If you like these videos, make sure to hit that like and subscribe button and drop a comment below! Its the best way to support the work I do here and is much appreciated!
I've very much enjoyed using the Sony 70-200mm F4 Macro II on both the a7RV and a6600 bodies. I like that its small and light and its versatility in its semi-macro capability. I also appreciate the DMF feature and that it can maintain focus when zooming in/out on a subject in sports photography which I think is overlooked in reviews of zoom lenses. I will most probably get the teleconverters to use with this lens in the future.
The 70-200 GM II is a stellar lens. Wish it was lighter, but it's much lighter than it's predecessor. One reason I've stuck with this lens is it's ability to take teleconverters. I was so impressed that I sold my 100-400 GM lens. Lots of choices. There's a lens for everyone.
Wonderful comparison review - love how you have segmented the review and rated them which will allow new users to make their decision very easy IMHO. Much thanks Stefan, for your awesome works, as always. :)
I own the 2 Sony lenses and find that I rarely bring them with me because they are white and draw so much attention when out in public - which is often because I live in a city. I am seriously considering selling them both and buying the Sigma instead. It's definitely a me issue as all of these lenses are fantastic.
Got the Tamron G2 and it punches way above its weight. Even though it’s full frame this is a godsend lens if you’re an apsc shooter the weight is a huge advantage. It’s near macro at 70mm but does need a solid 30” at full tele so the Sony macro has it beat. But still. It’s a great value and something that fits in my normal camera bag. Fast aperture gives great subject isolation or *screaming fast* shutter in bright light.
The Sony 70-200 F2.8 was out due to price. I rented the Tamron and really liked the size and image quality. I ruled out the sigma because it had not been released at the time of purchase. It seems like a great lens. But the weight is a big turn off. I went with the Sony F4 for the size and weight and teleconverters. Yes it’s only F4. But, so far I’m very happy with it.
The only lenses I own for my Rii are both Sigma 1.4 art primes - 35mm and the 85mm. The GMii is quite a ways out of my budget, so I’ll probably stay with Sigma. I love my primes, but I really want to add a versatile zoom lens. Appreciate the breakdown!
And yet, the Tamron 35-150 f2-2.8 kind of beats all these lenses... That extra 50mm from 150-200 isn't that big of a deal than the extra 35mm on the wide end... And for the price I think it's just unbeatable... Sony 70-200 gm II is a beast, but expensive. The f4 macro is amazing, but f4 with photos can be an issue (not much for video, especially with dual native ISO). The Tamron has amazing photo quality, but the VC is glitchy not as good as Sony's OSS and finally the Sigma is just heavy and the zoom ring being in the front or the hardly detachable tripod collar is just a weird design decision... all said, the Tamron 35-150 is versatile, sharp, technically 3 lens in 1, weather sealed for 95% of the cases, 3 lenses in 1 (35 f2 prime, 35-80 f2-2.5 mid zoom and a 80-150 f2.8 short telephoto) and overall cost half as the GM lens. Honestly 2 got only 2 cons with this lens, no stabilization and no internal zoom, but these are things that barely noticeable or easy to get used to.
I'm not a professional. I photograph Show Jumping. I owen Tamron 50 400mm for outdoors, but F 6,3 and Tamron 70 180mm for indoors. Thank's anyway for your advise and your video.
Hi Stefan , thx for review. I hope that I can go for the Sony 70-200 mm f 2.8 II. But have you a meaning about TC 1.4 on this lens,for MACRO. Butterflies,Dragonfly etc. Thanks in advance.
Great video! I’m thinking about getting either the GM2 or the G2 next month and think both are great in their own ways 😅 Re animal AFC tracking - does the GM2 stick onto a dog running towards you better than the G2? Thanks!
The Sigma seems have softer bokeh than the Sony GM II which affects the overall image rendering in a pleasing way. Maybe because the Sony is very sharp, the softness of the background is also affected due to that. The Sigma also seems to have the best image stabilisation out of all of the these. The hood is a pain. And the GM II's weight & autofocus & sharpness is extraordinary. The autofocus is Sony>Sigma>Tamron.
@@StefanMallochyes, totally different lenses. The ones in the video all have excellent IQ, and speed. The 50-400 can't match them on that. But it still has great IQ, and I just love the versatility of having that 8x zoom. It all comes down to what you value in a lens. Thank you for the comparison, I enjoyed watching it. Personally, if I was in the market for any of them, I'd go with the Tamron 70-180.
@@Tapirrr If you need the speed of f/2.8 the 50-400 isn't for you. I'm just speaking for myself. I use the lens primarily for landscapes and for that I have no need for a super fast lens. In fact, if it was an f/2.8 it would be massive and lose many of its benefits. I do shoot wildlife too, and the lens works fine for that too. Overall it's one of the best lenses I've got and I value the great IQ and the superb versatility it offers, in a relatively small package.
Wait, wait! I can generate the same photos with AI in Stable Diffusion! Why I should buy this monster lenses if I can generate the same image with Ai ?
