70-200mm f/2.8 lenses are some of the most versatile and highly popular optics out there, but they are rather expensive and heavy. For those who want the flexibility of the reach of a 70-200mm but do not need the extra light-gathering power, the 70-200mm f/4 is a fantastic option, and this great video review takes a look at Sony's option, the FE 70-200mm f/4 G OSS.
Coming to you from The Hybrid Shooter, this great video review takes a look at the Sony FE 70-200mm f/4 G OSS lens. The 70-200mm f/4 comes in at $1,000 less than the larger f/2.8 version, and for people like landscape photographers who do not need the extra stop, it also offers a much more portable option, particularly for long treks. Check out its features:
- Two extra-low dispersion glass elements and one Super ED element for reduced chromatic aberrations and increased clarity
- One aspherical element and two Advanced Aspherical elements for reduced astigmatism and coma
- Nano AR coating for reduced flares and ghosting and increased contrast
- Dual linear motors for faster autofocus
- Optical SteadyShot image stabilization
- Electronic focus range limiter for faster autofocus
- Dust- and weather-sealing
- Rounded nine-blade diaphragm for smoother bokeh
Check out the video above for the full rundown on this lens.
Ive had this lens for a couple of years. It does do a fine job, agree with all you say. My main gripe is the lens hood. I know it’s a bit of a silly gripe, but it’s so big and unwieldy. Does it really have to be so huge?
You should see the one on the f2.8 GM - you could grow potatoes in it!
Preferring a white lens because it "looks more professional" makes this review rather unprofessional, and one I shouldn't trust IMHO.
That is the weirdest reason for not trusting a review ever. He said that he "generally likes white lenses" not prefers white lenses.
Well, it's subjective and unimportant. Just like other reviews by the same author that goes about the looks of a tripod.
There's other factors such as ruggedness of the material, being slippery under wet conditions, does it trap dust and grease easily... But he doesn't care about that when looking at the materials. That's why I'd look for other reviews. But again that's just me. You are free to choose the lens from the looks ;-)
He has done a lot of valid tests including the sharpness, distortion and AF. Dismissing a review because he said that he like white lenses, is totally irrational. You are free to choose a lens based on how easily it greases...
I'm not saying he doesn't have valid points. Just that if I'm going to spend 900€ on this lens, I miss important points related to certain superfluous comments.
For example, he also claims the lenshood is " very high quality". Again that doesn't clarify anything. High quality plastic? Is it metal, or is it not? Is it that hard giving objetive descriptions?
About sharpness... yes, he comments on that. But I'd have preferred looking at actual samples when he says "improves the tiniest bit" for example.
Looks and subjective opinions vs numbers and letting the reader/watcher judge.
And yes, if you ever have grease destroying your 1000€ lens rubber and trapping dust constantly in ridges that finally enters your lens, you'll regret not looking at that when you bought. I just don't only look at the looks (and neither only at grease).
You were saying that. You wrote that the review shouldn't be trusted because he said that he prefers white lenses, which is not even true.
Now you are just finding more ridiculous arguments. Would you prefer another random brick wall test? There is pleny of actual samples in the video. The Hybrid Shooter and Christopher Frost are the only two lens reviewers how show meaningful, and even more importantly, consistent sharpness tests.
I'm not here to defend him, but I hate seeing someone's work being derogate by such ridiculous statements.
Again I said I wouldn't trust it, because he focuses on subjective stuff and forgets important ones. He does have valid points? I never said no. But would I suggest this review to anyone? No, absolutely not. Because he misses very important points, and I could be buying a lens that has some important annoyances he ignored.
Oh btw, I prefer looking at brick walls than youtube quality images. Neither is perfect, but the brick wall is less diffuse.
"I prefer looking at brick walls"
That explains a lot. I don't think that anybody would care about a suggestion based on your "objective" criteria, but for the record, I think that your review of this review is highly subjective and shouldn't be trusted.
Indeed it is. I said "IMHO", "I shouldn't trust", ... and that's completely mine, subjective, and non-transferable ;-)
But if you want to quote anyone, do it with full context.
I prefer looking at a full res brick wall shot, rather than a low resolution youtube video, just like I prefer looking at a landscape shot, rather than a brick wall. If you disagree, maybe you have some trick to increase the sharpness of videos.
I'm not sure about that, I have feeling that IMHO and I shouldn't trust was edited after you post that.
Now you are behaving like an idiot. Is that intentional? Because you can see the edited time and date on the web (use the desktop version). Soon you'll only be able to see days though, although you can ask the admins if you are so desperate. But please don't call me a liar. Yes, I edited this one too, it's 13:32 GMT.
Yes, that is indeed one of the weirdest comments that I got during 3 and half years of making gear reviews :) I don't even know how to react to that.
Well, I didn't mean any offense, so please don't take it like that. It's just me that I am fed up reading (not yours, but everywhere) many youtube reviews that are half-baked with very subjective reviews and that miss very important points. As a result of such reviews, many of my lenses have ended up abandoned on the shelves collecting dust.
So the minimum I expect on any serious lens review before I can trust to buy a lens based on its conclusions are those things that I cannot find in any spec sheet:
- Objectivity (nothing like it's great! got 3d pop! Tack sharp!, unless it's after fully testing). If I want superlatives I go to the manufacturer site. They are all "great and sharp".
- Having full res samples available, or crops, at different focal lengths.
- Materials and ruggedness. I don't care it's white or black, never saw anyone complain about lens distortion caused by heat, despite manufacturers claiming that. Did you actually check that? I wish some reviewer tried heating the lenses up and compared blacks and whites. If anything, whites make me more conspicuous when shooting wildlife (except in winter).
- Ring smoothness/dampening quality.
- Zoom ring stiffness or lock buttons to prevent extending when carrying around.
- Lenshood fitting, materials and inner reflectivity.
- Chromatic aberrations and vignetting.
- Focusing speed.
- Minimum focus distance and magnification (although this can be easily found in the spec sheets)
If I don't find those, I generally suspect that other stuff that I may not be aware of could have slipped out of the review too.
But again, that's me and only me. I hate wasting 1000€ on a lens and then finding out issues when on the field.
Really? This wasn't mean to be offensive? "I wouldn't trust it, because he focuses on subjective stuff and forgets important ones." At least be honest.
- Well, if the sharpness is great, than I will just say that it is great... as you can see in the video, it was accompanied by full testing so, I see no issues there...
- I don't provide full-res samples anymore, I have had very bad experiences with full res-samples being stolen and used for commercial purposes. I show 400% magnification for lens testing, that is way beyond any kind of real-world application.
Regarding the rest, It is either mentioned in the video or I didn't find it important enough to extensively talk about (which is the case with the sun hood).
I definitely won't ask you whether I can say that I like white lenses... I obviously didn't check that while testing the lens in January. I said it because some of the viewers might not know what is the original idea behind white lenses. I would never imagine anybody calling me out on that....
My lens-reviewing format is the result of many previous lens reviews. I make these reviews in my free time to share my user experiences and test, and help people choose the gear. I am opened to constructive criticism, but I'm not opened to your kind of nitpicking, so take it or leave it...
Well, it's just my point of view. I just said I don't trust it because I found important stuff missing, which may prevent me from buying it. Again, I apologize if that offended you. Yes, it may sound harsh, but that's how I view it. I have two options now:
1) I ammend it, but then the full discussion above does not make any sense, and Sir Montgomery will again come insult me because I supposedly edited my comments.
2) I just try to explain why I commented that, which is what I did. Maybe you would have taken that better, if I had explained it fully from the very beginning. But honestly, I didn't expect you to read that even, and I never comment on youtube.
And honest, I am not trying to call you on that (if I even understand what you mean by that expression correctly). I should have just kept that to myself maybe, but everyone, not only me, has "keys" to identify which reviews suit to them and which don't.
You can take my words as you please. I wasn't criticising you, just speaking loud my thoughts. if you take that positively, you could go through not only me but other picky people too, and may benefit you in the long term. If you take that negatively, I cannot do much now unfortunately, appart from apologizing.
What else can I do?
Edit: sorry to hear about your pictures being stolen before. Some other reviewers post just uninteresting pictures for reviewing the quality (yes, like brick walls, heh). Although I have read harsh comments on that too, even if I find those useful when the purpose is analyzing lens distortions.
I don't think that you need to do anything, I'm afraid that the discussion above doesn't make any sense anyway :-)
I'm not really offended, I just found those complaints to be really weird, as I wrote in my first comment, so I unfortunately don't see any way to benefit from your feedback, but thanks anyway.
Thanks. I will have to follow your channel now. I'm curious. But I will try to be less agressive with my comments. Honest! ;-)
.
I have the f2.8 70-200 and - having previously owned the Canon and Nikon equivalents - I think it's the best 70-200 ever made. It's like having a bag of premium prime lenses. The f4 is a very close match in most respects. But I hate the white finish on these lenses. True, these lenses are huge and hard to make discrete but, at events or in public places, the white paint is like having a neon sign saying, "PHOTOGRAPHER OVER HERE!' above your head.
Have this in 2.8 and is a good range to use. 70-200 is good but has to be joined with the 24-70 for an even greater range. But before I got these two I had the FE 24-240mm F3.5-6.3 OSS (360 in APS-C) and under $1K and joined with the FE 12-24mm f/4 you have the best travel combo. I feel limited unless I know beforehand what I am shooting. You do not hear much about the 24-240, but great for a small birding lens or at 24 landscapes. So why buy a limited lenses when one is greater range, you will be shooting at f/8 anyway.
I mostly use my f2.8 70-200 between f2.8 and f5.6 90% of the time - for events, performing arts, portraits, PR and all sorts. It's a superb lens and very versatile. You can also use the 1.4x and 2x Sony extenders with it, which you cannot with the f4 70-200 or the 24-240.
I have this lens and use it with my a6000. Because of size it is not the most frequent lens I use, but when I do I am very happy with the results.