I'm still wrapping my head around whether zooming to 400% (fairy dust results) and comparing 24 MP against 50 MP is even fair. I'd be more convinced to see a 100% zoom of equal size .jpg files from each camera.
@@vegaryfoss179 You see this for example at 6:13. That is a noticable difference side by side. Like Tony also states, most people wouldn't have anything to complain about the Fuji output and certainly not when you don't have the identical Sony result next to it. But it is not that you can't make great pictures with the Fuji setup, it is trying to compare different lenses. Also, of course you get only f/4 full frame background blur, but that is just part of the crop sensor setup (a big plus for landscape photography where you want a large depth of field without tiny aperture)
Well then pretend it isn't in the test. It's an APS-C camera and honestly doesn't belong with the others just for that fact alone, irrespective of megapixels.
I'm very glad the X-T4 and 50-140/2.8 were included, because I've shot with that exact setup, and I loved it. The fact that the others are better means that any of the four would make me happy. As a Canon shooter now, I'm considering picking up the RF 70-200 because my time with Fujifilm assured me that the 'equivalent f/4' looked great to me.
It's Tony Northrup, you should expect these non-logical, non-technical reviews. He's reviews photography equipment like someone who just started shooting. There is no technical data, like focus motor differences, breathing, etc.. his brand bias shines like the sun
Focus breathing (not focal length breathing) is not considered in your testing. All Nikon Z lenses are made considering minimum focus breathing for Hybrid videographers. This makes some of Nikkor glass heavier than their counterparts.
Which is a good reason not to buy into the Z system - adding a video feature by making glass heavier is a terrible trade off, especially considering that no client will care about focus breathing, ever.
0:52 the Z9 does not have an OLPF and we do not know if it has worse image quality than the Z7II, the Z9 sensor has a piece of glass in front of it with a protective and antiglare coating, this is to increase durability and possibly image quality, but it is not an OLPF.
You can control the aperture with the Nikon lens as well. Also the display is clearly a PLUS, how can it not be ?? Even if you can't see it, the rest of us can and find good use of it. We can even use it to actually see the optimal Dof (hyperfocal distance) in that display. I find it very strange that you are not able to actually point out the advantages of each lens, but still feel you have the right to point out a "winner". It's just sad :(
@@youknowwho9247 I think it's all BS anyway. Turning a ring on the lens or spinning a dial which is always at your fingertips is neither here nor there. It's not the film days now, so who cares about a physical aperture ring? The Fuji top dials are the slowest controls to access and totally useless if you shoot in scenarios where you're constantly changing aperture/shutter speed/ISO quickly while grabbing a moving subject.
One more thing the Nikon, Fuji and Sony lens can do the Canon can't is take Teleconverters, sure its a minor thing for some buyers but sometimes its nice to get a little extra reach without having to bring along another lens.
Try out cropping instead of tele-conversation. + Sharper + Faster due to the f stop you have to multiply the tele-conversation with + Cheaper 😜 Crop = free Tele-conversation = to expensive
@@constantinaichele5357 That might apply more for higher res bodies but 24mp FF bodies like the A7III where you have less megapixels to crop with I feel that the TC still has merit but to each their own.
I’m not a professional photographer by any means, but as a wildlife biologist I really want Canon to make RF 70-200s with internal zoom. Taking telescoping zoom lenses in the field is not ideal for me (I study crocodiles so lots of water, mud, dirt, and dust)
@Photo Bunny I have the Canon 100-400 as well & it’s a fantastic lens with great IQ, this is just my personal preference. If I had the option of internal zoom vs telescoping zoom I’d take internal every time
Then just get the Sony setup, it has exactly what you’re asking for and the Sony A1 is a better photo camera than the R5. Since you’re a wildlife biologist, I think you will benefit from the higher raw shooting speeds and faster sensor readout of the A1. Also there’s no overheating in video which also helps, overall the Sony setup seems better to me
@@youknowwho9247 Z7 II is the best landscape mirror less camera than R5 and A1, it might not have R5 like AF but A1 is totally different class. How can you compare.
@@souvik8335 How is the Z7 II a better landscape camera than the R5? They offer the same resolution and produce essentially identical images. Camera bodies don't matter for landscapes. Even an old D800E or a7R II would work just as well.
Tony… how about a follow up video on the Z9. You need to create an ‘I was wrong’ video focusing on the 120 fps claim when you insisted that this would be without AF. I think it’ll be taken positively by your viewers. Take care
Maybe it will be a 'Breaking News' dramatic removing of specs and hard background track video :o) "Nikon have added autofocus to the 120fps shooting mode" :o)
@Photo Bunny I don't disagree that some people will find it usable, but saying it's "more than enough" is subjective and I think it's a pretty big asterix to put on a pre-release marketing claim, so I still don't think Tony owes anyone a retraction
Uhhh.. you mean like when they do a full review, as opposed to the “I don’t have this and it’s being released tomorrow here’s my best guess” video? Goodness, you can’t actually be that aggrieved by what one guy speculated about a camera in a video one time. Can you?
@@njrtech z9 and a1 resolution is so close any sharpness differences would be lens dependent. So whatever Sony or Nikon lens is sharper will have sharper files with those cameras.
Man, I see so many salty people in the comments you guys amused me. The real message here is simple, there is no true winner. It's only what you prefer to invest your money in.If you bought one of the 3 latest full frame 70-200 2.8, you can be rest assured you are not getting anything less than the greatest as of this date. In fact, most modern lenses released in the last 10-20 years are not that far behind for anyone to produce high quality products for their business. So there is really no need to argue whether yours' the best or not. I'm no longer into 70-200 zooms since I found out that I rather use a prime for evertthing a 70-200 2.8 could do, and accomplish it with a 100-400. It's great to see Sony adding nicely to drive up the competition. Everything we have today, the Z9,R3,R5/R6, RF mount, Z mount can all be indirectly thanks to sony.
Exactly @jamesjin ! Companies do what they do inorder to stay in business and pay their employees. That doesn't mean we have to always want the latest and greatest. I'd go on a limb and say that maybe 80% of all users of these gear (me included) aren't using them to their full potential. Ergo, gear doesn't matter. I understand this video had a purpose, but its just another set of parameters to educate oneself on and not get salty here. Oh well. There will always be some of those online.
just one question: have you shot the nikon at 200mm or 70mm for the macro shots? afaik its better at 70mm because the minimun focus distance is under 0.5m at 70mm compared to about 1m at 200mm.
I've used the Nikon 200-500 for closeup shots. Great for chasing butterflies and dragonflies. You don't have to get real close. I just got the 70-200 Z lens and have not used it much. From the few pictures I have taken, I love the lens.
It is a completely useless test. He is testing a zoom lens without taking snapshots at multiple focal lengths. He has not mentioned the focal length in several of his slides.
@@Mr09260 Unless shooting with the $8,000+ highest end lenses, teleconverters don't get better image quality than cropping and enlarging in post, and you lose light using a TC.
@@longliveclassicmusic That is only the case with high resolution sensors. When shooting with something like the R6, R3, Z9, A9, etc. a 1.4x teleconverter on a good quality 70-200 always gives better results compared to cropping.
@@TechnoBabble I strongly disagree with this. I've done endless testing in this particular matter and no Nikon F-mount lens is worth putting a TC on over cropping in post.
There's a huge benefit to the compact size of the lens! At Dodgers Stadium (baseball for the non-baseball people), they have a max 6" lens limit. Normally, that would limit you to 85 mm and smaller. But the RF 70-200 is only 5.75 inches because it retracts. So you can get a 200mm game into Dodgers Stadium without a press credential! And by the time you get by security, it doesn't matter that you can extend it to 200 mm and take some amazing shots! Try to get any of the other 70-200 lenses into Dodgers Stadium and they'll make you trek all the way back to your car to leave the gear.
I wish the testing was more thorough. Other sites say the Sony 70-200 is a weak performer with backlight. One picture at one focal length doesn’t tell us anything.
By the way, you can adapt all these lenses to the Nikon, but you can't adapt any of the others to each other. So you can buy an autofocus sony E to Nikon Z adapter and use that G master on a Z9.
Not really sure the point of this video. If I own one system, I am staying with it, not changing brands because some youtuber says another brand is a little better.
@@tqlla the sony is 1:4 ratio but even my old 70-200VR1 Nikon lens on my D800 is 1:6 ratio. The newer VR2 and newer lens is 1:8 ratio. My D800 and lens cost a little over $1100 on the used market with
Panasonic has a 70-200mm f2.8 L-mount lens as well as a 70-200 f4 L-mount lens, both of which work with all of Panasonic's "S" cameras (S1, S1R, S1H, S5), but Panasonic is rarely included in your comparisons. I have to wonder why.
@@sexysilversurfer So? Northrup's whole deal is keeping people informed. It looks more like marketing when the "best sellers" are the always the focus. Innovation never comes from the top dogs. Baaa
I think in the sony backlight test, it looks like more of the light is blocked by the head, while more of it is peaking out on the others. Was the position a little different from camera to camera, because it looks that way in the images.
@@TonyAndChelsea but the lenses are different lengths. Ensuring the tripod is the same distance from the subject doesn't guarantee that the shots are identical, does it?
One thing you didn't touch on was video - Nikon have been clear that they have built their lenses for the Z to be true hybrids and are bigger to ensure they are premium for video as well as stills (0 chromatic aberration etc). I have 0 idea how well the other lenses do for this but that's my understanding on why Nikon haven't gone smaller/lighter. To be honest all 3 of the full frame lenses look like they will do a great job if you are in that system which is a win for consumers everywhere
Sony E-Mount was designed for the cinema line-up as well so most of their lenses are silent and fast. Especially now. Like you, I don't know where they all stand at, but the focus breathing area would be important for those who are doing video. The Sony and Nikon did well in that regard.
Sensor size does not effect aperture!! - ask an expert... I would much prefer the internal focusing at the expense of a longer lens. The Canon is not push-pull but is external focusing. Focus breathing is more of a problem for video shooters.
what?😂 no it affects the framing, you need wider mm to get the same framing which affects compression :) he never says its push-pull focusing, go somewhere else with your baseless nitpicking.
Anyone ever tried the Olympus 80-300 f2.8 (its 40-150 in m43)? You get an extra 100mm on the long end and a consistent f2.8 aperture (not as much depth of field as full frame but same light gathering). The lens doesn’t telescope either. I’ve used a lot of m43 lenses but never tried this one.
It's not the same light gathering. Crop factor 2 means that a 150f2.8 is equivalent to a 300f5.6 on a FF camera. Equivalent means same FOV, DOF and light gathering. The obvious cause for the difference in light gathering is the size of the front element. A bigger aperture collects more photons. Hence equivalent lenses have to have an identical front element diameter. Which is also why equivalent lenses on crop bodies are about as heavy as the FF equivalents.
@@daran0815 the light gathering of a f2.8 lens across different systems is the same. I have tested this. F 2.8 is an F 2.8. The only difference is depth of field but these sort of lenses do not have any issues with achieving shallow depth of field, even in M43.
@@billyblue689 This is plain wrong. The lens is a full frame 80-300 f/5.6 equivalent. He even mentions his other video explaining this exact issue. Go watch that before you keep arguing.
@@youknowwho9247 there seems to be some debate about this but from my trial and error experiments light gathering is the same across systems. Only depth of field changes.
@@billyblue689 There is no debate. This is a fact that everyone can test. Go shoot one frame on MFT at 25mm, f/2, 1/60 and ISO 400, then one on full frame at 50mm, f/4, 1/60, ISO 1600. They will have the same angle of view, depth of field and noise. qed
It would appear this video is old. Not sure why he didn't compare the medium format Fuji with the full frame offerings from Nikon, Canon and Sony. Would have been interesting to see a medium format camera would compare.
@@TheKentaurion what makes you think I’d be disappointed? I know there are trade offs with m4/3, but the combo I recommended has some of the traits Tony praised in the other systems. Don’t know the results until you run the experiment 🤷🏻♂️ I don’t have the money or connections to gather all the equipment Tony has there so I was hoping he’d throw curious m4/3 users a bone.
@@proksalevente I agree that larger sensored systems have become very competitive with a lot of the features that initially differentiated m4/3, but I am still curious. Remember, this video is more about how the workhorse 70-200mm lens works with the system rather than a sensor debate. Tony compared size/length (Panasonic is fairly small and internally focuses), sharpness (the Panasonic is quite sharp in my photos, but I want Tony's input), contrast (I'd like to see this compared in the same studio setup), bokeh (not great separation due to sensor size, but is quality good?), focus breathing and magnification (I'd like to see this evaluated) and starburst/highlight capability (guess I could go shoot in the sun...haha). Again, if I had the money, equipment or RUclips channel to perform the comparison, I would love to, but that's why I asked Tony if he could do it.
If you used Lightroom for all 3 cameras to develop the raw photos, for sure the Fuji lens pictures will be the worse. If you had used Capture One, your final results might have been different? Just wondering.
Good test but I have doubts in the contrast part, the real focus length is obvious different, and it will induce different strong light interference, make the test result totally different, u can see the canon is short focus length, more ambient strong light will come in, maybe u can try to equal the focus length and test again in contrast part.
Don't doubt it's ability to maintain contrast... It's easily the most impressive 70-200 I've shot with. It's sharpness and contrast are impeccable. The mk Ii represents a new level of IQ from a zoom
I love my Fuji zoom and wouldn’t know the difference if I hadn’t watched this video. And to pay double pretty much on top of an expensive body like the Sony-It gets overwhelming. I am happy with the Fuji but still appreciate all your reviews.
Pentax is out of the market today. Their K-1 had an incapable autofocus. Their lenses are an outdated (yet overpriced) lens museum, with the somewhat OK-ish ones being just old Tamrons, re-badged as Pentax lenses. Because Tamron doesn't make future new DSLR lenses any more, there's nothing more for Pentax to re-badge in the future. An investment into Pentax would be an investment into a dead-end, into the past. Let's consider them dead.
I was wondering how the Fuji will do with the 40mp XH2? Is it the lens or the body that made the difference? Thinking to get the 50-140 but really don’t want to carry that around and might get the 70-300 instead. I do like the F2.8 because I imagine myself taking photos of kids indoors as well as outdoors. And I like the shallow depth of field for these events.
Nothing here of any use other than from a curiosity perspective. No one would base any choice among these system based on any slight difference between these lenses. .
Hey Tony, if crop factor affects light gathered, how many stops brighter is my exposure on my 8x10 with my 4.5 lens than my full frame Nikon? Since it's many, many, many times larger and the shutter only goes to 1/500, I must need hella low speed film to not blow everything out.
Check sdp.io/crop. To answer your question, ISO is based on light per square unit of area, so a larger surface area gathers more total light but the image brightness (which is software gain) stays the same.
@@TonyAndChelsea exactly correct on brightness. so it actually had nothing to do with light gathered, but rather focus distance. That's why it affects DOF by one aperture stop, and not exposure. The way you present it is extremely misleading.
@@joshrock I think you are conflating things. Crop factor in regards to DoF is about distance (Tony made a video which explains that). However, APS-c sensors a lower signal to each pixel (unless the pixel density is matched on the FF equavilant). This means that in terms of signal to noise ratio when gain is applied to the sensor, APS-c sensors are around a stop more noisey (if all else is equal). Tony only uses crop factor to explain it because it makes it easier to visualise and understand. Two different mechanics but the result is technically similar for the end user. I agree that it's a slightly misleading way of representing it but it's a difficult concept to explain without taking up a good few minutes of the video (again, Tony has made videos about this all in the past). Perhaps he should say a stop noiser, rather than darker
@@SuttonBen so it's okay to misrepresent the science as long as it makes it easier to understand the end result? The problem is I've had to explain literally dozens of times to hundreds of people in my vintage lens group of 20k members that it doesn't affect exposure.
Fuji should be comapred with APS-C sensor cameras of this brands. :) A6600, M6, Z50 :) And better comparison for those FF were GFX 50 SII with GF lenses.
Possibly, but the comparison was supposed to be more focused on the lenses. The GFX system doesn't really have a 70-200mm f2.8. The 100-200mm f5.6 is more like a 79-158mm f4.4
GFX has pretty much the same sensor size as FF (the horizontal crop factor between those is only 1.2). So yes, GFX should be compared to FF (and not to "real" digital medium format, which has much larger sensors). On the other hand, GFX has no lenses which come close to typical FF lenses' application areas. For example, there is nothing like a GF 85-240mm F3.4, which would have been required to reach (or compete with) FF 70-200 F2.8 (in equivalence terms, applying the 1.2 crop factor for equivalence).
I tried canons rf 70-20 this weekend . Great image quality and fast af but you have to turn the zoom ring 200 turns and its not that smooth . Prefer my ef mark 2 any
The Nikon does have a multifunction programmable ring just like the Canon, except it has the oled panel that can show aperture. Not sure how you missed that?
@@truthseeker6804 Tony and Chelsea are reviewers. Jared Polin, Matt Granger, DPReview and others also not affiliated with Nikon have done extensive testing with the camera.
@@truthseeker6804 Hardly. It is real. It exists. It is available for pre-order. Its existence affects the buying decisions of many people. You may not be interested in seeing reviews but lots of folks are including me. It would be great to see how this z lens preforms on the flagship just as Sony's was tested on their flagship. Apples to apples. I would enjoy seeing Tony and Chelsea test the camera.
@@lsaideOK how is hr going to review of something that he doesn't have?. When it's actually attainable and he gets it and makes a review i would watch it. I agree I would like to see it compared to others when it can be gotten.
Big question: I have the fuji X-T3 with the 50-140 and I don't use it that much. Either I use the 16-55, or the 100-400, or the 56mm f/1.2. What subjects do you like to shoot with this type of lens? It's an odd focal range for me. Either I want wide angle, or I want telephoto, or I want a nice fast prime. The 50-140 usually gets left in the car.
Wedding ceremonies. You can't move as freely as you want because you'll block the guests' view. Solution? Shoot from a medium distance and use a zoom to get different compositions and keep frames interesting. => 70-200 is usually excellent. To be fair though, it does depend on the space you shoot in. Personally, I do a lot of church weddings and old churches tend to have very little light, so I need f/1.4 primes to not drown in noise.
So, let me get this straight. Portraits produced by the Fuji are perfectly fine unless you are pixel peeping and the lens can be picked up used in excellent condition for a third of the cost of the Sony, half the cost of the Nikon and 40% cheaper than the Canon, but.... What, again, was the point of ranking these lenses?
HI I am watching all your videos - thank you! I have a son in multiple sports and I love to take video and pictures - I see sony ranks the best, should i go all out? Or do you recommend not needing to? He usually plays outside on turf fields on long island and it is many times sunny or rainy- (soccer and lacrosse) - thanks in advance
I have a sony a7iii with mc-11. I have a small budget. Does anyone have any experience with using the Canon 70-200mm f/2.8 II with it and is it better performer than the Sony 70-200mm lens?
According to B&H they will start shipping on 12 December. I ordered mine within minutes of the Z9 being released and hope you are right but having read so much garbage about the Z9 I will trust the B&H date.
just why did you shoot the fuji at iso 80? and also it seems from your test that it had greater magnification. all this aside, it is n unfair comparison for the cropped fuji
I feel like the contrast test is super super sensitive to the exact position of that backlight. Ie my hypothesis is that if the light is even a single pixel closer to the eye, due to the cameras being in slightly different positions, then the contrast loss will be drastically different. Of course I haven’t set it all up to test but that’s how my experience with loss of contrast that results from harsh backlighting.
Don't doubt the results at all. Bear in mind most of the examples are viewed at magnifications that no-one will ever look at images at. It's obsessing over unnecessary detail in my opinnion. The real questions is 'how good, is good enough?'.....if you're not printing billboards, most of this is irrelevant. I'm betting most people watching this channel are enthusiasts who haven't realised that 95% of what makes great images has nothing to do with corner image sharpness. If you have an unlimited bank account - there are fantastic products out there. Go for it.
I cant believe its 2022 and you are still saying that the f stop equivalence has something to with “light gathering”. How many times have people pointed out to you that a 2.8 APSC lens is the same as 2.8 FF in terms of light BUT yes to get the same DOF you’d need to factor in the crop factor since you are 1) either standing further away at the same focal length OR you are using a smaller focal lens (e.g. 50mm instead of 75mm) and standing in the same spot. C’mon man.
@@youknowwho9247 It's still worthy of comparison, especially considering how much Tony keeps talking about physical sizes of the systems and in comparison with the Canon. The Panasonic at least has internal focusing. Tony just doesn't like Micro 4/3 anymore and won't include any content referencing their existence.
@@stever1514 Because MFT is dead. The vast majority of people don't care about that system. Making content about it would be a waste of his time. Why don't you make that comparison and put it on RUclips?
Obviously, all the full frame zooms here are fantastic. I'm really glad to see Sony's latest efforts, though. Their 35mm f/1.4 GM is the first Sony prime I've used (and now own) that is really up there with what I like best about recent primes from, say, Zeiss and Leica. It has contrast, character, and mostly depth. I've looked at a lot of other's posted photos from this Sony 70 - 200, and I see some of the same. The Sony looks like a brakethrough design to me, and probably all that you could ever want or need for either the A1 or the A7-R IV. Thanks for this review.
I really don't understand why an F2.8 APS-C lens was even put in this comparison, there's obviously no comparison. If it was F2 fair enough but it isn't. Also, AF performance wasn't compared, which would be probably more important than all the other technical factors (and Tony usually points this out: give me a better focusing lens rather than a sharper one).
Lens design has basically come to the point that the year the lens first came out determines how good it is. Younger by one year could be visibly better in some way. People used to say that cameras are for now and lenses are for the long term. Not any longer.
Yes to some extent that does seem to be true but why? Is it that competition drives R&D improvement or is it access to better tech - improvement in coatings etc? Sony Mk2 is certainly a good improvement over original and probably best here. Yet surely physics is physics and there is a limit to how much of an improvement can be made?
Am I the only one who doesn't like the Sony output. Tony mentions more detail but to me it just looks over sharpened and more 'digital' that the other brands.
The GFX isn't really a flag ship camera. It's solid for single shot stills, and that's it. Flagship cameras are usually the accumulation of the best of the best that that company has to offer.
I knew the new Sony was good and previously thought it probably matched the RF and Z mount versions but in this comparison its the clear winner for me. Makes me want one ever more now for my A7RIV.
I shot the Sony 70-200mm f2.8 GM (prior version) for a long time and it was sharper than the Nikon Z lens of the same specs. Just my individual results however. Also, I think a "winner" depends on how much of a priority you put on the different categories. For me personally, I appreciate and want sharpness more than the other considerations, thus I would rate the Canon #1. I can tell you that the Canon 100-500mm f2.8 RF IS USM is the sharpest lens in its class that Ive used. The wider lens mounts of Canon and Nikon I think will ultimately pan out to be a big advantage in the future development of lenses and IBIS technology. Thanks for the video!
I don't doubt there was significant copy variation with the old 70-200 2.8GM. I too had a very sharp copy of that lens, and have seen a friend's copy that was average at best. Lens lottery is a real thing
@@nrocha2466 Agree! I have in the last few months gone back to Sony full time and back to my trusty 70-200mm f/2.8 ver 1 GM lens. It is amazingly sharp and Im very happy with it. Every system has their +'s and -'s, you just have to figure out what is the most important to your shooting experience! :-)
The Fuji result doesn't surprise me if I'm being honest. I bought two copies of the 50-140mm and both were returned. I was very underwhelmed by both and was particularly disappointed with the sharpness with very notable softness at f2.8.
The Canon EF 70-200 f2.8 iii might be better if you prefer internal zooming lenses and don't mind a bit heavier lens. You could also potentially use the variable ND EF/RF adaptor if you do a lot of video.
Mr N used the Z7 ii, which is a production camera. Mr N has not been lent a Z9 yet, hence he has stated incorrect things regarding focus at 120fps and olpf. Will be interesting to see what Mr N makes of the image quality of the Z9. Traditionally, the nikon 'professional' body traded some image quality for speed and file size, being aimed at the paps and news gatherers who need to get the shot and get it to the news desk quickly. Compare the legendary D850 to the D6 for example. I think many peeps who have rushed to order the Z9 will get their fingers burnt when the Z8(50) comes along.
@@souvik8335 The OP said 'Basically you have tested the Nikon lens on a pre-production camera' which is an incorrect statement. I think the OP thinks Tony IS using the Z9, which he is NOT. Tony explains (at 0:51) that he is NOT using a Z9 (which are still pre-production) but IS using the production camera Z7ii In any case, who really cares? If you have a sony, you will buy the sony lens, if you have a canon, you will buy the canon lens. Only if you had no camera and specifically wanted a 70-200 lens, then maybe you would pick the best lens for your needs and then buy the camera brand to go with the lens.
@Tony & Chelsea Northrup, when testing the lenses for the size of the bobble head in the image were you lining up the lenses or the sensor line of the camera?
Actually, the Sony Alpha 1 is on back order and not available for most of the U.S. market. So, for most of us consumers, we can’t get one if there are none in stock. Thus, it doesn’t yet exist for me. The Canon R5 is also not in stock. I can only request a stock alert on the R5. The Fujifilm X-T4 is also not in stock. However, for a consumer, like myself, the Nikon Z7 II is in stock and available to ship from B& H Photo. For me, the only camera that actually exists is the Nikon Z7 II. Again, Nikon no longer has any competition. It’s the only brand I can buy and have it shipped out the same week. 😎
I'm still wrapping my head around whether zooming to 400% (fairy dust results) and comparing 24 MP against 50 MP is even fair. I'd be more convinced to see a 100% zoom of equal size .jpg files from each camera.
THIS!!!!
@@vegaryfoss179 You see this for example at 6:13. That is a noticable difference side by side. Like Tony also states, most people wouldn't have anything to complain about the Fuji output and certainly not when you don't have the identical Sony result next to it. But it is not that you can't make great pictures with the Fuji setup, it is trying to compare different lenses. Also, of course you get only f/4 full frame background blur, but that is just part of the crop sensor setup (a big plus for landscape photography where you want a large depth of field without tiny aperture)
Well then pretend it isn't in the test. It's an APS-C camera and honestly doesn't belong with the others just for that fact alone, irrespective of megapixels.
I'm very glad the X-T4 and 50-140/2.8 were included, because I've shot with that exact setup, and I loved it. The fact that the others are better means that any of the four would make me happy. As a Canon shooter now, I'm considering picking up the RF 70-200 because my time with Fujifilm assured me that the 'equivalent f/4' looked great to me.
It's Tony Northrup, you should expect these non-logical, non-technical reviews. He's reviews photography equipment like someone who just started shooting. There is no technical data, like focus motor differences, breathing, etc.. his brand bias shines like the sun
Focus breathing (not focal length breathing) is not considered in your testing. All Nikon Z lenses are made considering minimum focus breathing for Hybrid videographers. This makes some of Nikkor glass heavier than their counterparts.
Apparently the new Sony has also minimum focus breathing and is still lighter.
Which is a good reason not to buy into the Z system - adding a video feature by making glass heavier is a terrible trade off, especially considering that no client will care about focus breathing, ever.
The Nikon Z9 does not have an OLPF.
0:52 the Z9 does not have an OLPF and we do not know if it has worse image quality than the Z7II, the Z9 sensor has a piece of glass in front of it with a protective and antiglare coating, this is to increase durability and possibly image quality, but it is not an OLPF.
Ok we’ll test it soon.
You can control the aperture with the Nikon lens as well. Also the display is clearly a PLUS, how can it not be ?? Even if you can't see it, the rest of us can and find good use of it. We can even use it to actually see the optimal Dof (hyperfocal distance) in that display.
I find it very strange that you are not able to actually point out the advantages of each lens, but still feel you have the right to point out a "winner". It's just sad :(
that's Tony - he just doesn't want to see it
How is a digital display better than an actual physical aperture ring with a scale?
@@youknowwho9247 I think it's all BS anyway. Turning a ring on the lens or spinning a dial which is always at your fingertips is neither here nor there. It's not the film days now, so who cares about a physical aperture ring? The Fuji top dials are the slowest controls to access and totally useless if you shoot in scenarios where you're constantly changing aperture/shutter speed/ISO quickly while grabbing a moving subject.
One more thing the Nikon, Fuji and Sony lens can do the Canon can't is take Teleconverters, sure its a minor thing for some buyers but sometimes its nice to get a little extra reach without having to bring along another lens.
Try out cropping instead of tele-conversation.
+ Sharper
+ Faster due to the f stop you have to multiply the tele-conversation with
+ Cheaper 😜 Crop = free
Tele-conversation = to expensive
@@constantinaichele5357 That might apply more for higher res bodies but 24mp FF bodies like the A7III where you have less megapixels to crop with I feel that the TC still has merit but to each their own.
@@constantinaichele5357 do you realize you can also crop after Tele-conversion? That gives you more reach.
It's not minor. With a 1.4x TC, these lenses retain really good image quality and make a really useful 280/f4. With 2x may be not so good.
@@constantinaichele5357 not advisable with the r6. Just not enough detail available for cropping.
I’m not a professional photographer by any means, but as a wildlife biologist I really want Canon to make RF 70-200s with internal zoom. Taking telescoping zoom lenses in the field is not ideal for me (I study crocodiles so lots of water, mud, dirt, and dust)
it's a weather resistant lense
@Photo Bunny I have the Canon 100-400 as well & it’s a fantastic lens with great IQ, this is just my personal preference. If I had the option of internal zoom vs telescoping zoom I’d take internal every time
Then just get the Sony setup, it has exactly what you’re asking for and the Sony A1 is a better photo camera than the R5. Since you’re a wildlife biologist, I think you will benefit from the higher raw shooting speeds and faster sensor readout of the A1. Also there’s no overheating in video which also helps, overall the Sony setup seems better to me
@@lnz971 A lens with external zooming is never as weather resistant as a lens with internal zooming.
Nikon did awesome considering the Nikon setup you have there is like $4k cheaper.
Also $400 less price than Sony and Canon.
Most of the price difference comes from the body though, and the Z7 II isn't nearly as good a camera as the R5, let alone the a1.
@@youknowwho9247 Z7 II is the best landscape mirror less camera than R5 and A1, it might not have R5 like AF but A1 is totally different class. How can you compare.
@@souvik8335 How is the Z7 II a better landscape camera than the R5? They offer the same resolution and produce essentially identical images. Camera bodies don't matter for landscapes. Even an old D800E or a7R II would work just as well.
@@youknowwho9247 Better DR and awesome pinpoint AF. I’m not arguing one is better, but there are benefits that help in the field.
The Z9 does not have an OLPF
He doesn't care, he just wants to say it
He is mad as Nikon didn’t send him z9 😂
He couldn't care less about facts
Tony… how about a follow up video on the Z9. You need to create an ‘I was wrong’ video focusing on the 120 fps claim when you insisted that this would be without AF. I think it’ll be taken positively by your viewers. Take care
Maybe it will be a 'Breaking News' dramatic removing of specs and hard background track video :o) "Nikon have added autofocus to the 120fps shooting mode" :o)
Isn't the Z9 120fps with like 8MP jpegs? I don't think that's worth a retraction.
@Photo Bunny I don't disagree that some people will find it usable, but saying it's "more than enough" is subjective and I think it's a pretty big asterix to put on a pre-release marketing claim, so I still don't think Tony owes anyone a retraction
Uhhh.. you mean like when they do a full review, as opposed to the “I don’t have this and it’s being released tomorrow here’s my best guess” video? Goodness, you can’t actually be that aggrieved by what one guy speculated about a camera in a video one time. Can you?
Imagine being petty enough to demand an apology for an incorrect *guess* someone made. 😀
The Z9 does not have a OLPF. One of many things incorrectly assumed in your Z9 video.
What's that?
What he meant by the R3 doesn't exist yet?
@@njrtech z9 and a1 resolution is so close any sharpness differences would be lens dependent. So whatever Sony or Nikon lens is sharper will have sharper files with those cameras.
Pretty sure the Z9 doesn't have an OLPF..
The Z9 also does not have an OLPF according to Nikon.
Oh you and your facts!
Yep, it's a filter with a dust resistant antistatic coating, not an olpf
Man, I see so many salty people in the comments you guys amused me. The real message here is simple, there is no true winner. It's only what you prefer to invest your money in.If you bought one of the 3 latest full frame 70-200 2.8, you can be rest assured you are not getting anything less than the greatest as of this date. In fact, most modern lenses released in the last 10-20 years are not that far behind for anyone to produce high quality products for their business. So there is really no need to argue whether yours' the best or not. I'm no longer into 70-200 zooms since I found out that I rather use a prime for evertthing a 70-200 2.8 could do, and accomplish it with a 100-400. It's great to see Sony adding nicely to drive up the competition. Everything we have today, the Z9,R3,R5/R6, RF mount, Z mount can all be indirectly thanks to sony.
The winner is definitely Sony
Exactly @jamesjin ! Companies do what they do inorder to stay in business and pay their employees. That doesn't mean we have to always want the latest and greatest. I'd go on a limb and say that maybe 80% of all users of these gear (me included) aren't using them to their full potential. Ergo, gear doesn't matter. I understand this video had a purpose, but its just another set of parameters to educate oneself on and not get salty here. Oh well. There will always be some of those online.
@@JoaquimGonsalves Gear matters
Did Nikon let you get hands on with Z9 yet after that abysmal misleading pre release video you posted?
just one question: have you shot the nikon at 200mm or 70mm for the macro shots? afaik its better at 70mm because the minimun focus distance is under 0.5m at 70mm compared to about 1m at 200mm.
I've used the Nikon 200-500 for closeup shots. Great for chasing butterflies and dragonflies. You don't have to get real close.
I just got the 70-200 Z lens and have not used it much. From the few pictures I have taken, I love the lens.
It is a completely useless test. He is testing a zoom lens without taking snapshots at multiple focal lengths. He has not mentioned the focal length in several of his slides.
@@arpitkumargahlot its the northrups, what do you expect.
Haven't watched the video, but I'm confident that Sony will win. Sony always wins here
@@Chopper153 Who cares?
The Nikkor Z 70-200 might be big but the image quality makes it worth it.
Also $400 less price than Sony and Canon.
@@souvik8335 And the Canon wannabe cant even take a Tele convertor
@@Mr09260 Unless shooting with the $8,000+ highest end lenses, teleconverters don't get better image quality than cropping and enlarging in post, and you lose light using a TC.
@@longliveclassicmusic That is only the case with high resolution sensors. When shooting with something like the R6, R3, Z9, A9, etc. a 1.4x teleconverter on a good quality 70-200 always gives better results compared to cropping.
@@TechnoBabble I strongly disagree with this. I've done endless testing in this particular matter and no Nikon F-mount lens is worth putting a TC on over cropping in post.
There's a huge benefit to the compact size of the lens! At Dodgers Stadium (baseball for the non-baseball people), they have a max 6" lens limit. Normally, that would limit you to 85 mm and smaller. But the RF 70-200 is only 5.75 inches because it retracts. So you can get a 200mm game into Dodgers Stadium without a press credential! And by the time you get by security, it doesn't matter that you can extend it to 200 mm and take some amazing shots! Try to get any of the other 70-200 lenses into Dodgers Stadium and they'll make you trek all the way back to your car to leave the gear.
It would be interesting to see how the Olympus 40-150mm f2.8 compares, especially to the Fuji.
That's an 80-300mm f/5.6 equivalent. It's way below the league of lenses he tested here.
@@youknowwho9247 Agreed but it would still be interesting to see how it compares
@@youknowwho9247 then the Fuji is also not directly in the same league…
I love my canon gear but wow...good job Sony. That 70-200 is crazy good, and the contrast/flare test really blew me away.
Ideal if you want to take a lot of pictures like that.
I wish the testing was more thorough. Other sites say the Sony 70-200 is a weak performer with backlight. One picture at one focal length doesn’t tell us anything.
@@livejames9374 is that the new or the old Sony though?
@@KidLexDC : He did say Mark II; 1gen was crappy.
Canon is still better in the longer (above 200mm) focal ranges than Sony
By the way, you can adapt all these lenses to the Nikon, but you can't adapt any of the others to each other. So you can buy an autofocus sony E to Nikon Z adapter and use that G master on a Z9.
I have that adapter and it is terrible
@@TonyAndChelsea haha, as in the AF is terrible?
Push - pull zoom means different, it was for lens where you actually had to push and pull the rings to zoom, not rotating.
Not really sure the point of this video. If I own one system, I am staying with it, not changing brands because some youtuber says another brand is a little better.
What if I don't own any mirrorless system yet?
So basically the lenses of the big FF ecosystems are close enought together that they don't really affect which system you choose.
The Focus breathing can be a make or break, depending on how you use your lens.
@@tqlla the sony is 1:4 ratio but even my old 70-200VR1 Nikon lens on my D800 is 1:6 ratio. The newer VR2 and newer lens is 1:8 ratio. My D800 and lens cost a little over $1100 on the used market with
Image quality between them is very close, size and weight are not. I'd take the Canon over the others any day.
Panasonic has a 70-200mm f2.8 L-mount lens as well as a 70-200 f4 L-mount lens, both of which work with all of Panasonic's "S" cameras (S1, S1R, S1H, S5), but Panasonic is rarely included in your comparisons. I have to wonder why.
You could probably count on one hand the number of Panasonic full frame owners.
@@sexysilversurfer So? Northrup's whole deal is keeping people informed. It looks more like marketing when the "best sellers" are the always the focus. Innovation never comes from the top dogs. Baaa
Sony A1 is a better over all camera than the Canon R5. The price is obvious in a different league.
Best overall means everything, including the price!
I think in the sony backlight test, it looks like more of the light is blocked by the head, while more of it is peaking out on the others. Was the position a little different from camera to camera, because it looks that way in the images.
It is really important to be careful about the camera placement which is why I lock everything onto a heavy tight tripod.
@@TonyAndChelsea but the lenses are different lengths. Ensuring the tripod is the same distance from the subject doesn't guarantee that the shots are identical, does it?
It is a lazy test, that's all. Though in general, newer Sony G master lenses have excellent flare control.
Hand-holding a 70-200 f/2.8 can wear you out? Then why do you use full frame cameras at all?
One thing you didn't touch on was video - Nikon have been clear that they have built their lenses for the Z to be true hybrids and are bigger to ensure they are premium for video as well as stills (0 chromatic aberration etc). I have 0 idea how well the other lenses do for this but that's my understanding on why Nikon haven't gone smaller/lighter. To be honest all 3 of the full frame lenses look like they will do a great job if you are in that system which is a win for consumers everywhere
that is marketing BS to explain why theirs are bigger. They seem to have worse AF performance
Sony E-Mount was designed for the cinema line-up as well so most of their lenses are silent and fast. Especially now. Like you, I don't know where they all stand at, but the focus breathing area would be important for those who are doing video. The Sony and Nikon did well in that regard.
Why include the APS-C Fuji, but not the full-frame Panasonic S1R and S 70-200 f2.8?
I'm curious how the Fuji 50-140mm would score with the new 40 megapixel sensor cameras.
Sensor size does not effect aperture!! - ask an expert...
I would much prefer the internal focusing at the expense of a longer lens.
The Canon is not push-pull but is external focusing.
Focus breathing is more of a problem for video shooters.
what?😂 no it affects the framing, you need wider mm to get the same framing which affects compression :) he never says its push-pull focusing, go somewhere else with your baseless nitpicking.
The Z9 doesn't exist yet but the Sony 70-200 GM II exists when it doesn't ship until December?
This was recorded last month, prior to the Z9 launch.
@@TonyAndChelsea ahhh that makes sense. Thanks y’all!
@@TonyAndChelsea and now it's out of date. So why are you publishing it with incorrect information?
@@WIDGI Just to annoy you.
@@smaakjeks I'm beginning to think this is a parody account where the only one who gets the joke is Tony!
Anyone ever tried the Olympus 80-300 f2.8 (its 40-150 in m43)? You get an extra 100mm on the long end and a consistent f2.8 aperture (not as much depth of field as full frame but same light gathering). The lens doesn’t telescope either. I’ve used a lot of m43 lenses but never tried this one.
It's not the same light gathering. Crop factor 2 means that a 150f2.8 is equivalent to a 300f5.6 on a FF camera. Equivalent means same FOV, DOF and light gathering. The obvious cause for the difference in light gathering is the size of the front element. A bigger aperture collects more photons. Hence equivalent lenses have to have an identical front element diameter. Which is also why equivalent lenses on crop bodies are about as heavy as the FF equivalents.
@@daran0815 the light gathering of a f2.8 lens across different systems is the same. I have tested this. F 2.8 is an F 2.8. The only difference is depth of field but these sort of lenses do not have any issues with achieving shallow depth of field, even in M43.
@@billyblue689 This is plain wrong. The lens is a full frame 80-300 f/5.6 equivalent. He even mentions his other video explaining this exact issue. Go watch that before you keep arguing.
@@youknowwho9247 there seems to be some debate about this but from my trial and error experiments light gathering is the same across systems. Only depth of field changes.
@@billyblue689 There is no debate. This is a fact that everyone can test. Go shoot one frame on MFT at 25mm, f/2, 1/60 and ISO 400, then one on full frame at 50mm, f/4, 1/60, ISO 1600. They will have the same angle of view, depth of field and noise. qed
It would appear this video is old. Not sure why he didn't compare the medium format Fuji with the full frame offerings from Nikon, Canon and Sony. Would have been interesting to see a medium format camera would compare.
Canon was sharper in the center than Nikon, was more contrasty and with better sun stars, yet IQ was determined as inferior. Go figure
All the ads in these videos are getting a little crazy. I can’t watch Tony’s Chanel anymore
Does Tony have a back problem or something?
What do you think of using the Sony lens on a R5?
Fuji still gathers the same amount of light as the others. Depth of field, however, IS equivalent to F4.2.
I’d be interested to see an Olympus EM1m2 with Panasonic 35-100mm added to this comparison out of curiosity!
There's also the Olympus 40-150
@ Tyler Chamberlain : only if you want to be disappointed.
@@TheKentaurion what makes you think I’d be disappointed? I know there are trade offs with m4/3, but the combo I recommended has some of the traits Tony praised in the other systems. Don’t know the results until you run the experiment 🤷🏻♂️ I don’t have the money or connections to gather all the equipment Tony has there so I was hoping he’d throw curious m4/3 users a bone.
@@tycham85 m43 isn't really relevant in 2021 anymore. APS-C matched it speed, feature and size wise, and beat it fair and square value wise.
@@proksalevente I agree that larger sensored systems have become very competitive with a lot of the features that initially differentiated m4/3, but I am still curious. Remember, this video is more about how the workhorse 70-200mm lens works with the system rather than a sensor debate. Tony compared size/length (Panasonic is fairly small and internally focuses), sharpness (the Panasonic is quite sharp in my photos, but I want Tony's input), contrast (I'd like to see this compared in the same studio setup), bokeh (not great separation due to sensor size, but is quality good?), focus breathing and magnification (I'd like to see this evaluated) and starburst/highlight capability (guess I could go shoot in the sun...haha). Again, if I had the money, equipment or RUclips channel to perform the comparison, I would love to, but that's why I asked Tony if he could do it.
If you used Lightroom for all 3 cameras to develop the raw photos, for sure the Fuji lens pictures will be the worse. If you had used Capture One, your final results might have been different? Just wondering.
Good test but I have doubts in the contrast part, the real focus length is obvious different, and it will induce different strong light interference, make the test result totally different, u can see the canon is short focus length, more ambient strong light will come in, maybe u can try to equal the focus length and test again in contrast part.
Don't doubt it's ability to maintain contrast... It's easily the most impressive 70-200 I've shot with. It's sharpness and contrast are impeccable. The mk Ii represents a new level of IQ from a zoom
I love my Fuji zoom and wouldn’t know the difference if I hadn’t watched this video. And to pay double pretty much on top of an expensive body like the Sony-It gets overwhelming. I am happy with the Fuji but still appreciate all your reviews.
Why you don't review Nikon Z9 ? Don't even mention until now..
Why is Pentax never being compared? They have full frame cameras and great lens.
Pentax is out of the market today. Their K-1 had an incapable autofocus. Their lenses are an outdated (yet overpriced) lens museum, with the somewhat OK-ish ones being just old Tamrons, re-badged as Pentax lenses. Because Tamron doesn't make future new DSLR lenses any more, there's nothing more for Pentax to re-badge in the future.
An investment into Pentax would be an investment into a dead-end, into the past. Let's consider them dead.
One thing worth mentioning is Sony, Nikon and Fuji all can be used with teleconverters but Canon RF cannot be used any teleconverters.
Teleconverters are a total waste of money.
There is a huge difference between the colors of the Nikon and the Sony. Which one is accurate? Are these pictures from RAW or jpeg?
Another thing worth mentioning is that you didn’t include the D850 and the legendary Nikkor 70-200 f2.8 lens.
Trabajarias con la Fuji XT4 con el Canon 70-200 2,8, IS en lugar del 50-140 de Fuji ??
Can i mount a sony 70-200mm gm2 into fuji xh2s? What adapter do i need? Is it a bad idea?
Just use native lenses.
I was wondering how the Fuji will do with the 40mp XH2? Is it the lens or the body that made the difference?
Thinking to get the 50-140 but really don’t want to carry that around and might get the 70-300 instead. I do like the F2.8 because I imagine myself taking photos of kids indoors as well as outdoors. And I like the shallow depth of field for these events.
Nothing here of any use other than from a curiosity perspective. No one would base any choice among these system based on any slight difference between these lenses. .
Hey Tony, if crop factor affects light gathered, how many stops brighter is my exposure on my 8x10 with my 4.5 lens than my full frame Nikon? Since it's many, many, many times larger and the shutter only goes to 1/500, I must need hella low speed film to not blow everything out.
Check sdp.io/crop. To answer your question, ISO is based on light per square unit of area, so a larger surface area gathers more total light but the image brightness (which is software gain) stays the same.
@@TonyAndChelsea exactly correct on brightness. so it actually had nothing to do with light gathered, but rather focus distance. That's why it affects DOF by one aperture stop, and not exposure. The way you present it is extremely misleading.
@@joshrock he always speaks bogus when it comes to Fujifilm.
@@joshrock I think you are conflating things. Crop factor in regards to DoF is about distance (Tony made a video which explains that). However, APS-c sensors a lower signal to each pixel (unless the pixel density is matched on the FF equavilant). This means that in terms of signal to noise ratio when gain is applied to the sensor, APS-c sensors are around a stop more noisey (if all else is equal). Tony only uses crop factor to explain it because it makes it easier to visualise and understand. Two different mechanics but the result is technically similar for the end user. I agree that it's a slightly misleading way of representing it but it's a difficult concept to explain without taking up a good few minutes of the video (again, Tony has made videos about this all in the past). Perhaps he should say a stop noiser, rather than darker
@@SuttonBen so it's okay to misrepresent the science as long as it makes it easier to understand the end result? The problem is I've had to explain literally dozens of times to hundreds of people in my vintage lens group of 20k members that it doesn't affect exposure.
Fuji should be comapred with APS-C sensor cameras of this brands. :) A6600, M6, Z50 :) And better comparison for those FF were GFX 50 SII with GF lenses.
Possibly, but the comparison was supposed to be more focused on the lenses. The GFX system doesn't really have a 70-200mm f2.8. The 100-200mm f5.6 is more like a 79-158mm f4.4
GFX has pretty much the same sensor size as FF (the horizontal crop factor between those is only 1.2). So yes, GFX should be compared to FF (and not to "real" digital medium format, which has much larger sensors).
On the other hand, GFX has no lenses which come close to typical FF lenses' application areas.
For example, there is nothing like a GF 85-240mm F3.4, which would have been required to reach (or compete with) FF 70-200 F2.8 (in equivalence terms, applying the 1.2 crop factor for equivalence).
I tried canons rf 70-20 this weekend . Great image quality and fast af but you have to turn the zoom ring 200 turns and its not that smooth . Prefer my ef mark 2 any
The Nikon does have a multifunction programmable ring just like the Canon, except it has the oled panel that can show aperture. Not sure how you missed that?
how will a smaller sensor affect the lens from gathering light?
How does the Canon RF 70-200 f4 compare to the Tamron 70-200 f2.8 G2 with RF adapter?
The Z9 doesn't exist? Lots of folks have gotten their hands on one.
from where? only reviewers got it. where can i go and get it right now?
@@truthseeker6804 Tony and Chelsea are reviewers. Jared Polin, Matt Granger, DPReview and others also not affiliated with Nikon have done extensive testing with the camera.
@@lsaideOKthat's irrelevant, if I can't get it, then it doesn't exist for sale, yet. Therefore any review of a non attainable product is irrelevant.
@@truthseeker6804 Hardly. It is real. It exists. It is available for pre-order. Its existence affects the buying decisions of many people. You may not be interested in seeing reviews but lots of folks are including me. It would be great to see how this z lens preforms on the flagship just as Sony's was tested on their flagship. Apples to apples. I would enjoy seeing Tony and Chelsea test the camera.
@@lsaideOK how is hr going to review of something that he doesn't have?. When it's actually attainable and he gets it and makes a review i would watch it. I agree I would like to see it compared to others when it can be gotten.
Big question: I have the fuji X-T3 with the 50-140 and I don't use it that much. Either I use the 16-55, or the 100-400, or the 56mm f/1.2. What subjects do you like to shoot with this type of lens? It's an odd focal range for me. Either I want wide angle, or I want telephoto, or I want a nice fast prime. The 50-140 usually gets left in the car.
Wedding ceremonies. You can't move as freely as you want because you'll block the guests' view. Solution? Shoot from a medium distance and use a zoom to get different compositions and keep frames interesting. => 70-200 is usually excellent. To be fair though, it does depend on the space you shoot in. Personally, I do a lot of church weddings and old churches tend to have very little light, so I need f/1.4 primes to not drown in noise.
Your 50-140 has oil on it man, i recently compared mine against Z7ii with 70-200 and apart from the MPX count there wasn't much difference
So, let me get this straight. Portraits produced by the Fuji are perfectly fine unless you are pixel peeping and the lens can be picked up used in excellent condition for a third of the cost of the Sony, half the cost of the Nikon and 40% cheaper than the Canon, but.... What, again, was the point of ranking these lenses?
Why not test GFX50 and GF 100-200mm... Testing APSC lens vs FF lenses is kinda pointless... Not to mention that Fuji lens is old as hell...
HI I am watching all your videos - thank you! I have a son in multiple sports and I love to take video and pictures - I see sony ranks the best, should i go all out? Or do you recommend not needing to? He usually plays outside on turf fields on long island and it is many times sunny or rainy- (soccer and lacrosse) - thanks in advance
really nice video als alsways, but where is the 70-200 from panasonic
I have a sony a7iii with mc-11. I have a small budget. Does anyone have any experience with using the Canon 70-200mm f/2.8 II with it and is it better performer than the Sony 70-200mm lens?
Also does it make sense to get a good deal on say the alpha-7rIII and add this sony gen2 lens?
Mr Tony congratulations what is the best compar camera and 70_200 lens
🙋♂️ Nikon will start shipping out Z9 as early as 11/30. If it’s true, then Nikon certainly has no competition.
According to B&H they will start shipping on 12 December. I ordered mine within minutes of the Z9 being released and hope you are right but having read so much garbage about the Z9 I will trust the B&H date.
The a1 is an overall better camera and has been shipping for months...
just why did you shoot the fuji at iso 80? and also it seems from your test that it had greater magnification. all this aside, it is n unfair comparison for the cropped fuji
I feel like the contrast test is super super sensitive to the exact position of that backlight. Ie my hypothesis is that if the light is even a single pixel closer to the eye, due to the cameras being in slightly different positions, then the contrast loss will be drastically different.
Of course I haven’t set it all up to test but that’s how my experience with loss of contrast that results from harsh backlighting.
Don't doubt the results at all. Bear in mind most of the examples are viewed at magnifications that no-one will ever look at images at. It's obsessing over unnecessary detail in my opinnion. The real questions is 'how good, is good enough?'.....if you're not printing billboards, most of this is irrelevant. I'm betting most people watching this channel are enthusiasts who haven't realised that 95% of what makes great images has nothing to do with corner image sharpness. If you have an unlimited bank account - there are fantastic products out there. Go for it.
That sony is impressive but damn, it costs twice as much as the Fuji lens.
The Fuji lens should not even be in that comparison, it should be compared with a 70-400 f/4 FF lens.
Z9 dont exist yet? hmmm every youTuber reviewed what happened to you ?
He is going crazy since Nikon has introduced the Beast now … z9 rocks
I cant believe its 2022 and you are still saying that the f stop equivalence has something to with “light gathering”. How many times have people pointed out to you that a 2.8 APSC lens is the same as 2.8 FF in terms of light BUT yes to get the same DOF you’d need to factor in the crop factor since you are 1) either standing further away at the same focal length OR you are using a smaller focal lens (e.g. 50mm instead of 75mm) and standing in the same spot. C’mon man.
Huhu, before even watching the video I wonder how the Fuji lens even fits into that crowd of full frame glass.
will you do the same on the 24-70's ? please
why include Fuji but not Panasonic? I LOVE my 35-100 F2.8 with GH5 or GX8 bodies.
That's an f/5.6 full frame equivalent. Way below the league of the lenses he tested.
@@youknowwho9247 It's still worthy of comparison, especially considering how much Tony keeps talking about physical sizes of the systems and in comparison with the Canon. The Panasonic at least has internal focusing. Tony just doesn't like Micro 4/3 anymore and won't include any content referencing their existence.
@@stever1514 Because MFT is dead. The vast majority of people don't care about that system. Making content about it would be a waste of his time. Why don't you make that comparison and put it on RUclips?
Obviously, all the full frame zooms here are fantastic. I'm really glad to see Sony's latest efforts, though. Their 35mm f/1.4 GM is the first Sony prime I've used (and now own) that is really up there with what I like best about recent primes from, say, Zeiss and Leica. It has contrast, character, and mostly depth. I've looked at a lot of other's posted photos from this Sony 70 - 200, and I see some of the same. The Sony looks like a brakethrough design to me, and probably all that you could ever want or need for either the A1 or the A7-R IV. Thanks for this review.
The focus breathing on the 35 though... We need the breathing comp on all the Sony bodies now.
I love my 35mm GM, too! So glad I got one!
I really don't understand why an F2.8 APS-C lens was even put in this comparison, there's obviously no comparison. If it was F2 fair enough but it isn't. Also, AF performance wasn't compared, which would be probably more important than all the other technical factors (and Tony usually points this out: give me a better focusing lens rather than a sharper one).
Lens design has basically come to the point that the year the lens first came out determines how good it is. Younger by one year could be visibly better in some way. People used to say that cameras are for now and lenses are for the long term. Not any longer.
Yes to some extent that does seem to be true but why? Is it that competition drives R&D improvement or is it access to better tech - improvement in coatings etc?
Sony Mk2 is certainly a good improvement over original and probably best here. Yet surely physics is physics and there is a limit to how much of an improvement can be made?
i disagree. My canon Ef 100-400 from 2000 ist still amazing.
hey on weight why have the body attached doesnt that give a incorrect weight?
It’s the total weight of the gear you need to take a picture
Why didn’t you use the Fujifilm GFX with the 100-200 GF lens?
Might you all be able to test the new 3.40 firmware nikon update to see how the 1st gen Z6/7 new auto focus updates compare to the Z6ii/7ii?
Am I the only one who doesn't like the Sony output. Tony mentions more detail but to me it just looks over sharpened and more 'digital' that the other brands.
Fujifilm in fact has a high megapixel flagship camera: It’s called „GFX 100s“.
🤠👏🏽
he’s talking about x mount
The GFX isn't really a flag ship camera. It's solid for single shot stills, and that's it. Flagship cameras are usually the accumulation of the best of the best that that company has to offer.
Reason 1 to not buy an Apsc versus an FF : 2m59 😅
Y u didn't get the canon 2.8 and compared the f4???
Fuji gfx 100-200 may stand up better in this test + price comparison.ok not a 70-200.
Kind of, but that isn't a 70-200 f2.8 lens in any way. Its a 49-158mm f5.6 (or f4.4 DoF)
I knew the new Sony was good and previously thought it probably matched the RF and Z mount versions but in this comparison its the clear winner for me. Makes me want one ever more now for my A7RIV.
When will come out the 24-70 edition?
Also I would love to see with 3rd party lenses.....
Why the hunched posture throughout the video?
I wondered that also.
I shot the Sony 70-200mm f2.8 GM (prior version) for a long time and it was sharper than the Nikon Z lens of the same specs. Just my individual results however. Also, I think a "winner" depends on how much of a priority you put on the different categories. For me personally, I appreciate and want sharpness more than the other considerations, thus I would rate the Canon #1. I can tell you that the Canon 100-500mm f2.8 RF IS USM is the sharpest lens in its class that Ive used. The wider lens mounts of Canon and Nikon I think will ultimately pan out to be a big advantage in the future development of lenses and IBIS technology. Thanks for the video!
I don't doubt there was significant copy variation with the old 70-200 2.8GM. I too had a very sharp copy of that lens, and have seen a friend's copy that was average at best. Lens lottery is a real thing
@@nrocha2466 Agree! I have in the last few months gone back to Sony full time and back to my trusty 70-200mm f/2.8 ver 1 GM lens. It is amazingly sharp and Im very happy with it. Every system has their +'s and -'s, you just have to figure out what is the most important to your shooting experience! :-)
The Fuji result doesn't surprise me if I'm being honest. I bought two copies of the 50-140mm and both were returned. I was very underwhelmed by both and was particularly disappointed with the sharpness with very notable softness at f2.8.
The Canon EF 70-200 f2.8 iii might be better if you prefer internal zooming lenses and don't mind a bit heavier lens. You could also potentially use the variable ND EF/RF adaptor if you do a lot of video.
@@njrtech How do you adapt the Sony lens to the Canon then?
Basically you have tested the Nikon lens on a pre-production camera, Result is outstanding also it is $400 less price than Sony and Canon.
Mr N used the Z7 ii, which is a production camera. Mr N has not been lent a Z9 yet, hence he has stated incorrect things regarding focus at 120fps and olpf.
Will be interesting to see what Mr N makes of the image quality of the Z9. Traditionally, the nikon 'professional' body traded some image quality for speed and file size, being aimed at the paps and news gatherers who need to get the shot and get it to the news desk quickly. Compare the legendary D850 to the D6 for example. I think many peeps who have rushed to order the Z9 will get their fingers burnt when the Z8(50) comes along.
@@wibbley1 He has not used production camera of z7 II, pls check the video at 0.52.
@@souvik8335 The OP said 'Basically you have tested the Nikon lens on a pre-production camera' which is an incorrect statement. I think the OP thinks Tony IS using the Z9, which he is NOT.
Tony explains (at 0:51) that he is NOT using a Z9 (which are still pre-production) but IS using the production camera Z7ii
In any case, who really cares? If you have a sony, you will buy the sony lens, if you have a canon, you will buy the canon lens. Only if you had no camera and specifically wanted a 70-200 lens, then maybe you would pick the best lens for your needs and then buy the camera brand to go with the lens.
@Tony & Chelsea Northrup, when testing the lenses for the size of the bobble head in the image were you lining up the lenses or the sensor line of the camera?
Actually, the Sony Alpha 1 is on back order and not available for most of the U.S. market. So, for most of us consumers, we can’t get one if there are none in stock. Thus, it doesn’t yet exist for me. The Canon R5 is also not in stock. I can only request a stock alert on the R5. The Fujifilm X-T4 is also not in stock. However, for a consumer, like myself, the Nikon Z7 II is in stock and available to ship from B& H Photo. For me, the only camera that actually exists is the Nikon Z7 II. Again, Nikon no longer has any competition. It’s the only brand I can buy and have it shipped out the same week. 😎
Where is the camera Panasonic?