Jump to content

Anyone go from a Nikon 70-200 f/2.8 to the Sony f/4?


Nubster
 Share

Recommended Posts

I have a Nikon 70-200 f/2.8. As anyone knows...it's the lens to have whether you're Nikon, Canon, Sony...it's the King and a dream lens for many. Normally I'd never drop that kinda cash on a camera lens since I'm only a hobbyist photographer but I was in a position several years ago to be able to get one...so I did. I don't regret it at all even though I don't use it that often. Now that I'm back on the Sony mirrorless horse...I'm torn. Sell the Nikon and buy the Sony 70-200mm f/4 (no way I can pony up the money for the f/2.8) or keep the Nikon and shoot it manually? 

 

Has anyone made the switch and if so...are you happy about the choice? I'm just afraid that if I unload the Nikon I'll be sorry but I won't be able to afford the Sony otherwise. And I just don't see myself shooting my Nikon often or at all now that I have the a6000 to replace my failing NEX6.

Link to post
Share on other sites

What you describe was my exact situation about a year ago when I thought to make the jump to mirrorless from my Canon 5D III.

 

I got the a6000 with only the kit lens, I was going to sell all the Canon gear but a friend said to wait; I sold my 70-200 f/2.8 the 17-40 f/4 the 24-70 f/2.8 and a bunch of other stuff. I kept the body the 24-105 f/4 and the 50 f/1.4 prime.

 

I miss those lenses and don't have the money to replace them and the 70-200 f/2.8 for the a6000 is over $2,500. I am still using the Canon much more than the Sony, this is probably because I only have the 16-50 kit lens, but the Canon is better in low light and focuses faster. I like the Sony for carrying around and I plan to get some faster lenses when I can afford them.

 

So my advice is to keep your Nikon gear and use the two for different purposes as you see fit.

 

 

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Link to post
Share on other sites

True...but in all honesty...the a6000 has better low light performance but the Nikon (D7000) is a faster focusing camera. I don't tend to do much where I need really fast focusing...maybe when my kids play soccer but that's about it. So I get what you're saying...and I was already in the same boat a while back when I got my first mirrorless camera (NEX 6) and I actually sold the body and I replaced it with another one because I missed it. I still had all the lenses though. I'm still torn. The a6000 feels like it's on a different level than the NEX 6. I think with a couple fast lenses for the a6000...I'd pretty pretty close to where I'm at with the D7000. Still have to deliberate and weigh the pros and cons. I appreciate your insight.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I have primes. I have the native mount Sigma 19mm and 30mm f/2.8. And I have some legacy glass with adapters including an Olympus PEN 38mm f/1.8, Minolta Rokkor MC 24mm f/2.8 and 50mm f/1.4, Nikon 50mm f/1.8, Sigma 30mm f/1.4, and Tamron 90mm f/2.8 macro. Only zoom I own is the Nikon 70-200 f/2.8.

 

When it comes to primes...I am completely fine with manual. I love them in fact. When I feel like being a little lazy I'll use the Sigmas which are perfectly fine for me 99% of the time.

 

My gears have changed a little and now I'm starting to think that maybe the 18-105 might be the way to go if I end up selling the 70-200. That will give me a good lens that will work well as a walk around and pretty good general use lens. Perhaps down the road someday I can add something with more range.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I maintain Sony and Nikon systems because the Sony isn't really pro grade yet.

I have a good selection of glass for both systems but I rarely mix and match.

 

The Novoflex is the best MF adapter for Nikon glass on Sony and it gives great results but really works best with lenses with a mechanical apeture control on the lens.

The AF Nikons are way to finicky to work with in this regard.

I saw an interview with the Camera Store TV, where Chris Nichols said the only reliable way to get it to work was to set the aperture on a Nikon DSLR and then swap the lens to the adapter.

 

The Sony 70-200 F4 is a decent lens.

A bit to creamy/dreamy for my taste compared to the best primes and it has some questionable design parameters (I've seen several of them broken in half on the Internet), but it's really not a lens I shoot with on the A6300.

It's just too big and heavy and you need to walk around with a sling mounted to the tripod bracket to avoid stress on the camera mount.

 

 

My advice would be to get the 55-210 because it's a lot lighter and cheaper.

 

HTH

Link to post
Share on other sites

I've been using the Sony 70-200mm f/4 on an A6000, A6300, and A7rII. On the A6300 it's pretty darn good capturing action like a dog or other animal running toward the camera. It's not as good for action on the A7rII, since that camera fills the buffer too quickly and doesn't focus quickly enough. It does a decent job on the A6000.

 

So how does it compare to the Nikon 70-200 f/2.8? Well, when I use the Nikon 70-200 f/2.8 with a Nikon D7200, I'd say the A6300 with the Sony 70-200 f/4 does a touch better. However this may be due to the lighter weight of the A6300 and Sony 70-200 f/4. I wouldn't give up the Nikon 7200/70-200mm combination to buy an A6300 and Sony 70-200 f/4. Certainly this depends on the Nikon camera too. On my wife's D800E the Nikon 70-200mm lens is sluggish at best for action, almost useless.

 

As for sharpness and contrast, I would say the Nikon D7200/Nikon 70-200mm combo is a bit better, though this probably depends on the post processing (I use DxO). My main objection to the Sony 70-200mm f/4 is a busy bokeh, but this is a relatively minor concern for me and the type of photos for which I use it.

 

Overall, the Sony A6300/Sony 70-200mm f/4 combination is a joy to carry around because of the light weight compared to the Nikon combination (I've jogged with it, hiked with it, used it in frigid weather and hot weather...love how it goes along with me without weighing me down and have taken about 6000 shots with the combo). I would recommend the Sony A6300/70-200mm combo over the Nikon D7200/70-200mm f/2.8 combo. But as I said, I wouldn't give up the Nikon combo to purchase the Sony combo. I'm lucky because my wife is a Nikon user, so I can make the direct comparison often.

 

If you plan on using the Nikon lens with manual focus on the Sony A6000, then I would definitely get the Sony 70-200mm f/4. The lens is made for action. Okay, it won't be quite as good on the A6000 compared to the A6300, but it won't disappoint either. I tried the Nikon lens on the Sony A6000 before I purchased the Sony lens, and it wasn't all that great of an experience.

 

BTW: I sold my Canon 70-200mm f/4 after I purchased the A6300. The Sony combination was too good to pass up for that switch. The Canon lens worked much better on the A6000 than the Nikon lens.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Might be cheaper to upgrade to a D7200 to use with the lens, if you sometimes need action shooting. At least that is a known quantity. Then use some nice MF primes on the Sony, for slower moving stuff.

Even if I get a A6500, I am probably going to stick with Nikon for action, just because getting to an equivalent level on Sony is so expensive.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't feel the need to upgrade the DSLR if I do end up keeping it honestly. If anything...I thought about selling it and getting a used D300 to have on hand for just shooting fast action in good light (kids soccer games). I definitely don't want to drop more money on a body for a system I don't really want to use anymore. Or use very often as the case may be. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Considering the prime lenses that you have, I would try to purchase the Sony 70-200 f/4. The Sony 18-105 f/4 works pretty well on the Sony A6000 and makes a great carry along one lens system. However, its tracking ability isn't nearly as good as the 70-200, and its borders are much softer. Plus it does have significant distortion. Finally, if you do get a Sony full frame emount at some time in the future, the 70-200 will produce darn sharp photos on the full frame camera. I like the Sony 18-105mm lens when I don't feel like carrying extra lenses. And for many photos it does a great job. But, the Sony 24mm sensor overwhelms the glass.

 

I mentioned the Nikon D7200 with the Nikon 70-200mm lens for comparison and wouldn't suggest buying the Nikon body, if you want the light weight of the Sony A6000. I've shot some soccer games in good light and the A6000 with the 70-200mm does quite well.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Any 70-200/4.0 is simply an incredibly practical lens. 

Large, but not huge, almost all versions have been

sharp, and there's no DoF at three-digit FLs at f/2.8

anywho. Not much DoF at f/4.0 :-( but the greater

DoF at f/4.0 vs 2.8 can reduce AF hunting, cuz the

before-focusing image is not so toadally fuzzed out.   

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...