Sony 70-200 f/2.8 GM II vs f/4 G II: Expectations vs Reality
Which Sony 70-200 GII is better for you?
Sony 70-200 f/2.8 GII: geni.us/TBa4kS
Sony 70-200 f/4 GII: geni.us/65FT1QG
Sony FX3: geni.us/WVlnt
Sony A7R V: geni.us/PUd6
🎥 My Gear
All Gear: www.keithknittel.com/gear
CURRENT KZhead SETUP
Main Camera: geni.us/sfx6
Main Camera Lens: geni.us/AVnL2
Second Camera: geni.us/WVlnt
Second Camera Lens: geni.us/oyOrL39
Third Camera: geni.us/fx-30
Photo Camera: geni.us/PUd6
My Favorite Budget Prime: geni.us/TcK1rZZ
My Microphone: geni.us/19OJoH
Sound Recorder: geni.us/8izIq
Key Light: geni.us/oI7x
Key light Softbox: geni.us/Ka9xoK4
Fill/Back Light: geni.us/ld150rs
Tube Lights: geni.us/tl120
Stands: geni.us/lOBq
My Editing Software: geni.us/6jBt1
Tube Buddy: geni.us/tbud
00:00 Sony 70-200 f/2.8 vs f/4 GII Introduction
00:20: My Initial Impressions Online & Who I am
00:50 Specs, Price
01:12 Size, Build Quality & Filter Size
01:32 Weight Difference & Internal vs External Zoom
02:26 Aperture Ring
02:48 Autofocus & Manual Focus
03:42 Flaring
04:05 Sharpness & Image Quality
5:05 Minimum Focusing Distance
05:50 Image Stabilization
06:09 My Thoughts On the f/2.8 GII vs f/4 GII
08:52 The Lens I Thought I Was Going To Love
09:54 The Lens I'm Buying
-----------------------------------------------
📱Social & Website Links
Instagram: / keithknittel
Subscribe on KZhead: / @keith-knittel
Visit my Website: www.keithknittel.com
Read Articles: www.keithknittel.com/articles
About Me: www.keithknittel.com/about
-----------------------------------------------
🎵 Music
Epidemic Sound: geni.us/epdmcsnd
Music Bed: geni.us/msicbd
-----------------------------------------------
🤓 Disclosures
Amazon links in this description box and on my website are affiliate links, I make a commission if you decide to purchase using these links.
All opinions are my own and not influenced by anyone.
How I Review Products: www.keithknittel.com/collab
Business Email: keith@keithknittel.com
If you want to send me stuff:
Keith Knittel
14837 Detroit Ave, Ste 187
Lakewood, Ohio 44107
United States
After using these lenses side by side for two weeks, the differences were more apparent. I mostly used these at work for a client's internal video (that I couldn't use in this video). To shoot footage I could use in this video, I went and shot some hang gliders in Cleveland that could help illustrate what I was saying. Thats one of the most difficult things about reviewing camera gear, I use it on a shoot, but can't use the footage as broll, so I have to go out an shoot more broll to fill it in! I realize the broll is a little light in this video and it's a little heavy on the "talking head" aspect - but I unfortunatly didn't have enough time to shoot more with work being so busy lately. Hope you guys understand ✌
Great review. Thank you. I shot professionally for over 25 years. I can think of only one time that a client specified what type of equipment they wanted and were willing to pay more for it (video gig). You may get a psychological boost having a more expensive lens and there are definitely some performance perks to using the 2.8 II. I’ve used one and it’s incredible. But don’t expect clients to pay you more just because you have that in your bag 😉
What you do with your camera is more important than the camera itself - for sure! Knowing how to use your camera and what features give you the best results will allow you to definitely charge more! Not saying the f/4 vs f/2.8 will automatically net you more money, but if one lens is easier for you to use, you wont miss important shots because you were messing around with your camera settings. For me, (sometimes a solo run and gun shooter) thats the aperture ring when using my fx6 for events or weddings, and the internal zooming was surprisingly easy compared to the f/4. The extra stop of light doesnt hurt either. Thanks for the insight and kind words!
def love the closeup shots the F4 makes.
I just got the 70-200 F4 2nd hand for $1500 from some pro who got the 2.8 after not liking the F4. Im just a hobbiest, and this is a great all-around lens for me since weight and price are a big concern. It fits my A6700 really well without being overly heavy and tiring! I know the 2.8 is a better lens, but I would of left it home more, and the best lens is the one you bring.
Very true! Love hearing different perspectives on the lenses and good deal on the f/4!
Thanks for the great review! I do a lot of event videography (trade shows, conferences), and the difference in weight is really a point here. As much as I love the 2.8 (we have the version 1 as well in use), it does make a difference carrying less weight with the f4 and still get great looking images out of it.
Love hearing the different use-cases and thoughts behind your lens choice!
Thanks for the Great video ,I want to buy a Sony 70-200mm lens, but I'm not sure which one to choose. I intend to use it for both video and photography, and my camera is the Sony A7SIII, known for its excellent low-light performance. Currently, I already have prime lenses, the Sony 85mm f1.8 and the Sony 90mm Macro. The G2 with a 2x converter costs the same as the GM II. My question is, is the video and photo quality of the GM II superior to that of the G2? Additionally, does the G2 with the converter perform similarly to the Sony 90mm Macro?
Since I have no problem using AI Denoise and even adding a touch of Bokeh in post, the F4 is probably the way to go for me. Since I got into photography for traveling and documenting life, the size savings and the macro capabilities of this are much more attractive to me than the 1 stop of light.
I got the f4.. the macro + teleconverter is great. Saves my back from carrying a macro
You've chosen the 1.4 tele convertor? How is it with zoom?
Does it focus well?
Try both r4 and f2.8 g2 and finally decided to keep 70 200mm f2.8. The f4 if you forget to switch the macro button your shot will be blair especially when your not paying atten4to the result after capture. Very happy with the 2.8 can't go wrong with the quality even thought price is high. You pay what you get.
The F/4 lens actually looked a bit sharper at times in some of the comparisons.
Yeah, surprisingly so…… i actually even think that he switched the titles by acccient
hey keith, great video showcasing the lenses! I love my 70-200 gm 2.8 mk 2, how were you able to rent from b&h I didn’t know they had that feature?
Thanks matt! The "renting" I was doing wasn't like what you'd do with your local rental house for a week. I wanted to make a purchasing decision, so I "rented" these lenses with the intent of buying one. For making purchasing decisions, I've had luck testing out lenses with local camera stores as well
Story time: I owned the 70-200/f2.8 and loved it, but then about 3 years ago I dropped it on a hard ceramic tile floor and broke it. Having loved my Tamron 28-75/f2.8 (and still do), I decided to try the Tamron long zoom, i.e. the 70-300/f4.5-6.3, since my long lens shots tend to always be in plenty of light. But I just never liked the 70-300, and kept missing my Sony 70-200 GM. So last week I broke down, sold the 70-300, and bought the 70-200 GM version two. Saw your video title and was worried you’d make me feel stupid for not considering the lighter f4, so I’m relieved to learn you think the extra weight of the f2.8 is worth it. In the end, what’s 3 pounds? You must suffer for your art, weaklings! 😎
Great conclusion! Personally I would decision in order of priority: 1. Budget 2. Extra stop of light (if you shoot indoors) 3. Size/weight
Thanks! And agree. I don't mind lugging around heavy gear if the shoot needs it, so thats typically last on my list - but everyones priorities are different
frequency and use case. I shoot mostly portraits and in the case of outdoor use, i don't think I'd need this at night. But a friend who tested this for a concert informed that f/4 works fine when paired with a7IV body.
@@halimrahmanagreed. It all depends on your tolerance for iso and also shutter speed actually. I typically do not go under 1/200 for events. For a long time I shot at 1/60 indoors and there was motion blur in every picture, however it wasn’t obvious without zooming in.
So helpful! Great review. Thankyou!
Glad it was helpful, love hearing that!
I rented it for a month this past summer the F2.8 gmii and I was totally blown away with how fast it focuses and how sharp all the images are. I used it on my a7rv for portraits and wow what an awesome combo. All those megapixels you get to see with this lens on the front of your camera. and then on the weekends at the ATV races I would put it on my A9 and get the 20 frames per second on burst and it did not disappoint. I got so many good images. I don’t know if I’m gonna buy it or not. Sigma just came out with their new version and from the reviews it’s saying it’s pretty darn close for $1000 less
I just saw that sigma lens! I'm going to have to try to find a copy and test it out for myself. Seems pretty good for a reasonable price
What might be difference when shooting indoor sports? Probably not the lens one would use in the home. How is the sharpness of the F2.8 across the lens?
Ive gotten to the point that if I have to be on a budget, then Ill skip the lens then. I don't really feel the need for master primes but with the zooms, that 2.8 is a game changer. I was really trying to talk my self into the f4 gII with macro but the external zoom plus knowing Id want to upgrade later for the extra stop just screams more money to me. Ill never understand buying the lesser lens and then upgrading... you end up spending significantly more! Just get the one you want, when you can get it. I am holding out for now!
yes!! said perfectly, I ended up doing that with other lenses so when it came to this focal range I got the 70-180 tamron to make sure I was going to use that range enough to buy the mk 2 2.8 and I did, glad I didn’t get any other lens
I agree! The more expensive lens is obviously going to be better, but I think it's interesting to look at the price difference and say is the f/2.8 $1100 better than the f/4? The f/4 is a terrific value but the extra features of the 2.8 make that lens a better choice for me. Glad youre saving for the better lens that you want!
@@keith-knittelright! I always try to be practical but the one time I need the extra, I’d be done lol. I also want to use for inside so the extra stop is helpful
I am really thinking to go for the 2.8 especially because if I'll add up a 2x teleconvertor I can easly have a 400mm portable without any other extra lens. I am not sure if adding a teleconvertor on the f4 will let with enough aperture to still create nice shots. Do you have any thoughts on this? I am just trying to see what would be best for traveling.
@@Storiada I don’t have any experience with teleconverters but I get what you mean. I suspect you’ll have to pick up the iso a bit to make up for it
Hello fellow Clevelander! Glad I found you here and thanks for the great review!
CLE!! Glad to have you here 🙌
This like my minolta 70-212mm (Bearcan) f/4 lense and my minolta 80-200MM f2.8 G lense comparison. The f/4 Easley gets it done but the f/2.8 gets it done better. Nice comparison thanks for sharing. Just may be looking to leave my a-mounts that I've been using since the 80s.
Very true, and thats impressive you still have a-mounts! I've never used an a-mount sony before
Great video! On a different note, Sony released firmware 2.01 for the A7RV! Make sure to upgrade that firmware.
Thanks and will have to do that! Thanks for the heads up
The macro ability sold me on the f4!with a 2X tele converter it seems so versatile.
The macro capabilities of the f/4 make it a pretty unique lens. Hope the next version of the f/2.8 has close focusing like the f/4 G II
@@keith-knittel maybe by that time I can actually make some money with some of my photos lol😂❤️ thanks very much for the review Is it possible to have a lens like this be lower than f2.8?
Did you compare them in low light? Auto focus etc?
I got the 2.8 and its the best thing I have bought for my A7iv
Your studio looks dope.
Thank you! I spend a lot of time in there so I wanted it to feel cozy
I just bought the 2.8 for wildlife photography. The lighting at dusk, early morning and cloudy days can be an issue. I want a macro lens and your advice about the 90 was affirming. I had been wonderingif the versatility of the 4 macro would be worth it. But it is clear to me now. I like the aperature ring too. Thankyou!
Love hearing the use-cases for different lenses. The 70-200 f/2.8 and 90mm macro is a fantastic setup. The 90mm is one of my favorite lenses of all time for product photography! The sharpness and image quality is a joy to work with
General rule of purchasing gears today: 1. Gears today are better and cheaper than it was in the past 2. You do kinda get what you pay for, however, after a certain amount of money, the increase of quality decreases. 3. For the price to quality ratio, midrange gears will always triumph. 4. For this example: Tamron 70-180 lens, sigma 70-200 2.8, g 70-200 F4, will probably be an amazing option if you've never used those zoom lenses before. The quality difference between those and 70-200 gmii is very minor. 5. If you are prosumer/ hobbiest, you should buy more sensible option for your wallet, and also push your midrange gears to absolute limit untill you feel the limitation of your gear and realize your needs for the future. This is what ive learned as i purchased camera gears and used them in the last 5 years.
Well said. Buying what you can afford and knowing what you actually need vs what is just a want is important
I just wish the 2.8 had the macro and I did get the 2.8 and I got a 2x converter so than I wouldn’t have to worry about getting a 100-400mm lens but did get a 200-600mm lens needed the reach because I live in Alaska and to be able to take pics of the wild live here
I feel like the 70-200 2.8 GM II and 90mm macro is a fantastic combination. The 90mm macro is on of my favorite lenses - the autofocus sucks, but the image quality is fantastic. If you do a lot of macro work, it's worth the price. How do you like the 200-600 vs the 70-200 with the 2x? I've never compared the two myself but would love to someday
@@keith-knittel Ive been really busy with work and haven’t really been able to go out to take pics yet really to compare them but from what I have done with them I think that the 70-200mm 2.8 with the 2x is a little sharper at the 400mm then the 200-600mm and yes been looking at the 90mm macro for a macro lens
Here's what I'd boil it down to > Usecase If you're shooting outdoor vlogs/sports/events >> F4 is more than enough. If you want to cover mostly indoor sports/events >> F2.8 is the one to get.
Thats what I thought going into it too, I'd add the internal zooming and aperture ring on the GM. After using them side by side, those helped push me to the F/2.8. If you don't care about those features, the F4 is a fantastic value
The takeaway is that with the f/2.8 you get a little bit more this & better that, and you need to pixel peep to discern differences, all for an extra $1,100. Oh, the 4.0 is lighter & more compact & can be used as a macro lens. Unless you’re a superstar fashion photographer there’s no need to spend the extra $$$
..The takeaway is that internal zoom action that is a whole lot quicker than the external zoom of the f/4. It's arguably less conspicuous and on a tripod zooming won't shift the balance.
Can you use a teleconverter with the f4?
Got the f4.. you get a macro + a 1:1 with a teleconverter + a zoom lens = all in one package = win!
I looked at it today. I think it’s a better lens than 2.8. Way more versatile and sharp
Hey, Keith. Thanks so much for the review. I’m looking to invest in the f2.8 as my go to Wildlife photography lens. With a 2x Teleconverter, you can get upto 400mm, losing 2 stops (5.6). That’s a strong reason for choosing the f2.8 over f4. It avoids having to invest in multiple lenses as well.
It's simply not a good wildlife lens. If you want something dedicated to that you're better off buying a 100-400 or 200-600. While the 70-200 GM II is optically very good on it's own, the 2xTC massively reduces it's sharpness and introduces a lot of CA, to the point where it's noticeably worse than much less expensive third party options.
@@TechnoBabbleyoure so wrong.
@@basvh666 everything I said is objectively correct. The 70-200 f2.8 GM II with a 2x TC is less sharp than every super telephoto zoom for e-mount. Not to mention that 400mm is barely long enough for most wildlife on full frame and you're going to be cropping that unsharp image a bunch. Like, sure. If you only want one lens, go for it. But it's objective fact that any other lens in that range will give better results. Sigma 100-400, Tamron 150-500, Sigma 150-600, Sony 100-400, and Sony 200-600 will all be better for the overwhelming majority of wildlife.
Overtime prices usually reduce even if by a little bit for electronics , since I am new in photography, not sure about how long one has to wait for with lenses like this, by when, if at all can we expect a price reduction on the f/4?
The version 2 of these lenses are pretty new and doubt there going to have a price reduction anytime soon. If youre on a budget, I'd check out used version 1's of these lenses or even the tamron lenses. I don't have any experience with the tamrom 7-180 G2, but multiple people in the comments posted about it so I might have to look into it!
Perfect thanks for the clarification. @@keith-knittel The pricing for the Tamron in India is for the 70 - 180mm G2 f/2.8 is the same as the Sony 70 - 200 G f/4, so its going to be a difficult decision considering the fact that Sony is Sony lol 🙈
@@ankushthorI wonder if Sony is priced lower there or it’s Tamron that priced higher?
Hello, for stills only, and sport shooting.. what you suggest? I've in plan to buy a 1.4 tc. I've tried for a few shots both. But i haven't seen the gm2 si huge Better (apart the f/2.8 for 1 stop less iso). But few shots are not enough... Af it. Seems the same way. I use a7r3, but probably to see differences it's not enough. Regarding sharpness and contrast at wide aperture, which Is Better, and how much?
I havent used the teleconverters so I can't comment on that. I chose the 2.8, and for sports where youre zooming around from 70-200 frequently, the internal zooming will be much easier to work with. Both have great autofocus in my testing. The difference really comes down to the price, size, weight, internal vs external zoom, 4 vs 2.8, aperture ring, filter size - it's tough to recommend one over the other without knowing more
Would get the f/4 lens even if it was the more expensive one. Love compact lenses! Sharpness aplenty anyway.
Most likely the f/2.8 because of the internal zoom/focus - better when using the matte box. Also, the 1-stop wider aperture.
GREAT point with the mattebox
The internal zoom is the dealmaker. I have the older 70-200 f4, that sports internal zooming. If I had it to do over again, I would save my bucks and get the f2.8 version. I have the 90mm macro so I don't need a macro zoom that badly.
Loved the internal zoom more that I thought I would! Thats one of those things that impossible to tell from a spec sheet how the lens actually performs. Some people it wont matter as much, but I love it. And the 90mm macro is the lens I currently use for most photography or macro shots. Not the most economical, but delivers the best results - and my clients love the results
@@keith-knittel I also have the 90mm macro and concur about its incredible sharpness.
For me, as a retiree and non pro photographer, the F4 for the win. Less expensive, smaller, lighter and great image quality.
The f/4 is a slam dunk for you then! Everyone has different use-cases. Love hearing why people go with one lens over the other
I’m still very happily adapting my old canon 70-200 f/4L. No disrespect to anyone who chooses otherwise, but 70-200 f/4 with great glass is good enough for me.
Hello, thanks for the video,I wanted to know if the autofocus of the macro from the ossII works better than the 90mm or if it’s the same problem and we have to use the manual focus because it’s not consitent? ps: my question is more about the video. Thank you
The f/4’s autofocus is MUCH better than the 90mm macro. The 90mm macro is one of my favorite lenses but the autofocus is terrible. If you limit the focus range using the switch on the 90mm it’s better, but the 70-200 f/4 g ii is much better than the 90! Might try to get an f/4 again to compare these two lenses.
thank’s a lot for this fast answer. This is very interesting and I will maybe start with the oss II then. Do you know if there’s other macro lense with a good autofocus or is it kind of unique from the ossII ? I agree the 90mm is great but I was disapointed that the autofocus was very bouncing but thx for the tips with the focus range I will try it.
@@keith-knittelI'd like to see that video. Subbed.
Honest question. Shooting inside, like a high school gym, sports, color guard etc. what’s the difference in iso going to be wide open, on shutter priority? From 2.8 to 4?
Moving subjects in low light, you'll notice a difference between 2.8 and 4. Depending on the lighting and how much motion blur or ISO noise your comfortable with, f/2.8 may not be enough even and you may need a faster f/1.8 prime - but you'll lose the versatility of zooming, it's tough to say without knowing the conditions and image you want. If zooming is a must for you, the 2.8 is the better choice though
The 70-200 GM II F2.8 is by far one of the best if not the best 70-200 ever made..
I absolutely love this lens
Without doubt the best 70-200 ever made, period.
Had the Tamron 70-180 and upgraded to the 70-200 2.8 II and it’s honestly an incredible lens and light enough to run around handheld. The internal zoom is great for gimbal work as well. I’m sure the f/4 is great but I don’t regret buying the 2.8 II at all!
How did you like the Tamron? I havent used it, but multiple people have brought it up in the comments since posting this video and I've never used it. But the GM II is a fantastic lens and don't regret it either. Absolutely love working with it
@@keith-knittel While I think Tamron makes good lenses, they just lack a lot of character in the colors and look for me. (I’m a Sigma fanboy and love their glass) I can’t fault the 70-180 for the stabilization (since it doesn’t have it, of course) but with my a7S III I was not happy with the handheld footage with it. I’m fine with that handheld look but I found it to have a lot of weird micro jitters and almost looked like it would pulse. (If you search for the Jan Dils 2022 Freedom Fun Run 5K recap, you’ll see what I mean) I also had their 17-28 and 28-75 and returned them both. The performance isn’t bad or anything, they just have a weird blue-ish boring tint to them. I know it’s 3x the price, but the 2.8 GM II feels like 3x the lens in my opinion!
I bought the g2 tamron last week and ended up exchanging it for the sony f4. I do mostly landscape and the sony is way sharper for my needs. I do some sports, but it's during the daytime outdoors and the f4 does great.
@@jasonzakszewski3718 Nice! I bet it's great. I do a lot of low light shoots, so the 2.8 was necessary for my work.
Yeah, if you need the 2.8 the Tamron is a great choice. I rented the g1 a few weeks ago and it worked great for sports as well. My wife really enjoys macro so the f4 was the easy choice. @@CaseyHardman
70% of us probably on a budget to include myself 😂 so I went with F/4
Nice! The f/4 is still a great lens
Me too 😅
I was looking at these lenses for so long, but I ended up with the Tamron 35-150 f2-2.8 "used" for $1400, also it literally looks brand new, it was probably an open box. I think it's more versatile, user friendly and cheaper owning the 35-150 with a 16-35 GM combo for $3800, than having 3 sony zoom lenses for $6900. The only thing I miss is the teleconverter option, but honestly if I ever need a longer range (I doubt, I shoot more videos) I would just get a Sony 100-400 GM second hand for around ($1800) or a Tamron 150-500 ($1200) for a specific job.
I've heard great things about the 35-150, I need to try that lens out!
Go: Tamron 70-180mm F2.8 G2 vs Sony FE 70-200mm f/4 Macro G OSS II
I’ve been shooting for about two months now, so I’d go f4 because of budget and I think it be good for street photography
The f/4 is a solid lens, especially if you've been only shooting for 2 months! I had super busted gear for like my first few years haha. Bonus that it's smaller for street photography - assuming youre not zooming to 200 all the time. It's a little less conspicuous then
What about the f/2.8 with an extension tube? Will the sharp quality stay?
Didn't put any extenders or extension tubes on the 2.8. My guess is that there will be a loss in sharpness/image quality. How much, I'm not sure. I'll try to get some and do some testing.
I was wondering how much of difference f2.8 and f4 make with these lenses. Thanks for the review! 😊
Great comparizon, but what bothers me is: why do You have Baguette on Your desk(right desk)?
Thank you and that’s my wrist rest for my keyboard! Surprisingly comfortable
If you are taking photos of a wedding and you located in EU, doesn't make any difference in the wedding if it's 2.8 or 4. On any event where are more people cannot use 2.8, because of sharpness. I think the G4 enough sharpness for that job, because no one will print your photo to a building or something crazy, so nobody will notice that slightly difference. If we talking creative or portrait photos I would use different lens, like a cheap 35mm or 85 by sigma.
I'd argue theres a difference between f/4 and 2.8. It may not be as drastic of a difference as f/4 and a fast 1.4 prime, but there is definitely a difference there. All other features aside, do you need the difference between f/4 and 2.8? That depends on how you use the lens, what you shoot, and what other lenses you have
i would always go with the lower aperture one, its always on the expensive side, but you have more flexibility at bad lighting and with the background compression, in my opinion its easier to create different looks, no matter what the lighting situations are
Love the 2.8 as well! The extra light, blur for portraits, aperture ring and internal zoom pushed me to the 2.8 over the 4
here from tiktok! thanks for the video
Awesome!! Looks like I need to start making more TikTok videos! Haha Thanks for the support
If sharpness is your concern use a good Prime, or use ONLY the sharpness sweetspot (focal length and aperture). There is NO SHARP ZOOM LENS over the full focal range and full aperture range, simply technical impossible, you may have one focal length and aperture, so in fact in terms of sharpness than a prime lens, but designed prime lenses are far ahead and in effect cheaper. 50/1,2 or 50/1,4 or 85/1,4 is way sharper than a 70/200/2,8 less distortion, better flare control and so on and so on. For videography you don't need that overkill, only if you want to take stills from your footage, but better make dedicated fotos and dedicated videofootage.
Thanks
You're welcome and hope all is well man!
You can rent gear from BH?
If you have the subs, I think you have to be an affiliate too
Yeah, full disclosure, I'm an affiliate with B&H - so sometimes they'll loan out gear for short periods of time. Camera shops will do this from time to time if youre making a purchasing decision and have a relationship with them. It's not really a loan like a rental house would do, but a loaner for making a purchasing decision
In terms of price: In EU I was able to buy GM2 2.8 for 2799€, and the same time G2 4 was 1999€ In my opinion F4 is too expensive comparing to 2.8 which is too expensive anyway ;-)
Wow, I had no idea there was only an 800 euro difference in the EU! Wonder why the f/4 got a price hike, but not the 2.8? Because the f/4 is newer and maybe more difficult to find?
@@keith-knittelF4 is a very popular lens in the U.S., Sony doesn’t even offer an EDU price for it.
Just submitted my order for f2.8
Congrats on the new lens!!
so how about the 70-180 f2.8 tamron
I havent used that tamron lens yet! I'll have to get one and make a comparison
@@keith-knittel there's a new one, with a "G2" at the end, and it has OSS. The "old one" was very good according to reviews. (And the 35-150 exists as well!)
@@gamebuster800I was looking at it, but some people complain about it pumping in some dust - it’s more about G1, though.
My friend, Tamron has a great optical performance, but for tracking photo, serial shoots, video is not a deal. Also Tamron has a plastic construction.
FX6 is a monster where the size of the 2.8 isnt the same penalty as it would be on say an FX3 which you have as display. In the case of an FX6 yeah those are sized appropriately to one another. Now if you shot with the FX3 handheld all day would you still chose the 2.8? Maybe your specific use case colors your conclusion, and you didnt even show the FX6, on a tripod, with a monitor, etc.
At the end of the day, I'd still choose the 2.8. Coming from filming with the FX6, I don't look at the 2.8 as being too large for the FX3, the overall footprint of the camera is smaller so it seems lighter to me. I don't mind lugging around camera gear and if it gets too heavy, using a tripod or easy rig is part of the process. As for no shots of the FX6 with monitor on a tripod, I was using this setup at work and the client doesn't want me posting footage from their job site or offices on KZhead. And I was at work, so I didn't have time to film a behind the scenes of using the lens
how many freedom eagles per subway sandwhiches is 6 punds?
9
I have F4 version in my wishlist 🙂
It's a sweet lens!
The f/4 barrel should have been smaller diameter. It looks like Sony wanted to reuse the same barrel and hardware components for both. You can tell from the oversized front element… has a masked off fixed aperture baffle right behind the objective. What a waste of diameter. Possibly necessitated by the external telescoping section. Also, not mentioned was that the f/4 has 9 blade while the f/2.8 has 11 blade aperture.
Tamron 70-180 G2
I havent got my hands on that one yet! I'll have to see what I can do
Please if you can, it may prove the f4 a much more difficult sell.@@keith-knittel
The anxiety when putting down the cameras on the LCD screen and lens glass without caps.
I know - typically I don't do that! Have a leather desk pad that is pretty soft on my desk, and for the video, thought that was a good way of showing the differences. I don't do that on any other surface
I have the gm ii 2.8 and I never use it because it’s too big for my bag. I am considering selling it for the f4 version. Is that crazy??
I have both, and rarely pickup the f2.8 when I head out. That’s become a studio only lens for me, and I even find myself using the f4 in studio settings too especially with the macro ability combined with the f1.4 extender.
Not crazy, if youre traveling a lot, the f/4 packs much nicer than the 2.8. Everyone has different needs when it comes to camera gear
F2.8 every time. I hate zooms that have external extending zoom or focus
Love the canon 70-200 f/4 but the sony f/4 has no internal zoom which is a complete dealbreaker. makes it unsuable for my needs.
Love the internal zoom
For the people that haven’t rented both and use them for as long as you did, how are we supposed to know if it’s $1200 better? Isn’t that what you’re supposed to let us know?
For me, it is - but hard to recommend to everyone since I don't know their situations. Tried to tell you the differences so you could make that decision for yourself. I went with the 2.8 but thats not for everyone
@@keith-knittel recommend it in your shoes lol
F4 has one advantage. Takes up less space in the backpack. In everything else version 2.8 is better.
I am confused I got 1.8 prime lens already . I’m not worried about the portrait that much . But I’m stuck between both , what should I get ? Any good suggestions will be much appreciated.
A 1.8 prime, what lens? What focal length? What do you shoot? Hard to recommend without knowing more
It’s Sony 85mm/f 1.8 lens I normally shoot portraits . But now I am looking for the lens by which I can make short videos and take good photos.
F4 will always be a nonstarter for me. Thanks for the very informative review.
Love the 2.8! Thanks for the kind words
I have the 70-200mm 2.8 GM II which I love. But, I'm going to order the 70-200mm G Macro II to use for travel and macro.
Fantastic travel lens
You missed out on Bokeh comparissons...
I know, I had more comparisons but the client didn't want footage used in a YT video, so I had to film all of my own broll in my studio. Had limited time with these lenses, I typically try to include those in my reviews. Had to share more of my thoughts on the lenses in this one
Which would you keep if you had both ??? Duh the obvious is the 2.8 . But 99% of hobbyist only need the f4
Everyone's needs are different!
I consider the Sigma Version 2.8…Heavy but it’s worth
f/4 is overpriced. If I'm on a budget, I'd get Tamron 70-180 G2.
I need to get my hands on a Tamron 70-180 G2!
You can not compare price to third party lens. Then f2.8 version is overpriced as well. Canon f4 one is only $100 less.
@@KaiLiuvisual Not saying those two aren't overpriced: Canon f/4 just as overpriced, Sony GM2 a lot less so because of its unmatched performance ever. Third-party lenses are why many users choose Sony.
You rented gear from B&H ? Do they rent gear ?
I'm part of the B&H affiliate program, and buy enough from them that they allow me to get loaners to make a purchasing decision sometimes. I was going back and forth between these two lenses, so they allowed me to get both, and send one back. I had to buy it with my own money though! So it's more to make a purchasing decision from them, not like renting a lens from a rental house
@@keith-knittel that’s good to know. I buy a lot from them . Like a lot! lol
Why would i ever pick a F4 over a 2.8 🤦🏿♂️
Scroll through these comments, plenty of people pick the f/4! The 2.8 was a better fit for me (and you, by the sounds of it) - but everyone is different.
Um...$$$
@@jimjacobs8992 lol got a point
2 lens being reviewed..less than 1minute of actual footage. Not even shots of people, showing how it renders skin and bokeh...its sad what youtube is slowing coming lately...
Had these two lenses for a short period of time and got them for an internal work project and the client doesn't want the footage to be used publicly. Typically I shoot more, but had to share more of what I thought about the lenses than test shots. I shot a chart for people that really want to compare the image quality, and wanted to test the autofocus, so I shot some hang gliders. Did a few other tests, but it all takes a lot of time believe it or not
the Bokeh on 2.8 is second to none for Portrait.
Yes, but if you shoot wedding ceremony you have to close to f4, because no one object is in the frame .2.8 aperture is only for wildlife photographer, sport photographer indoor events. F4 is outdoor, travel, macro best.
@@todorbozhkov496 I mean Bokeh on the lens is better than F4 lens in general even at F4.
For portraits, the 2.8 would be my choice as well - the only way youre going to get a better image is by using primes.. but then you lose the versatility of the zoom lens.
Mind blowing that these two lenses would have difference filter sizes. Sony often overlooks the “little things” like this. Frustrating to have to buy entire new filter sets. Meanwhile Tamron uses the same filter size for every lens besides the telephoto and the 35-150
No one uses aperture ring😂😂😂😂
No one, checking in 🙋
2.8, dont like dust suckers
It doesn't just extend a minor amount like the Tamron 70-180/g2 either, it extends by quite a bit. Still, only time will tell whether "dust sucker" or not. The Tamron g1, by virtue of lots of anecdotes, seems to have a little bit of a potential dust issue. Don't know about the Sony or Tamron g2 yet.
Unless you shot most of the time in low light you don't need 2.8 aperture really. But if you shot wedding, concert, etc you must need a 2.8 aperture lense. In low light conditions I think 1.2 or 1.4 aperture primes are the best.