Also take into consideration that you cannot use teleconverters on third party lenses, while it's possible on all of the Sony 70-200's. Also I wouldn't be so sure that the Sigma will perform better with it's AF. From my experience Sony has better focus motors in their lenses. But we'll see
I wanted to see for myself if I could’ve make do with it still. Naturally comparing the Sony and the sigma would almost be an apples to oranges comparison which is why I opted to bring it more out from my perspective why I chose to return it. Still for the 800€ price point I think it is a solid lens
I purchased the F4 in 2017. It is still a good lens. I chose it because of size and weight vs the 2.8 version. I would not even consider the Sigma 2.8 due to the fact that it is limited to 15fps regardless of what body you put it on. All non-Sony lenses suffer from this problem. Granted not all the Sony bodies will shoot faster than 15fps but in the future you can pretty much be sure that fps will go up as the sensor speed improves. As long as you don't need to shoot action I'm sure the Sigma will be great but as an A9ii shooter, I paid for 20fps and have no intention of leaving 5fps on the table. In for a penny in for a pound forget the Sigma and get the Sony. Buy once, cry once.
finally just scrapped all my sony gear, including this lens, gone back to canon, grabbed and R6 and 5dMkiv, range of canon L glass, best choice ive made much happier with my images and workflow, suffered too much with the drawbacks and flaws of sony for the last 5 years, feels home to be back on canon.
oh yeh sure ill elaborate on my experience of them, I've owned the A7, A7III, A7SII and A7riii@@networm64 1 - build quality is cheap and feels amateur at best 2 - the LCD resolutions is shocking 3 - button layout is poor 4 - image quality is sharp but flat, doesn't give great depth for some reason by this i mean, 2.8 doesn't appear the same as 2.8 on a dslr, DOF is just not there 5 - the native Sony lenses are extortionate, and the F4s are hilariously overpriced. 6 - they don't appear to work well with lens adapters, where as when you use for example with and RF-EF on canon just works flawlessly. 7 - colors aren't great natively, unrealistic much like Nikon in the greens and blues especially. there are probably more annoyances but those were my main ones.
@@MarcBirks 1- I hear this occasionally and can only attribute it to placebo effect 2- they all suck 3- poor layout? it's infinitely adjustable lol 4- bet it couldn't be seen in a blind test 5- comparable prices between the two manufacturers in question 6- I have no experience here 7- sony does struggle with color science, but to say unrealistic compared to Canon's way oversaturation make me chuckle. My main complaint w/ sony is brown colors, but I don't shoot portrait.
@@taylorhickman84 no placebo affect from me my man, I shot professionally with Sony day in day out for 5+ years, apart from lightening fast and very good AF, and impressive low light.... Don't miss any of the rest of it. My canon gear just does the job no drawbacks I'm happy to feel at home again and with kit that "just works" and delivers images I want. If sony works for you great good for you, it didn't work out for me no that its rubbish kit just wasn't the best imo.
@@MarcBirksI just don't get how someone can say the A7iii build quality is "cheap" when it has the same/similar weather sealing and materials as the cameras they praise. Some attribute it to the lower weight/size which tends to lessen "perceived value" which I get, but these cameras have been on the market long enough to prove they are just as robust. I will say some of the controls on the R5 feel better than the A1, others feel worse. As for auto focus, it appears Canon, Nikon and Sony are now on a level playing field which is awesome. I really wanted the R5 at the time of release, but short supply and the rolling shutter lead me to get an A1. Also I didn't like the location of the on/off switch. sounds kinda trivial but I found it an odd design choice to make powering on a two handed procedure. I'm happy with my choice, but there are a couple lenses in the Canon and Nikon space that leave me feeling a bit envious. Last time I shot Canon was in the SLR days, I want to try out Canon again but am waiting for them to release a high mp stacked sensor.
Also take into consideration that you cannot use teleconverters on third party lenses, while it's possible on all of the Sony 70-200's. Also I wouldn't be so sure that the Sigma will perform better with it's AF. From my experience Sony has better focus motors in their lenses. But we'll see
You're talking about 10 yr old technology. Of course the the new sigma would be better.
I wanted to see for myself if I could’ve make do with it still. Naturally comparing the Sony and the sigma would almost be an apples to oranges comparison which is why I opted to bring it more out from my perspective why I chose to return it.
Still for the 800€ price point I think it is a solid lens
I purchased the F4 in 2017. It is still a good lens. I chose it because of size and weight vs the 2.8 version. I would not even consider the Sigma 2.8 due to the fact that it is limited to 15fps regardless of what body you put it on. All non-Sony lenses suffer from this problem. Granted not all the Sony bodies will shoot faster than 15fps but in the future you can pretty much be sure that fps will go up as the sensor speed improves. As long as you don't need to shoot action I'm sure the Sigma will be great but as an A9ii shooter, I paid for 20fps and have no intention of leaving 5fps on the table. In for a penny in for a pound forget the Sigma and get the Sony. Buy once, cry once.
Thats a very valid point regarding high fps shooting 🙌
Sigma 70-200mm f/2.8 is just sooooo much better!
I agree got it last month and it’s been phenomenal
Got this at price 690 eiro. GREETINGS FROM LATVIA
Wow that’s honestly a good price. Definitely worth it for that! 🤩
Un sveicieni ari tev!
🤍
finally just scrapped all my sony gear, including this lens, gone back to canon, grabbed and R6 and 5dMkiv, range of canon L glass, best choice ive made much happier with my images and workflow, suffered too much with the drawbacks and flaws of sony for the last 5 years, feels home to be back on canon.
Drawbacks and flaws of Sony? And you even don't mention one? Lol
oh yeh sure ill elaborate on my experience of them, I've owned the A7, A7III, A7SII and A7riii@@networm64
1 - build quality is cheap and feels amateur at best
2 - the LCD resolutions is shocking
3 - button layout is poor
4 - image quality is sharp but flat, doesn't give great depth for some reason by this i mean, 2.8 doesn't appear the same as 2.8 on a dslr, DOF is just not there
5 - the native Sony lenses are extortionate, and the F4s are hilariously overpriced.
6 - they don't appear to work well with lens adapters, where as when you use for example with and RF-EF on canon just works flawlessly.
7 - colors aren't great natively, unrealistic much like Nikon in the greens and blues especially.
there are probably more annoyances but those were my main ones.
@@MarcBirks
1- I hear this occasionally and can only attribute it to placebo effect
2- they all suck
3- poor layout? it's infinitely adjustable lol
4- bet it couldn't be seen in a blind test
5- comparable prices between the two manufacturers in question
6- I have no experience here
7- sony does struggle with color science, but to say unrealistic compared to Canon's way oversaturation make me chuckle. My main complaint w/ sony is brown colors, but I don't shoot portrait.
@@taylorhickman84 no placebo affect from me my man, I shot professionally with Sony day in day out for 5+ years, apart from lightening fast and very good AF, and impressive low light.... Don't miss any of the rest of it. My canon gear just does the job no drawbacks I'm happy to feel at home again and with kit that "just works" and delivers images I want. If sony works for you great good for you, it didn't work out for me no that its rubbish kit just wasn't the best imo.
@@MarcBirksI just don't get how someone can say the A7iii build quality is "cheap" when it has the same/similar weather sealing and materials as the cameras they praise. Some attribute it to the lower weight/size which tends to lessen "perceived value" which I get, but these cameras have been on the market long enough to prove they are just as robust.
I will say some of the controls on the R5 feel better than the A1, others feel worse. As for auto focus, it appears Canon, Nikon and Sony are now on a level playing field which is awesome.
I really wanted the R5 at the time of release, but short supply and the rolling shutter lead me to get an A1. Also I didn't like the location of the on/off switch. sounds kinda trivial but I found it an odd design choice to make powering on a two handed procedure.
I'm happy with my choice, but there are a couple lenses in the Canon and Nikon space that leave me feeling a bit envious.
Last time I shot Canon was in the SLR days, I want to try out Canon again but am waiting for them to release a high mp stacked sensor.