Bro, I actually really needed to hear this from a practicality standpoint. I’ve been waiting and waiting for Sigma to FINALLY release a 70-200 f2.8. Still don’t understand what’s going on but I think I’m gonna have to move on the f4 Sony. I appreciate your honesty. Thank you.
Thank you for this rewiew, I have an 24-240mm Sony lens for Airplane spotting and i wanted to upgrade to a 70-200 F2.8 or the 70-200 F4. Now i know how to spend my money with wisdom thanks to you sir. I am buying the F4 who is currently Euro 1199 in Europe. Thanks again and greetings from the Netherlands.
Dude ! Thanks for clarifying ! So nice to have some feedback from other sports videographer ! I think I gonna give a try to the f/4 ! Let’s hope it won’t be to grainy in low light !
i know this is an older video but i shoot APSC on the a6700 obviously low light on the camera isnt bad but not like an a7s3 or fx3 so with that being said would that case be a good case to jump to something like the sigma 70-200 f2.8 or would the f4 macro still be able to get the job done? Ex highschool football under the lights or sports with lighting comparable
I love my 70-200mm f/4 lens on both my full frame and crop sensor Sony mirrorless cameras. I have modified the lens to use an after-market tripod ring that includes a foot with ARCA Swiss capability. I also use an after market screw-in hood. It is black and not as obvious but, the two real advantages is that I can screw the hood into the front threads of a CPL filter and rotate that filter by simply turning the hood - eliminates the need for "Grinch-Like fingers" to rotate the CPL when the hood is attached additionally; I can clip on a 72mm lens cap to the front of the hood.
Thanks for this video! I bought the Tamron a bit ago but since I do have to do a little video from time to time and it doesn't have stabilization, extends and isn't parfocal it didn't end up being the best choice. Just bought the F4 based on your and other recommendations (do not have the $$$ for the GM M2 unfortunately)! I wish they updated this one too and made it compatible with teleconverters.
My biggest question is how do you nail exposure with a f/4 aperture? I feel like even with a 2.8, since I’m shooting 120 fps and hoping to crank my shutter a little more, then I need the 2.8 purely for lighting in some of these basketball gyms
Well it definitely depends, like my camera has dual iso, iso 800 and iso 2500, when I use my f4 i use cinetone with my fx30 and select 2500, even with 2500 it shouldn’t be hard to get good exposure when i crank it up in editing but it definitely depends on what kind of camera you have!
For sports videography does everyone recommend Sony mirrorless vs. Canon mirrorless? We currently have the Canon EOS R10 and 70-200 f/2.8, but are debating on saving for a full frame mirrorless Sony or Canon. Appreciate everyone's support and thoughts in advance.
Sony all the way, as you can use multiple brand lenses with their e mount system. With Canon, your stuck with Canon lenses. Sony is a better camera system than Nikon and Canon.
Agree that the f4 is a great lens for outdoors/indoors with good light. But many of us shoot in questionable lighting conditions indoors and a stop is everything when you need to use fast shutter speeds. So you end up buying a 135 for those situations which can be amazing but the net cost ends up around the 70-200 2.8 range. So ultimately it boils down to the quality of light you have for indoor sports, and as a fellow Canadian, that’s often half the year.
Great take - I think it can totally be situational! On my end using a camera like a Sony A7SIII, I’m not often in much need of the extra stops at times, but I get that’s a luxury I have with my particular camera, that not everyone has ofc. Thanks for commenting this!
If your filming football at night how does it preform? I know there’s usually a good amount of lighting in outdoor stadiums and high school fields but I’m curious because it’s a F4 if that makes sense?
do you usually still shoot handheld when using this lens? thinking about using it for football videography but idk if a gimbal will be more ergonomically sound
I shoot soccer in low light with the field lights on sometimes the field lighting isn't great doe, do you think it would still be a good choice for it?
Thanks for these videos. I just got a new 6400 to film my son's lacrosse games. I didnt know which camera to get but I got it thanks to your recommendations. Now im looking to get this lense but in the future. What do you think about the kit lens 18-135mm?
I shoot a lot of mountain biking in the forrest. Some times there's good sun shining through the canopy but its pretty dark in the lower forrest. I'm worried the low light in that area may not be good especially when trying to freeze fast moving bikers. What do you think?
@@JuanMoralesCreative that's my other worry on the a9 with less mp I can't crop as much. Think I'll let fait decent and grab the first used one I find at a good price.
Thank you, do you have the same thought about the 100-400? Is it fpr you still better the 70-200 f4 to the 100-400? I have a 18-105 f4 and on the tele side honestly f4 is good for nice bokeh portait woth people 8-10m fqr Thanks
To be honest, I haven't used the 100-400 yet, but for baseball or even soccer/football, it could definitely prove VERY useful - I just love having the 70 side of the telephoto lens.
I'm currently looking into 70-200 lens as I'm trying to venture out in dports videography.. Don't mind with the f4 and low light as i have A7C which is incredible in low light.. Thank you for the video..
Under $2000? I am not going to spend that much. I just bought one here in Japan under $800 for a second hand one which arrives in a few days. Can't wait to test.
It’s been 4 years now, working full time in this industry and haven’t had the need to upgrade, and no one has ever asked me if I use a g master 🤷🏽♂️ they don’t ask how as long as you get the job done!
the 2.8 has FAR better image quality, colour and contrast rendering etc. Tony Northam has a 2 min video which compares the two lenses. I have the F4, wish I had the 2.8.
@Juan Morales That is not the point. The point is that if you are a pro the comparatively small price difference is irrelevant. What is important is superior flexibility. If you are a pro then the difference of getting a shot versus not getting a shot is way more significant than what essentially amounts to a few dollars per shoot in terms of hardware costs. This is different from an amateur, where they are not making money from shooting and likely have other financial constraints. If the 2.8 was 10 or 20 times more expensive then cost would be a consideration depending on how well paid your gigs were, but the price differential of these two lenses is too small to shift a proper professional IMO. A pro should be getting the 2.8. I realize that the people watching your videos are not professionals, but still, you need to frame these sorts in discussions very much in terms of personal affordability. The 2.8 is a better lens and if you can afford it, that is the one you should get. Anyone who is a real pro should be able to afford the 2.8, and if they can't they really need to find a new better paying line of work.
Bro, I actually really needed to hear this from a practicality standpoint. I’ve been waiting and waiting for Sigma to FINALLY release a 70-200 f2.8. Still don’t understand what’s going on but I think I’m gonna have to move on the f4 Sony. I appreciate your honesty. Thank you.
Brother you just made up my mind for me thank you 🙏 all love from Brisbane Australia🙌
Glad to hear from someone who has used both. Thanks for this honest feedback! What do you think of the Tamron 70-200 as an even cheaper option?
^^ I’m wondering the same thing
No image stabilization
Great breakdown, thank you. Weight and focusing are more important than wide aperture for me when shooting skiing, this was helpful to hear!
Great video man! 🙌 Really gave me some inner peace and my choise alot easier. Thanks!
got one in mint condition with a 100$ uv filter for 700$ total absolute steal
There is a 70-200mm f4 online used second hand for 600 but the new f4 looks so nice, please someone convince me to get the first version
Amazing stuff as always Juan. I appreciate the honest and open take. 👌
Bruv good stuff, I picked up my Sony 70-200 f/4 because of you.. glad I came across your video !,
Thank you for this rewiew, I have an 24-240mm Sony lens for Airplane spotting and i wanted to upgrade to a 70-200 F2.8 or the 70-200 F4. Now i know how to spend my money with wisdom thanks to you sir. I am buying the F4 who is currently Euro 1199 in Europe. Thanks again and greetings from the Netherlands.
We need More honest reviewer like you will buy the f4
Dude ! Thanks for clarifying ! So nice to have some feedback from other sports videographer !
I think I gonna give a try to the f/4 ! Let’s hope it won’t be to grainy in low light !
Is 200mm really enough ? I just bought the lens and practiced in my backyard and I feel like it won’t be enough to reach across the field ?
i know this is an older video but i shoot APSC on the a6700 obviously low light on the camera isnt bad but not like an a7s3 or fx3 so with that being said would that case be a good case to jump to something like the sigma 70-200 f2.8 or would the f4 macro still be able to get the job done? Ex highschool football under the lights or sports with lighting comparable
i bought the 70-200 f4 is canon used for 500, best decision ever for the price tbh
I love my 70-200mm f/4 lens on both my full frame and crop sensor Sony mirrorless cameras. I have modified the lens to use an after-market tripod ring that includes a foot with ARCA Swiss capability. I also use an after market screw-in hood. It is black and not as obvious but, the two real advantages is that I can screw the hood into the front threads of a CPL filter and rotate that filter by simply turning the hood - eliminates the need for "Grinch-Like fingers" to rotate the CPL when the hood is attached additionally; I can clip on a 72mm lens cap to the front of the hood.
Good Video with valid points, thank you!
Really loved this video! Seems like the f4 is the front runner for me now…thanks Juan for saving me a lot of money 😅
Hahah no problem! Glad it helped save you a few bucks!
Thank you so much I just purchased this lens 💪🏻
Exactly what I needed! Thanks mate! 👍
Please can I still zoom an object myself while my camera is on autofocus mode ? Or the camera will zoom itself??
Just bought the 70-200 f4 excellent condition off amazon. Am I buggin???? Since it’s 2024 lol
Thanks for this video! I bought the Tamron a bit ago but since I do have to do a little video from time to time and it doesn't have stabilization, extends and isn't parfocal it didn't end up being the best choice. Just bought the F4 based on your and other recommendations (do not have the $$$ for the GM M2 unfortunately)! I wish they updated this one too and made it compatible with teleconverters.
Thanks so much for this. Appreciated! 👍
My biggest question is how do you nail exposure with a f/4 aperture? I feel like even with a 2.8, since I’m shooting 120 fps and hoping to crank my shutter a little more, then I need the 2.8 purely for lighting in some of these basketball gyms
Well it definitely depends, like my camera has dual iso, iso 800 and iso 2500, when I use my f4 i use cinetone with my fx30 and select 2500, even with 2500 it shouldn’t be hard to get good exposure when i crank it up in editing but it definitely depends on what kind of camera you have!
I know thus varies but what is your ISO like using a f/4?
I bought my A9ii the 70-200 f4 , agreed it's brilliant for the price.
Get DXO PhotoLab Deep Prime or DXO PureRaw Deep Prime best noise reduction and it restores loss color due to high ISO.
would this camera be good for filming outside sports like soccer, or is it just for filming inside?
Super helpful. I feel validated on my thoughts as I’m deciding for concert photography.
For sports videography does everyone recommend Sony mirrorless vs. Canon mirrorless? We currently have the Canon EOS R10 and 70-200 f/2.8, but are debating on saving for a full frame mirrorless Sony or Canon. Appreciate everyone's support and thoughts in advance.
Sony all the way, as you can use multiple brand lenses with their e mount system. With Canon, your stuck with Canon lenses. Sony is a better camera system than Nikon and Canon.
Great video! Helpful, thanks!
Agree that the f4 is a great lens for outdoors/indoors with good light. But many of us shoot in questionable lighting conditions indoors and a stop is everything when you need to use fast shutter speeds. So you end up buying a 135 for those situations which can be amazing but the net cost ends up around the 70-200 2.8 range. So ultimately it boils down to the quality of light you have for indoor sports, and as a fellow Canadian, that’s often half the year.
Great take - I think it can totally be situational! On my end using a camera like a Sony A7SIII, I’m not often in much need of the extra stops at times, but I get that’s a luxury I have with my particular camera, that not everyone has ofc. Thanks for commenting this!
If your filming football at night how does it preform? I know there’s usually a good amount of lighting in outdoor stadiums and high school fields but I’m curious because it’s a F4 if that makes sense?
I just caught this lens for $750!! Couldn’t deny it
Yet another great vid!
Cheers Harry!
I think for video only the F4 is plenty sharp and good for 4K. For photos I'd prefer the 2.8.
You usually don't want super shallow depth of field for video.
do you usually still shoot handheld when using this lens? thinking about using it for football videography but idk if a gimbal will be more ergonomically sound
I just purchased this lens and was wondering the same thing. I have a football game to do tomorrow. Did handheld work for you?
I shoot soccer in low light with the field lights on sometimes the field lighting isn't great doe, do you think it would still be a good choice for it?
Works well for football, so I'd assume.
hey man, awesome informative video! my question is, would this lens pair well with the sony a6000? thanks in advance!
Thank you for this video!!!
Just bought this lens bc of this video! What Nd filter do you use for this make?
I use Freewell's VND!
Thanks for these videos. I just got a new 6400 to film my son's lacrosse games. I didnt know which camera to get but I got it thanks to your recommendations. Now im looking to get this lense but in the future. What do you think about the kit lens 18-135mm?
I’d always recommend the 18-105 F4 Sony lens for any of the a6000 series!!
@@JuanMoralesCreative thanks. I ended up getting that one
I shoot a lot of mountain biking in the forrest. Some times there's good sun shining through the canopy but its pretty dark in the lower forrest. I'm worried the low light in that area may not be good especially when trying to freeze fast moving bikers. What do you think?
Torn between this and Tamron 70-180. Leaning towards the Tamron, but worried about using it in harsh conditions. They do have a great warranty tho.
Tamron is a solid choice! But I personally think I need the 200 focal range myself.
@@JuanMoralesCreative that's my other worry on the a9 with less mp I can't crop as much. Think I'll let fait decent and grab the first used one I find at a good price.
Thank you, do you have the same thought about the 100-400? Is it fpr you still better the 70-200 f4 to the 100-400? I have a 18-105 f4 and on the tele side honestly f4 is good for nice bokeh portait woth people 8-10m fqr Thanks
To be honest, I haven't used the 100-400 yet, but for baseball or even soccer/football, it could definitely prove VERY useful - I just love having the 70 side of the telephoto lens.
Love this page man super informative
Helped point me into the right direction
🙌🏿🙌🏿
Glad you found it helpful!!
Have you considered that there is a best aperture stop number of each lens?
How would the f4 hold up for local high school football at night? Would i need the 2.8 in dark/low light
Truly it depends on what body you’re using! Most A7 sony cameras are great in low light
@@JuanMoralesCreative im using a7iii
@@terrencejones1195 I use an a7iii with that lens in a lot of low light areas and don't have any complaints
Dual native ISO at 12800 is a life saver. More than enough at f4 with field lights
Great video and makes perfect sense.
Thank you so much,
Would this work with m50?
Thanks
Were these videos on a tripod?
Thanks❤
I'm currently looking into 70-200 lens as I'm trying to venture out in dports videography.. Don't mind with the f4 and low light as i have A7C which is incredible in low light.. Thank you for the video..
Definitely recommend the F4 to save yourself the cash!!
Canadian prices thank you!
700 buks, just ge one. its extemly sharp and fast fokusing lens
Sick
Under $2000? I am not going to spend that much. I just bought one here in Japan under $800 for a second hand one which arrives in a few days. Can't wait to test.
im sorry but this ain't it end of the day you will end up with the g master especially when you progress into your career
It’s been 4 years now, working full time in this industry and haven’t had the need to upgrade, and no one has ever asked me if I use a g master 🤷🏽♂️ they don’t ask how as long as you get the job done!
the 2.8 has FAR better image quality, colour and contrast rendering etc. Tony Northam has a 2 min video which compares the two lenses. I have the F4, wish I had the 2.8.
If you can't afford the pro lens you are not really a pro, lmao.
Never said I couldn't afford it! Having a 2.8 lens doesn't make or break you as a pro.
@Juan Morales That is not the point. The point is that if you are a pro the comparatively small price difference is irrelevant. What is important is superior flexibility.
If you are a pro then the difference of getting a shot versus not getting a shot is way more significant than what essentially amounts to a few dollars per shoot in terms of hardware costs. This is different from an amateur, where they are not making money from shooting and likely have other financial constraints. If the 2.8 was 10 or 20 times more expensive then cost would be a consideration depending on how well paid your gigs were, but the price differential of these two lenses is too small to shift a proper professional IMO. A pro should be getting the 2.8.
I realize that the people watching your videos are not professionals, but still, you need to frame these sorts in discussions very much in terms of personal affordability. The 2.8 is a better lens and if you can afford it, that is the one you should get. Anyone who is a real pro should be able to afford the 2.8, and if they can't they really need to find a new better paying line of work.
Hola. Te escribo desde chile. Mi consulta es ¿tienes algún instagram para ver tu trabajo con este lente F4? Soy fotógrafa deportiva …