SONY LENS

[Liam Bunce]

I am in the market for a new lens for my Sony A6500 and will be trading in my Nikon kit, I'm in a bit of a quandary though not knowing if I should get the Sony FE 70-200 F2.8 GM OSS with a converter, or the FE 100-400 F4.5-5.6 GM OSS,

 

I have watched several YouTube video's and they both look extremely good lenses even though some reviews are quite conflicting.

 

Does anyone have either of these lenses or have a preference if they were to purchase one.

 

Liam         

[John Mitchell]

Wow! Either of those lenses would cost you well over $3K (CAN) here. Is it worth spending that much on a lens these days?

 

You must have some serious stuff in mind.

[wiskerke]

1 hour ago, Liam Bunce said:

I am in the market for a new lens for my Sony A6500 and will be trading in my Nikon kit, I'm in a bit of a quandary though not knowing if I should get the Sony FE 70-200 F2.8 GM OSS with a converter, or the FE 100-400 F4.5-5.6 GM OSS,

 

I have watched several YouTube video's and they both look extremely good lenses even though some reviews are quite conflicting.

 

Does anyone have either of these lenses or have a preference if they were to purchase one.

 

Liam         

 

Not sure whether I would pay for that sort of firepower on a small camera.

I have the 70-200 F4 which is already a very good lens. However it does not accept a converter.  Which is a shame really.

 

wim

[Liam Bunce]

22 minutes ago, John Mitchell said:

Wow! Either of those lenses would cost you well over $3K (CAN) here. Is it worth spending that much on a lens these days?

 

You must have some serious stuff in mind.

They both retail at around £2500 here in the UK.

My main subject will be wildlife.

 

Liam

 

[Liam Bunce]

42 minutes ago, wiskerke said:

 

Not sure whether I would pay for that sort of firepower on a small camera.

I have the 70-200 F4 which is already a very good lens. However it does not accept a converter.  Which is a shame really.

 

wim

Was the 2.8 not released for the Sony mirror-less range?

 

Liam  

[Betty LaRue]

Good for you, Liam. It’s all about the lenses. I did the same thing. Sold off all Nikon gear to pay for good lenses for my Fuji X-T1 and X-T2. I have a 100-400 lens and it’s simply a matter of supporting the lens with my hand. I don’t even use a tripod.

Get what you want. After all, it’s your money.

Later on, if you should have buyer’s remorse, nobody need know and you can sell it. So far, I don’t regret any of my Fuji lenses and use them all. And that’s 8 of ‘em!  I have everything from 10 to 400mm covered! Zooms and primes.

I have one, the kit lens 18-55 I use least. Not that it’s not sharp, it is. But I bought the 18-135 for more reach, which made the smaller lens somewhat redundant. Although I do have a few situations where I use it.

Betty

[John Mitchell]

1 hour ago, Betty LaRue said:

It’s all about the lenses.

 

And there I was thinking that the photographer had something to do with it as well.

 

P.S. I'm sure that Liam is an excellent one.

[John Mitchell]

2 hours ago, Liam Bunce said:

They both retail at around £2500 here in the UK.

My main subject will be wildlife.

 

Liam

 

 

If I'm not mistaken, £2500 is about $4500 CAN. How can there be such a big price difference?

 

The FE 100-400 F4.5-5.6 GM OSS  goes for about $3400 CAN.

 

 

[spacecadet]

Sales tax is 20% here.

Actually there do seem to be some listed at abound £1800.

[marc]

I've got the 70-200 F4 which is a very good lens. I have a A7rii.  

 

Wex has got an open box 70-200GM for £2100. https://www.wexphotovideo.com/sony-70-200mm-f2-8-g-ssm-ii-lens-used-1657929/?mkwid=syzuq4btz_dc&pcrid=227169419658&kword=&match=&plid=&product=1657929&gclid=CjwKCAjwk9HWBRApEiwA6mKWaVcklOGC-QZX621ENPWE6q-YGnNvgbOm34z5jeHaOG1n_1KMr2KWMhoCWT8QAvD_BwE

[wiskerke]

3 hours ago, Liam Bunce said:

Was the 2.8 not released for the Sony mirror-less range?

 

Liam  

 

Yes, but I find the 2.8-s too heavy and big for travel.

For wildlife I have a small pair of 10x25 binoculars ;-)

 

I have looked at the 100-400mm as well, but mainly because my F4 doesn't accept a converter.

For my Canons my longest lens is a 600mm which does accept a dedicated 2x converter. It's ancient but works when needed. However the quality is really showing on the A7R2. The lack of, of course. I also have a whole range of 400mm-s. Some slightly better than others.

I have been looking at the RX10 IV, in case I would just need the angle and not the file size. I have rented RX10-s before. Especially for remote use, because they allow for remote zooming.

 

In your case I would try to rent the lenses including their converters as well. They're all a steep investment. Well not the converters maybe.

Btw I have not seen a test of those yet.

 

wim

 

[John Mitchell]

1 hour ago, spacecadet said:

Sales tax is 20% here.

Actually there do seem to be some listed at abound £1800.

 

That's pretty hefty. It's 12% in BC (5% federal GST + 7% provincial PST). Varies from province to province. Alberta has no PST,  just GST.

[Marianne]

Congrats on the Sony - loving my new A7rii - the longest lens I've purchased so far for it is a 90mm macro so no help on your query except to encourage you to get the lens that will inspire you and fuel your creativity, and to share my experience in making the Nikon-Sony switch.

 

I just sold off all my Nikon cameras and nearly all my lenses in order to buy the Sony A7rii and a few primes.
 

We all have to look at how we shoot, our budgets, and where it makes sense to splurge or hold back. I don't think you ever regret getting the best equipment that you can afford when you can afford to splurge. I know that using a 42MP camera means I need lenses that can live up to what the camera can do, so for me that meant a few new primes. This included choosing the smaller and lighter f/2.8 Sony 35mm over the much larger and heavier Sony and Rokinon f/1.4's as a walk-around lens, knowing my kit would also include the heavier 90mm macro and some other larger lenses going forward.

 

I was eyeing the pricey Zeiss Loxia 21mm f/2.8 (US $1,500), but after further research decided to keep my Nikon 20mm f/2.8 and bought an inexpensive (about $35) manual adapter since I didn't think it was worth spending $300 on a metabones or equivalent simply to get autofocus on a lens that wide. It's fantastic. For wildlife shooting of course attaching a huge Nikon lens with an adapter to your Sony makes no sense since the point is to keep weight down, but you might want to hold on to a few choice wide primes if you have them.

 

I wish I had experience with either of the zooms to share, but for the kind of work you do, having the best tele zoom you can afford makes sense. I wouldn't spent thousands for a lens to shoot ordinary boring serviceable stock photos, but I would spend it to shoot the kind of stock that was also the kind of photography that fueled my passion - and if your passion is wildlife, then go for the best you can afford. I added a used 12mm Rokinon fisheye  to my arsenal - not a necessity when building a new Sony kit from scratch and at $360 not a cheap toy considering all the other kit I was buying - but I felt I needed something to get my fine art creative juices flowing. If I sell one or two fine art prints, it will pay for itself and if it gets me inspired then it has paid for itself already.

 

So - best of luck! Can't wait to hear what you choose and how it works out.

[Liam Bunce]

14 hours ago, Betty LaRue said:

Good for you, Liam. It’s all about the lenses. I did the same thing. Sold off all Nikon gear to pay for good lenses for my Fuji X-T1 and X-T2. I have a 100-400 lens and it’s simply a matter of supporting the lens with my hand. I don’t even use a tripod.

Get what you want. After all, it’s your money.

Later on, if you should have buyer’s remorse, nobody need know and you can sell it. So far, I don’t regret any of my Fuji lenses and use them all. And that’s 8 of ‘em!  I have everything from 10 to 400mm covered! Zooms and primes.

I have one, the kit lens 18-55 I use least. Not that it’s not sharp, it is. But I bought the 18-135 for more reach, which made the smaller lens somewhat redundant. Although I do have a few situations where I use it.

Betty

The only lens that I have at the moment is the 18-105 G OSS  which is very good for general use,  it is tie though that I expanded my lens kit and looking at the two options I', more in favor of the F2.8 + a converter, this will mean the whole of my Nikon kit will have to go D7000 + four lenses.

 

I probably will not get a great deal for it as trade in but it will save me the time of having to advertise it.

 

Liam    

[wiskerke]

1 hour ago, Liam Bunce said:

The only lens that I have at the moment is the 18-105 G OSS  which is very good for general use,  it is tie though that I expanded my lens kit and looking at the two options I', more in favor of the F2.8 + a converter, this will mean the whole of my Nikon kit will have to go D7000 + four lenses.

 

I probably will not get a great deal for it as trade in but it will save me the time of having to advertise it.

 

Liam    

 

A 100-400mm + 1.4 converter will give you significantly more reach for wildlife and will not overlap with your existing lens.

Plus it's a tiny bit lighter.

 

Again: maybe rent one first. The going rate in the UK seems to be around 30,- /day and 10,- for a converter if you rent it for a couple of days.

 

wim

[Martin B]

21 hours ago, Liam Bunce said:

I or the FE 100-400 F4.5-5.6 GM OSS,

 

 

Why anyone would pay $2,500 for a relatively slow, variable aperture zoom lens is beyond me. The 70-200 f/2.8 is a much better design, and a lot faster.

[wiskerke]

53 minutes ago, Martin B said:

Why anyone would pay $2,500 for a relatively slow, variable aperture zoom lens is beyond me. The 70-200 f/2.8 is a much better design, and a lot faster.

 

Good glass is expensive; the 70-200 f/2.8 is only a tiny bit sharper; there's no other native long lens yet for the Sony.

 

wim

 

is this breaking news?

No it isn't:  Published on Mar 7, 2018

[Martin B]

9 hours ago, wiskerke said:

 

Good glass is expensive; the 70-200 f/2.8 is only a tiny bit sharper; there's no other native long lens yet for the Sony.

 

 

It's not the sharp part that is concerning in this case. At all. It has to do with the slow aperture and that it has a variable aperture. The detriment of using a lens with a slow aperture is self explanatory for low light conditions. A lens with a constant aperture, like the f/2.8 lens, retains a constant aperture and focus when zoomed.  A lens with variable aperture, however, changes both aperture and focus as it is zoomed, which can be be a big problem in many circumstances when trying to get off quick shots or control depth of field.

 

[wiskerke]

52 minutes ago, Martin B said:

It's not the sharp part that is concerning in this case. At all. It has to do with the slow aperture and that it has a variable aperture. The detriment of using a lens with a slow aperture is self explanatory for low light conditions. A lens with a constant aperture, like the f/2.8 lens, retains a constant aperture and focus when zoomed.  A lens with variable aperture, however, changes both aperture and focus as it is zoomed, which can be be a big problem in many circumstances when trying to get off quick shots or control depth of field.

 

 

Faster apertures are really expensive. Think  8-10K. The upcoming Sony 2.8-400mm will be in the 10K range.

Again I think this is already much more firepower than I would put on a 6500. However I can see the reasoning for it.

The variable aperture is probably a bit of a nuisance in video, but not for stills. Bokeh may well be better than a constant aperture lens. At least it's lots cheaper to build. Also the result is a lot lighter and smaller. Depth of field at the 400mm end is obviously a compromise: a 2.8 can be really nice. These lenses are expensive precisely because the largest opening is already perfectly usable. The 70-200/2.8 coupled with the 2x converter will be 5.6 at the 400mm end, which is the same as the 100-400mm. However the image quality will take a hit. There could be one possible useful advantage of such a combination: the closest focusing distance may be shorter. (But I have not checked that.) Which may be interesting for the garden feeder.

 

I'm not aware of any third party longer lens for the Sony mount.

With adapters of course anything goes. Like with all my funny gear.

Older long lenses tend to be quite soft. However with the right post technique a lot can be wrestled from these old howitzers. Have a look at this or this.

In some of the BBC wildlife programs you may have spotted this one, which is a favorite of some of the camera men.

No AF, but with the A6500 all those will have Image Stabilization ;-)

 

wim

[Liam Bunce]

Having watched reviews on both lenses by John Sisin I sunk my teeth firmly into the bullet and purchased the 70/200 2.8 which I am very pleased with, and where better to try it out than the Malvern Spring festival with my studio already set up. It was not quite as heavy to carry around as I thought it might be.

 

Images below your critique please, be gentle.

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Bill Brooks]

On 4/16/2018 at 12:33, wiskerke said:

I have the 70-200 F4 which is already a very good lens. However it does not accept a converter.  Which is a shame really.

 

wim

 

I have the Canon 70-200 F4 as well, because I do a lot of hiking and I want a lightweight lens. I also find at least F5.6 necessary for depth of field at 200mm, so I do not miss F2.8. The F4 lens is also very sharp and comparatively cheap.

 

I once had a Nikon film system with a 80-200 F2.8 but never used the lens at F2.8 because my shooting required that extra F5.6-11 depth of field.

 

I have a Canon 400mm F5.6. I rarely use it because it has less depth of field than 200MM, is heavy, and I like to shoot quickly handheld.

 

With a 50 megapixel camera you can always “tel extend” 200mm to 400MM and gain a greater depth of field by cropping the 50 megapixel file to 20 megapixel size, like this vertical cropped from an actual 200mm horizontal shot here.

 

 

[DDoug]

The 70-200 2.8 is a rebadged Minolta, one of the last of their design before being taken over by Sony.

A good used one is about half the new price of the current Sony model.

[marc]

3 hours ago, DDoug said:

The 70-200 2.8 is a rebadged Minolta, one of the last of their design before being taken over by Sony.

A good used one is about half the new price of the current Sony model.

The E mount G master designs have all been developed in the last 3 years.   

[Liam Bunce]

3 hours ago, marc said:

The E mount G master designs have all been developed in the last 3 years.   

And are specifically designed for the Sony miorrorless range.

 

 

[Duncan_Andison]

On 17/04/2018 at 12:43, Martin B said:

Why anyone would pay $2,500 for a relatively slow, variable aperture zoom lens is beyond me. The 70-200 f/2.8 is a much better design, and a lot faster.

 

Sony FE 100-400 GM.

 

If you had it and used it you would know. It is without doubt the best long zoom lens I've ever used. It's sharp from wide open across the frame at all FL's and is very fast to focus. Shooting action is a breeze with it and it tracks very well. It also has superb micro contrast and has lovely OOF rendering. It is one lens I'd buy in a heartbeat again if I had too.

 

My main goto lenses are the FE 12-24 G f/4, FE 24-105G f/4 & the 100-400GM. I save the primes for working in the studio now and the zooms for high quality convenience.

 

As for OP. Save your money on the Sony FE 70-200 f/2.8 and go for the A6500 and pair it with the 70-200 f/4 . It has IBIS and will help with stabilise all lenses inc which ever long lens you go for. The 70-200 F/4 is a very capable as well and unless you're shooting a lot in low light, the constant f/4 will be more than enough. It's also a lot lighter to carry around. 

 

(duh, misread and thought you said a6000 :-) and you've bought the f/2.8 ....I need new glasses I think )