I bought the Sony 70-200mm F:4 macro lens and I'm in love. It is wonderfully sharp, well made and light. This lens also allows me to reduce the number of lenses I carry. The 70-200mm F:4 becomes a very sharp 280mm lens with the addition of a 1.4x extender or a 400mm sharp lens with the 2x extender. Add a 14mm to 24mm Sigma F:2.8 DG DN and I've pretty well covered the focal lengths I need for my photography. All carried as a fairly light package in a smaller Lowepro over the shoulder camera bag.
I'm a recent convert to Sony (A7lv + 50 1.4 GM from Leica M8 M9 M10 m10-R M11 + 50 Summilux asph) and I'm very happy. IQ is fantastic, auto focus is a revelation and shooting one handed arms loaded up with shopping bags is a boon!
I tried that lens in the store, supersharp corner to corner, the only lack is low light performance for indoor sports. All lens hve a trade, this is regularly high weight and high price for luminosity, this is anew breed of lens for its macro performance! One of a kind. Innovative.
Excellent to see for Sony. I love the size and f4 will do fantastic in most shooting situations (especially for landscape shooters!). The smaller and lighter lens will be carried rather than left at home when hiking. Nice. I shoot Nikon and hopefully we will see a 70-200 f4 at some point. Thanks for doing what you do!
I managed a pro camera store in SoCal for 25 years and was a pro photographer as well and I can tell you that there were several 70-200 range f4 zooms that were sharper than their f2.8 counterparts. Canon EF lenses for one.
I believe it's a myth that you could achieve better IQ by stopping down a brighter/faster lens variant. Ofc the manufacturers would like you to think so because there must be a reason why you'd pay the double or more for one or two stops. However, even then the manufacturers haven't been able to make it work like that in many cases. (Canon 50mm variants, 70-200) The only exception I can think of is Zeiss but they don't even claim it would have anything to do with the speed. Although, most of their lenses are not exactly speed masters. Just to clarify. So most lenses do get better slightly closed down but they don't necessarily beat the slower variant at any point (unless the slower variant is made really bad on purpose). Canon's 50mm EF lenses are notoriously well known for this. Hence people had to rationalise why they still made a good purchase, e.g. softer image is better for portraits etc.
This could be an incredibly useful tool for someone building a kit and being able to hit two birds with one stone. If I was a wedding/portrait photographer who already had an 85 but knew I needed a macro as well as something longer than 85 for some weddings, this lens would be an obvious choice. Do both of those things, and then decide later if you want to upgrade to a 2.8 zoom or a dedicated macro.
Thank you for the video. Finally decided to buy this lens and found a mint used copy for $1399 or a savings of $400 which I hope is a reasonable savings. I do already have the f/2.8 GM II version (also owned the version 1 of the f/2.8). I also used to own the original f/4 when I first bought into Sony more than 10 years ago. My current plan is to use this with my compact A7CR and A7CR and maybe for MACRO even though I only have a 1.4X teleconverter at the moment. Also some experienced Landscape photographers have convinced me that f/4 is fine for landscape and f/2.8 is not needed. I’ve mostly been an event, portrait, and sports photographer most of my life so my trinity zooms have always been as fast as I can get. Really like the approach you take to lens reviews. Take care and wish me luck.
Canon shooter here, and when first hearing about this lens I was like, "whatever... Sony hype train blah blah... the Canon version is even smaller and lighter!" I DID NOT know about the macro capability... Very nice!
With high image quality in high ISO with modern digital cameras, f/4 zooms are the sweet spots for most of the usage scenario. Need that nice background separations? Buy some of those high quality f/1.8 primes to supplement that. Then you will have a very capable and production set of gear. So much better than those ridiculously oversized and heavy f/2.8 zooms and f/1.4 primes, in vast majority of the cases.
A clear and concise explanation of what 'state of the art' lens technology means to the mighty Sony. After having owned this new lens for just a week, it's already clear to me at least what a gem of a lens this is. Question is, should I buy a teleconverter to more fully exploit it's macro capabilities; could it be the icing on the cake?
F/2.8 70/80-200/210 lenses came about and became really popular because people wanted to do portraiture during the golden hour on ISO100 film. With digital, the ISO is no longer fixed per 12/24/36 exposures and F/2.8 became just a convention/habit/fetish with very little practical meaning.
I'd argue that this is the key reason why most fast lenses ever existed and are no longer needed. Although, vloggers will still need fast lenses to hide their bedroom until we have better AI blurring.
Really appreciate your analysis especially the argument regarding the quality compared to the 2.8 GM. and how innovative this new design is. You’ve sold me on this lens instead of the 2.8 gm Ii for the size and quality.
Thanks for another great video and a 👍 from here. The new 70-200mm.f.4 G II together with 20-70mm.f.4 G and for example 35mm.f.1.4 GM or 50mm.f.1.4 GM you have a perfect travel kit because it is also small and light
Absolutely right. Lightweight kit is the way to go F2.8 is not like a prime lens as f1.4 or f1.4 So if you have light f4 zoom lens and 2 primed you are covered I had the 24-70 and the 70-200 f2.8 gm the first addition and sold it because of the weight
This lens is beautiful and the image quality is superb. Totally agree with your comments. It’s one of the most well thought out lenses Sony have made. Along with the SONY 24-70 F2.8 MARK 2 it’s possible to carry a very lightweight kit with image quality that is spot on.
Plus a macro, and better yet a long focal range macro. For me it works better than Sigma f/2.8 105 mm 1:1 macro lens with tremendous amount of versatility.
This reminded me of the Vario-Sonnar 80-200mm f/4 in Contax/Yashica Mount, which had always been praised for its close focus ability. So I checked, and found out that it focused down to 1m throughout the zoom range -- not bad at all. THIS new lens, though, focuses down to 0.089m （！）, which is insane!
I am thinking about getting it instead of a new macro lens. I have the 24-70 f/2.8 ii but dont use it enough so thought this lens will do two things for me 😀
I can't wait to get hold of this lens, I love the versatility. Especially in combo with the X2 converter. 70-200 140-400 x2 210-600 with X2 + APSC mode. Macro, Landscape, Portrait, Sport, Wildlife. Just incredible options.
If losing a stop to the 2.4 is a problem then pay up and get the G master. 1 Stop is easily coped with by adjusting your ISO or shutter speed ( which is coped with by the OSS) I would gratefully do that to save over a £1000!!
Sony is on a roll. First they release the new mini A7R5 called the a6700. Now they introduce the new 70-200mm Macro, a better lens than the earlier 70-200mm. This is now on my 'wish' list.
I will most likely buy the new Sony F:4 70-200MM macro lens. I currently own the Sony F:2.8 - 70-200 mm lens. It is a great lens but the weight and length can be a problem. I own an excellent Sigma F:2.8 - 105 macro lens. But as a 105 mm lens it doesn't give me the flexibility that a 70-200 mm macro lens would give. My Sigma 105 mm is the only prime lens I own, my other lenses are all Sony GM zoom lenses. I'm certain that if the new Sony F:4 - 70-200 mm macro lens had been available when I bought the Sigma macro, I would have chosen the Sony instead because of the focal length flexibility that macro provides. I own Sony 1.4x and 2x tele converters. Thanks for the excellent review.
Thanks for the great review. The weight of this lens makes it intriguing to me from a landscape photography/backpacking/hiking photography standpoint. Having this telephoto along with the 24 1.4 would open up a ton of new possibilities for me. If I remove my lightweight camp chair, I'd actually save weight for me 😁
Last year I added a foldable camping chair to my kit when I go cycling with my tent :-D Weight is less of an issue on a bike compared to hiking. You could combine this lens with the Sigma 24/3.5 that is slow but also has 1:2 macro.
@@jochenkraus7016 I like your thinking here. I should probably just take both, honestly. The chair i have is 2lbs. I like the 24 1.4 for Astro, though. I really want the 16-35mm II to get released. That lens with this 70-200 would be solid.
I own a A6600, NEX5R, csnon 7Dii, and R7. This lens will be great on my A6600 for wildlife and zoo animals shots. Nice compact, light and F4 throughout the focual range, bloody amazing forbthe price. If only canon did something similar !
I'm 3 months into my new hobby. Sony A7IV, Sony 20 1.8 to learn astro, Sigma Art 24-70 walk around, and now I want this Sony 70-200 f/4. Its expensive, but it allows me to skip the $1,000, Sony 90mm Macro. Anyway, I wanted to say...not only was that a great review, it included the best and simplest explanation of focus breathing Ive heard.. now I understand! Also, I did not know all 3 of the focus hold buttons did the same thing. Thank you for the help!
I was looking for videos on this lens and didn't find yours because you don't have the name in the title or description. I only see it now after coming from the a6700 video.
Another great insight!.... very intriguing to consider especially for the price point and that "Macro capability" crazy how they don't put the same "Macro capability" on the 2.8?..you would've thought Sony would have put that on the 2.8 before they would on this F4....it always a give and take with the "F4" even "F2.8" lenses once it starts getting dark..and you have less light to work with..the lens becomes compromised..obviously you are not going to use it as much in low light conditions unless you have some flashes..etc..its crazy on the form factor compared to the ones you showed..wow..
Hm, that's f/8 for the 1:1 because of the teleconverter 😞 I am a bit surprised why Sony was not able to bring the lens close to 1:1 without a TC. Nikon did it decades ago with their legendary AF-D 70-180mm f/4.5-5.6, Your general thoughts are right, this is a damn useful lens for macro and landscape fotographers. But I doubt that many people will buy it due to its high price, Nikon sold about 20,000 lenses.
Good point, but the Nikon wasn't 1:1 - it required a 6T closeup to get it to 1:1 and only at 180mm. The f/8 equivalent really didn't bother me as I was using studio lighting, but yes that is a limitation for low light macro shooting.
@@theartofphotography Tamron's 70-180mm f/2.8 has a 0.48 macro for much much less money. I have to correct my guess from above: only very few people will buy this, instead they will / should go for Tamron. (I only have Nikon glass, no Sony and no Tamron)
The Tamron is 1:2, not 1:1 and requires manual focus when you get that close. Not sure what we’re going back and forth with, but your original criticism was about teleconverters. That’s the solution Sony came up with. As for “very few people will buy this” - that’s an assumption. The Sony is fantastic and very versatile. If someone wants what it will do it is an incredible option and somewhat unique.
Not sure whether it was Christopher Frost or Chris &Jordan at PetaPixel... one of them made the comparison: The current Sony autofocus was obviously superior and whilst the old lens provided similar optical results at the short end, it was waaaay softer at the long end.
I think the build quality in the OG model is better - you do get a portability bonus but at the cost of an extending lens setup rather than the more sophisticated internal zoom. The macro functionality is nice but I don't need it. Given that the IQ isn't significantly better than the M1 - at the price the M2 is being marketed at its not enough for me to upgrade.
This is the first lens that could convince me to buy a Sony camera. I used a Canon 60D in my school years and own the Lecia M10 with various Voigtlander M mount lens as my primary digital camera. I have always been interested in the Sony system but to be honest, the optical quality of Voigtlander is not too far away from the Sony G-master especially when you pair Voigtlander M mount with the Leica M system. Maybe the 35mm and 50mm APO-Lanthar from Voigtlander is a better lens than any of the offerings from Sony because it is affordable, compact and have the optical quality close to the 8k Leica aa lens. Therefore, the Sony picture quality has never been a selling point for me. There are two reasons why I would get a Sony full frame mirrorless camera instead of Leica M: 1. Sony autofocusing 2. operate with lens < 28mm and > 50mm (you can use 90mm and 135mm on some of the M cameras but rangefinder focusing with them is really hard). This new 70-200mm with marco capabilities would complement the short-comings of Leica M cameras very well. It comes with great auto-focusing, telephone with fixed max aperture, as well as has a compact size. I just need to find a new Sony body now. And the best part is for the price of Leica SL 2 body (Leica's equivalent of Sony A7), I could buy a Sony A7RV with more resolution and better autofocusing + this lens.
I purchased the 70-200 f4 (ver 1) 4 years ago and again and again notice that my distance images overall aren't very sharp. That lens however for portraits is amazing. Seriously considering upgrading to the ver 2! Good review!
Very cool! Shame it needs a teleconverter for that 1 to 1 macro. I would rather carry a small macro lens instead. I think it’s exciting because it could mean Sony is about to take a leap out of canons book and develop some really cool lenses.,
I also think 0.5 isn't bad. I'd look at it as a "normal" lens that can get quite close. I recently bought a used SAL 70-400 that has 0.27 and that's already a lot of fun.
Small macro lens? I don't know about you, but this thing is literally the same size as the macro lenses I have... It also happens to be a 70-200mm zoom, a lot of dedicated macro lenses and dedicated 70-200mm lenses are about to be made redundant.
Great points..now the question is that if you happen to own the 2.8..do you feel ripped off by Sony in the sense of that "macro capability" is not on your 2.8?..it would be the end all be all 70-200?..it should have been for the price point of the 2.8...like you said Ted..there is a choice..do you compromise the stop of light to get that "macro capability" and form factor ..especially for wedding photographers and the detail shots yo can achieve during the wedding day..or stick with the 2.8?..
@@evrythingis1 I don't feel "ripped off" I meant in general..was just wondering about the "macro capability" so I guess in a year or so since the 2.8GM II released..Sony has made a major improvement on the F4.."lens design"..magnification?..0.5x F4 vs 0.30x 2.8?..al I was mentioned is for that price and "premium GM" lens you should get the best possible performance as far as "macro capability"..so maybe on the 2.8GM III it will have the "best" improved design because Sony will have learned "better design" from this F4 lens..haha
Prior to this release I was 99 percent set on buying the gm 135 1.8. because I wanted that focal length and image quality etc. now however I’m thinking I should get this for it’s versatility. If you were going to buy just one of the two for your everyday walk around, travel, landscape, portrait, nature lens for both photography and videography which would it be. They’re the same price and same size?
It would definitely be the Samyang 135mm 1.8. Under one thousand bucks, lighter than the Sony GM, equivalent or better image quality. Maybe the AF is not as fast (and no 30 Fps on a1), but I have actually used it for shooting the junior roller hockey match and it tracked and focused flawlessly. And, like the Sony GM, it has 0.24 magnification ratio (0.25 for Sony), which is not 0.5, but also very useful, especially that with the 1.8 aperture you can shoot flowers and bugs at twilight ). Compared to 70-200, you loose 70mm, but on a high megapixel body 135 1.8 works in a crop mode as 200mm 2.7, actually a tad brighter than a proper 200mm 2.8. However, neither of these lenses is everyday walk around for me. For everyday walk around I have Tamron 28-200 2.8-5-6
My copy of the original Sony 70-200 was so poor that I am surprised that it has taken this long to replace it. That lens was so disappointing that within 2 weeks I sold it. It came after I had tried to work with the early 35mm lens, which was mediocre and that early 70-200 was the final straw for me and I sold my entire Sony system (A7, A7R plus lenses). I appreciate Sony has come a long way since then but I am so resentful of their early line up of lenses (not cameras!) that I have refused to consider giving them my coin since.
They suffered from poor quality control in their earliest launches, which is kind of odd because they literally partnered with Zeiss and consulted with them for manufacturing and quality control (maybe Sony actually got screwed by Zeiss??). Their lenses were mostly mediocre for the first 4 years or so, but what they have released in the last 6 years has been completely and utterly amazing. It's at the point after all these years where the E-mount lineup of lenses now makes every other brand look 10 years behind. For example, this is now the only 70-200mm F4 lens in all of photography worth owning as they turned it into the worlds first true macro zoom lens.
This lens is near perfect, but other tester/reviewers (SonyAlphaBlog ; T&C Northrup) have shown that this lens is noticeably less sharp at 200mm than at 70mm, a deal-breaker for me and what I shoot. The Sony 70-200mm f2.8 GM II is equally as sharp at 200mm as at 70mm. I wish Sony could have accomplished the same with this lens. Seems you cant have it all at this price. Sorry I wont be buying it for my A1, A7RIV, A7SIII. Thanks for your review. Cheers
I think if you went travelling and shot mainly in the day and you had a small backpack, you could take a 24-70mm f2.8 and this 70-200mm f4 and be pretty much set. Unfortunately day photography for me means Fuji as I simply prefer the way the image is rendered and I love Fuji raw files. However I mainly love night street photography so it kinda rules this lens out for me, I find I really do need a faster lens for the work I enjoy, which sucks for my bank account 😂
24-70mm f2.8 (Sigma) and this 70-200mm f4 (Sony, waiting to be delivered) is exactly my kit! Sony covers the wildlife/birding (with TC) and macro front as well (Sigma f/2.8 105 mm macro to be sold off). Might purchase a 16 mm prime for astro/landscape. For night photography I'd wager you should try the 35/50 mm 1.4 primes.
Watching really good photographers review this lens on a crop sensor camera is driving me crazy….use it on a full frame because that’s who will be buying this!!
have you seen the reports of these snapping in half!?!? I would not touch this thing until Sony address the major flaw it has. Lots off people finding them snapped in half in their bags. Wild.
A quick google search cam e up w/ zero instances of this, I did however find numerous cases in which the previous version did. fingers crossed these were isolated incidents.
Thanks so much for sharing! I’m really on the fence about this lens or to go ahead and spend the extra money on the 2.8 GM for a trip to New Zealand. I’m going to be shooting mainly on my 14mm GM and 35mm GM but want a lightweight telephoto to bring along to compress some mountain scenes. What’s your opinion on this? I’m shooting with the a7 iv.
1979 is when my Nikon F2A was made. I bought it sometime in the early 80s. As for a 200m lens, I bought the 80-200mm Nikkor lens. Beautiful with a huge collar that serviced the focusing and zooming. These have been around for a long time and people find them quite handy. Sure, back then there were a lot of prime lens, but it was just another lens that only did 200mm. I am loving zooms more and more today as they are so good and versatile that primes are ALMOST not necessary.
The Nikon (Tamron converted) 70-180 2.8 does X.49 reproduction without a converter and is 1:1 with the converter - and it is a 2.8 lens. Also, the Nikon lens does not look to be much bigger than this f/4 Sony lens. -PD
Great day for Sony users. In terms of focus breathing, I think Nikon has done the best job of mitigating it optically vs in software fixes with their S line of lenses.
I’m extremely tempted to downgrade to this from the 2.8GMII. I do use the 2.8 when shooting archery a fair bit - either at dark indoor shoots, or when I'm far from the subject and the next shooter is right behind them it does make sense. But the macro capability and minimum focus distance, as well as the super light and compact build are very, very tempting, in addition to the cash I would get back.
I wouldn't downgrade from a lens that is unarguably the best 70-200 ever made, which is faster, better IQ, and also has 0.5x macro at wide end and gives decent IQ even with TC on.
This f4 is only 1:1 macro with a 2x teleconverter... Which means it's a 1:2 lens. Put the 2x TC on the 2.8 lens and it gets to .6 magnification. Not quite as close but certainly not bad.
@@jamese4729 Any dedicated macro lens is better than the 70-200 f2.8 GM at close-ups, but no dedicated macro lens can even compete with this new F4 for nature macro. This lens is is significantly more versatile than the GM and the extra potential stop of noise doesn't matter at all anymore with AI based noise reduction.
I sure hope it is a great lens. I have a 70200gm MK1 that I love, but hate at low temps. Below 50degF, the lens loses communication with body, no MF, no AF, no Aperature control. Below 50degF, it is a piece of garbage. Above 50degF, it is amazing. I hope this lens doesn't have the problem.
I have heard from several reviewers on youtube, i.a. that if you have a Sony FE 70-200mm F2.8 GM OSS II with OSS = built-in stabilization in the lens, this MUST COOPERATE with that in the camera = IBIS. But I get this message: !Lens Invalid with this lens. Perform the action on the lens if the lens has a SteadyShot switch. How should I interpret this? Is it a "bug" in the firmware? Is the information about collaboration between the two just nonsense? Now when everyone reviews the new 70-200 f4 macro it sounds the same: They work together, BOTH US in the lens AND IBIS in the camera work together. Listen. ".... and I saw very little difference between the lens using both OSS and IBIS and the lens relying on just the IBIS..." So: What about that thing? Does anyone really KNOW how it works? Grateful for answers ! There must be a REASON for the message I get on the camera display. Either I have been misled to believe that OSS+IBIS = TRUE or I have misunderstood everything.
Literally the message is just saying that you control the steadyshot using the switch on the camera if that switch exists. It's both IBIS+OSS (how much of a benefit do you get with both? that, I don't know). This is like you being worried that a lens doesn't have autofocus if you change it with the AF/MF switch on the lens instead of in camera.
With so many advances that Sony has made in terms of lenses, zooms and primes, there is still no true and up-to-date lens for travel and landscape photographers. It's up to you youtubers to make this reference and not just praise another 70-200. The weak Sony 24-240 is 10 years old and apart from the Tamron 28-200 there is nothing of its kind on the FE market, it's a shame, because it is already possible to manufacture something really good. An experienced photographer knows how to use a superzoom and will not feel ashamed to use and value it.
Nonsense. Lack of gear selection can’t be used as an excuse anymore. There’s several FE mount zoom lenses that are great. If you like big, heavy and expensive try the Tamron 35-150mm f/2-f/2.8 and/or the Sigma 60-600mm. I have both and I find them worthy of a 10 mile hike. If you’re on a tighter budget, the Sony 24-120mm, 70-300mm is good too. Tamron 50-400mm is really good I hear, but I haven’t tried yet.
@@thinkingape7655 Everything makes sense, for each reality. What I said is obvious, in the superzoom market there is only Sony at 24-240(24-120 doesn't exist, only Nikon and it's not a super zoom) . I don't want F2 or F2.8 apertures, I want F4 or smaller apertures. I just want to see current Sony technology applied to a current, lighter, optically competent 24-240 with OSS. The competition doesn't offer it and the system is SONY FE.
Limited breathing is huge when focus stacking macro photos in software. That said, until Sony updates firmware for flagship cameras to include features offered in entry level cameras, I am over them. I plan to sell my A1 after my sons senior year football season. If I had it all to do over again and knew what I know now I’d have bought a Nikon! Nick-on has given so much love to the Z9 it makes me embarrassed for Sony!
Spoiler: It's not (the most important lens Sony has made). There are lenses with focal ranges where those extendng barrel designs make sense. This focal range is not one of them. Still have to find someone to win me over from internal focusing lenses. Not convinced at all.
No 1:1 so its not a macro, 200 on FF is more like portrait lens than telephoto, it starts at 70 so its pretty narrow for all around zoom, its F4 so not that bright. And this costs 2000$? Still no proper Sony macro besides ancient 90mm.
