Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Hi Guys,

I have been looking at getting the Sony E mount 70-200 F2.8 GM OSS lens: https://www.amazon.com/Sony-70-200mm-2-8-OSS-Lens/dp/B01IDQEQ34

but considering its price tag it is a difficult buy. I have looked at the F4 but given the performance increase, I would prefer the F2.8.

I have seen another lens, the Sony A mount 70-200 F2.8 SSM (Super Sonic Wave Motor) AF System)lens.https://www.amazon.com/Sony-SAL70200G-70-200mm-Digital-Camera/dp/B000DZKOJ4

These cost around 1/3 of the price of the first lens mentioned which I don't quite understand. I have a Sony A7II so I'd need to A to E adapter to use the second lens, these cost around $200, even despite that it would easily be 50-60% cheaper. The only benefit I can see of the first lens is the Optical Steady Shot, and I'd perhaps lose half a stop of light using the A to E adapter. Aside from that can anyone tell me what the differences are? I realise using the Sony A7II won't be the best body for the job, but it is what I have.

Thanks

Edited by daws901
Link to post
Share on other sites

Autofocus performance will suffer significantly when using the adapted option. If you need responsive AF, don't consider A to E-mount adapted options on your A7II. Besides, the optical performance of the FE-lens is a world of difference vs the A-mount option:

https://www.dxomark.com/Lenses/Compare/Side-by-side/Sony-FE-70-200mm-F28-GM-OSS-on-Sony-A7R-II-versus-Sony-70-200mm-F2-8-G-on-Sony-SLT-Alpha-99-II__1679_1035_246_1120

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

Edited by Pieter
added field map for 200mm @ f/2.8
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
  • Posts

    • I'd suggest you start by running a simple test.  Take pictures of a typical scene/subject and each of the JPEG settings your camera offers.  Then compare them in the output that you normally produce.  You may or may not see a difference.  I normally shoot at the highest JPEG level and save that file -- but make a smaller file (lower resolution) for normal/typical use. There's plenty of editing that you can do with JPEGs on your computer -- depending on your software -- and there are features in your camera that can help out, as well.  That depends on your camera.  Put them together, and it might meet your needs.  For example, your camera probably has several bracketing features that will take the same shot with different settings with one press of the button.  Then you can select the best JPEG to work with on your computer.  I frequently use this feature to control contrast.
    • If you set up some basic presets in your processing software and use batch processing, you don't need jpeg at all. I shoot RAW only, use (free) Faststone Image Viewer which will view any type of image file to cull my shots, and batch process in Darktable. I can start with 2000-3000 shots and in a matter of a few hours have them culled, processed, and posted. A handful of shots, say a couple hundred from a photo walk, are done in minutes.  This saves card space, computer space, and upload time.  The results are very good for posting online. When someone wants to buy one or I decide to print it, I can then return to the RAW file and process it individually for optimum results.  I never delete a RAW file. Sometimes I'll return to an old shot I processed several years ago and reprocess it. I have been very surprised how much better they look as my processing skills improved.  
    • If you're only publishing small-sized photo's or viewing on a phone / computer screen, 12-ish MP should be more than enough for your needs. Since with JPEG, the ability to 'fix' stuff on the computer is very limited anyway, you're not giving up much except the ability to crop/recompose after taking the shot. If you tend to crop often or might print large, shoot fine quality instead as JPEGs don't take up a lot of space anyway. I tend to shoot RAW+JPEG. After a trip/shoot, I download my photos to my computer and quickly scan through my JPEGs to select my keepers. The JPEGs are fine for 90% of my needs but at times there are one or two 'WOW'-shots that I might one day print large. I'll edit the RAW of these photos to my hearts content, generate a JPEG, then delete all RAWs to clear up space.
  • Topics

×
×
  • Create New...