which is all I ever need. When using the extenders the F2.8 comes in handy as well because of the loss of stops.
Do you know any other versatile and zoom lens from Sony and other brands that do macro? Is this a good setup of just using standard iPhone 15 that has 13mm, 26mm and 52mm for closer shoot and feel less intimidated too and just get one 70-200mm F4 macro with 2X converter which can get 1:1 macro and reach 600mm in APSC mode if I just shoot as hobbyist and sometime shoot for personal product works plus I don't really care about Bokeh, I like my photos and videos to have story and creativity? Or should I get another lens, but should it better be 16-35mm F4 PZ G or 20-70mm F4? I thought to get single 20-70mm because it cover Ultra wide to short tele without need other lens but it will also means it won't be ultra wide and tele enough, I can miss out of the 35 < X < 70 because I can crop. What do you think of Sony RX100 and RX10 too, I hope they come up with new one soon. And does it make sense to get A7RV and not A7CR since you going to use these bigger lenses and it provide better EVF and 4 ways screen and the smaller body of A7CR doesn't provide any benefit other than weight saving but end up with lesser handling experience? Do you carry camera like that with these lenses on everyday normal hangout, if not, what lens and body you use? Why do people take amazing camera on trips but use less quality gear on everyday life which is most and important parts of your life too?
Hey Pierre. I have the Sony 70-200 f4 OG lens and it's probably my favorite lens, after the 55mm zeiss. I was so excited for this mark ii release, but now I'm kinda thinking for what I need it for my OG lens is probably still good at f4.
The biggest thing for me (as an owner of the G1 as well) is the teleconverters. The macro is sick, and adds versatility, but the 1.4 and 2x converters make me very jealous.
@@dubenick yes that's a very good point. Adding a teleconver makes this lens super versatile. The macro mode looks insane as well... Noooo! Must resist temptation... lol 😅
I am also having the current f4 but still consider to get the new one. I am also having the 90mm macro and a 150-500 Tamron. My thought is to replace all three by the new one with a converter. For sure I will lose a bit macro capability but it reduces space and weight significantly. And having up to 400mm seems enough. Never really needed anything beyond that.
Hey, I have a question if its ok. Im debating on getting a 2.8 70-200 and a 200-600mm or compromising a bit and just going for the 100-400mm to get the median. Which one of the two options would you recommend? Im relatively new to photography
@@racer7007 I would do the 70-200mm 2.8 ii and get a 2x converter and I find I use this more then I use my Sony 200-600mm lens but I do also have the 1.4 converter that I sometimes use on my 200-600mm
I just bought the 70-200 f/2.8 GM OSS II, Fujifilm X100V, and a Canon RF 85mm f/1.2 L USM DS Full-Frame Lens for RF-Mount. I will be purchasing more camera gear over the next few months for my camera rental store in Panama City Beach, Florida called Camera Leader. These videos are very helpful for helping me decide what to get.
I see the 70-200/4 GII in direct competition with the Tamron 70-180/2.8, similar size and weight and the Tamron has also some macro ability. Tamron is cheaper and offers 2.8. I stick with the Tamron.
@KeAiFu Great tip. I didn’t know this other lens existed. I once had a Tamron 180mm f/2.5 for Nikon and it was my absolute favorite portrait lens. Hmmmm.
Watching a lot of videos about lenses and doing street photography as a hobby all those lens are beautiful in their own ways. This f/4 lens is reasonable for being lightweight during shooting for long period of time. It's like owning a toolbox lol
Hi Pierre, I was wondering if you would make a video covering like making money from selling photos, I'm not sure if that's up your alley but would love to hear any insight you might have on getting started making money from your photos , thanks for the great videos as always!
Hi pierre, I really like the video you taken photo on the street in the storm,Will you still update that series of videos ？ I am looking forward to it！！😂😂❤❤
I have the Sony a7 iii with the kit lens 28-70 F 3.5-5.6 and now I‘m searching for a new lens, so my question is: Would it be better to buy the 70-200 F4 Macro ii or the 24-70 F 2.8 ii, most of the time I will be using it for traveling through asia and the U.S. and for portraits?! Would love to have your help, thanks 🙏🏼
For travel go lite. Sony has good ISO. If you can carry the weight (biggest problem during travel) then go f2.8). If you only photo and video during the day, f4
I am wildlife photographer and my main set up is 400 F2.8 GM on one A1 body and 70-200 F2.8 GMii on another A1. A lot of shooting is dawn and dusk and I really need the F2.8, plus love the bokeh to separate subject from background. The macro capability of the new F4 is tempting, but this is not the lens for me. Plus I would be worried about dust getting in lens with that extending zoom
Weird question here lol is wildlife photography a job you have? If so, does one get good paid for it? Im thinking of becoming a photographer in the future so yeah
@@BiomeTales no it is not my job or main source of income. For earning money in photography, how much depends on the standard of your work and reputation like any area of arts. Very few if anyone make a living just as a wildlife photographer
Is this a good setup of just using standard iPhone 15 that has 13mm, 26mm and 52mm for closer shoot and feel less intimidated too and just get one 70-200mm F4 macro with 2X converter which can get 1:1 macro and reach 600mm in APSC mode if I just shoot as hobbyist and sometime shoot for personal product works plus I don't really care about Bokeh, I like my photos and videos to have story and creativity? Or should I get another lens, but should it better be 16-35mm F4 PZ G or 20-70mm F4? I thought to get single 20-70mm because it cover Ultra wide to short tele without need other lens but it will also means it won't be ultra wide and tele enough, I can miss out of the 35 < X < 70 because I can crop. What do you think of Sony RX100 and RX10 too, I hope they come up with new one soon. And does it make sense to get A7RV and not A7CR since you going to use these bigger lenses and it provide better EVF and 4 ways screen and the smaller body of A7CR doesn't provide any benefit other than weight saving but end up with lesser handling experience? Do you carry camera like that with these lenses on everyday normal hangout, if not, what lens and body you use? Why do people take amazing camera on trips but use less quality gear on everyday life which is most and important parts of your life too?
Hi Pierre, thanks for introducing us to this new 70-200mm F/4 lens. I mostly shoot during the day and this lens will be perfect for me. I also like shooting Macro as well. Maybe this will be good for Street photography during the day. A very modern looking lens that can be used in combination with the 70-200mm F/2.8. Thanks for sharing this video.
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.
Really sold on this! I've tried both the Tamron 70-180mm f/2.8 G2 and the Sony 70-200mm f/2.8 GM II, but as a landscape photographer that mostly shoots outdoors, often on a tripod, and who likes to take close-up, macro-type shots, this lens does it all for me. It's lighter, fits in the bag better, and as you say, you can use a small prime for shooting portraits and getting bokeh (I have Sony's underrated 85mm f/1.8 and it's ideal for low light work, portraits, subject isolation). This lens will also take my x2 teleconverter, allowing for true 1:1 macro, which means I'm no longer debating whether to get the 90mm macro lens as it becomes redundant.
Just bought a 2.8 canon 3 weeks ago And did a festival It was awesome I cant wait to try it on street ! The only problem was the weight of the objectif ...
The F/2.8 GM II is for rich and/or professional photographers and the F/4 G II is for penny-pinching travelers (like me). Everything in photography is a compromise and I’m happy with good F/4 lenses. My back is happy and my bank account is happy.
I have 70-200 f/2.8 GM OSS II and F4. Love it both of the lenses BUT F4 not that good for night shoot out. Most important you need to understand the aperture stands for which condition. If you dont understand your lenses, you wont get what you want with your lenses. Thats the rules of thumb
![Lp. Сердце Вселенной #60 РОЖДЕНИЕ ЛОЛОЛОШКИ [Финал] • Майнкрафт](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/YoR0pAV9FVQ/mqdefault.jpg)
Goooood Morning! What are your thoughts on this lens?!
▹ Print your work today & get 10% OFF with code "PIERRE-YT10": pierretlambert.com/to/whitewallus (valid until 01/31/24)
▹ How I edit my photos (NEW presets pack): pierretlambert.com/presets
▹ Become a Better Photographer in 30 Days with me: pierretlambert.com/30daytogreatphotos
▹ Get Free Access to my bi-monthly TOP 5 email with tips, gear, inspiration and more - Join the tribe: pierretlambert.com/top5
PS. Note at 00:36 made an edit mistake, this was taken with the built in b&w strong contrast profile not edited with the presets see around 09:00 again when I take the photo. I did however redit some raw into B&W too.
Yet another lens to break after 30 minutes of juggling.
When it comes to macro and wildlife, working distance is important. If you have the 90mm macro lens, working distance at maximum magnification is 5" or 125mm. What is the working distance on this 70-200mm macro? Petapixel says it's 7.5" at full extension 200mm. Yes, that's better, but not significantly better. I have the 100-400mm GM. The working distance is a whopping 27" or about 69 cm. The magnification is 0.35x. Compare that to the 0.5x of this 70-200 lens. You can use teleconverters on both. With a 2x teleconverter, the 70-200 maximum aperture will be f/8. For the 100-400, the max aperture is f/11. And sure, you want to stop down to increase the DOF, but the advantage of the 90mm Macro lens is that you can shoot it at f/2.8 and get the depth of field you want by focus bracketing if you have the A7RV or the new A56700.
Bottom line. If you want a travel lens that can do general photography at 70-200mm with some semi-macro thrown in, this is your lens. If you want to get serious about full macro, the 90mm is the better choice. If you want maximum working distance for semi-macro subjects, the 100-400mm works best.
The only downside to this lens is this barrel extension. With an internal zooming it will become a stellar lens to pair with 1 or 2 fast primes.
it will become bigger tho :) and then it will be "so it's just a 70 200 mark 1 with macro capatibilies?" and not as good as it is now
Ok, so you want it to be lightweight, small & internal zooming? Ain’t gonna.
I don’t mind the weight. I’m more concerned by lenses with barrel extension which is potentially a point of failure which can collect dust or humidity orwhen you are in the field. The 2.8 version doesn’t extend , the 200-600mm neither.
When you are in a harsh environment it is a point to consider.
@@yannickderennes996buy the 2.8. Otherwise buy the old 70-200 f4
Hi Pierre, have you thought about trying the Tamron 35-150 mm F2-2.8 ? I would really like to hear if this lens can fully utilize the very fast autofocus speeds of the A7rV or A1. Would be interesting to know from you how the Tamron Autofocus abilities compare to Sony GM lenses 👍🏻
The auto focus on that lense is good, and it will keep up just fine. That being said of course it wont be as good as Sony's lenses, Nothing really will be as Sony designs it for their cameras. But youll have no issues if you go with the tamron! Beware though, that is a large and very heavy lense.
I have the 28-75 G2. The VXD is great. It performs as good as my G primes when it comes to AF. Don't know about the frame rates on the A1.
@@anonym5510 Agreed. I have the Tamron and it's a beast. I bought it for filming my daughter's indoor gymnastics meets and now I'm strongly considering getting the lighter 70-200 F4 for hiking, etc. No way I want to carry the Tamron in those situations. In fact, when we went hiking and waterfall hunting in the NC mountains a few weeks ago I found myself with the A1 and a Sony 18-135 APS-C lens mounted up most of the time. That combo actually took some awesome waterfall pictures.
I have the 35-150 and some GM lenses. This is a real good all around lens. It has a bit of softness in the highlights like a black promist filter which is fine unless you like sharpy images. The speed of autofocus on the A1 is good but hunts sometimes (I used it on weddings and corporate coverage). You are also limited to 10fps by Sony. For a medium telephoto lens, the 135GM is in another league! Blazing fast with its 4 AFmotors, light and with a really nice and creamy bokeh. One of the best Sony lens made to this day. It's a joy to work with.
@@yannickderennes996 is every non Sony lens limited to 10 FPS ?
1:50 its not macro mode. Its macro autofocusing range.
The f4 is great for everything. Minus that tiny bit on portraits, which just get a freaking 85 1.4 at that point. The barrel extension means it fits in my bag on camera for faster shooting. Which on location is dope.
Great video, I now have the sony a6700 and still shooting with my SEL 18-200 I purchased in 2013. Great lens for travelling, only problem is, when zooming to the max pictures aren't sharp daytime and get even worse when low light. I then discovered this 70-200 F4 OSS II and could be the best travel companion as it's small and I mainly do outdoor and animals photography when travelling, the 2.8 OSS II is way too expensive and aswell too big, and as I am not really into portrait photography.... The choice is obvious.
for me, I always shoot landscape or nature or simple outdoor without a model, so F4 is quite good for me, F2.8 just for low light while a A7S3 can solve the high iso problem
what is an A7S3 ?
Dang as someone who primarily does macro but wants to start shooting people and better wildlife stuff I think this would be perfect and would stay on my camera 100% of the time. But what about macro tubes on the 1.8?
I have some tubes for a vintage lens but i ended up keeping the lens in my hand in front of the sensor, because the tubes were never at the desired length and it was a hassle to change them
I would say get the Sony 100-400 4.5-5.6. It has 0.35X magnification. Most of the time it’s more than enough for close up shot. If it’s not, then get extension tubes.
I shoot with the 70-200 f/2.8 GM OSS II for the sharpness it provides throughout the aperture range. It's also a phenomenal video lens and pairs well with both my a1 and a7SIII though I find it lives on my a1 99% of the time. I was fortunate enough to be in the market for a 70-200 right when they announced the GM OSS II so I was able to snag one up pretty early on without ever having held the previous version. 100% would buy it again and again, such an amazing and sharp lens!
Same setup with me. Love my 70-200 f/2.8 GM OSS II so much. The bokeh for f2.8 not bad at all when at 200mm
@@rafhanismail it seems bokeh and progression o out of focus zone is better in this f4 than gm2
@@lorenzo4262 its all about the depth of field for the zoom lens
The f2.8 is a great lens, the main downside is that the weight does become a bit of an issue after a bit 😊
What lens for sport photography? I hope you can make video for sport photography😭🙏
During my Sony days, used 70-200mm f/4 for almost 80% of my wok, even when I could afford a 2.8, I stuck with f/4, it was lighter, and just somehow better for my work.
F4 not that useful for night shoot out. Thats what happen to me
@@rafhanismail I did several night time & low light shoots from Travel, Portrait, Events to even few Weddings, boosted my ISO to 1600-2000 on A7III, never had any issue.
@@ankurbagai1056 if you said 1600-2000 ISO, its mean not really a low light. ☺️Lets talk about really a low light with F4 like 10000 ISO and above
@@ankurbagai1056 f/4 is too dark for low light shooting.
@ thank you for the Sony’s low light capabilities, couple of stops of ISO didn’t hamper the quality.
The Tamron 70-180 is now available at £750 - 800 near mint or excellent condition. Brand new for about a £1000 with a five year warranty.
Hey Pierre,
i'm currently using a 100-400mm f5.0 sigma lense (because of budget) and i'm happy so far. But at some time i really want to switch to sony and the corresponding lenses.
But i have one question. you mention your 30 day photography thing every video, do you have any estimate when the next one will be? Would really like to participate.
Nice Review 👍🙏🏾 For Travel and Landscape: GM 50mm F 1,2+ G 20-70mm F 4 + G 70-200mm F 4 II 🙏🏾 Same 72mm Filter Size 👍
I love watching your videos. They are energetic, interesting and your story adds its charm.🤩
your such an inspiration for me!
I bought 20-70 f4 bcs it was for “28-75 tamron price” i dont shoot a lot of portraits, its lighter, smaller, sharp as hell with crazy AF and have better focus range fo my needs. This 70-200 f4 would be perfect combo for traveling!
On my recent trip to Europe I basically walked around with two cameras, one with the 20-70 and the other with the 70-200. Pretty much did anything I wanted short of birds in flight. I still kept the wonderful Sony 35/1.8 around for low light work.
Got an f4 simply because its soooo much more affordable than an f2.8 and its probably the better option for travelling due to its size and weight
mine gonna arrive tomorrow... cant wait to test it for the little subjects... also want to use it in general landscape photography as well... thanks for the info though :D
I love my Sony 70-200mm f/4 G OSS lens for a variety of uses. I use it for landscape, portraiture and, general photography.
However, I do not use it for most wildlife or macro shooting. It is simply not long enough for wildlife and it doesn't focus close enough for macro work.
The macro capability of this new lens would ( with the addition of a TC ) cover those last two uses.
What is the IQ of the lens with the 2X TC if used on a new A6700 camera. Since the aperture will be reduced to f/8; will the A6700 be able to autofocus?
Do you recommend it for food photography?
Bought the Sony 70-200 f/4 and use it with Sony A6700 and Sony A7RV. Love the lens.
I own the 70-200 f4 v1 and the 90mm macro. Do you think if I sell them both and get the new V2 I will be happy with it? I don't shoot much macro but I do product photos and I use the 70 200 for video and photo work at events.
The 70-200 f4 v1 has internal zoom which could be better for video work if you want to use a gimbal for example, it doesn’t change the weight distribution as much. It’s also harder to get dust particles and such inside the lens.
@@lillswanne yeah I'm gutted about the barrel. But everything else is amazing about it. I think best thing to do is wait till it's released and test it out
I bought the sony f/2.8 and f4 thinking it'd be an easy choice to keep one and send the other back. I still have both lol. Can't decide.
A lens that has shorter minimum focus is not better than the 90mm macro you mentioned with longer focusing distance. Because the 90mm macro still has better magnification (it's a 1:1 macro) and the longer focusing distance allows you to stay further from moving subjects, like insects, etc
Just throw a 2x teleconverter on that lens and you have a 1:1 magnification and when you want the telephoto just put it normal.
What I'd really like is an updated 70-300.
I have a 70-200 for many years, i used it once. For me it's a better deal to use a 40-150 on olympus than 70-200 on sony
I have F4 Macro OSS gen II, 50 1.8 and 28-75 2.8 tamron, 28-60 f4-5. I lime them but still something is missing. Maybe a 1.2 / or 1.4 GM ?
I have this lens. I freakin love it. Super sharp, great IS, and the macro capability is killer. Is it technically better than my 100-400? No, though the macro capability is better. But, I love taking pictures of birds AND flowers AND insects, and this can do all three while being a lot smaller and lighter. And, with a 1.4X extender, it is basically a 100-300 F5.6, which isn't that different from the zoom and aperture capabilities of the 100-400 while being an even better macro lens. Definitely not a replacement for my 200-600 for birds in flight or for taking pictures of the moon or solar eclipses, but for travel, the 70-200 is perfect.
Great job on the video Pierre! Thanks for making it.
Thanks for the great review . I would prefer the 2.8 lens. By the way, do you have a source for the hot shoe cover with the alpha-logo?
I have a quick question. Can I shot photos with sun in the background without any filter on lens? Will it damage my camera?
I shoot the d500 with the 70-200 vr ii 2.8 and a d750 with the same lens yes I have 2 because I shoot that lens for equine and rodeo so having ff and crop sensor
Content de te retrouver 😉❤📸 les clichés sont magnifiques 😯😮
I have a current 70~200 f4 version. Its my only zoom and I do use it quite a lot. (I don't shoot video at all). I think i will upgrade to the new f4 version. Part of reason of course the price difference is a factor. If they were the same price.....hmmm.
F4 has one advantage. Takes up less space in the backpack. In everything else version 2.8 is better. But I am portrait photographer and landscapes are my hobby. For landscape photographers F4 is a great choice.
I think the F2.8 is the more versatile option which exceeds the F4 in most points. That being said, the price and weight and size are very important points.
For travelling (with limited space) the F4 is a great option.
However, I will save money for the F2.8 because it, to me, is one of the most important and versatile lenses out there. With range extenders it can cover 70-400mm which is all I ever need. When using the extenders the F2.8 comes in handy as well because of the loss of stops.
Looks like a great lens. My 70-200 GM II will be here Monday. Can’t wait to go out and use it!
When paired with a7iii, will autofocus be quick enough? Especially for macro mode?
Genius move from Sony turning their 70-200 f4 into a macro lens. It just separated itself from all the others in this category.
Do you know any other versatile and zoom lens from Sony and other brands that do macro?
Is this a good setup of just using standard iPhone 15 that has 13mm, 26mm and 52mm for closer shoot and feel less intimidated too and just get one 70-200mm F4 macro with 2X converter which can get 1:1 macro and reach 600mm in APSC mode if I just shoot as hobbyist and sometime shoot for personal product works plus I don't really care about Bokeh, I like my photos and videos to have story and creativity? Or should I get another lens, but should it better be 16-35mm F4 PZ G or 20-70mm F4? I thought to get single 20-70mm because it cover Ultra wide to short tele without need other lens but it will also means it won't be ultra wide and tele enough, I can miss out of the 35 < X < 70 because I can crop. What do you think of Sony RX100 and RX10 too, I hope they come up with new one soon. And does it make sense to get A7RV and not A7CR since you going to use these bigger lenses and it provide better EVF and 4 ways screen and the smaller body of A7CR doesn't provide any benefit other than weight saving but end up with lesser handling experience? Do you carry camera like that with these lenses on everyday normal hangout, if not, what lens and body you use? Why do people take amazing camera on trips but use less quality gear on everyday life which is most and important parts of your life too?
@@NetvoTV A lot of the Tamron zooms have a short minimum focus distance. They aren't true macros, but they get the job done in a pinch.
Hey Pierre. I have the Sony 70-200 f4 OG lens and it's probably my favorite lens, after the 55mm zeiss. I was so excited for this mark ii release, but now I'm kinda thinking for what I need it for my OG lens is probably still good at f4.
The biggest thing for me (as an owner of the G1 as well) is the teleconverters. The macro is sick, and adds versatility, but the 1.4 and 2x converters make me very jealous.
@@dubenick yes that's a very good point. Adding a teleconver makes this lens super versatile. The macro mode looks insane as well... Noooo! Must resist temptation... lol 😅
I am also having the current f4 but still consider to get the new one. I am also having the 90mm macro and a 150-500 Tamron. My thought is to replace all three by the new one with a converter. For sure I will lose a bit macro capability but it reduces space and weight significantly. And having up to 400mm seems enough. Never really needed anything beyond that.
I got the 2.8 ii right before the f4 came out with the macro and also have the 200-600mm but I’m looking to get a macro lens now
Hey, I have a question if its ok. Im debating on getting a 2.8 70-200 and a 200-600mm or compromising a bit and just going for the 100-400mm to get the median. Which one of the two options would you recommend? Im relatively new to photography
@@racer7007 I would do the 70-200mm 2.8 ii and get a 2x converter and I find I use this more then I use my Sony 200-600mm lens but I do also have the 1.4 converter that I sometimes use on my 200-600mm
@@robertdoyle8972 thanks I appreciate it!
I just bought the 70-200 f/2.8 GM OSS II, Fujifilm X100V, and a Canon RF 85mm f/1.2 L USM DS Full-Frame Lens for RF-Mount. I will be purchasing more camera gear over the next few months for my camera rental store in Panama City Beach, Florida called Camera Leader. These videos are very helpful for helping me decide what to get.
I see the 70-200/4 GII in direct competition with the Tamron 70-180/2.8, similar size and weight and the Tamron has also some macro ability. Tamron is cheaper and offers 2.8. I stick with the Tamron.
exactly my thoughts.
@KeAiFu Great tip. I didn’t know this other lens existed. I once had a Tamron 180mm f/2.5 for Nikon and it was my absolute favorite portrait lens. Hmmmm.
Watching a lot of videos about lenses and doing street photography as a hobby all those lens are beautiful in their own ways. This f/4 lens is reasonable for being lightweight during shooting for long period of time. It's like owning a toolbox lol
Hi Pierre, I was wondering if you would make a video covering like making money from selling photos, I'm not sure if that's up your alley but would love to hear any insight you might have on getting started making money from your photos , thanks for the great videos as always!
Hi pierre, I really like the video you taken photo on the street in the storm,Will you still update that series of videos ？ I am looking forward to it！！😂😂❤❤
I have the Sony a7 iii with the kit lens 28-70 F 3.5-5.6 and now I‘m searching for a new lens, so my question is:
Would it be better to buy the 70-200 F4 Macro ii or the 24-70 F 2.8 ii, most of the time I will be using it for traveling through asia and the U.S. and for portraits?!
Would love to have your help, thanks 🙏🏼
For travel go lite. Sony has good ISO. If you can carry the weight (biggest problem during travel) then go f2.8). If you only photo and video during the day, f4
@@ThorSkin69 Thanks😊
try the Canon Rebel Xs with 18-55 mm lens
gear hog always fun 🤩
Tôi vẫn quan tâm tới ống kính này, liệu zom bụi có ảnh hưởng tới lens khi zom không
Will this lens work with a Nikon D850 camera?
I am wildlife photographer and my main set up is 400 F2.8 GM on one A1 body and 70-200 F2.8 GMii on another A1. A lot of shooting is dawn and dusk and I really need the F2.8, plus love the bokeh to separate subject from background. The macro capability of the new F4 is tempting, but this is not the lens for me. Plus I would be worried about dust getting in lens with that extending zoom
Weird question here lol
is wildlife photography a job you have? If so, does one get good paid for it? Im thinking of becoming a photographer in the future so yeah
@@BiomeTales no it is not my job or main source of income. For earning money in photography, how much depends on the standard of your work and reputation like any area of arts. Very few if anyone make a living just as a wildlife photographer
@@Jonathantuba oh i see, ty for response :)
I have Tamron 70-180mm. It's really great lens.
Hi Pierre, where did you get you hot shoe cover?
Get the tamron 70-180 f2.8 g2 best of both worlds .Not quite as contrasty as mk 2 sony but good enough.
Where do you share your work?
for people who use to see these videos in dark enviroments I advice you to choose a black background instead of a white one when showing pictures.
Am I hearing Seventeen’s “Super” intro for the intro music?
What’s a good camera to shoot videos on (UA-cam wise)?
anything at your disposal, so this means if your phone has a camera, use that!
edit: i added a little more information to it lmao
Is this a good setup of just using standard iPhone 15 that has 13mm, 26mm and 52mm for closer shoot and feel less intimidated too and just get one 70-200mm F4 macro with 2X converter which can get 1:1 macro and reach 600mm in APSC mode if I just shoot as hobbyist and sometime shoot for personal product works plus I don't really care about Bokeh, I like my photos and videos to have story and creativity? Or should I get another lens, but should it better be 16-35mm F4 PZ G or 20-70mm F4? I thought to get single 20-70mm because it cover Ultra wide to short tele without need other lens but it will also means it won't be ultra wide and tele enough, I can miss out of the 35 < X < 70 because I can crop. What do you think of Sony RX100 and RX10 too, I hope they come up with new one soon. And does it make sense to get A7RV and not A7CR since you going to use these bigger lenses and it provide better EVF and 4 ways screen and the smaller body of A7CR doesn't provide any benefit other than weight saving but end up with lesser handling experience? Do you carry camera like that with these lenses on everyday normal hangout, if not, what lens and body you use? Why do people take amazing camera on trips but use less quality gear on everyday life which is most and important parts of your life too?
Hi Pierre, thanks for introducing us to this new 70-200mm F/4 lens. I mostly shoot during the day and this lens will be perfect for me. I also like shooting Macro as well. Maybe this will be good for Street photography during the day. A very modern looking lens that can be used in combination with the 70-200mm F/2.8. Thanks for sharing this video.
I thought this 70200 f4 lens is perfect for timepiece photography, what’d you think? 🤔
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.
Really sold on this! I've tried both the Tamron 70-180mm f/2.8 G2 and the Sony 70-200mm f/2.8 GM II, but as a landscape photographer that mostly shoots outdoors, often on a tripod, and who likes to take close-up, macro-type shots, this lens does it all for me. It's lighter, fits in the bag better, and as you say, you can use a small prime for shooting portraits and getting bokeh (I have Sony's underrated 85mm f/1.8 and it's ideal for low light work, portraits, subject isolation). This lens will also take my x2 teleconverter, allowing for true 1:1 macro, which means I'm no longer debating whether to get the 90mm macro lens as it becomes redundant.
I find extending barrel not tough and rugged enough for my practice but the macro modeis quite interesting
Just bought a 2.8 canon 3 weeks ago And did a festival It was awesome I cant wait to try it on street ! The only problem was the weight of the objectif ...
Perfect review. Thank you!
why all he did was show pics of the 2.8 ,, not a review at all..
Laowa 2.8 100 2:1....is a better value for macro,....combined with the 70-200gm ii....unless you are a casual photographer, that just wants to dabble.
Да у меня тоже такой же объектив)
That size!! it won't change anything...
Waiting for the Sigma 70-200 f2.8 before making any decisions.
The F/2.8 GM II is for rich and/or professional photographers and the F/4 G II is for penny-pinching travelers (like me). Everything in photography is a compromise and I’m happy with good F/4 lenses. My back is happy and my bank account is happy.
Excuse my ignorance, but why is it common to hear people hate on Nikon?
❤❤❤
I have 70-200 f/2.8 GM OSS II and F4. Love it both of the lenses BUT F4 not that good for night shoot out. Most important you need to understand the aperture stands for which condition. If you dont understand your lenses, you wont get what you want with your lenses. Thats the rules of thumb
IS THAT A SEVENTEEN SUPER INTRO
Wait for the f2.8 because it’ll be better than the f2.8 🧐
I have the Canon 70-200 2.8.
Hype
visit nagaland🤭
Cry once buy once. Get that 2.8
Lebih aman membawa 70-200 f2.8 di tangan anda
🍬🍬❤❤
No internal zoom = No thank you.
Hi sir my name is Jake , I need a cemara but my family condition is very bad 😭So my request please.. sir give me a cemara 😢😢
I have the 2.8 vii…..THE BEST LENS….