Last night I went with it to cover a 15th birthday party, the light was awful (at night, some weak yellow light bulbs) so his f4 hurt a little to focus, however together with the camera and a good balance it was possible, using the flash to reflect and illuminate the lenses well I was able to get amazing photos for 95% of the shots I took. If it had been f2.8 at least it would be perfect, but the tracking capabilities, the speed of focusing and its zoom make it perfect for many situations.
The ability to use the 1.4x and 2.0x extender is a big deal to me. This was one of the reasons I sold my old 70-200 f4 and picked up the 2.8 Mark II. I also like the "Macro". It is a "good enough" "macro" for how I would use it. I also like the faster AF system as sometimes shoot with my A1 - especially with sports. Part of me would have preferred an internal zoom but I lived with 100-400 lenses for enough years and never had issues with them so I can also live with this. And it will work better in my lightweight kit. I am actually glad if they in fact do not include a tripod collar. I will very likely wait for and aftermarket model that is built to be used with an Arch-Swiss clamp.
This is simply amazing from Sony. My favourite 70-200 - excellent image quality and rendering. Decisions made by Sony are very practical for photographers.
you mentioned pairing it with the 20-70/4.0G lens, I think it would also go very well with the established 24-105/4.0G, my favorite all around travel lens
I was thinking the same thing. I sold my 24-105 to get the 20-70 f2.8 Mark II which I do love. But when I want to go light I miss the 24-105. I am hoping they will bring out a 24-105 Mark II at some point.
Plus if you're in a situation where you frequently want like 55-85, having to swap lenses all the time because you have no overlap would get old. 24-105 definitely seems like a good idea.
External zoom hurts me inside. But it is pretty smol when collapsed so that's a good consolation prize. It was time for the gen 1 to go. Question: How do you handled being asked about embargo'd products if someone sees you with them in public?
Chris will use his forbidden technique, a talk no jutsu which is changing every conversation in 100 meters radius into fly fishing topic. The drawback is it consumes Jordan's sanity like a vampire bat.
While I already updated my version one 70-200/2.8 GM to the GM II in this June 2024 I added this small new 70-200/4 MACRO G OSS II to pair with my A7CR and A7CII it it seems perfect for travel and walking around. Only have had it for a few hours but it’s already impressed me. Thank for the video. Take care.
Ehhh, not a fan of the extendo-zoom. I appreciate that it makes things smaller, but the original f/4 wasn't all that big to begin with. It also makes dust and moisture ingress easier. I'm also really disappointed it doesn't come with a tripod collar in the box. I do like the sound of the macro capabilities, as well as the ability to use teleconverters. Chris, DMF = direct manual focus, not dynamic. Also, when you have zoom lenses, is there a chance you could do some measurements towards the center of the zoom range as well? Something like 135mm, in this case.
Was planning to downgrade from the GMII if it was TC compatible... But that price gap isn't close enough to do so. Puzzling but I guess it's nice to have justification to stick with the better lens lol
Interesting to see the different approaches being taken by the three companies: Canon and Sony with f2.8 and f4.0 alternatives, Nikon with a reduced focal length, lower spec f2.8 alternative to the pro f2.8. I don't think there is a bad lens between them. So, as long as you can pay the 1500 to 2000 Euro for the "cheap" versions, I say with some irony, the consumer wins. I like that Sony didn't follow Canon's very questionable choice of not making their 70-200 teleconvertor compatible (yes, Jared, we know you hate TCs...).
It's quite an expensive lens - at least in Europe. 2000€ for an f4 is a lot of money. On the other hand it seems sharp and has a fast autofocus. But I prefer faster lenses like the Tamron 35-150mm f2.0f2.8.
Sony is killing it right now. I remember when the NEX range was announced and the CEO said the were all in on developing the best autofocus system. They’ve succeeded, but they have also become one of the best lens makers in the world at the same time. Quite an achievement.
I always wonder just how necessary lens hoods are. This is the 3rd review I've seen on this lens but teh first with the hood on and by adding the hood, it doesn't even look like the lenses in the previous reviews. Certainly changes how "compact" the lens seems.
Thanks for the review. Though longer than a Canon It is still a great Sony lens for those who wishes to have Sony native lens with OIS and 30fps (would a A1 owner buy this over GM II?). Personally I still prefer the versatility of the combination setup of a Tamron 35-150mm f/2.0-f/2.8 and the Sony A7R V's 60MP/26MP (super sampling sharper than 33MP A7 IV image) and skip carrying all the extra weight or the need of swapping prime/macro/zoom lenses. Maybe a small and lightweight 16-28mm or 16-35mm in a small backpack/sling or even a full size flash that is able to manufacture light when I needed which is much more useful at all time. Tamron 35-150mm f/2.0-f/2.8 focal range with Full-Frame and APS-C mode: @ f/2.0 Total available range: 35mm-58.5mm (FF range: 35mm-39mm + APS-C range: 52.5mm-58.5mm) @ f/2.2 Total available range: 40mm-88.5mm (FF range: 40mm-59mm + APS-C range: 60.0mm-88.5mm @ f/2.5 Total available range: 60mm-118.0mm (FF range: 60mm-79mm + APS-C range: 90.0mm-118.0mm) @ f/2.8 Total available range: 80mm-225.0mm (FF range: 80mm-150mm + APS-C range: 120.0mm-225.0mm)
Awesome stuff!.. 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..
Really need something new to test lenses for... all mayor brands these days have optically pretty much perfect glass and the AF is quick... i was searching quite a lot for anything that could be wrong these
I can't imagine people buying this lens over the Tamron 70-180mm f/2.8, unless they are people like me who intend mainly to shoot macro with it, probably with a teleconverter or with an aps-c camera.
@@DrWurzeli close-up macro capabilities is why I still want to buy it anyways. But at this price point I probably won't recommend portrait photographers to get it (presumably any one would ask me this kind of question) What's wrong with the Tamron bokeh though?
I agree that Tamron might be a better choice strictly for a faster universal telephoto (though 35-150 f/2-2.8 would be much better choice for that, a one size fits all). But that Sony offers macro, TC compatibility (a venture into wildlife/birding), OSS, a bit better focus/sharpness, smaller/lighter. It's just more versatile as a 70-300 telephoto (or 70-400 with 2x TC) + constant macro at all of these focal ranges (great compression, more working distance).
I shoot mainly wildlife and sport. I compared the Sony to the V2 version of the Tamron 70-180 and to me the more reliable autofocus of the Sony was the main deciding factor. Other smaller factors were the capability to use TCs, the slightly smaller and lighter package and the slightly longer reach. The downside is obviously the darker aperture of the Sony, but the vast majority of images I take with this lense are in broad daylight at f/5.6 - f/8 anyway. I waited for a deal and I eventually got it at 1.600 EUR incl. tax.
Thank you for the informative video! :-) This lens would also make a great travel telephoto zoom for the Alpha 6600, possibly with the 1.4x teleconverter to make it suitable for macro as well! What do you think? :-) Best regards
I'll be rocking the 20-70mm f/4 + this 70-200 f/4 macro when I go to India and Nepal. Only concern is that the white lens will make me stand out, when i just want to blend into the crowd.
I have the old version of this lens, and it’s my only lens.. but this lens suits my needs literally perfectly. But I just can’t justify buying a 2nd lens which is basically the same one but slightly better. Especially since there’s nothing wrong with my current one.
Other reviewers are implying, if not stating categorically, that the tripod collar is included. Also, the lens has 4 xd motors, not two as stated in the video. There are 2 xd motors on each of two lens groups. Very strange review.
Here in the U.K., it’s around £1700. Which I guess means around $1700 to $1900 in the USA. I personally think is around £300 more than I’d pay. Especially without aperture ring or some kind of zoom clutch. The zoom lock wasn’t explained, so I’m anticipating it only locks at the 70mm.
Really bummed by all these lenses not being internally focusing anymore. The ability to keep dust out due to not extending when zooming is far more useful than saving an inch or two inside a bag.
@@oversemper Yeah, nearly $3k is waaaay too much. Just wish this one kept the internal focusing, especially as bad as Sony is with it's dust/weather sealing.
Yes, price difference is quite big, if you consider an f4 to f2.8. But they are different beasts. On one side, you have the 1stop extra. The other, Macro, fast focus, great sharpness and contrast from f4 with minimum fall of and TC that brings 1:1 macro, is really interesting! If the price is apropriate to what it gives, I'm not sure! I like however that sony isn't doing what everybody else is doing!
@@travis8665 don’t be so narrow-minded - we’re talking here about having a backpack full of gear, not carrying this one lens only; plus, 1699usd is definitely too much for this lens
OK, stop me if I'm the only one here, but didn't this episode seem like a list of "eh, it's okay," or minor complaints, followed by "this is a great lens?"
I despise the trend away from internal focusing lenses. The brilliant handling experience of internal focusing lenses is being scarificed on the altar of compactness. *sigh*
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.
"Macro" has been used by manufacturers through the ages as a marketing term for "reasonably OK image quality when focusing close to MFD" or "can focus a bit closer than most lenses of this type". I have an SLR Sigma 24mm "macro" (because it can focus 30cm away) and I used to have a Tamron 70-300mm "macro" (because images at 2m away weren't awful).
I was excited to hear about this lens, but there are three significant reasons why I wouldn’t buy it. 1: A lack of zoom clutch control or zoom lock at different focal lengths is a major oversight for such an expensive G lens and zoom creep is a major frustration after a while. I really wanted that or the internal zoom at least . 2: I really hate the absence of an aperture ring. It’s a personal thing, I know. But I hate the dial being on the body. And 3, the price. That’s the biggest problem with buying into Sony. The lenses are just way too expensive.
If price is the biggest problem, aren't other brands worse since they don't have third party options available? Tamron 70-180 is a great option if price is an issue.
this is not a reviews this is just a sales pitch like everything else what comes from this guy. wouldn't it be interesting to know how it performs compared to the GMII which is not that much more expansive or how it performs compared to the older version ?
Although sharper, faster AF, and can do Macro, this new f4 has a TERRIBLY loose focus ring and uneven resistance on the zoom. I recently uploaded a video on my channel that highlights the poor build quality. The original mark 1, IMHO, is still awesome!!
@@SPDTDL I tested the floor model at BH Photo, my new copy, and another test model at Milford Photo (CT). All exhibit the same sloppy focus ring as described by Chris in this review. The best focus ring of any 70-200 zoom is on the original Sony F4. Bar none.
That doesn't seem that close for being labeled a macro? I can get pretty close also with my rf 70-200 2.8 and also really close with my rf 100-500 I done amazing bee macro stuff with them. And canon doesn't even labal them as macro.
Way overpriced for what it is. It’s also not a macro lens if the bare lens isn’t 1:1. This is just a way for Sony to sell a lens and tc bringing the price over 2k. I will stick with my 100-400, 70-200GMii and 90mm true macro lens. This lens should be no more than $1200 imo
the aperture ring is a strange omission considering almost every other new Sony G lens has one
I did not expect this to be launched today, it's very high on my list, especially with Macro!
Last night I went with it to cover a 15th birthday party, the light was awful (at night, some weak yellow light bulbs) so his f4 hurt a little to focus, however together with the camera and a good balance it was possible, using the flash to reflect and illuminate the lenses well I was able to get amazing photos for 95% of the shots I took.
If it had been f2.8 at least it would be perfect, but the tracking capabilities, the speed of focusing and its zoom make it perfect for many situations.
The ability to use the 1.4x and 2.0x extender is a big deal to me. This was one of the reasons I sold my old 70-200 f4 and picked up the 2.8 Mark II. I also like the "Macro". It is a "good enough" "macro" for how I would use it. I also like the faster AF system as sometimes shoot with my A1 - especially with sports. Part of me would have preferred an internal zoom but I lived with 100-400 lenses for enough years and never had issues with them so I can also live with this. And it will work better in my lightweight kit. I am actually glad if they in fact do not include a tripod collar. I will very likely wait for and aftermarket model that is built to be used with an Arch-Swiss clamp.
f/4 zoom macro is like the perfect product photograph lens I've always wanted.
This is simply amazing from Sony. My favourite 70-200 - excellent image quality and rendering. Decisions made by Sony are very practical for photographers.
bra u arent even taking aperature raisng and intergrity readingi nto the count
you mentioned pairing it with the 20-70/4.0G lens, I think it would also go very well with the established 24-105/4.0G, my favorite all around travel lens
I was thinking the same thing. I sold my 24-105 to get the 20-70 f2.8 Mark II which I do love. But when I want to go light I miss the 24-105. I am hoping they will bring out a 24-105 Mark II at some point.
Plus if you're in a situation where you frequently want like 55-85, having to swap lenses all the time because you have no overlap would get old. 24-105 definitely seems like a good idea.
It does come with a tripod foot ring
@@richardgeorge3115that’s what I thought
External zoom hurts me inside. But it is pretty smol when collapsed so that's a good consolation prize. It was time for the gen 1 to go.
Question: How do you handled being asked about embargo'd products if someone sees you with them in public?
"this is not the lens you are looking for" _waving the hand in the air_
Chris will use his forbidden technique, a talk no jutsu which is changing every conversation in 100 meters radius into fly fishing topic. The drawback is it consumes Jordan's sanity like a vampire bat.
@@Durio_zibethinus I think you have nailed it. 🎣
While I already updated my version one 70-200/2.8 GM to the GM II in this June 2024 I added this small new 70-200/4 MACRO G OSS II to pair with my A7CR and A7CII it it seems perfect for travel and walking around. Only have had it for a few hours but it’s already impressed me. Thank for the video. Take care.
Ehhh, not a fan of the extendo-zoom. I appreciate that it makes things smaller, but the original f/4 wasn't all that big to begin with. It also makes dust and moisture ingress easier.
I'm also really disappointed it doesn't come with a tripod collar in the box. I do like the sound of the macro capabilities, as well as the ability to use teleconverters.
Chris, DMF = direct manual focus, not dynamic. Also, when you have zoom lenses, is there a chance you could do some measurements towards the center of the zoom range as well? Something like 135mm, in this case.
I wish you guys would test Sony lenses for video.
Was planning to downgrade from the GMII if it was TC compatible... But that price gap isn't close enough to do so. Puzzling but I guess it's nice to have justification to stick with the better lens lol
Interesting to see the different approaches being taken by the three companies: Canon and Sony with f2.8 and f4.0 alternatives, Nikon with a reduced focal length, lower spec f2.8 alternative to the pro f2.8. I don't think there is a bad lens between them. So, as long as you can pay the 1500 to 2000 Euro for the "cheap" versions, I say with some irony, the consumer wins. I like that Sony didn't follow Canon's very questionable choice of not making their 70-200 teleconvertor compatible (yes, Jared, we know you hate TCs...).
Will wait to see comparisons with Tamron 70-180/2.8.
It's quite an expensive lens - at least in Europe. 2000€ for an f4 is a lot of money. On the other hand it seems sharp and has a fast autofocus. But I prefer faster lenses like the Tamron 35-150mm f2.0f2.8.
Or the Tamron 70-180 F2.8
Does the 70-180 have stabilization?
@@POVwithRC - it doesn’t have IS. I’ve found I don’t need it for outdoor sports
@@SDK2006b Sounds like cope to me.
@@POVwithRC - shutter speeds are at least 1/500, even faster at F2.8. Lens IS is doing nothing at these speeds.
Thanks! As always a most interesting and informative well designed review.
Sony is killing it right now. I remember when the NEX range was announced and the CEO said the were all in on developing the best autofocus system. They’ve succeeded, but they have also become one of the best lens makers in the world at the same time. Quite an achievement.
I always wonder just how necessary lens hoods are. This is the 3rd review I've seen on this lens but teh first with the hood on and by adding the hood, it doesn't even look like the lenses in the previous reviews. Certainly changes how "compact" the lens seems.
The intro is outstanding!
Has someone tried the teleconverter on it? Is it useful or dies it get blury or noisy?
Thanks for the review. Though longer than a Canon It is still a great Sony lens for those who wishes to have Sony native lens with OIS and 30fps (would a A1 owner buy this over GM II?). Personally I still prefer the versatility of the combination setup of a Tamron 35-150mm f/2.0-f/2.8 and the Sony A7R V's 60MP/26MP (super sampling sharper than 33MP A7 IV image) and skip carrying all the extra weight or the need of swapping prime/macro/zoom lenses. Maybe a small and lightweight 16-28mm or 16-35mm in a small backpack/sling or even a full size flash that is able to manufacture light when I needed which is much more useful at all time.
Tamron 35-150mm f/2.0-f/2.8 focal range with Full-Frame and APS-C mode:
@ f/2.0 Total available range: 35mm-58.5mm (FF range: 35mm-39mm + APS-C range: 52.5mm-58.5mm)
@ f/2.2 Total available range: 40mm-88.5mm (FF range: 40mm-59mm + APS-C range: 60.0mm-88.5mm
@ f/2.5 Total available range: 60mm-118.0mm (FF range: 60mm-79mm + APS-C range: 90.0mm-118.0mm)
@ f/2.8 Total available range: 80mm-225.0mm (FF range: 80mm-150mm + APS-C range: 120.0mm-225.0mm)
Awesome stuff!.. 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..
Can I use this macro lens for wildlife Safari photos and videos? Or which lens is good for wildlife
Really need something new to test lenses for... all mayor brands these days have optically pretty much perfect glass and the AF is quick... i was searching quite a lot for anything that could be wrong these
I can't imagine people buying this lens over the Tamron 70-180mm f/2.8, unless they are people like me who intend mainly to shoot macro with it, probably with a teleconverter or with an aps-c camera.
People seem to love the Tamron but the focus breathing and ugly bokeh make it a no-go for me.
there is no image stabilization on the Tamron as well + closeup quality is a clear win for Sony
@@DrWurzeli close-up macro capabilities is why I still want to buy it anyways. But at this price point I probably won't recommend portrait photographers to get it (presumably any one would ask me this kind of question) What's wrong with the Tamron bokeh though?
I agree that Tamron might be a better choice strictly for a faster universal telephoto (though 35-150 f/2-2.8 would be much better choice for that, a one size fits all). But that Sony offers macro, TC compatibility (a venture into wildlife/birding), OSS, a bit better focus/sharpness, smaller/lighter. It's just more versatile as a 70-300 telephoto (or 70-400 with 2x TC) + constant macro at all of these focal ranges (great compression, more working distance).
I shoot mainly wildlife and sport. I compared the Sony to the V2 version of the Tamron 70-180 and to me the more reliable autofocus of the Sony was the main deciding factor. Other smaller factors were the capability to use TCs, the slightly smaller and lighter package and the slightly longer reach. The downside is obviously the darker aperture of the Sony, but the vast majority of images I take with this lense are in broad daylight at f/5.6 - f/8 anyway. I waited for a deal and I eventually got it at 1.600 EUR incl. tax.
you guys forgot to mention the video aspects as focus breathing, parfocal ability, MF experience
When paired with the A7RV, this lens will be amazing for film scanning (probably an overkill).
I think the 90mm macro would be better suited for that task
Thank you for the informative video! :-) This lens would also make a great travel telephoto zoom for the Alpha 6600, possibly with the 1.4x teleconverter to make it suitable for macro as well!
What do you think? :-)
Best regards
I'll be rocking the 20-70mm f/4 + this 70-200 f/4 macro when I go to India and Nepal. Only concern is that the white lens will make me stand out, when i just want to blend into the crowd.
Yeah, it is not exactly a street lense 😀
Lens-wrap.
Thanks! How does it compare with the new Nikon 70-180/2.8 non- S lens?
would you choose it over the f 1/2.8 sigma?
Still Tamron 70-180 for me, faster 2.8 and cheaper.
Yeah, that Tamron has it's faults for sure. But so does this, for up to $800 more.
I have the old version of this lens, and it’s my only lens.. but this lens suits my needs literally perfectly. But I just can’t justify buying a 2nd lens which is basically the same one but slightly better. Especially since there’s nothing wrong with my current one.
How is the focus breathing?
How the sharpness compare to 70-200 OSS G f4 ?
I prefer the old F4.0 internal zoom. Just one less thing to fail. But I understand the need for a compact form factor.
Funny thing: It's only compact when it's not extended. Fully zoomed in it's actually longer than the old one...
@@marco_prolo agreed, but compact for storage in your camera bag is arguably the main advantage.
Macro
Love your reviews. Thank you.
I'd love to watch a shootout of 70-200 f/4 lenses. I love my RF version but I'm considering going to Sony, so a comparison would be cool.
in the LoCA example i ignored the caption and though... HOLY SHIT SONY WHYYYY puhhh i'm a L-Mount shooter... but that really scared me
I have the 70-200 gm version I and the 90 mm macro. Do you think it would be worth it to sell both and buy this new 70-200 f/4 macro?
It's not as sharp as the 90mm macro. If you shoot 1:1 macro with flash, keep the 90mm.
@@taylorhickman84 Thank you, that's one thing I was worried about!
Other reviewers are implying, if not stating categorically, that the tripod collar is included. Also, the lens has 4 xd motors, not two as stated in the video. There are 2 xd motors on each of two lens groups. Very strange review.
It’s included. I have this lens.
It is a prototype model….
This 70-200 F4 lens and the really outstanding 20-70 F4 is an incredible combination.
hi? is this lens is better than 24-105 f4 ?
Should i switch?
Probably...but I would never sell my 24-105 G...ever
Is it parfocal? Love the size!
Brockhurst did some parfocal testing. It's close but no cigar.
@@POVwithRC rad. Thank you!
Do u got ur silver button
Excellent. What do we know about the price?
Here in the U.K., it’s around £1700. Which I guess means around $1700 to $1900 in the USA. I personally think is around £300 more than I’d pay. Especially without aperture ring or some kind of zoom clutch. The zoom lock wasn’t explained, so I’m anticipating it only locks at the 70mm.
@@Jagrajagra It only locks at the 70mm position according to Dustin Abbot
2000€ in Germany
Really bummed by all these lenses not being internally focusing anymore. The ability to keep dust out due to not extending when zooming is far more useful than saving an inch or two inside a bag.
f2.8 is internal which comes at a price.
@@oversemper Yeah, nearly $3k is waaaay too much. Just wish this one kept the internal focusing, especially as bad as Sony is with it's dust/weather sealing.
I would have liked to know how it compers to Tamron's 70-180. Exact same size, barely lighter.
And the price! 🙄
I'd go with the Tamron everyday.
Yes, price difference is quite big, if you consider an f4 to f2.8. But they are different beasts. On one side, you have the 1stop extra. The other, Macro, fast focus, great sharpness and contrast from f4 with minimum fall of and TC that brings 1:1 macro, is really interesting! If the price is apropriate to what it gives, I'm not sure! I like however that sony isn't doing what everybody else is doing!
but there is no optic stabilization
Price please?
$1700 for a 70-200/4. I don't know, bruh, that's a lot for the "slow" 70-200.
Really disappointed they didn't match Canon's 70-200's weight... which is 100g lighter. And where's the aperture ring?
Sony's got 1:2 macro and can use extenders. 100g isn't a big deal.
Just go to a gym. If 100g makes a difference you might need to really get into training.
@@travis8665 don’t be so narrow-minded - we’re talking here about having a backpack full of gear, not carrying this one lens only; plus, 1699usd is definitely too much for this lens
Then don't buy it. Get something that suits your needs.
Go buy the canon then
Awesome!
do i already see some dust in it at 2m44?
I like how the cats didn’t have cats eyes but the bokeh did
OK, stop me if I'm the only one here, but didn't this episode seem like a list of "eh, it's okay," or minor complaints, followed by "this is a great lens?"
I despise the trend away from internal focusing lenses. The brilliant handling experience of internal focusing lenses is being scarificed on the altar of compactness. *sigh*
8:00 Like the water bottle. ;-)
How does it compare with third-party lens such as Tamron 70-300mm?
I think the Sony is clearly better, but also at more than twice the price.
Sold!!
Ongoing pet peeve (PetaPeeve?): It's “damped”, not “dampened.” Dampened is what Chris's hair gets when he slips and falls in a trout stream.
Looking at Cat soy at 5:59 and at the cat's eye at 6:14
You are all of you lining up to convince me to buy it!
As of 12/24/23 still resisting.
Im going to resist from today onwards...until I get the $$$$
Hoping for a small G master version in 2 years
They just released the 2.8 GM not to king ago. I don’t think they will release a f4 GM.
This is that lens.
Lumix s II shines in this video. There is huge difference in dynamic range between GH6 and S II 👌🏻
Looks like I need to start a gofundme page.
The Holy Grail is Here.
Guys Realistic I rarely use less than f 5.6
I am not convinced this 700-200 F4 can compete against the Tamron 35-150 f2-2.8, which is just $200 more.
It's much smaller and lighter, which for many people (including myself) is important.
Sure about the teleconverter? The predecessor couldn't do that.
They are compatible with this lens.
Yes. It works with both teleconverters and as a bonus, it gets 1:1 macro when you use the 2x. - Jaron
6:07 don't you mean "Cat Soy" effect? 🙃
This would be a good lens for U$1200 tops, seems overpriced for an f4
maybe but this one can also 0.5 macro at ALL focal ranges....
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.
I miss being a Peta-pixy :( Stop censoring Chris!
I love how everyone is just simply redefining the word "macro" because Sony told them to. It's "macrish."
"Macro" has been used by manufacturers through the ages as a marketing term for "reasonably OK image quality when focusing close to MFD" or "can focus a bit closer than most lenses of this type". I have an SLR Sigma 24mm "macro" (because it can focus 30cm away) and I used to have a Tamron 70-300mm "macro" (because images at 2m away weren't awful).
@@MarcelVolker As we all know, 472 wrongs don't make a right. 🤦
In which Chris finds the sketchiest mattress
@cameraconspiracies is gonna be all over that for his wildlife videos.
❤❤❤❤
"Peta pixel views" That's not a rhyme or a pun. :(
RIP Internal zoom.
Catsoy effect. 🐾
I was excited to hear about this lens, but there are three significant reasons why I wouldn’t buy it. 1: A lack of zoom clutch control or zoom lock at different focal lengths is a major oversight for such an expensive G lens and zoom creep is a major frustration after a while. I really wanted that or the internal zoom at least . 2: I really hate the absence of an aperture ring. It’s a personal thing, I know. But I hate the dial being on the body. And 3, the price. That’s the biggest problem with buying into Sony. The lenses are just way too expensive.
Can't have everything for nothing, my friend.
If price is the biggest problem, aren't other brands worse since they don't have third party options available? Tamron 70-180 is a great option if price is an issue.
this is not a reviews this is just a sales pitch like everything else what comes from this guy. wouldn't it be interesting to know how it performs compared to the GMII which is not that much more expansive or how it performs compared to the older version ?
Why is he speaking so fast?
because he is rush. Time=money
100g heavier than the Canon. The 2.8 version is lighter than the Canon.
Although sharper, faster AF, and can do Macro, this new f4 has a TERRIBLY loose focus ring and uneven resistance on the zoom. I recently uploaded a video on my channel that highlights the poor build quality. The original mark 1, IMHO, is still awesome!!
You got a bad copy, mine is fine!
@@SPDTDL I tested the floor model at BH Photo, my new copy, and another test model at Milford Photo (CT). All exhibit the same sloppy focus ring as described by Chris in this review. The best focus ring of any 70-200 zoom is on the original Sony F4. Bar none.
@@tkarim my original F4 snapped in half. 😱
It really doesn't look like a Sony lens. Perhaps it was outsourced?
That doesn't seem that close for being labeled a macro?
I can get pretty close also with my rf 70-200 2.8 and also really close with my rf 100-500
I done amazing bee macro stuff with them.
And canon doesn't even labal them as macro.
Go by a canon then..
Intro is tiring to watch
Sony Fan Boys! DP Review used to review a multitude of brands. Sony Money!
Jesus, the pricing on this is AWFUL.
Way overpriced for what it is. It’s also not a macro lens if the bare lens isn’t 1:1. This is just a way for Sony to sell a lens and tc bringing the price over 2k. I will stick with my 100-400, 70-200GMii and 90mm true macro lens. This lens should be no more than $1200 imo
If it's over priced why u watching the review