I've watched 10 reviews on this lens, from large and reputable RU-vidrs, and you were the only one to bring up and check whether or not it's a parfocal lens. Nice attention to detail.
You nailed it right on the head. Both Macro and 70-200 are both specialty lenses I need 10% of the time. The option to buy 1 lens that covers both of these specialty needs is a really compelling offer. The photographer in you always secretly wants the 2.8 -- but both macro and 200mm you realistically shoot at 5.6 the majority of the time. (Minimum)
@@ibraheemsony9947 It helps to have 2.8 at 70mm for portraiture versatility in quick situations...but for the most part you will have a 50m 1.4 or something similar on set if you aren't shooting straight documentary work. Does anyone know if the 2.8 has macro capabilities as well? Or is this a unique sell for the F4?
Finished up really nicely (mic drop). If I ever bought a 70-200... I would definitely do this one. Personally though... 100-400mm is king.... much more versatile.
I'd beg to differ, I have the 70-200 f/2.8 GM OSS II and it's almost always on my camera! I love shooting everything with that lens. Something like this one with the added macro capabilities would be amazing!
I also have the F2.8 GMii and it is my favourite and most versatile lens. It is nearly always on one of my camera bodies. It can’t focus as close as the new F4, but still gives 0.3 magnification against 0.5 on the F4, so pretty good close up range. Depends on how important macro photography is to you as to if the Gii F4 is worthwhile for us GMii owners. For general use the GMii F2.8 will still be the better lens.
Ordered this lens after seeing the reviews inluding yours. Thanks! I, too, hesitated given that it does not have internal zoom. Then I realized that my 24-70 2.8 GM doesn't either. And the 100-400 GM doesn't either. And so on. The smaller size and weight and, wait, teleconverters? Really! Wow, the fact that the Mark I couldn't take teleconverters was a key reason for my investing in the 2.8 GM Mark II. I don't really need f2.8 for what I shoot. So I may very possibly sell the GM lens once I get a chance to use this one and ensure I have a good copy.
Looks good, way better than the OG 70200, had that inital thought about the external zoom! Still think the 100-400 is a better choice. Yes its older but that has macro like qualities at 400mm! Patiently waiting for the rumured mk2 version!
Lovely review of this versatile lens! I love that you can use it with a 2x teleconverter which makes it a 1:1 macro lens at the whole zoom radius! And the reach you get with it is pretty insane. Cheers!
I own this lens now and it was very expensive for a 70-200mm f4 but it is a really awesome sense and so versatile. I don't have a a teleconverter now but I'm gonna buy one.
Completely agree with the versatility, I’ve been considering the 2.8 gmaster however put off by the size and price for the amount I’d actually use it. This though feels far more useful with that macro ability. Personally I do wish it was a bit smaller just so it could fit upright in a lens slot of a bag like the Canon RF ones can.
Isn´t it better to use a 70-200 2.8 with a macro ring if you need macro and have another stop of light the rest of the time? wouldn´t it give similar results to this 70-200 f4 macro?
Good take, I like this lens for all the reasons you mentioned, its smaller and can now do double duty as a macro lens, the converter compatibility seals the deal. Now if I have to have just one teleconverter, do I go with the 1.4/f5.6or the 2.0/f8 ?
I fooled around with the m2 f4 and while it was impressive I was blown away y how good the 2.8 m2 was over all. For the price it had wanna be to be sure. But I couldn’t go back to the f4. Also the min focus on the 2.8 is definitely no slouch either.
Thanks for the thoughts, really helpful, definitely will check out other videos, thanks! I wonder how this stacks up on pure IQ to some of the other lenses like the 30-150 and the tamron 28-200. On a pedantic and probably unimportant but maybe interesting side note - did you know that the words bring and take aren’t interchangeable? I think the tv show Friends changed the world on that, because on the east coast of the USA everyone says being for everything. Thanks again for the video.
This lens makes me consider a lot this focal lenght. Something that i've abandon for a while now. But the ability to be a macro (full with teleconverter), ability to be a 400mm with good quality, ability to be a 70mm lens with an excellent close focus performance. An excellent autofocus (probably drops a with TC), and most of all, this quality photographs, sells me out, in such a compact space. With 3 lens you can do everything, except speciallities. One thing as a con, with a TC 2x in Europe, we are talking about 2500euros, and this is serious advanced 2.8 options, hope there is a pack with TC for 2200, would make it good, at 2000€ would be great and was sold!
Is it good setup if I use standard iPhone 15 with its 13mm, 26mm and 52mm for close photography and just get a single Sony 70-200 F4 macro with 2x tele converter for everything else? I thought to get Sony 20-70mm F4 before this because it is just a single lens and it cover ultra wide to short tele but realised it's not ultra wide enough and tele enough and not 1:1 macro (I not sure if crop can make it macro enough tho) and my smaller to carry and less intimidated and always be with you iPhone going to cover a lot of it. But what camera should I pair with the 70-200mm F4, it will be a waste and less usability experience to get A7CR than a full size A7RV isn't it? How about Sony RX100 and RX10, will they still make new one with Exmor T sensor technology? They looks like better phone camera across the zoom range than way better than phone camera aren't they? I also like Hasselblad color better and just get a single 28mm F4 (22mm FF eq.) can allow me to crop a lot like from 22-176mm, Leica Q3 is nice one package camera too, So are Leica D Lux 7 / Panasonic LX100II? I also thought to get Sony Xperia 1 V as pocketable camera and iPhone 15 as pocket computer because it's color is more real life than iphone but you end up carry 2 phones that aren't much better than each other much. What do you guys think? I shoot as hobbyist and sometime use for personal works like product shoot. I don't care much about bokeh too because I prefer to shoot photo and video with story and creativity and not blue everything else other than the subject. Should I just shot completely on standard iPhone 15 and use Moment macro, tele and anamorphic lens on the primary iPhone 15 lens? I feel like phone still is like having only one main camera and the others on it are just nice to have and convenient enough to use.
lens design is hard, super super complicated. every design choice affects another optical property adversely. you can see why they choose to reverse engineer over reinventing the wheel. you can also see why the old f4 lens was the way it is, it was just a copy of canon. which was old at the time. who knows who they borrowed the latest tech from? oh, you say the new RF glass 70-200 f4 is macro and now the barrel extends?
the test for parfocal ability was a bit flawed and the shift in focus was probably caused by a depth of field issue, try it with a further subject which is parallel to the sensor 😉
It's kinda strange why the word "sharper" is not included among "smaller and better and more fun". Sharpness cannot be generalized in lenses. Manufacturers build cheap inferior zooms for sales purposes lacking in sharpness and color rendition. Usually, these are zooms with dual or variable openings (4 to 5.6 on the longest focal length), non-internal zooming, fewer elements and lens coatings, etc. that cater to amateurs and those with money issues.
@@frankfeng2701Well... The Tamron doesn't have OSS. I have the Tamron myself, and like it a lot. But the OSS makes it easier to take steadier long exposure or video. Again; the Sony lenses are really expensive...
