That macro capability alone puts this lens in another high level league! The fact that it accepts teleconvertors and you can get 1:1 magnification with the 2x one is priceless! Fantastic review as always Chris!
Would be great if you could get 1:1 without the quite expensive converter. On the other hand other Sony lenses can get up to ca. 0.25 and are already a lot of fun.
@@jochenkraus7016I think the lens would have to be rather long in order to facilitate a 1.0 magnification, don't you think? The teleconverter works without all that length because it changes the focal length to 140-400mm which is also a good range.
@@livejames9374 similar only at 70mm with caveat only at manual focus mode, else is blown away by this sony.. Tamron Magnification Ratio AF: 1:4.6 (TELE), MF: 1:2 (WIDE), 1:4.6 (TELE).
Thank you, your reviews are the best on youtube imo. I always wait for them when a new product shows up. The fact that you run lenses through the same testing process is perfect for comparison. Keep up the good work! :)
Had a bit of a fan boy moment today when I came to West Wales to view a boat. As I climbed (driving) the hill out of the little coastal village, I passed the statue and immediately knew it from your videos. Needless to say that I stopped and got out to survey the area. The 'zoom rock' and village were all there as per your videos 😂😂. Such a surreal moment! 😊
I am a canon user and love my 7Dii and R7, however I also own a Sony A6600 with sigma 28-50 f2.8 which I use for travelling, holidays, days out as it small, compact and very good camera. This Sony 70-200 f4 mkii would be a great travel lens ! Well done Chris for the review, and we'll done Sony for a great lens
@@hans6304 it’s very good if you are shooting paid events: sports, weddings (paired with 20 1.8) or regular photo sessions, one body one lens whole day. For travelling it is heavy and rather short, but it will satisfy you anyway. I almost never take it away when walking, because of weight. And it sucks a lot of dust.
Will you sell the tamron for this lens? I got the same tamron too, love image quality and the zoom range over 70-200mm. But I also need the OSS which is lacking on the tamron for video shooting
Amazing review yet again Chris! Any chance you could do a supplementary video of what the len''s sharpness is like with the 1.4x and 2x tele-converters?
That would very much depend on the TC model used. It is all about the optics of the teleconverter, not so much about the lens. Just that a lens that is at its limit for resolving the resolution of the sensor will do worse when combined with a TC. You could say it is similar to mounting it on a 40MP APSC sensor, and find that the result is now soft, and on top of that you have to account for additional degradation due to the optics of the TC.
Looks like it's a great lens. Quality always comes with a price tag and this looks like a GM lens if not for the fact it has no aperture ring. Based on this review, I'd choose this over the f/2.8 GM II for the versatility. Now.. i will just wait 3-5yrs for the price to go down and get it used. 🤓
@@networm64 If I need a macro, I buy a macro, but that's not the point, I'm not saying that it's a bad lens, on the contrary, the problem is the price, which is too high for f4, and I would look at a brighter lens, but this is my opinion.
Speaking of the old Canon 70-200 f4 lens, I had the image stabilised version and it was one of my favourite lenses when I shot canon. I wonder how well that old lens performs on modern mirrorless cameras?
the answer is poorly. i bought one on ebay for a good price and quickly returned it because autofocus was near unuseable adapted to a sony. it would focus, but not well and after 3 days of testing i had nothing sharply in focus, even stopped down to f/5.6. it was always a little off. manual focus worked great but there was zero point in owning at close to $700 when i bought it to just use manual focus. i would imagine it might do slightly better adapted to a cannon but wouldn't have any idea lol.
@@cadenguizar8360 Well of course it wouldn’t work well on a Sony. It’s not it’s native system. In hindsight I should have mentioned it would be interesting to see how the Canon lens would work on a modern Canon camera. Chris does the odd retest every now and then.
@@bburchellphotos I expect no downgrade/difference to your results in DSLR. But much better AF performance. With Mark iii of the EF TC, it will work well on RF bodies.
I found a used/like new 70-200mm F/2.8 GM for £600 less than this lens, enough to also buy a 90mm F2.8 G Macro. You can also get a new 70-200mm F/2.8 GM for the same price as this lens with the £200 cash back offer from Sony.
You're right but in this case you don't need to change lenses to get quite close. I tried the 90mm macro some time ago, was impressed by the sharpness but didn't buy one. I probably get one if I ever switch to Sony mirrorless full frame. Edit: I just checked. The GM 2.8 has 1:3 so it's not that far behind at close focus.
Are you able/allowed to test the results with the 2x teleconverter? This lens is advertised as macro lens but honestly I think that's overrated, I own the Sigma 105mm F/2.8 macro and the DoF is already very thin at F/4. Imagine 140mm-400mm F/8 macro, DoF will be even thinner, making it basically unusable for insects or other moving subjects for macro photography. Combined with the teleconverter the image will likely be softer, and you'll need to stop down to like F/16 minimum to get good results, making it even softer. I'm really curious to find out.
*2 grand?!* I’d rather get the Sony 90mm macro *and* Tamron 70-180 for that price. 1:1 Macro and an incredibly lightweight f2.8 zoom… Also the external zoom kind of takes away from the original’s charm :/
Since there is a sony student chashback promotion at the moment I'm thinking of buying a 70-200mm f4... but I'm not sure if the Mark 2 is worth double the money or if I still can buy the Mark 1 without any regrets for effectively half the price. Is the newer one worth it? Any Tips? (I'm shooting on a Sony A7c Mark 1)
Seems like a great lens and I love the size of it. but its pretty pricey for an f4 lens. and its competing with the Tamron 70/180 f2.8 and the Tamron 35/150 f2 to 2.8. that are less money.
Thank you for a great review I am interested in one of these new lenses I shoot my grandchildren’s sports and some car racing but is the fact that the lens extends and retracts a real issue? I am very careful with my equipment and never shoot in rain. Probably sounds stupid but that’s my only concern. Thanks 🙏
Yes, I like this lens too, but its macro is kinda weak, every tele/zoom from tamron or sigma beat it with higher magnification. Wish it has at least 0.3:1 magnification.
@@PatrickWithCamera I wouldn't really buy a telephoto lens for macro, but to photograph things at a long distance. I'd buy a dedicated macro lens for macro or a macro adapter.
@@pixxelpusher Dedicated macro got short reach, I've got laowa 65mm and sony 90mm, but for some skittish bug/critters it is too short, for such I use tamron 150-500 which have two times better macro than 70-350
@@PatrickWithCamera Yes but a telephoto lens doesn't have to be a macro lens, a lot of them aren't. And if you're not interested in macro then the range of 70-350mm is great for people photos, events, sports, weddings, birds, wildlife, it's a great all-rounder range. The Sony 70-350mm is small and light and much more similar in range to what is being reviewed here. It's also more than half the price of the Sony 70-200mm and is amazingly sharp, probably the sharpest telephoto lens you can get for APSC, which is the main point I was making.
Awesome lens not gonna lie but 2000 euro is a stretch for just f/4. That's almost the same price at the 100-400 GM which is arguable the better lens (if you dont mind the extra weight). I've used the original 70-200 f/4 and it's still really hard to beat it for the money (espcially if you can get one used nowdays)
The criticism of being f 4 … With de-noising software now very good - on top of today’s very good sensors - to lose 1 F stop of brightness is no longer much of a disadvantage at all Plus of course, it’s lighter
Everyone keeps saying that the Adobe AI denoise is good but it always makes my images look mushy even when applied in small amounts. I think I prefer to add grain to cover up the noise.
The fact that it can take TC's but both of Canon's RF 70-200's can't, has very limited focus breathing especially given the lens max magnification AND has that 1:2 macro ability is just icing on the cake. I still can't believe Canon didn't add TC support on any of the 70-200 zooms, I really think that's a big miss imo.
@@zegzbrutal For me I value the function of a TC as the A7III only has 24mp so crop mode on it isn't as useful as maybe on an A7R or A1 body. Also given Canon's expertise in lenses I was kind of disappointed they dropped the TC support on their RF 70-200's I think Canon went too far in trying to make these lenses lighter and smaller. Just my 2 cents on the matter.
@@zegzbrutal I own the 70-200 GM2 and the 2x TC. I can confirm that you lose some sharpness and contrast with it. I only use it when the subject fills less than a quarter of the frame at 200mm, otherwise I find it better to crop.
The price may seem crazy but if you add the semi-macro capability and the ability to make it a true macro by a teleconverter then it doesn't seem too expensive. The optical performance at normal distances is also far superior to the cheaper old Sony 70-200 f4.
The price of perfection will always be justified by some, this seems to be a near perfect lens when uncorrected, and a perfect lens with the corrections (minus the cat's eyes in the bokeh). It is a killer of a lens, i hope Sigma can out do it though 😁😁😁
What other 70-200 is more sharp? To my knowledge, none. Well done, Sony As for complaints about its price, imo it’s about right for the most important aspect: image … across the zoom range virtually from wide open, and across the frame. It’s extremely well built, and light. Christopher’s high recommendation is appropriate … Not a surprise that just about every other reviewer formed the same opinion
I would love to see you review the Canon 0.71 speed booster. I'm looking at the R7, and the idea of using the speed booster with my older L glass (70-200 F4 included) is very attractive.
The original is still great!! This new f4 has a terribly loose focus ring and uneven resistance on the zoom. I recently uploaded a video on my channel that highlights the poor build quality.
@@kojak1435 stop running behind new gear....35-150 is good ... I don't have time to swap lenses during the shoot...mostly muscles...sports.... I found my self choosing one lens .. to capture all the moments...no time to switch ...so i checked my workflow...i could not manage switching lenses...so I stopped
i think this is a convenience, hobbyist first lens. small, gets the job done, bright enough for lower light when paired with their newer ibis cameras and lightroom ai powered NR. will get the shot every time with no questions asked in a small and light package. if someones is going for price to performance and wants the best glass for their money, yea this isn't it. an older faster lens will do better in the hands of someone running a business doing subject photography. but for someone who wants a super reliable lens with stellar sharpness and autofocus for street photography or telephoto landscape/light wildlife stuff this would totally be an awesome pick. if i had the money im sure i would love this lens, but for what i do with a camera, at $2000 im going to want f2.8 over fancy tech features and macro capability that i dont need. i built my freelance business on a $65 manual focus vintage lens (50mm f1.2) adapted onto an apsc sony camera. $2k for a "fun" lens would make no sense for me lol.
Great review as always Christopher 👍 This lens looks promising and I like the size and weight... However, for this price (even cheaper) I can buy a second hand 1 version of 70-200 2.8 GM ...Edit: I made a comment before the end of the video and you mentioned the same thing 🙂
External zoom? guess not. Is it me or Sony purposely make it external zoom just so that people still have reasons to go for the GM II? Shame on their strategy. At least I'm not tempted at all. Traditionally you want a 70-200 F4 to sort of travel light while not needing the fastest speed and most buttery bokeh ever. This isn't much lighter, changed to external zoom design and priced like crazy. Way too many downs for me to ever consider.
This channel is the gold standard for lens reviews. Would like to see a follow-up with this lens and the two teleconverters.
I would love to see you review the Sony 70-200 f/2.8 GM II OSS
You have such a calming voice! As always, it was a very nice review
That macro capability alone puts this lens in another high level league! The fact that it accepts teleconvertors and you can get 1:1 magnification with the 2x one is priceless! Fantastic review as always Chris!
Would be great if you could get 1:1 without the quite expensive converter.
On the other hand other Sony lenses can get up to ca. 0.25 and are already a lot of fun.
@@jochenkraus7016I think the lens would have to be rather long in order to facilitate a 1.0 magnification, don't you think? The teleconverter works without all that length because it changes the focal length to 140-400mm which is also a good range.
Tamron’s 70-180 does similar magnification for much cheaper and offers 2.8. This new lens is pricy.
@@livejames9374 similar only at 70mm with caveat only at manual focus mode, else is blown away by this sony..
Tamron Magnification Ratio AF: 1:4.6 (TELE), MF: 1:2 (WIDE), 1:4.6 (TELE).
@@MattTrevett71❤ף0
Thank you, your reviews are the best on youtube imo. I always wait for them when a new product shows up. The fact that you run lenses through the same testing process is perfect for comparison. Keep up the good work! :)
Had a bit of a fan boy moment today when I came to West Wales to view a boat. As I climbed (driving) the hill out of the little coastal village, I passed the statue and immediately knew it from your videos. Needless to say that I stopped and got out to survey the area. The 'zoom rock' and village were all there as per your videos 😂😂. Such a surreal moment! 😊
Thanks!
Thanks for your support!
Still my preferred lens demo videos for visual representation of specs. Thanks
I am a canon user and love my 7Dii and R7, however I also own a Sony A6600 with sigma 28-50 f2.8 which I use for travelling, holidays, days out as it small, compact and very good camera. This Sony 70-200 f4 mkii would be a great travel lens !
Well done Chris for the review, and we'll done Sony for a great lens
6:42 how can we support you to upgrade from this A5100 to the A6700
Patreon, hehe :-)
Previous version was my favourite lens of all time, then I’ve sold it to buy Tamron 35-150 f2-2.8, but now I am considering this again, with 1.4 TC.
How did the 35-150 go for you?
@@hans6304 it’s very good if you are shooting paid events: sports, weddings (paired with 20 1.8) or regular photo sessions, one body one lens whole day. For travelling it is heavy and rather short, but it will satisfy you anyway. I almost never take it away when walking, because of weight. And it sucks a lot of dust.
Will you sell the tamron for this lens? I got the same tamron too, love image quality and the zoom range over 70-200mm. But I also need the OSS which is lacking on the tamron for video shooting
@@devilalwayscry not for this… looking at 2.8 gm ii
Amazing review yet again Chris! Any chance you could do a supplementary video of what the len''s sharpness is like with the 1.4x and 2x tele-converters?
Any updates?
That would very much depend on the TC model used. It is all about the optics of the teleconverter, not so much about the lens. Just that a lens that is at its limit for resolving the resolution of the sensor will do worse when combined with a TC. You could say it is similar to mounting it on a 40MP APSC sensor, and find that the result is now soft, and on top of that you have to account for additional degradation due to the optics of the TC.
It would be great to see a review of the FE 70-200mm f/2.8 GM II and compare it to this lens. Thanks for the great consistent lens reviews!
at 3:48 why it gets darker when pulling focus? Is it same with 2,8 GM?
After watching this thorough and informative breakdown of this lens... I BOUGHT ONE!! Wow is it sharp! Thank you for helping me make up my mind.
I've been watching your videos for years and can't believe you have only now revealed your "Leftism" mini-disc. You've released the pressure!
Looks like it's a great lens. Quality always comes with a price tag and this looks like a GM lens if not for the fact it has no aperture ring.
Based on this review, I'd choose this over the f/2.8 GM II for the versatility.
Now.. i will just wait 3-5yrs for the price to go down and get it used. 🤓
Great videos Chris, I’m new to photography and like watching your videos. Saw some of your Sony sigma videos and went got the 14-24. Good work
Wow, what an absolute beast!
Ordered mine coming on monday😊
How the lens? Good experience? Any flaws?
@@PatrickWithCamera so far i really like it
Saw this lens announced on DP Review. Promptly headed here to see another amazing review!
When i got this lens my first thought was its light and it’s going everywhere with me .
The review I was waiting for. Thanks Chris!
when will you review the 70-200mm OSS GM II f/2.8??
When will you review Sony 70-200/2.8 GM II?
you should show us how the center sharpness at 135 , 200 is as well. Is that not the main concern ?
Crazy price for F4.
Farout, might as well get the Tamron 70-180 f2.8 if you don't need stabilization or OSS
So expensive in spain will ne more than 2000€ I prefer second hand first version 2.8
This lens gives you and excellent feature no other does. A true macro all across it's range. Don't need it? OK buy the old version!
@@networm64 It's just 0.5 magnification, so not a true macro. But nice feature to have.
@@networm64 If I need a macro, I buy a macro, but that's not the point, I'm not saying that it's a bad lens, on the contrary, the problem is the price, which is too high for f4, and I would look at a brighter lens, but this is my opinion.
Speaking of the old Canon 70-200 f4 lens, I had the image stabilised version and it was one of my favourite lenses when I shot canon. I wonder how well that old lens performs on modern mirrorless cameras?
the answer is poorly. i bought one on ebay for a good price and quickly returned it because autofocus was near unuseable adapted to a sony. it would focus, but not well and after 3 days of testing i had nothing sharply in focus, even stopped down to f/5.6. it was always a little off. manual focus worked great but there was zero point in owning at close to $700 when i bought it to just use manual focus.
i would imagine it might do slightly better adapted to a cannon but wouldn't have any idea lol.
@@cadenguizar8360 Well of course it wouldn’t work well on a Sony. It’s not it’s native system. In hindsight I should have mentioned it would be interesting to see how the Canon lens would work on a modern Canon camera. Chris does the odd retest every now and then.
@@bburchellphotosnonsense
@@bburchellphotos bro by that logic cannon rf mount also is not its native system. i know what you mean but i also said that in my first comment.
@@bburchellphotos I expect no downgrade/difference to your results in DSLR. But much better AF performance. With Mark iii of the EF TC, it will work well on RF bodies.
I have a Sony A7R5 … how do I turn on the lens correction function?
Thanks for your hard work. Hope you will do a review of older canon 70 - 300 L with modern cameras.
the autofocus is amazing!!!!!!
Would like to see a comparison between the rf mount and this one.
I found a used/like new 70-200mm F/2.8 GM for £600 less than this lens, enough to also buy a 90mm F2.8 G Macro. You can also get a new 70-200mm F/2.8 GM for the same price as this lens with the £200 cash back offer from Sony.
You're right but in this case you don't need to change lenses to get quite close.
I tried the 90mm macro some time ago, was impressed by the sharpness but didn't buy one. I probably get one if I ever switch to Sony mirrorless full frame.
Edit:
I just checked. The GM 2.8 has 1:3 so it's not that far behind at close focus.
@@jochenkraus7016 with a £100 NiSi close up filter you can get 1:1 macro on the 70-200mm GM.
As always a nice analysis. Missed your customary coma test for astro, your coin Macro test and Sunstar test in this video 🙂
Please review 70200GM2 ! I'm looking forward to watching that.
Chris,I wondering what you think about Samyang 35-150/2-2.8
Thank you 😊
Thanks for mentioning how it performs against the Mk 1 version.
Please review Sel70200Gm2. :(
Chris, why at minute 3:59 at Focus Breathing test the image gets so dark as you defocus?
Are you able/allowed to test the results with the 2x teleconverter? This lens is advertised as macro lens but honestly I think that's overrated, I own the Sigma 105mm F/2.8 macro and the DoF is already very thin at F/4. Imagine 140mm-400mm F/8 macro, DoF will be even thinner, making it basically unusable for insects or other moving subjects for macro photography. Combined with the teleconverter the image will likely be softer, and you'll need to stop down to like F/16 minimum to get good results, making it even softer. I'm really curious to find out.
*2 grand?!* I’d rather get the Sony 90mm macro *and* Tamron 70-180 for that price. 1:1 Macro and an incredibly lightweight f2.8 zoom…
Also the external zoom kind of takes away from the original’s charm :/
Maybe to make the lens more compact
The working distance for the 90mm is too short for many subjects.
And you get 1.4kg in total weight in your bag (vs 800g f4 lens that does both macro and telephoto)
@@GungKrisna12 in my opinion at least the original was compact enough, the other improvements are great though. besides the price
@@sjc6984 you get more stops of light and in the case of the 90mm vastly better image wuality. also you don't need to take both obviously
Since there is a sony student chashback promotion at the moment I'm thinking of buying a 70-200mm f4... but I'm not sure if the Mark 2 is worth double the money or if I still can buy the Mark 1 without any regrets for effectively half the price. Is the newer one worth it? Any Tips? (I'm shooting on a Sony A7c Mark 1)
Where is the review for the 2.8 GM II version?
Cheeky Leftfield Minidisc :)
Seems like a great lens and I love the size of it. but its pretty pricey for an f4 lens. and its competing with the Tamron 70/180 f2.8 and the Tamron 35/150 f2 to 2.8. that are less money.
Will you test lumix lens?
Thank you for a great review I am interested in one of these new lenses I shoot my grandchildren’s sports and some car racing but is the fact that the lens extends and retracts a real issue? I am very careful with my equipment and never shoot in rain. Probably sounds stupid but that’s my only concern. Thanks 🙏
I'll stick with my 30 year old Canon 200 2.8 prime adapted. Super fast AF and super sharp. You can find them used for 5-600. Great piece of glass
1698 USD on B&H photo as of right now for pre-order, tempted to order it along with the a6700 for a lightweight/compact birding setup...
how is 200mm enough for you? Do you wear a suite made form bird seed? LOL.
@coltoncyr2283 200×1.5=300, just barely enough. But yes, I do normally carry a few types of birdseed around. Lol.
For APSC I still think the Sony 70-350mm is great bang for your buck. I picked one up relatively cheaply and the quality is amazing.
Yes, I like this lens too, but its macro is kinda weak, every tele/zoom from tamron or sigma beat it with higher magnification. Wish it has at least 0.3:1 magnification.
@@PatrickWithCamera I wouldn't really buy a telephoto lens for macro, but to photograph things at a long distance. I'd buy a dedicated macro lens for macro or a macro adapter.
@@pixxelpusher Dedicated macro got short reach, I've got laowa 65mm and sony 90mm, but for some skittish bug/critters it is too short, for such I use tamron 150-500 which have two times better macro than 70-350
@@PatrickWithCamera Yes but a telephoto lens doesn't have to be a macro lens, a lot of them aren't. And if you're not interested in macro then the range of 70-350mm is great for people photos, events, sports, weddings, birds, wildlife, it's a great all-rounder range. The Sony 70-350mm is small and light and much more similar in range to what is being reviewed here. It's also more than half the price of the Sony 70-200mm and is amazingly sharp, probably the sharpest telephoto lens you can get for APSC, which is the main point I was making.
@@pixxelpusher I know, best sony telephoto for mainstream 200-600 also have bad macro, a none is crying, only my wishful thinking and my problem :D
Is weight you mentioned include the tripod collar or not?
just bought one, thanks for your share. What kind of filter will be better? Kase or Nisi?
Kase revolution filters are the way to go
Looks like the first version is sharper according to your preview
Make a review on the new Nikon z 180-600 mm vr
Usually this kind of comments should come with a generous donation.
4:10 Focus test Using Sony A7R Mark IV(61 Megapixels)
It says A7iv, so 33 megapixels.
I wonder if this version also include that handy feature of snapping in half like the first one. lol
I heard that mostly about the first GM version. Did it also happen with the f/4? 0 such reports for the GM II and G II Macro that I've seen.
Thanks for the review! Looks like a great lens, but the price is too high for an f/4, at least in my opinion.
€2000 is insane for a f/4 version.
Awesome lens not gonna lie but 2000 euro is a stretch for just f/4. That's almost the same price at the 100-400 GM which is arguable the better lens (if you dont mind the extra weight). I've used the original 70-200 f/4 and it's still really hard to beat it for the money (espcially if you can get one used nowdays)
Awesome
Can the moon, sky, bird be photographed? My camera is sony a7iii 7m3k.
Is it better than 24-105 f4 sony lens?
pretty cool
The criticism of being f 4 …
With de-noising software now very good - on top of today’s very good sensors - to lose 1 F stop of brightness is no longer much of a disadvantage at all
Plus of course, it’s lighter
Everyone keeps saying that the Adobe AI denoise is good but it always makes my images look mushy even when applied in small amounts. I think I prefer to add grain to cover up the noise.
@@mrmonday42 I can’t recall its name but there are one or two noise reduction softwares generally rated better than Adobe
@@richardgrant418topaz labs
Love it.
The fact that it can take TC's but both of Canon's RF 70-200's can't, has very limited focus breathing especially given the lens max magnification AND has that 1:2 macro ability is just icing on the cake. I still can't believe Canon didn't add TC support on any of the 70-200 zooms, I really think that's a big miss imo.
Maybe I'm the minority....Why there's so many on the internet moan about TC compatibility when I barely see anyone use TC in real life.
@@zegzbrutal For me I value the function of a TC as the A7III only has 24mp so crop mode on it isn't as useful as maybe on an A7R or A1 body.
Also given Canon's expertise in lenses I was kind of disappointed they dropped the TC support on their RF 70-200's I think Canon went too far in trying to make these lenses lighter and smaller.
Just my 2 cents on the matter.
@@zegzbrutal I own the 70-200 GM2 and the 2x TC. I can confirm that you lose some sharpness and contrast with it. I only use it when the subject fills less than a quarter of the frame at 200mm, otherwise I find it better to crop.
The price may seem crazy but if you add the semi-macro capability and the ability to make it a true macro by a teleconverter then it doesn't seem too expensive. The optical performance at normal distances is also far superior to the cheaper old Sony 70-200 f4.
The older 70-200 f4 had internal zoom which has been removed in this lens which i feel is a bad step!
🔴 very interesting lens but I would go for the 2.8 if I had the money ❤
For many of us that is a big if.
@@opx4real 🤣👍
70-200 v2 me please
Wow, close to a perfect lens! Not cheap, but hey...
Shame it’s no longer internal zoom.
Good review. I particularly liked the use of the Greek New Testament opened at John 1:1 for testing macro 🥰
f4 at what used to be f2.8 prices
The price of perfection will always be justified by some, this seems to be a near perfect lens when uncorrected, and a perfect lens with the corrections (minus the cat's eyes in the bokeh). It is a killer of a lens, i hope Sigma can out do it though 😁😁😁
F4 is quite a huge drawback, and makes the price difficult to justify to me.
Hmnn..., this Lens must better be a Masterpiece, as it has come for the First Day review to the most ruthless Lens Reviewer 😎
what are you doing Canon?? Should I switch to Sony now?
Very nice lens. But 2000€ for an f4? No freaking way!
What other 70-200 is more sharp? To my knowledge, none. Well done, Sony
As for complaints about its price, imo it’s about right for the most important aspect: image … across the zoom range virtually from wide open, and across the frame.
It’s extremely well built, and light.
Christopher’s high recommendation is appropriate …
Not a surprise that just about every other reviewer formed the same opinion
The canon rf 70-200 f4 a little more sharper, a 200mm especially
@@marcoblondus3204 as it is a different mount, which website/ RUclips has compared both in a way that is equal for both systems?
Looks impressive. Cost aside, the white finish would keep me from using this lens.
I would love to see you review the Canon 0.71 speed booster. I'm looking at the R7, and the idea of using the speed booster with my older L glass (70-200 F4 included) is very attractive.
The original is still great!! This new f4 has a terribly loose focus ring and uneven resistance on the zoom. I recently uploaded a video on my channel that highlights the poor build quality.
Great price-to-value on the 70-200mm range.
Uff, amazing quality but that pricetag.
well...this is now make it difficult...shall I sell my tamron 35-150 for this one...
I am asking myself the same question, especially for video work. What was your decision in the end?
@@kojak1435 stop running behind new gear....35-150 is good ... I don't have time to swap lenses during the shoot...mostly muscles...sports....
I found my self choosing one lens .. to capture all the moments...no time to switch ...so i checked my workflow...i could not manage switching lenses...so I stopped
I'm still using the 2014 version and it does the job. Still seems overpriced though
Me too and it is razor sharp.
😮😮
In the US this will go for ~$1700.
+ taxes, still cheaper, but everywhere else in the world, the listed price includes taxes.
I woder who will buy an F4 lens at the price of 2.8
And the Norwegian Krone is just crap! Hope Sigma will come with an alternative soon🙂
In the US the f/4 will go for around $1700. The f/2.8 GM II is around $2800.
Me watching this after one week of bought the 2.8 GM I
i think this is a convenience, hobbyist first lens. small, gets the job done, bright enough for lower light when paired with their newer ibis cameras and lightroom ai powered NR. will get the shot every time with no questions asked in a small and light package.
if someones is going for price to performance and wants the best glass for their money, yea this isn't it. an older faster lens will do better in the hands of someone running a business doing subject photography.
but for someone who wants a super reliable lens with stellar sharpness and autofocus for street photography or telephoto landscape/light wildlife stuff this would totally be an awesome pick. if i had the money im sure i would love this lens, but for what i do with a camera, at $2000 im going to want f2.8 over fancy tech features and macro capability that i dont need. i built my freelance business on a $65 manual focus vintage lens (50mm f1.2) adapted onto an apsc sony camera. $2k for a "fun" lens would make no sense for me lol.
Is it the same pepsi bottle in every video??
I don't like this zoom mechanism, over time it worn out and start zom in and out by weight 😬
Great review as always Christopher 👍 This lens looks promising and I like the size and weight... However, for this price (even cheaper) I can buy a second hand 1 version of 70-200 2.8 GM ...Edit: I made a comment before the end of the video and you mentioned the same thing 🙂
For the price you can buy a Tamron 70-180 and a true macro lens.
@@frankfeng2701 that´s right 👍🏻
I stopped watching after you mention the price lol. I previously owned the OG 7-2F4 and I still think for the MSRP it was overpriced.
External zoom? guess not. Is it me or Sony purposely make it external zoom just so that people still have reasons to go for the GM II? Shame on their strategy. At least I'm not tempted at all. Traditionally you want a 70-200 F4 to sort of travel light while not needing the fastest speed and most buttery bokeh ever. This isn't much lighter, changed to external zoom design and priced like crazy. Way too many downs for me to ever consider.
price kills this lens
It should be f2.8-4
F4 and 2 grand....nah
F4 lens should $1200 at max
Telephoto zooms are always more expesive