Join me on Patreon for the best Alpha Support and Guidance. A single $10 Membership fee includes access to my 500-page camera-specific eBooks, member-only Q&A Forums + Over twenty 1-hour member-only seminars + cameras settings files & access to the Raw files from the lens and camera reviews (there is no contract or commitment beyond the first month). www.patreon.com/markgaler
Just bought this lens a few days ago for my landscape work. Initial thoughts are really positive and so looking forward to creating more intimate landscapes. Will be checking out your user guide shortly! Thanks Mark
Totally agree with your statement here. I did at one point consider the GM 2.8 however after comparing the two, I didn't see much of difference besides the one stop. The F4 70-200 is definitely an under rated lens and is a lens a keep with me at all times.
Thank you for this review. I'm trying to decide if I should buy this lens or not. After watching many review videos I have to say yours is by far the best. Straight to the point and you basically answered all my questions. I will be buying this lens.....
The 70-200 F4 is definitely on my "next lens to buy list". Been saving for a while now. Unless you are a paid pro you dont need the f2.8 and with the f4 you can get another 1-2 lenses and save your wrist/arm/back from all that strain :) Thanks for another great video Mark.
I have the Sigma contemporary series 16mm, 30mm,56mm and Sony 18-105mm. Just got the 70-200mm F4 3 months ago. I can do everything I wanna do with those. All of them cost little more than the 70-200mm F2.8.
Been wondering whether to buy this or the Sony FE 70 - 300 but now totally convinced this is the one as its a good all rounder as well. Great presentation as always and very knowledgeable. Thanks
As usual great review of an incredible lens. Just converted over to Sony from Canon after 40 years and really appreciate your informative channel. Keep it up.
Great review Mark! I love my 70-200mm F4 G Lens. I think this is one of the least spoken about lenses in the E mount range, yet it does a remarkable job and is a very versatile lens.
I'm heading out tomorrow for a month in Vietnam. I'd resolved to make this trip with just my Batis 18, 40, and 85mm lenses but there's a part of me tempted to pick up this lens this afternoon. I'll eventually own it because I do frequently use the 70-200 range.
Thanks Mark for another great video regarding your insight on this lens. I paired the SEL70200G F/4 with SELP18105G F/4 and the A6300 for my daughter's soccer games. Now with the A7M3, I feel that it is a bit short on range, but produces amazing results with just a slight crop in post.
This and the 24-105 f4 are probably the most useful lenses for Sony full frame. 70-200 f4 was released early 2014. Would be nice if they could drop the price a little. Side note: I don't think we can rely on DX0mark going forward, as they haven't tested a lens in almost a year.
Maybe I’ll have to look for someone else who can bench test lenses. Most of the time when someone asks how sharp a lens is I just point them to a Flickr album with some ultra HD examples I have captured (link in the info section below this movie).
I've been shooting with mine on Sony FF and cropped bodies for over two years, now, and it's definitely a keeper! Even use it for theatrical photos on the a6500 for a 300mm equivalent and using all 24MP's for stellar results!
Donna Fortner definitely go for the f4 for the price difference and use the rest of the money to get an 85mm 1.8 or any other prime! I’m saving up to get both of them🙏🏻
Excellent review as always. I especially appreciate the practicality of your advice (e.g., even though it is not a GM, it is excellent and quite a bit cheaper and lighter). Validates my own decision to purchase the lens given my use case for it. Happy to be a paid supporter of your site. Keep up the great work!
Glad it was helpful Michael. I have several well-loved and often-used none G or GM lenses. Another personal favourite is the 85mm f/1.8. I am also drawn to using lightweight lenses when I want to work from a single small messenger bag.
I take the dxo mark with a pinch of salt as all of the you tube examples I have seen shows at 100% the F4 is sharper then the F2.8 GM (just like Sony's 85mm 1.8 is sharper then the 85 1.4 GM)....HOWEVER like with all GM lenses (or most) you are paying for better rendering (contrast, bokeh quality and no back lit washouts) I am a landscaper mainly and love portraits so sharpness is a thing for me. Great vid Mark and thank you kindly for the flickr images for examples (to which I have visited many times to make critical lens choice decisions) you are a great photographer my friend, fab channel :)
Love your informational and interesting videos. Always very well done and I can follow your sayings with ease compared to other superfast talkers out there. I like your style very much. Just bought the 70-200/4 used and I think it will do great on my A73. Agree that it will work fine with APC-crop with the camera. I use it all the time with other lenses. Thanks again for your video.
Exceptionally useful review! I have been wondering about this and I'm sure many others are as well. Do you happen to know whether the f/4 or v/2.8 versions have much focus breathing? At the time that I purchased my excellent Nikon 70-200mm f/4 some years ago, the corresponding f/2.8 model (the v2) had severe focus breathing (200mm acted like 140mm at close range) whereas Nikon's f/4 version had little focus breathing (200mm really was 200mm, even at close range.). This meant that the f/4 often gave equivalent or greater background blur at closer ranges. So I learned to always ask about focus breathing when choosing any zoom.
There is no serious focus breathing on the 70-200 F/4 - I don't have the time to accurately bench test this but I would guess at 200mm and setting the focus to the closest focussing distance of the lens it behaves like a 192mm
Bought one end of 2020 and can't wait to use it, but due to CV19 not yet had the chance. This video now convinced me I made the right choice. :) For an extra stop and cost and size the GM ruled out.
Brilliant and spot on again. I am looking at this lens second hand and it's a good deal. If shooting more landscape or portrait with the A7R3 you have just a TON of data that can be cropped without a hint that you did so. I'd also like to have you specifically follow up on using APSc lenses with the A7R3 since I have been printing 16x24in and 24x36in XPozer prints and I like walking about with the SEL20F28 - and I'll be damned if 18 Mpx is not more than enough ... I've also been experimenting with just how far you can compress and image without visible loss and, for web viewing the average user will be astonished. From the APSc 18 Mpx image, I will routinely export as 80% Jpeg with a .5x size (Pixelmator) - which turns a 20 MB file into a 0.7 MB file and I challenge you to spot the difference online. My point is that I've taken images with the 55f18 and cropped them so far that you'd think I was insane, but online, it looks like a 400 mm point of view.... Thank's SONY for this incredible camera.
When I crop I use the Info overlay to keep an idea of how much I am cropping 3840px Wide for 4K screens, 2048px for Facebook and iPads and 1920px for HD
Hi mark! You are one of my favorite photographers today! I love your landscape work, in mostly landscape photographer, I have the a7riii, 16-35 gm (my favorite lens), tamron 28-75 for my go to lens when I don’t need go ultra wide and the amazing fe 85mm 1.8 wichi i love for portraits, now I’m thinking to add a telephoto lens to my gear, thinking mostly for landscape and maybe some portraits too (but most for landscape) do you recomend the 70-200 f4, 70-200 GM or the 100-400 GM? I like the option to use teleconverter on the GM and 100-400 but I see too the GM isn’t worth too much with the 2x (I see you review) always I want do one time purchase for not need think to change the lens in the future or the near future, but having the 85mm for portraits I think the 70-200gm maybe isn’t worth, and the price / weight on the f4 is really good for traveling and hand hole, what do you think? I can afford the GM lenses but maybe don’t need for my purpose (I do not weeding or model event where I really need the 2.8 of the GM) I like the compresión of the 100-400 and the extra reach, I can do landscape and animals photography but the weight... I really don’t know, maybe add one 70-200 and in the future go for the 100-400 is another option, what do you think?
I would choose the 70-200 f/4 for the small form factor (perfect if you want to work from a messenger bag) or the 100-400 if you need the reach. Good for wildlife when you can’t get close enough with the 70-200.
I’ve recently purchased this lens and love it. I mainly shoot portraits. I’ve found it a little hit and miss with my a73 using the eye af. At 200 mm the eyes arnt pin sharp like my 85 1.8. Do you use eye af most of the time with the lens and what sort of minimum shutter would you use at the long end. Hope you still receive messages on the older videos. Many thanks mark
I offer full support and guidance as to my own preferred camera settings via my free-to-download A7III eBook from my website and numerous video tutorials that address AF and Eye AF.
@@AlphaCreativeSkills I downloaded it last year but prob didn’t read to much about the longer focal distances I’ll have a read through again. I looked through your hd images on flickr so could see exif data it was more just a thing of can the 70 200 handle using the eye af as it’s a slighter older lens compared to the newer ones and wondered if the eye af struggled a little more. Thanks for the reply and thanks for all your amazing content I’ve been following you for ages and learnt so much I only rewatched this as it was a recent purchase
Not an easy question to answer - after announcement comes the wait period for stock and then for the reviews (and not many reviewers shoot sports/action to check AF speed). Has any information been released about size and weight?
@@AlphaCreativeSkills I haven't seen any specifics on the pending lens S/W. I'm mostly relying on the success the 28-75 had. However I do recognize there was a literal price to pay for Tamrons cheaper version, the focal length to keep size and price down, no focus buttons, no M/AF buttons, plastic feel etc. But the pull for the 2.8, I wonder if it's worth it. I may have answered my own question haha. I may go with the f4
g2 lineups for dslr's were excellent. All of them. Also tamron's take on 28-75 was superb. Yea, they are two different systems, but it shows tamron's capability of manufacturing fantastic lenses across all ranges and across both systems. So if you look at the latest success of their lenses, 70-200 mirrorless won't disappoint. Unless something would go very wrong...
Great combination - I use an A6400 with two APS-C primes + the FE 70-200 F/4 and FE 85 F/1.8. When used on an APS-C sensor the 70-200 has a ‘full-frame equivalent’ range of 105-300.
I got tired of waiting for Sigma to release their 70-200mm lens and bought this one a couple of weeks ago. So far I'm very happy with it. Turns out it is way better than I had anticipated. And don't you worry lads...it's way sharper than what you would see in the various reviews on youtube.
Hi Mark! I've recently sold this lens to buy Tamron 35-150 and now thinking to buy another 70-200 back because it was one of my favorite lenses. Also I am very interested in video performance of this lens, and literally nobody of super youtube reviewers cover this aspect of this lens. Do you have any chance to check? I would really appreciate the answer, because GM II for sure has focus breathing compensation support and who will doubt for double of price.
The AF is up to the task (although the late model lenses are faster) so you just have to decide whether the F4 aperture is bright enough. I will shoot indoor sport with the 85 and 135 mm primes if I need to keep the ISO low.
Thank you for that great review! I'm building up my lens selection for Sony right now. I'm not specialized on a certain field (mostly travel), though I would describe landscapes as my favorite subject. If I may ask for your advice: I have a 16-35 f2.8 and a 24-105 f4 and really like both lenses. I'd like to have a telephoto lens for portraits, landscape (mainly I guess) and occasional wildlife. The 70-200 f4 sounds splendid, but there's a huge overlap with the 24-105 f4. Does this make it a bad choice for me? The alternatives would be the two GM lenses, with the 100-400 up front for me. What would you recommend?
Overlap is not such a bad thing - it just means you don’t change lenses as often. If you need the reach and you are using a 24 rather than a 42.4 MP sensor the 100-400 would be the better choice. For portraits and events the 70-200 is perfect. For wildlife and sport the 100-400 wins out.
@@AlphaCreativeSkills thanks for the reply! Yes, I'm using a A7III. I understand the lower mega Pixel count should be more capable of compensating camera shake as the higher one of the R series. The 100-400 would be my favorite too, though I have to admit the weight makes it not an obvious traveler's choice
@@AlphaCreativeSkills okay, interesting to hear - I always thought the susceptibility for camera shake rises with the mega pixels. Why then would the 100-400 be better of with the lower resolution? Lack of sharpness?
It’s all about the crop for me - I can crop much more aggressively with the A7Rlll compared to the A7lll and A9. This means I can often travel with the 70-200 with the R but will often pack the 100-400 if leaving the R at home (I mostly travel with both the R and the 9 these days).
Mark, great review as always. I have been trying to decide between the two lens and this helps. I have a AR7 IV -- will I be able to take pictures of the moon with this lens? Thank-you
Great review! Question if this lense will be a good performer in terms of quality and sharpness on a aps-c body like my a6600, hope you can answer me, thank you!
@@AlphaCreativeSkills thanks for the response! I think that FE lenses are more future proof to me, optically talking which of the two lenses do you think is more advance/better quality/sharpness?
Thank you so much for this great video !!! I will probably buy the 70-200mm f/4 as the weight is a key element for me. I currently own the Sony7R3 but i would like to buy as well a 2nd body APS fitted with the 70-200mm, primarilly for action and portraits as well, where I need a quick AF. Would you recommand me to buy the a6400 or the 6500 ? Thanks a lot in advance for your advise :)
Hi Mark. I have an A7Rii and use the 70-200 F4. I have had both of these for 3+ years. This lens is fantastic. This lens and my 24-105 are my favorite lenses. I would like to gain more reach when shooting birds or wildlife. Do you suggest I go for the 100-400 or the 200-600? Aside from the extra reach, are there any other factors to consider? Thanks.
Take a look at my Sony FE 200 600 G and FE 100-400 GM Lens Review and Comparison Test - I have hopefully provided enough information for users to come to the best decision.
@@AlphaCreativeSkills Thanks. Mark. I found that helpful. Another question though. Looking to improve my ability to shoot wildlife or birds. Have the A7RII with 16-35, 24-105 and 70-200 F4 lenses. I also have an A6000 with 10-18 and 16-70 F4 lenses. The A7RII definitely covers my landscape and portrait needs. Do you suggest buying a A9 or A7RIII / A7RIV or should I consider swapping out my a6000 for an a6400 to fill this gap?
Hi thanks for this great review. I have just ordered this lens. However, I am wondering whether this will make my 24-105 redundant. I have bought a 14mm prime and still have my Leica Q. Hadn’t realised how expensive it can be to switch systems although I don’t regret my choice.
I know this is older, but it just popped up on my feed. I am very excited and hopeful the rumors about a 70-200 G II are true. I rented the 20-70 for a trip to Death Valley and Joshua Tree National Parks to try it out, and was impressed. If the 70-200 is anywhere near as sharp, and fun to use, then the 20-70 and 70-200 G II paired with my A7RV would be ideal for my Wotencraft 7L bag?
@@AlphaCreativeSkills thank you mark. Mines just arrived. Loving this lens on my Sony a7iii. I have also ordered the 100-400. I do know my teleconverter will work on that-:)
Mark, I'm looking to fill in the focal range of my lens kit with the 70-200. Just received my A1. Does any of the sony 70-200 work well on the A1 or do you think I should wait for the refresh, as these lenses are getting kind of old?
If you shoot Raw any camera can be 'profiled' just like printers and computer monitors. Adobe Lightroom also has numerous Profiles so if you don't like Adobe's starting point you can choose one of the camera starting points - you can then make this the default for your camera. Just remember there is no such thing as Colour Science. The correct term for managing accurate colours across devices is called Colour Management.
Mark, in your review the f4 version cones close to the f2.8 gm. Does this also apply for using on high res.bodies liike the a7r3 and a9? A sony employee told me the f2.8 gm is more suited to the high res. A7r3. Is this just a selling argument?
Sony state they have built the GM lenses to resolve to higher resolution sensors than are currently available. On the sensors that are currently available the F/4 has no problem creating very sharp images on the A7R models. I personally don’t go in for graphs and charts which is why I provide links to ultra high definition images I have captured with the lens. If you do go in for bench testing then you will find dxo mark tested this lens very highly.
The GM lenses are great. At one time I had all of them that had been released. But, I'm getting older and don't want the weight of the heavier lenses. So, I've traded the 24-70mm GM for the 24-105mm G and the 70-200mm GM for the 70-200mm G and haven't looked back..
I have made the same decision and sometimes take three primes instead of the zooms and I am currently travelling with the A6400 as a backup camera to my full frame camera with the 18-135 lens (7x zoom). That’s really light.
@@AlphaCreativeSkills I've started adding Loxia and Batis primes too. I've come full circle in a way. When I started doing photography zooms were so bad that you had to use primes. Now we have excellent zooms, but I'm thinking about going back to primes. I'm sure I'll have a mixed kit for a while. But, I won't be surprised if I go back to all primes some day.
Would you say this lens is still relevant in 2023? Here is my dilemma, now that the V2 2.8 is out the V1 is really un appealing based off of what i have seen(the size between old and new for one example) and i feel like i will regret it. NOW, I can get the f4 version for $800 canadian vs the $3600 price tag on the V2 of the 2.8. Would you say that it is worth it? The $3600 price tag is really hard for me to justify currently, So i am looking at other alternatives until I am ready. I am shooting on the a7IV and do lots of video, Currently my 24-105 f4 lives on my camera. The photos you showcase in this video are phenomenal quality.
A lens does not cease to be relevant just because it is old, cheaper or have less buttons on the side. The quality of the images I showcased in this video can still be captured today and tomorrow with this lens, no matter if someone says it is not as sharp or fully featured as a GM ll. I always make a point of showcasing images rather than showing my talking head banging on about specifications that are largely irrelevant to most users. There are rumours of an imminent F4 GIl but this lens, if it appears, will not replace the current G, or make it irrelevant for photographers because some reviewers, many who rarely showcase quality images, now says if is an inferior product. These lenses are not status symbols. They are tools for creative photographers.
@@AlphaCreativeSkills I have actually seen some leaked photos today of v2 for this lens. I am getting it for a really good price so I think I will be really happy with the decision. I think it will fit in my kit nicely. Thank you for your awesome response,you absolutely nailed it! The photos you showcase are top notch and you are in a whole other realm than majority of the people talking about this lens on the internet. Thanks for solidifying my decision. I have weighed it Vs the V1 2.8 and in my opinion this is the one for me. Plus I know if I place my subject appropriately and accordingly I can make up for bokeh with lens compression with distance.
As an Ambassador I couldn't mention the new lens until after it announcement It is a good deal more expensive than the version 1 and possibly worth the extra money if you like Macro and birds in flight but perhaps overkill if most of your subjects are further away and slower moving.
@@AlphaCreativeSkills beauty! Will check it out! Haha yes I figured as much! I have the v1 coming. If I use it a lot I will get the v2 in the very near future! The macro is also very appealing to me.
The sensor has a similar image quality on all of the full frame sensors. It is the ability for later models A7 cameras to focus on quickly moving subjects that has changed significantly.
Hi Mark.. do you recommend this lens to use with a7riv? There have been reviews in some places that the combo is not up to the mark. Can you please comment.
Your images won’t be any worse than had you used the lens on an A7Rlll - it may not be quite as sharp as the GM Zooms or GM primes but it is a very sharp lens and is half the weight, size and price of the GM. Review the images in the linked gallery on a large 4K monitor and make up your own mind. Some of the pro gear reviewers, who rarely take any images, give shocking advice to prospective owners. If anyone has said this is not a suitable lens for use on an A7RlV you need to unsubscribe.
For indoor sports such as hockey, I assume the 2.8 would be a much better choice? I'm currently waiting on any third party manufacturer such as Tamron to come up with something 70-200 at reasonable price.
It all depends on the level of illumination and the shutter speed you need to freeze fast action (you can't always trust to slow shutter speed panning). I have been to some indoor sporting events where I had to cover it with a fast 1.8 prime and then crop in post while others I could shoot at f/4 and ISO 3200.
@@AlphaCreativeSkills So far I've learned from you and use ISO AUTO MIN. SS and set it to about 1/500. Own and use a 28-70 2.8 and been getting 3200iso as result using this method. I assume with F4, I'll be at around 6400iso if I'm calculating right. I might be giving this 70-200 F4 G lens a chance. Thank you Mark.
Christopher Frost reviewed the 70-200 with the 70-300 and his examples of the 70-300 show that it's optically a better performer than the 70-200. Whether his example of the 70-200 was a bad one or if there were some other factor which degraded the quality of the 70-200 I don't know but it is interesting.
With independent bench testing (dxoMark) the 70-200 made the top 10 SONY lenses. The 70-300 did not. Be careful with who you follow. If I suspect I don’t have a good copy of a lens I ask for a second copy and don’t just proceed with the review. The difference in AF performance also falls in favour of the 70-200.
Mark, love that lens but no money in the pot. I have the a6500 and would like to use my Canon 70-200 Mkii, can you recommend an adapter, if any. Thank you.
Most people choose between the Metabones and the Sigma MC-11 adapters. As I now only own Sony lenses I can only go by what I hear online and the MC-11 seems to be a current favourite- things can change quickly, however, as firmware upgrades change relative performance.
Sell your Canon 70-200 II no matter what adaptive lens you have it won't perform as well as native e-mounts unless you manual focus. You'll reap the benefits of eye AF, faster AF using the A6500 425 PDAF points. Canon fanboys always rave about canon color on lenses that is rubbish, you can always color correct and color grade. I'm fully committed with Sony and got native e-mount lenses for my A7R II and A6500, got rid(sold) all my Minolta and Sigma A-mount lenses with LA-EA4 adapters and I love it and excited going to future with it. The only thing non Sony I kept is a vintage Canon FD 50 1.8 lens fully manual with an adapter used for filmmaking but I'll eventually replace it and save up for the Zeiss Plannar 50 f1.4. That's just my suggestion as long as you love what you do with what you got you are successful.
I'm also considering this one or the 2.8. I will mainly use it for dogs in action in darker area's (forests, ...). I know the A73 is a beast when it comes to ISO but I have no idea how it will handle F4 and a shutter speed around 1/1000th. Any advice?
The AF speed of the F4 G using a linear AF motor is not so problematic as the GM MK 1 using its ageing SSM motor. I would envisage the 24-70 and 85 GM lenses to be updated before Sony turned its attention to any of the G lenses (70-300 and 70-200).
Mark Galer's Alpha Creative Skills Yes. I can use my 85/1.8 for indoor/gymnasium sports, but I need more reach outdoors (and for me, a zoom is essential for those shots).
I now offer personal technical support and assistance for Sony Alpha users from my Patreon site. A single $10.00 one-month membership will give you access to extensive learning support files including 15 eBooks, 30 1-hour seminars + my Alpha Q&A forums. There is no contract and no commitment beyond the first month. www.patreon.com/markgaler - you can join, download the eBook or all eBooks and then cancel your membership one hour later if you so wish.
@@AlphaCreativeSkills thanks, i've a a6500 and with the crop, the 200 will be like 300 on a ff, i have the 18-135, right now, will that be a good upgrade if i need more zoom?
You get 65mm more reach (97.5mm ff equivalent) and 1.3 stops EV advantage at max zoom. It would be great if SONY released an APS-C equivalent of the 100-400 but until that happens the 70-200 f/4 is as good as it gets for the performance, weight, size balance.
Seen pixel peeking review comparison between 70-200 and 70-300 and the second mentioned came out actually WAY WAY sharper than 70-200 f4 .. center sharpness may be tiny bit better on 70-200 but overall sharpness across the frame is on the side of its competitor. Definitely waiting for tamron's take of F2.8 as i tried to shoot downhill biking in the forest without the flash on 85mm f/1.8 and 1.8 was giving me barely enough of shutter speed in already 6.4k iso. I know those were the most extreme conditions on limits. But i still got something. F4 lens would give me 25k iso or even 52k and that's way too much for my taste. But as always, depends on what you shoot and how. So i am personally waiting for 70-200 f/2.8 by tamron or 135 f/1.4 gm coming up soon... hopefully...
I can only think the reviewer you were watching had a deffective copy of the 70-200 as it was bench-tested by DxoMark as one of Sony’s sharpest ever zooms. This was born out by my own testing and if you click on the link to see my ultra HD examples I posted to my Flickr account any further discussion on perceived sharpness would be irrelevant.
Join me on Patreon for the best Alpha Support and Guidance. A single $10 Membership fee includes access to my 500-page camera-specific eBooks, member-only Q&A Forums + Over twenty 1-hour member-only seminars + cameras settings files & access to the Raw files from the lens and camera reviews (there is no contract or commitment beyond the first month). www.patreon.com/markgaler
I bought my 70-200 F4 because of this review. It arrived last night and I am extremely happy with it!
Just bought this lens a few days ago for my landscape work. Initial thoughts are really positive and so looking forward to creating more intimate landscapes. Will be checking out your user guide shortly! Thanks Mark
Totally agree with your statement here. I did at one point consider the GM 2.8 however after comparing the two, I didn't see much of difference besides the one stop. The F4 70-200 is definitely an under rated lens and is a lens a keep with me at all times.
Thank you for this review. I'm trying to decide if I should buy this lens or not. After watching many review videos I have to say yours is by far the best. Straight to the point and you basically answered all my questions.
I will be buying this lens.....
Just purchased this lens for $850 in immaculate condition. Ebay is the best.
The 70-200 F4 is definitely on my "next lens to buy list". Been saving for a while now. Unless you are a paid pro you dont need the f2.8 and with the f4 you can get another 1-2 lenses and save your wrist/arm/back from all that strain :) Thanks for another great video Mark.
Stephen Soukup even as a paid pro you don’t need it.
I have the Sigma contemporary series 16mm, 30mm,56mm and Sony 18-105mm. Just got the 70-200mm F4 3 months ago. I can do everything I wanna do with those. All of them cost little more than the 70-200mm F2.8.
@@jamesjackson4264 i would see it more the low light but with this f/4 is enough for alot of people
Been wondering whether to buy this or the Sony FE 70 - 300 but now totally convinced this is the one as its a good all rounder as well. Great presentation as always and very knowledgeable. Thanks
That 2.8 looks a beast, but the extra weight and price cannot be justified for an extra stop of light. I’ve got the f4 on order and I can’t wait.
Your photos... OMG you are on a whole level above what i was hoping to achive!
Thank you so much! I’ve been weighing up f4 vs f2.8 70-200. You’ve definitely helped me make up my mind - and save some money/weight!
Ordered it two days ago, can’t wait for it to arrive.
Thanks Mark. your reviews really useful and always hit the points I want to know
As usual great review of an incredible lens. Just converted over to Sony from Canon after 40 years and really appreciate your informative channel. Keep it up.
Great video Mark. It was really informative, very helpful, and much appreciated.
Thanks a lot for this quick review. That’s exactly what I was looking for. Nice shots.
Glad it was helpful!
Nice review mark! Really confident to take this one. Thanks.
Great review Mark! I love my 70-200mm F4 G Lens. I think this is one of the least spoken about lenses in the E mount range, yet it does a remarkable job and is a very versatile lens.
Thank you for another great video. This lens has been on my wish list for a while already.
Thanks for the tip on the converter and the insight on the 70-200 f4.0
I'm heading out tomorrow for a month in Vietnam. I'd resolved to make this trip with just my Batis 18, 40, and 85mm lenses but there's a part of me tempted to pick up this lens this afternoon. I'll eventually own it because I do frequently use the 70-200 range.
Thanks Mark for another great video regarding your insight on this lens.
I paired the SEL70200G F/4 with SELP18105G F/4 and the A6300 for my daughter's soccer games.
Now with the A7M3, I feel that it is a bit short on range, but produces amazing results with just a slight crop in post.
This and the 24-105 f4 are probably the most useful lenses for Sony full frame. 70-200 f4 was released early 2014. Would be nice if they could drop the price a little. Side note: I don't think we can rely on DX0mark going forward, as they haven't tested a lens in almost a year.
Maybe I’ll have to look for someone else who can bench test lenses. Most of the time when someone asks how sharp a lens is I just point them to a Flickr album with some ultra HD examples I have captured (link in the info section below this movie).
I've been shooting with mine on Sony FF and cropped bodies for over two years, now, and it's definitely a keeper! Even use it for theatrical photos on the a6500 for a 300mm equivalent and using all 24MP's for stellar results!
Great vid Mark, i have a question, if you were just doing outdoor portraits, in decent lighting, would you choose the F4 or F2.8?
Donna Fortner definitely go for the f4 for the price difference and use the rest of the money to get an 85mm 1.8 or any other prime!
I’m saving up to get both of them🙏🏻
Excellent review as always. I especially appreciate the practicality of your advice (e.g., even though it is not a GM, it is excellent and quite a bit cheaper and lighter). Validates my own decision to purchase the lens given my use case for it. Happy to be a paid supporter of your site. Keep up the great work!
Glad it was helpful Michael. I have several well-loved and often-used none G or GM lenses. Another personal favourite is the 85mm f/1.8. I am also drawn to using lightweight lenses when I want to work from a single small messenger bag.
I take the dxo mark with a pinch of salt as all of the you tube examples I have seen shows at 100% the F4 is sharper then the F2.8 GM (just like Sony's 85mm 1.8 is sharper then the 85 1.4 GM)....HOWEVER like with all GM lenses (or most) you are paying for better rendering (contrast, bokeh quality and no back lit washouts) I am a landscaper mainly and love portraits so sharpness is a thing for me. Great vid Mark and thank you kindly for the flickr images for examples (to which I have visited many times to make critical lens choice decisions) you are a great photographer my friend, fab channel :)
Mark thank you as I have been thinking about buying the Sony 70-300 but your explanation was perfect so will go for the 70-200
Love your informational and interesting videos. Always very well done and I can follow your sayings with ease compared to other superfast talkers out there. I like your style very much. Just bought the 70-200/4 used and I think it will do great on my A73. Agree that it will work fine with APC-crop with the camera. I use it all the time with other lenses. Thanks again for your video.
Exceptionally useful review! I have been wondering about this and I'm sure many others are as well. Do you happen to know whether the f/4 or v/2.8 versions have much focus breathing?
At the time that I purchased my excellent Nikon 70-200mm f/4 some years ago, the corresponding f/2.8 model (the v2) had severe focus breathing (200mm acted like 140mm at close range) whereas Nikon's f/4 version had little focus breathing (200mm really was 200mm, even at close range.). This meant that the f/4 often gave equivalent or greater background blur at closer ranges. So I learned to always ask about focus breathing when choosing any zoom.
There is no serious focus breathing on the 70-200 F/4 - I don't have the time to accurately bench test this but I would guess at 200mm and setting the focus to the closest focussing distance of the lens it behaves like a 192mm
This is a wonderful review. I have had this lens for a while, and it's superb.
Love your videos Mark and ive just purchased this lens keep up the good work :)
The few photos you showed us are really beautiful from magnificent. It is not every day that we see photos like that.
Very good review and demonstration of this lens!
I thought this lens was always highly regarded. That's why I bought mine. Don't use it often but love it when I do.
Bought one end of 2020 and can't wait to use it, but due to CV19 not yet had the chance. This video now convinced me I made the right choice. :) For an extra stop and cost and size the GM ruled out.
You are the best reviewer online! Hands down.
Wow, thanks!
Brilliant and spot on again. I am looking at this lens second hand and it's a good deal. If shooting more landscape or portrait with the A7R3 you have just a TON of data that can be cropped without a hint that you did so. I'd also like to have you specifically follow up on using APSc lenses with the A7R3 since I have been printing 16x24in and 24x36in XPozer prints and I like walking about with the SEL20F28 - and I'll be damned if 18 Mpx is not more than enough ... I've also been experimenting with just how far you can compress and image without visible loss and, for web viewing the average user will be astonished. From the APSc 18 Mpx image, I will routinely export as 80% Jpeg with a .5x size (Pixelmator) - which turns a 20 MB file into a 0.7 MB file and I challenge you to spot the difference online. My point is that I've taken images with the 55f18 and cropped them so far that you'd think I was insane, but online, it looks like a 400 mm point of view.... Thank's SONY for this incredible camera.
When I crop I use the Info overlay to keep an idea of how much I am cropping 3840px Wide for 4K screens, 2048px for Facebook and iPads and 1920px for HD
Nicely done. Proper advice based on facts. Excellent.
Hi mark! You are one of my favorite photographers today! I love your landscape work, in mostly landscape photographer, I have the a7riii, 16-35 gm (my favorite lens), tamron 28-75 for my go to lens when I don’t need go ultra wide and the amazing fe 85mm 1.8 wichi i love for portraits, now I’m thinking to add a telephoto lens to my gear, thinking mostly for landscape and maybe some portraits too (but most for landscape) do you recomend the 70-200 f4, 70-200 GM or the 100-400 GM? I like the option to use teleconverter on the GM and 100-400 but I see too the GM isn’t worth too much with the 2x (I see you review) always I want do one time purchase for not need think to change the lens in the future or the near future, but having the 85mm for portraits I think the 70-200gm maybe isn’t worth, and the price / weight on the f4 is really good for traveling and hand hole, what do you think? I can afford the GM lenses but maybe don’t need for my purpose (I do not weeding or model event where I really need the 2.8 of the GM) I like the compresión of the 100-400 and the extra reach, I can do landscape and animals photography but the weight... I really don’t know, maybe add one 70-200 and in the future go for the 100-400 is another option, what do you think?
I would choose the 70-200 f/4 for the small form factor (perfect if you want to work from a messenger bag) or the 100-400 if you need the reach. Good for wildlife when you can’t get close enough with the 70-200.
Mark Galer's Alpha Creative Skills thank you so much for the answer! You save me money 💰
Good review Mark. Thanks!
I’ve recently purchased this lens and love it. I mainly shoot portraits. I’ve found it a little hit and miss with my a73 using the eye af. At 200 mm the eyes arnt pin sharp like my 85 1.8. Do you use eye af most of the time with the lens and what sort of minimum shutter would you use at the long end. Hope you still receive messages on the older videos. Many thanks mark
I offer full support and guidance as to my own preferred camera settings via my free-to-download A7III eBook from my website and numerous video tutorials that address AF and Eye AF.
@@AlphaCreativeSkills I downloaded it last year but prob didn’t read to much about the longer focal distances I’ll have a read through again. I looked through your hd images on flickr so could see exif data it was more just a thing of can the 70 200 handle using the eye af as it’s a slighter older lens compared to the newer ones and wondered if the eye af struggled a little more. Thanks for the reply and thanks for all your amazing content I’ve been following you for ages and learnt so much I only rewatched this as it was a recent purchase
I'm dying for this lens, however would you still choose the G f4 or wait for Tamrons version 2.8 to get released?
Not an easy question to answer - after announcement comes the wait period for stock and then for the reviews (and not many reviewers shoot sports/action to check AF speed). Has any information been released about size and weight?
@@AlphaCreativeSkills
I haven't seen any specifics on the pending lens S/W. I'm mostly relying on the success the 28-75 had.
However I do recognize there was a literal price to pay for Tamrons cheaper version, the focal length to keep size and price down, no focus buttons, no M/AF buttons, plastic feel etc.
But the pull for the 2.8, I wonder if it's worth it. I may have answered my own question haha. I may go with the f4
g2 lineups for dslr's were excellent. All of them. Also tamron's take on 28-75 was superb. Yea, they are two different systems, but it shows tamron's capability of manufacturing fantastic lenses across all ranges and across both systems. So if you look at the latest success of their lenses, 70-200 mirrorless won't disappoint. Unless something would go very wrong...
Tamron f2.8 70-180 version is launched. You still choose it? : )
Great review! I'm convinced. But I have an A6400, what do you think about that combination?
Great combination - I use an A6400 with two APS-C primes + the FE 70-200 F/4 and FE 85 F/1.8. When used on an APS-C sensor the 70-200 has a ‘full-frame equivalent’ range of 105-300.
Mark Galer's Alpha Creative Skills
Thank you for the answer!
Spot on, Mate! I own this lens too and is truly impressed with the sharp images that it produces every time!
Great review! The price and IQ of this lens is very convincing. I’d love to see a review of the Sony 24-105.
I’ll add that one to my list as it also features in my top 10 favourite FE lenses.
I got tired of waiting for Sigma to release their 70-200mm lens and bought this one a couple of weeks ago. So far I'm very happy with it. Turns out it is way better than I had anticipated. And don't you worry lads...it's way sharper than what you would see in the various reviews on youtube.
Many reviewers are not very good photographers 🙁
I'm looking at the Sony f4 lens and the Tamron 70-180 2.8 for my Sony a7iii. Leaning Tamron, what is your opinion?
Your photos are amazing, wow!
Thank‘s for all your Great Videos...i Hope this lense will make a good Job on my Alpha 6500 🤩
great video and stellar exemple photos of how this lens can be used.
Hi Mark! I've recently sold this lens to buy Tamron 35-150 and now thinking to buy another 70-200 back because it was one of my favorite lenses. Also I am very interested in video performance of this lens, and literally nobody of super youtube reviewers cover this aspect of this lens. Do you have any chance to check? I would really appreciate the answer, because GM II for sure has focus breathing compensation support and who will doubt for double of price.
I haven’t used this lens for video as a 90mm prime is about as long as I can hand-hold without a gimbal.
Thanks you ! Is it good for sport indoor ?
The AF is up to the task (although the late model lenses are faster) so you just have to decide whether the F4 aperture is bright enough. I will shoot indoor sport with the 85 and 135 mm primes if I need to keep the ISO low.
Great review as always Mark, thanks a lot. I was just wondering how the 70-200 would perform on an a7c?
I think the lighter weight of the 70-200 f/4 G compared to the much heavier GM is a good companion for the A7C
@@AlphaCreativeSkills Thanks, I think I'll get one
Great! Bought one tonight!
Hi Mark: Thanks for this video. Is here a teleconverter available for this lens? Cheers, Keith
No - the teleconverters fit the 70-200 and 100-400 GM lenses and the 200-600 G
Thanks for the response Mark. That is too bad. Oh well, time for some additional gear. L.O.L. !
Cracking photos on top of a good review!
Thank you for that great review! I'm building up my lens selection for Sony right now. I'm not specialized on a certain field (mostly travel), though I would describe landscapes as my favorite subject. If I may ask for your advice: I have a 16-35 f2.8 and a 24-105 f4 and really like both lenses. I'd like to have a telephoto lens for portraits, landscape (mainly I guess) and occasional wildlife. The 70-200 f4 sounds splendid, but there's a huge overlap with the 24-105 f4. Does this make it a bad choice for me? The alternatives would be the two GM lenses, with the 100-400 up front for me. What would you recommend?
Overlap is not such a bad thing - it just means you don’t change lenses as often. If you need the reach and you are using a 24 rather than a 42.4 MP sensor the 100-400 would be the better choice. For portraits and events the 70-200 is perfect. For wildlife and sport the 100-400 wins out.
@@AlphaCreativeSkills thanks for the reply! Yes, I'm using a A7III. I understand the lower mega Pixel count should be more capable of compensating camera shake as the higher one of the R series. The 100-400 would be my favorite too, though I have to admit the weight makes it not an obvious traveler's choice
The camera shake thing doesn’t stack up for me. I will happily hand-hold at 1/30 second at 200mm on an A7Rlll and most of the shots are pin-sharp.
@@AlphaCreativeSkills okay, interesting to hear - I always thought the susceptibility for camera shake rises with the mega pixels. Why then would the 100-400 be better of with the lower resolution? Lack of sharpness?
It’s all about the crop for me - I can crop much more aggressively with the A7Rlll compared to the A7lll and A9. This means I can often travel with the 70-200 with the R but will often pack the 100-400 if leaving the R at home (I mostly travel with both the R and the 9 these days).
Mark, great review as always. I have been trying to decide between the two lens and this helps. I have a AR7 IV -- will I be able to take pictures of the moon with this lens? Thank-you
The longer the better for the moon but the resolution of the A7RlV will help
Always great videos thank you. Have you done a review on the Sony Zeiss 55mm 1.8?
I have used it from when it was just one of the three FE lenses and it features in my top 10 FE lens video
@@AlphaCreativeSkills thank you.
Great review! Question if this lense will be a good performer in terms of quality and sharpness on a aps-c body like my a6600, hope you can answer me, thank you!
Yes, absolutely - especially if you don't need the reach of the E 70-350 G OSS as the FE 70-200 f/4 G benefits from a wider aperture.
@@AlphaCreativeSkills thanks for the response! I think that FE lenses are more future proof to me, optically talking which of the two lenses do you think is more advance/better quality/sharpness?
The 70-350 and 70-200 are both fast-focusing and sharp wide open. If you think you may move to full frame then the FE probably makes more sense.
Thank you so much for this great video !!!
I will probably buy the 70-200mm f/4 as the weight is a key element for me. I currently own the Sony7R3 but i would like to buy as well a 2nd body APS fitted with the 70-200mm, primarilly for action and portraits as well, where I need a quick AF. Would you recommand me to buy the a6400 or the 6500 ? Thanks a lot in advance for your advise :)
The A6400 offers faster and more reliable focus tracking for moving subjects while the A6500 has IBIS.
Hi Mark. I have an A7Rii and use the 70-200 F4. I have had both of these for 3+ years. This lens is fantastic. This lens and my 24-105 are my favorite lenses. I would like to gain more reach when shooting birds or wildlife. Do you suggest I go for the 100-400 or the 200-600? Aside from the extra reach, are there any other factors to consider? Thanks.
Take a look at my Sony FE 200 600 G and FE 100-400 GM Lens Review and Comparison Test - I have hopefully provided enough information for users to come to the best decision.
@@AlphaCreativeSkills Thanks. Mark. I found that helpful. Another question though. Looking to improve my ability to shoot wildlife or birds. Have the A7RII with 16-35, 24-105 and 70-200 F4 lenses. I also have an A6000 with 10-18 and 16-70 F4 lenses. The A7RII definitely covers my landscape and portrait needs. Do you suggest buying a A9 or A7RIII / A7RIV or should I consider swapping out my a6000 for an a6400 to fill this gap?
That’s not a short answer - it’s more of a consultancy service which I offer via my Patreon account: www.patreon.com/markgaler
Helpful there Mark.
Hi Mark, thanks as always, how will look my 18-105 with the 2x converter?
The Sony 2x Teleconverter is not compatible with the 18-105 Sony lens.
Hi thanks for this great review. I have just ordered this lens. However, I am wondering whether this will make my 24-105 redundant. I have bought a 14mm prime and still have my Leica Q. Hadn’t realised how expensive it can be to switch systems although I don’t regret my choice.
Today i‘ve bought the Lens 👍🤩....Thank you for this presentation . It helped a lot with my decision.
Greatings from Germany 😉
I needed to sell it in order to update to the GM but when the money tree will grow a bit will get it again since I’m missing it light weight.
I know this is older, but it just popped up on my feed. I am very excited and hopeful the rumors about a 70-200 G II are true. I rented the 20-70 for a trip to Death Valley and Joshua Tree National Parks to try it out, and was impressed. If the 70-200 is anywhere near as sharp, and fun to use, then the 20-70 and 70-200 G II paired with my A7RV would be ideal for my Wotencraft 7L bag?
I too have been waiting for a 70-200 lens that can easily be carried in a Pilot 7L messenger bag.
Beautiful photos from Indonesia 😊
I have just purchased this lens, can I use a Sony 2x teleconverter with it? Great video by the way
Unfortunately the teleconverters are not compatible with this lens
@@AlphaCreativeSkills thank you mark. Mines just arrived. Loving this lens on my Sony a7iii. I have also ordered the 100-400. I do know my teleconverter will work on that-:)
Hi Mark, I currently own a A6000, would you recommend this lens on this APSC camera?
Yes or you could wait for the new E 70-350 that was announced recently.
I'm looking to partner this up with my A6400 for street photography. What do you think?
I have been using the 70-200 with the A6400 but may now switch to the E 70-350 G
Mark, I'm looking to fill in the focal range of my lens kit with the 70-200. Just received my A1. Does any of the sony 70-200 work well on the A1 or do you think I should wait for the refresh, as these lenses are getting kind of old?
Have you thought of using the 135 GM instead?
@@AlphaCreativeSkills Mark thanks for your advice. I ordered the 135 gm. Should get here tomorrow. Very excited to shoot with it.
appreciate the info!
Sony 70-200G F4, sony 70-300G 4.5-5.6,sigma 100-400 5-6.3. Which one could you suggest for Sony a7iii...?
Each lens has its merits - the best one for you would depend on your priorities. I can offer personal support and advice via my Patreon account.
Thank you for your video. Can I use this lens on Sony 6400?
Cheers
Hanh
Yes you can!
How do you get such lovely skin tones? My only concern switching from Nikon to Sony is the hint of green/yellow in skin tones. Thank you.
If you shoot Raw any camera can be 'profiled' just like printers and computer monitors. Adobe Lightroom also has numerous Profiles so if you don't like Adobe's starting point you can choose one of the camera starting points - you can then make this the default for your camera. Just remember there is no such thing as Colour Science. The correct term for managing accurate colours across devices is called Colour Management.
Mark, in your review the f4 version cones close to the f2.8 gm. Does this also apply for using on high res.bodies liike the a7r3 and a9? A sony employee told me the f2.8 gm is more suited to the high res. A7r3. Is this just a selling argument?
Sony state they have built the GM lenses to resolve to higher resolution sensors than are currently available. On the sensors that are currently available the F/4 has no problem creating very sharp images on the A7R models. I personally don’t go in for graphs and charts which is why I provide links to ultra high definition images I have captured with the lens. If you do go in for bench testing then you will find dxo mark tested this lens very highly.
Hi, how effective is the 70-200 F4 with apsc bodies? Let’s say with a 6300
Excellent- best Sony Telephoto that can keep up with the A6300 and A6500 AF
The GM lenses are great. At one time I had all of them that had been released. But, I'm getting older and don't want the weight of the heavier lenses. So, I've traded the 24-70mm GM for the 24-105mm G and the 70-200mm GM for the 70-200mm G and haven't looked back..
I have made the same decision and sometimes take three primes instead of the zooms and I am currently travelling with the A6400 as a backup camera to my full frame camera with the 18-135 lens (7x zoom). That’s really light.
@@AlphaCreativeSkills I've started adding Loxia and Batis primes too. I've come full circle in a way. When I started doing photography zooms were so bad that you had to use primes. Now we have excellent zooms, but I'm thinking about going back to primes. I'm sure I'll have a mixed kit for a while. But, I won't be surprised if I go back to all primes some day.
Would you say this lens is still relevant in 2023? Here is my dilemma, now that the V2 2.8 is out the V1 is really un appealing based off of what i have seen(the size between old and new for one example) and i feel like i will regret it. NOW, I can get the f4 version for $800 canadian vs the $3600 price tag on the V2 of the 2.8. Would you say that it is worth it? The $3600 price tag is really hard for me to justify currently, So i am looking at other alternatives until I am ready. I am shooting on the a7IV and do lots of video, Currently my 24-105 f4 lives on my camera. The photos you showcase in this video are phenomenal quality.
A lens does not cease to be relevant just because it is old, cheaper or have less buttons on the side. The quality of the images I showcased in this video can still be captured today and tomorrow with this lens, no matter if someone says it is not as sharp or fully featured as a GM ll. I always make a point of showcasing images rather than showing my talking head banging on about specifications that are largely irrelevant to most users. There are rumours of an imminent F4 GIl but this lens, if it appears, will not replace the current G, or make it irrelevant for photographers because some reviewers, many who rarely showcase quality images, now says if is an inferior product. These lenses are not status symbols. They are tools for creative photographers.
@@AlphaCreativeSkills I have actually seen some leaked photos today of v2 for this lens. I am getting it for a really good price so I think I will be really happy with the decision. I think it will fit in my kit nicely. Thank you for your awesome response,you absolutely nailed it! The photos you showcase are top notch and you are in a whole other realm than majority of the people talking about this lens on the internet. Thanks for solidifying my decision. I have weighed it Vs the V1 2.8 and in my opinion this is the one for me. Plus I know if I place my subject appropriately and accordingly I can make up for bokeh with lens compression with distance.
As an Ambassador I couldn't mention the new lens until after it announcement It is a good deal more expensive than the version 1 and possibly worth the extra money if you like Macro and birds in flight but perhaps overkill if most of your subjects are further away and slower moving.
I have reviewed the new GII
@@AlphaCreativeSkills beauty! Will check it out! Haha yes I figured as much! I have the v1 coming. If I use it a lot I will get the v2 in the very near future! The macro is also very appealing to me.
Thank you for review .. How's this lens perform AF on original sony A7 ?
The sensor has a similar image quality on all of the full frame sensors. It is the ability for later models A7 cameras to focus on quickly moving subjects that has changed significantly.
Hi Mark.. do you recommend this lens to use with a7riv? There have been reviews in some places that the combo is not up to the mark. Can you please comment.
Your images won’t be any worse than had you used the lens on an A7Rlll - it may not be quite as sharp as the GM Zooms or GM primes but it is a very sharp lens and is half the weight, size and price of the GM. Review the images in the linked gallery on a large 4K monitor and make up your own mind. Some of the pro gear reviewers, who rarely take any images, give shocking advice to prospective owners. If anyone has said this is not a suitable lens for use on an A7RlV you need to unsubscribe.
@@AlphaCreativeSkills thanks a ton Mark. :)
For indoor sports such as hockey, I assume the 2.8 would be a much better choice? I'm currently waiting on any third party manufacturer such as Tamron to come up with something 70-200 at reasonable price.
It all depends on the level of illumination and the shutter speed you need to freeze fast action (you can't always trust to slow shutter speed panning). I have been to some indoor sporting events where I had to cover it with a fast 1.8 prime and then crop in post while others I could shoot at f/4 and ISO 3200.
@@AlphaCreativeSkills So far I've learned from you and use ISO AUTO MIN. SS and set it to about 1/500. Own and use a 28-70 2.8 and been getting 3200iso as result using this method. I assume with F4, I'll be at around 6400iso if I'm calculating right. I might be giving this 70-200 F4 G lens a chance. Thank you Mark.
Fully agree.
Christopher Frost reviewed the 70-200 with the 70-300 and his examples of the 70-300 show that it's optically a better performer than the 70-200. Whether his example of the 70-200 was a bad one or if there were some other factor which degraded the quality of the 70-200 I don't know but it is interesting.
With independent bench testing (dxoMark) the 70-200 made the top 10 SONY lenses. The 70-300 did not. Be careful with who you follow. If I suspect I don’t have a good copy of a lens I ask for a second copy and don’t just proceed with the review. The difference in AF performance also falls in favour of the 70-200.
@@AlphaCreativeSkillsInteresting, thank you.
Mark, love that lens but no money in the pot. I have the a6500 and would like to use my Canon 70-200 Mkii, can you recommend an adapter, if any. Thank you.
Most people choose between the Metabones and the Sigma MC-11 adapters. As I now only own Sony lenses I can only go by what I hear online and the MC-11 seems to be a current favourite- things can change quickly, however, as firmware upgrades change relative performance.
Sell your Canon 70-200 II no matter what adaptive lens you have it won't perform as well as native e-mounts unless you manual focus. You'll reap the benefits of eye AF, faster AF using the A6500 425 PDAF points.
Canon fanboys always rave about canon color on lenses that is rubbish, you can always color correct and color grade.
I'm fully committed with Sony and got native e-mount lenses for my A7R II and A6500, got rid(sold) all my Minolta and Sigma A-mount lenses with LA-EA4 adapters and I love it and excited going to future with it. The only thing non Sony I kept is a vintage Canon FD 50 1.8 lens fully manual with an adapter used for filmmaking but I'll eventually replace it and save up for the Zeiss Plannar 50 f1.4.
That's just my suggestion as long as you love what you do with what you got you are successful.
I'm also considering this one or the 2.8. I will mainly use it for dogs in action in darker area's (forests, ...). I know the A73 is a beast when it comes to ISO but I have no idea how it will handle F4 and a shutter speed around 1/1000th. Any advice?
I often shoot dogs running at 1/2000 second at f/5.6 - no issues at all
SonyAlpha 6000 & Sony FE 70 200 F4 G...recommend? Are there any drawbacks using this lens with a a6000? Thanks!
Yes - definitely the best Sony telephoto zoom for the A6000
@@AlphaCreativeSkills Thanks! 😎
No teleconverter option for the F4 70-200?
No - this lens predates the teleconverters
Do you think Sony will update this lens too, as it did with the GM?
The AF speed of the F4 G using a linear AF motor is not so problematic as the GM MK 1 using its ageing SSM motor. I would envisage the 24-70 and 85 GM lenses to be updated before Sony turned its attention to any of the G lenses (70-300 and 70-200).
How well does it perform for indoor and outdoor high school sports in venues where the lighting isn’t the greatest?
If you have very low ambient light have you considered taking images with the 85 or 135 sony primes?
Mark Galer's Alpha Creative Skills Yes. I can use my 85/1.8 for indoor/gymnasium sports, but I need more reach outdoors (and for me, a zoom is essential for those shots).
thanks for this
You're welcome
What do you recommend for a7II and a6000 70-200 or 70:300 mark thank you
70-200
I am using Sony a7iii with tamron 70-200 I use your setting a for sports and my pictures still blurry I need help! Any idea where can i get help?
I now offer personal technical support and assistance for Sony Alpha users from my Patreon site. A single $10.00 one-month membership will give you access to extensive learning support files including 15 eBooks, 30 1-hour seminars + my Alpha Q&A forums. There is no contract and no commitment beyond the first month. www.patreon.com/markgaler
- you can join, download the eBook or all eBooks and then cancel your membership one hour later if you so wish.
Mark what are the different switches on this lens used for?
SteadyShot on and off + Mode ll is for panning.
how does it compare to the 70-300 3.5-5.6?
The 70-200 is Sharper and faster
@@AlphaCreativeSkills thanks, i've a a6500 and with the crop, the 200 will be like 300 on a ff, i have the 18-135, right now, will that be a good upgrade if i need more zoom?
You get 65mm more reach (97.5mm ff equivalent) and 1.3 stops EV advantage at max zoom. It would be great if SONY released an APS-C equivalent of the 100-400 but until that happens the 70-200 f/4 is as good as it gets for the performance, weight, size balance.
Seen pixel peeking review comparison between 70-200 and 70-300 and the second mentioned came out actually WAY WAY sharper than 70-200 f4 .. center sharpness may be tiny bit better on 70-200 but overall sharpness across the frame is on the side of its competitor. Definitely waiting for tamron's take of F2.8 as i tried to shoot downhill biking in the forest without the flash on 85mm f/1.8 and 1.8 was giving me barely enough of shutter speed in already 6.4k iso. I know those were the most extreme conditions on limits. But i still got something. F4 lens would give me 25k iso or even 52k and that's way too much for my taste. But as always, depends on what you shoot and how. So i am personally waiting for 70-200 f/2.8 by tamron or 135 f/1.4 gm coming up soon... hopefully...
I can only think the reviewer you were watching had a deffective copy of the 70-200 as it was bench-tested by DxoMark as one of Sony’s sharpest ever zooms. This was born out by my own testing and if you click on the link to see my ultra HD examples I posted to my Flickr account any further discussion on perceived sharpness would be irrelevant.
And what about the new tamron 70 300 ? It is very lightweight and cheap
...and not as sharp with no Image Stabilisation, Focus Hold button or AF/MF button.