I had the 20-60mm f4 and loved it but switches to the 24-70mm GMII. I almost wish I had the 20-60mm f4 and this lens as a kit instead. Now I need the 16-35 f4 and this 70-200mm f4. A two lens kit is very appealing for travel. Throw in a prime and then you have low light and a portrait option. The 24-70mm GMII is very nice but also somewhat heavy. F4 is just looking better and better these days with the blurring background AI features now days. There are few shots that need an f2.8 lens, at least in good lighting.
This is definitely the lens to get now with how versatile it is. Post processing has elimated the need for 2.8 with bokeh blur. All you need is light and functional to get that shot! This lens is a winner. If anything, i think of the trifecta, only 24-70 should be 2.8, 16-35 and 70-200 f4 is perfect
I rented this lens for a weekend to shoot some motorcycle racing. I usually rent a 100-400 GM. I was sold after the first hour of shooting. This lens is incredible paired with my A7R3
I just bought the 70-200 F4 G OSS ii - I really appreciate this review and especially the comparison - i dont think the difference between this and the GM is a big enough difference considering you can add Bokeh blur with lightroom now a days just as easily and this one has macro capabilities - especially with the 1.4x / 2x teleconverter which i havent got yet, cause i find the macro capabilities of this lens far good enough for now before dropping another 5 or 600 for the teleconverter, but when i do, ill have a 1:1 Macro and a telephoto lens! for less than the GM mark ii. Crazy! I was kinda upset after i bought this seeing so many say its totally not worth it cause the GM, but i disagree and think they probably havent even tried it yet. Thanks for the review my friend! Subscribed! ❤
Late to the party... but the main thing is not the background blur, both f2.8 and f4 looks very similar over a 100mm and for video it doesn't really matter with dual base ISO... but for photos if you shoot f2.8 ISO 3200 vs f4 ISO 6400 you literally double the ISO with losing 2 stops of light and that is something you gotta consider when you buy this lens. (The amount of noise you create). Although you can clean up noise or make the background more blurry with Lightroom nowadays... so yeah, definitely worth it for a $1000 less. P.s.: I skipped both of these and went with the Tamron 35-150 f2-2.8 instead.
Would be awesome if this lens has a aperture ring but nevertheless I’m really tempted to add this to my kit. (Already have a 24-70 Sigma and finding me often stuck on the long end)
Thanks for the video. I’m considering adding this to my travel/walk around kit to use on the A7CR. I already own the FE 70-200/2.8 GM II and us it either my A1 or A7RV. So we will see. Take care.
I just picked up this lens today because of its weight, size and, most important for me, the macro capability. I have a 1.4x teleconverter, so I can get 0.7x magnification. I will choose this lens over the 2.8 any day.
It’s interesting that this seems to be the consensus for this lens and yet the main comment from RUclipsrs on the Sony 20-70 f4 was that they wished they had f2.8 - despite the 20-70 being significantly smaller and lighter and offering that very versatile 20mm wide end. For me, I’ll get the 20-70 / 70-200 f4 set and use the primes for lower light. 👍🏻
Time for you to sell your GM LOL......unless I was shooting a lot of night time photography with it for sure f4 seems like a win win and I would be more likely to bring it with me more being smaller. Great video as always!
At this price and size, I wish they made the focal range 50-200 or 70-280, even at the expense of losing the teleconverter compatibility and some macro capabilities, and kept the aperture ring like on all new G lenses.
I like how you conveniently made the portrait comparison a head and shoulders shot. If you want to see the benefit of f2.8 take some full body portraits between 70 and 135mm
This works in full frame, however in crop sensor cameras like a6000 series this lens is unusable, f4 on crop it's an f6 lens. So do not expect any bokeh on crop sensors.
@@slurp3194 it's also the sign of a less sophisticated design which, until recently, was relegated to lower tier lenses. The mark ii here is selling for 70% more than the mark I and much closer to gm prices. Guess it's personal preference, but I wouldn't (and won't) pay that kind of premium for an extending zoom.
Its a cool lens. But yea if you can afford the 2.8 MKii id spring for that. Maybe you cant tell the difference in bokeh but dont forget the tradeoff having to raise your iso and introduce noise or lower your shutter speed and… well yah know 🫨
That may be the case a few years ago, but ISO performance on newer cameras are so much better. Slap this lens on a A7S3, FX3, or ZV-E1 and you don't have to worry about noise
@@SidneyDiongzon yea definitely on the lower megapixel bodies. Youre right about that brother. Im here on the 61mp big bad A7RV. Anything about 2500 is risky behavior in my humble opinion. Great video, keep up the good consistent work.
![[#2024MAMA] BIGBANG (빅뱅) - 뱅뱅뱅 (BANG BANG BANG) + FANTASTIC BABY | Mnet 241123 방송](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/EQsYfiPR9uM/mqdefault.jpg)
What do you think of the new Sony 70-200mm F4 MACRO G II lens!???
This or the F2.8 1st generation?
I had the 20-60mm f4 and loved it but switches to the 24-70mm GMII. I almost wish I had the 20-60mm f4 and this lens as a kit instead. Now I need the 16-35 f4 and this 70-200mm f4. A two lens kit is very appealing for travel. Throw in a prime and then you have low light and a portrait option. The 24-70mm GMII is very nice but also somewhat heavy. F4 is just looking better and better these days with the blurring background AI features now days. There are few shots that need an f2.8 lens, at least in good lighting.
This is definitely the lens to get now with how versatile it is. Post processing has elimated the need for 2.8 with bokeh blur. All you need is light and functional to get that shot! This lens is a winner. If anything, i think of the trifecta, only 24-70 should be 2.8, 16-35 and 70-200 f4 is perfect
I rented this lens for a weekend to shoot some motorcycle racing. I usually rent a 100-400 GM. I was sold after the first hour of shooting. This lens is incredible paired with my A7R3
Just purchased and I can't wait! I love my current 70-200 f4 Sony and this looks to pack so many more improvements.
That lens looks so sweet. I really need to get myself a Sony camera.
It’s amazing!
I just bought the 70-200 F4 G OSS ii - I really appreciate this review and especially the comparison - i dont think the difference between this and the GM is a big enough difference considering you can add Bokeh blur with lightroom now a days just as easily and this one has macro capabilities - especially with the 1.4x / 2x teleconverter which i havent got yet, cause i find the macro capabilities of this lens far good enough for now before dropping another 5 or 600 for the teleconverter, but when i do, ill have a 1:1 Macro and a telephoto lens! for less than the GM mark ii. Crazy! I was kinda upset after i bought this seeing so many say its totally not worth it cause the GM, but i disagree and think they probably havent even tried it yet. Thanks for the review my friend! Subscribed! ❤
Late to the party... but the main thing is not the background blur, both f2.8 and f4 looks very similar over a 100mm and for video it doesn't really matter with dual base ISO... but for photos if you shoot f2.8 ISO 3200 vs f4 ISO 6400 you literally double the ISO with losing 2 stops of light and that is something you gotta consider when you buy this lens. (The amount of noise you create). Although you can clean up noise or make the background more blurry with Lightroom nowadays... so yeah, definitely worth it for a $1000 less. P.s.: I skipped both of these and went with the Tamron 35-150 f2-2.8 instead.
Think you could shoot a basketball game (indoors) with this?
With this price point, I would be intrigued to see how things line up between the F4 G II vs the first gen F2.8 GM.
Would be awesome if this lens has a aperture ring but nevertheless I’m really tempted to add this to my kit. (Already have a 24-70 Sigma and finding me often stuck on the long end)
Oh and really great video! The best review of the lens I’ve seen so far. 🔥
Hello!!, I've that at 200mm the GMII Is much sharper (only pictures, not video), can you tell me if is this true or not?
Thanks for the video. I’m considering adding this to my travel/walk around kit to use on the A7CR. I already own the FE 70-200/2.8 GM II and us it either my A1 or A7RV. So we will see. Take care.
I just picked up this lens today because of its weight, size and, most important for me, the macro capability. I have a 1.4x teleconverter, so I can get 0.7x magnification. I will choose this lens over the 2.8 any day.
Oh so glad you like it!
@@SidneyDiongzon I'm also thinking about getting a 2x teleconverter so the lens will become 140-400mm zoom and 1:1 macro in a very compact size!!!
Loved getting to try out this lens, I was super impressed! Vid turned out great!!!
Thanks dude! Great shots as always!
This lens + the 24mm f/1.4 GM in my bag and I'm good to go.
This is exactly what I have!
@@robertjpayne60 I have a A7R V paired with a 24mm F1.4 GM and I am looking at getting this lens as well :)
I’m looking at this lens or the 2.8 mkii and I can’t make up my mind.
Just saw the Magnolia Silos in the background! You were in Waco!! Awesome. 🤩
I LOVE THE SILOS
It's awesome as a Sony shooter, you have many options. Tamron 70-180mm F2.8 is awesome and this new addition, can't complain.
Nice vid. Any camera suggestions for this lens? A7R3 or A7M4?
Nice shots. All the best from Frankfurt/Germany, Daniel
I would definitely choose f/4 over f/2.8 for the weight and size benefit. It’s all a trade off!
Me too! It's way more functional than my f2.8 lens!
It’s interesting that this seems to be the consensus for this lens and yet the main comment from RUclipsrs on the Sony 20-70 f4 was that they wished they had f2.8 - despite the 20-70 being significantly smaller and lighter and offering that very versatile 20mm wide end.
For me, I’ll get the 20-70 / 70-200 f4 set and use the primes for lower light. 👍🏻
@@tokemyers9262 I have the 20-70mm. My complaint is that it's not 17/18mm instead, not that it's f/4.
@@tokemyers9262 Right on
did you try the lens on a crop like the 6600 or 6700?
Bought one. Love it!
you NAILED that Bee shot!
Thanks dude! It’s such an underrated lens so people will skip out
Without question, I would get the smaller lens
Isn't it like 114 degrees outside?
Looks cool bro
Time for you to sell your GM LOL......unless I was shooting a lot of night time photography with it for sure f4 seems like a win win and I would be more likely to bring it with me more being smaller. Great video as always!
I actually do like it better than my f2.8 lens!
At this price and size, I wish they made the focal range 50-200 or 70-280, even at the expense of losing the teleconverter compatibility and some macro capabilities, and kept the aperture ring like on all new G lenses.
70-180 tamron 2.8 !!
Amazing lens
I like how you conveniently made the portrait comparison a head and shoulders shot. If you want to see the benefit of f2.8 take some full body portraits between 70 and 135mm
You can get the exact same effect with the F4 and turn on the new Bokeh feature in lightroom 🤣
is that Benji the movie 2018 netflix?
Will it give it a pass and get 70-200 f2.8 II.
Oh yeah? Why so?
Whats that city? Looks very nice
This works in full frame, however in crop sensor cameras like a6000 series this lens is unusable, f4 on crop it's an f6 lens. So do not expect any bokeh on crop sensors.
You’re joking right? My best shots in this video was filmed on the a6700 with beautiful bokeh lol.
@@SidneyDiongzon😂😂😂
looking good i want to talk to you sir ji
Downtown McKinney is always a good idea.
Not a fan of the "extending" zoom - much prefer the internally contained zoom.
Its smaller to carry!
@@slurp3194 it's also the sign of a less sophisticated design which, until recently, was relegated to lower tier lenses. The mark ii here is selling for 70% more than the mark I and much closer to gm prices. Guess it's personal preference, but I wouldn't (and won't) pay that kind of premium for an extending zoom.
@4:03 cap
Too expensive. However, this is not GM. If it cost 10-15% more than the old 70-200/4, it would be OK.
You aren't even using the same framing in the comparison...
jeez this lense is 700 bucks too much
Camera gear is expensive haha
@@SidneyDiongzon this one especially
Why the loud music ? I am here for a review not a music festival.
Then move along twinkle toes 🤷🤷
Its a cool lens. But yea if you can afford the 2.8 MKii id spring for that. Maybe you cant tell the difference in bokeh but dont forget the tradeoff having to raise your iso and introduce noise or lower your shutter speed and… well yah know 🫨
That may be the case a few years ago, but ISO performance on newer cameras are so much better. Slap this lens on a A7S3, FX3, or ZV-E1 and you don't have to worry about noise
@@SidneyDiongzon yea definitely on the lower megapixel bodies. Youre right about that brother. Im here on the 61mp big bad A7RV. Anything about 2500 is risky behavior in my humble opinion.
Great video, keep up the good consistent work.
@@SidneyDiongzona7 iii?