70-200mm F4 lens for A7rII - which one?

[alba63]

Basically I see 3 options:
-Canon 70-200mm F4 non- IS, AntiShake would take care of the hand movements...
-Canon 70-200mm F4 IS: Question is: Will the IS stabilization in the lens be visibly better than the in camera Anti- Shake of the A7rII?
- Sony 70-200 OSS: This is a bit expensive, although I am sure it is optically as good as the Canon, and will give access to all the AF modes, like Eye AF.

So if you have tried two of the three on an A7r II, I'd be thankful to read about your experiences....

Bernie

 

[Annna T]

Basically I see 3 options:
-Canon 70-200mm F4 non- IS, AntiShake would take care of the hand movements...
-Canon 70-200mm F4 IS: Question is: Will the IS stabilization in the lens be visibly better than the in camera Anti- Shake of the A7rII?
- Sony 70-200 OSS: This is a bit expensive, although I am sure it is optically as good as the Canon, and will give access to all the AF modes, like Eye AF.

So if you have tried two of the three on an A7r II, I'd be thankful to read about your experiences....

Bernie

I own both the EF 70-200mm F4 L IS USM and the Sony FE 70-200mm F4 G. I prefer the Canon lens. It is sharper in the corners especially at the long end. The IS works well. On the A7r with Metabones Smart Adapter III it was a little slow for focusing. But on the A7rII and the Metabones Smart Adapter IV it is focusing quite fast, although may be not enough for fast action. Since I have got the A7r2 and Metabones IV, I prefer the Canon to the Sony FE. I find the Sony more cumbersome. The Canon lens is also lighter, but once you add the rather heavy adapter, that advantage becomes negligible.

I got the Sony FE in order to gain a speedier focusing on the A7r, but with the A7r2 and the kind of subject I photograph, I wouldn't buy it again. That said, there are some sample variations and I may not have got a really good one. Also I tend to use zooms at the longer end and the Sony is best at the short end.

 

[alba63]

Thank you Anna,
that was a useful answer. Even if the Sony lens would be a little bit better, I'd probably not spend that much on an F4 lens. I am currently negociating with someone for buying his little used EF70-200mm F4 IS. I guess one can't go wrong with it... I have the Metabones IV smart adapter, so it should work well.

My guess would be that the IS is more efficient than the AntiShake in the camera, am I right? With the antishake I so far found out I can shoot 2,5 stops under 1/focal lenght, 3 stops already being a stretch. For 200mm that would be 1/30s... 42MP is more demanding on camera stillness than 12 or 16MP....

regards
Bernie

 

[mathomas]

I have just done some informal testing on my Sony 70-200 and I'd say the corners are not stellar, though they are acceptable to me, and for my purposes (I bought used and saved some $$). However, I have gotten tired of adapting lenses to my Sony A7II, so the native E-mount and native features are valuable to me. If you haven't considered it, you might want to factor in the expense of the autofocus adapter if you don't already have it, and the extra bulk and complexity it adds to a kit, if you got outside the E-mount world.

I don't know if you'll find this interesting, but here is a video I just put up about the Sony 70-200 (with comparison to the A-mount Minolta "beer can" lens):
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ccyboO83ebw

 

[alba63]

However, I have gotten tired of adapting lenses to my Sony A7II, so the native E-mount and native features are valuable to me. If you haven't considered it, you might want to factor in the expense of the autofocus adapter if you don't already have it, and the extra bulk and complexity it adds to a kit, if you got outside the E-mount world.

Thank you for your answer.
However, I have made my decision for now, I have found a used EF70-200 IS F4, to be on my Metabones IV that I already have (also bought used). I found it for relatively cheap, so in case that this combo is not working right for me, I will sell it again. But most reviews suggest that it should work more or less well. One looses the more refined AF modes on the A7rII, but other than that, once the lens is mounted onto the adapter, it should - hopefully - work like a Sony lens. Even if the last 10% of speed may miss...

When shooting I tend to forget and internalize shortcomings/ work- arounds of my equipment quickly and forget about them. In the end I am mostly interested in image quality. So far, the A7r II delivers it in spades, even with my older EF- mount lenses which are all well below the Zeiss league.

 

[Guy Mancuso]

Well regrettable as I know I'm losing some speed I sold my 135 f2 canon and MB IV and bought the Sony 70-200 F4. Main reason is for shoot coming up I can run 2 shooters 2 bodies and 2 70-200 so we can shoot more of models and frankly it's all about making money. Lol

I'm looking for more sales of prints.

Bonus I'm done with adapters. I'm over it

 

[Hausen]

Agree totally with Guy, I am over adapters. Bought the FE70-200/4 and am pretty happy with it. I keep having problems with my EF MB IV and it always seems to be at a time that it is hard to remove lens and reset, like yesterday on a windy day at the beach. Hope you have better results.

 

[Guy Mancuso]

I'm all native except for the VV 15mm. I actually for once have no holes

VC 15, Batis 25, Sony FE 35 1.4, Batis 85 1.8

Sony 24-70 and now the 70-200. Now pending announcements in a few weeks will see how it goes. If there is a 135 Or 200 that's 2.8 or faster than I would most likely do either but more important to me is being all native. We are finally at that point we have top notch glass to get a great percent of your base kit with awesome glass.

 

[dmward]

Guy,
I'm with you on the native glass thing.
I have a Metabones and it works well with several of my left over Canon EF lenses.
Even so, I want to sell the rest of the Canon lenses and keep it native.

 

[ShooterSteve]

Happy Holidays to all!

I have the Canon 70-200 2.8 IS II and love it. But it's very bulky and was thinking of getting an f4 for my personal travel work with the Sony. Can anyone give me comparisons on the Canon f4 IS vs. the non-IS? the Non IS f4 70-200 is quite a bargain and hard to pass up. How will they compare to my 2.8 as far as sharpness?

 

[Annna T]

Happy Holidays to all!

I have the Canon 70-200 2.8 IS II and love it. But it's very bulky and was thinking of getting an f4 for my personal travel work with the Sony. Can anyone give me comparisons on the Canon f4 IS vs. the non-IS? the Non IS f4 70-200 is quite a bargain and hard to pass up. How will they compare to my 2.8 as far as sharpness?

I only know the 70-200mm F4 L IS USM, but second lenstip.com, that lens is better than the non IS version Canon EF 70-200 mm f/4L IS USM review - Summary - LensTip.com

This is the summary. But you will find links to all the chapters at the bottom of their conclusion/summary.

If you search their website, you will find reviews of several other Canon 70-200mm.

 

[biglouis]

I owned the 70-200 recently for about 10 days before sending it back.

I thought the IQ was mediocre at best on the A7R and A7S.

I don't like the fact that with Sony lenses some you win, some you lose. I have a good copy of the 24-70. I'm not inclined to go through several 70-200s to find a better one.

Just my two cents.

LouisB

 

[mathomas]

Thank you for your answer.
However, I have made my decision for now, I have found a used EF70-200 IS F4, to be on my Metabones IV that I already have (also bought used). I found it for relatively cheap, so in case that this combo is not working right for me, I will sell it again. But most reviews suggest that it should work more or less well. One looses the more refined AF modes on the A7rII, but other than that, once the lens is mounted onto the adapter, it should - hopefully - work like a Sony lens. Even if the last 10% of speed may miss...

When shooting I tend to forget and internalize shortcomings/ work- arounds of my equipment quickly and forget about them. In the end I am mostly interested in image quality. So far, the A7r II delivers it in spades, even with my older EF- mount lenses which are all well below the Zeiss league.

Yeah, I was very happy with my Canon 70-200 f4 IS lens when I was shooting Canon. And I agree that once you're shooting a lot of equipment imperfections melt away.

I was pushed over the edge to the Sony when I went for a short weekend trip and forgot to bring the adapter for my A-mount tele lens. Before I got the Sony 70-200 I didn't have any E-mount tele options at all, so it's nice to have a tele that is "ready to rock" at a moments notice with no extra thought on my part.

I still have non-native lenses like my Minolta 100mm macro, 85/1.4, etc., so I still have a long cross-grade path ahead of me.

Enjoy the setup!

 

[chrisd]

Well, I took a slightly different path. I came across a mint used A-mount 70-300 G (version I) for a "steal" ($300), so I picked that up along with an LA-EA3 and a mint Minolta 70-210 Beercan, and sold my FE 70-200 (for more than I paid for it used), and had about $800 left over. Although I was reasonably impressed with the FE 70-200 IQ, I was never comfortable shooting it around people given it is white and very noticeable. The Minolta Beercan is much more discrete, plus the minimum focus distance is shorter than the FE, which is real important to get a bit more DOF control given they are only f4. Only downside with the Beercan is the MF with this adapter (which doesn't bother me since I don't shoot action), and there is more CA to clean up in post. For landscape or cityscape (slightly stopped down to f5.6 - f8) the 70-300G IQ matches the FE 70-200, and it focuses almost as fast with this adapter (although no eye-AF). Since I only reach for a long zoom a handful of shooting occasions per year, this arrangement suits me just fine.

 

[serhan]

I have la-ea3/4 and metabones 3/4 and confirm that la-ea4 beats all in low light af performance. Sony lenses are Sony g 28-75 2.8, 85mm 2.8, & 70-300 g ver I, Tamron 28-300 pzd. Also beercan even beat Minolta 100mm f2 & Sony 135mm 1.8 in low light af with la-ea4. Usually faster aperture lenses af better with metabones like 100mm f2 and luckily my old Sigma 24-60mm 2.8. Canon 50 1.8, Tamron 90mm 2.8 and Canon 70-300 non-L were not very good in low light. Actually Canon 70-300 had better af with contrast af when I used with my A7R. I have to check in good light. That is my experience with adapters. Of course native lenses af better though I don't have FE 70-200/24-240 zooms...

I have also 55-210 apsc zoom and works on the full frame from 135mm to 210mm with the baffles removed. You loose 1-1.3 stops but af is fast and the lens is very small and can be found used cheap... Here is a shot at 174mm with no crop:

Well, I took a slightly different path. I came across a mint used A-mount 70-300 G (version I) for a "steal" ($300), so I picked that up along with an LA-EA3 and a mint Minolta 70-210 Beercan, and sold my FE 70-200 (for more than I paid for it used), and had about $800 left over. Although I was reasonably impressed with the FE 70-200 IQ, I was never comfortable shooting it around people given it is white and very noticeable. The Minolta Beercan is much more discrete, plus the minimum focus distance is shorter than the FE, which is real important to get a bit more DOF control given they are only f4. Only downside with the Beercan is the MF with this adapter (which doesn't bother me since I don't shoot action), and there is more CA to clean up in post. For landscape or cityscape (slightly stopped down to f5.6 - f8) the 70-300G IQ matches the FE 70-200, and it focuses almost as fast with this adapter (although no eye-AF). Since I only reach for a long zoom a handful of shooting occasions per year, this arrangement suits me just fine.

 

[dchew]

Happy Holidays to all!

I have the Canon 70-200 2.8 IS II and love it. But it's very bulky and was thinking of getting an f4 for my personal travel work with the Sony. Can anyone give me comparisons on the Canon f4 IS vs. the non-IS? the Non IS f4 70-200 is quite a bargain and hard to pass up. How will they compare to my 2.8 as far as sharpness?

I am going back in time to pre-digital, but I had the 70-200 f/4 then purchased the IS version when it was first released. I agree with Anna's posted review: the IS version is better. I still have this lens and just a few days ago did a new test vs the Leica APO 90 f/2 and the Canon 90 TS f/2.8. I continue to be amazed at that 70-200 f/4 IS. At 90mm the center is the best of the bunch even at f/4. If the Leica wasn't so darn small I would use the zoom more often.

Dave

 

[dchew]

As a follow up, I just received a long-anticipated Leica APO-Elmarit-R 180 f/2.8. Again I compared it with the 70-200 f/4 IS. I missed a little and shot it at 173mm (should have checked).

Anyway, the Leica is better, but not by all that much IMO.The main difference is in the "micro-contrast". The Leica is just outstanding. :thumb:

In case anyone is interested in looking at very boring stone-wall raw files from the Canon and both Leica's, see here:
https://www.hightail.com/download/ZWJVek90NmNoeVpvSWNUQw

 

[uhoh7]

One of my main lenses is the Nikkor 180/2.8 AIS ED

These only run around 275, and some feel it's one of the best MF nikkors ever made. It's fast enough for concert work, and it's great at 2.8


Blue Light by unoh7, on Flickr


DSC00207 by unoh7, on Flickr

The Leica 180 should be better, but this lens can hold its own with anything at 180mm, I think. It's fantastic at infinity. Bokeh is not a strong suit, but I rarely see it ruin a shot.

I have the Sony 70400 G, but rarely use it. It's good for what it is, but lenses like this really spoil you. The 300/2.8 AIS ED is not any sharper than this one, but it's generally as sharp and has unbelievable smooth bokeh, as does the 500/4 P. These are my primary long lenses now. Below the 180, I use the two Leica M 135s, the f/3.4 APO and the 135/2.8, which is a real sleeper, and also has wonderful bokeh.

 

[JMaher]

I used to love my Nikon 180 - great lens.

However the Minolta 200 2.8 with an adapter gives me autofocus and the quality seems at least as high.