Sony 70-200mm FE Review by CameraLabs and StuckinCustoms.

[SAF Admin]

The Sony FE 70-200mm f4G OSS has been reviewed at CameraLabs
 

I think you’ve got the message by now: if you want a decent 70-200mm in the native FE-mount, this is your only choice, so thank goodness it’s a decent one. Highly recommended.

 

StuckinCustoms also tested the lens and writes:
 

This lens is supa-dupa-light! It doesn’t have all that heft and size of its Nikon counterpart. It’s just amazing, really. I gave it to all my DSLR-carrying friends and they just look at me with a bitter expression. I love it.

 

 

via: Sony Alpha Rumors

[Si1966]

I use to own the F2.8 version and I was a very sad day went I had to sell it.  An outstanding lens, tack sharp and it produced beautiful tones and colours too.  It is good to see Sony kitting out their full frame E mount cameras with high quality lenses, especially the 16-35, 24-70 and now the 70-200.

 

Si

[SteveNunez]

Why can't they make a 2.8 version?

[Si1966]

Why can't they make a 2.8 version?

Cost and weight are the two main reasons.  A F2.8 version is very well balanced on a DSLR / SLT body but would be very front heavy on a small mirrorless body.

 

Si

[Cheatah]

Why can't they make a 2.8 version?

Why can't they make a 2.8 version?

I am very happy with my new SONY G FE 4/70-200mm OSS! I don't miss the 2.8 at all, which would make the lens more bulky and expensive!

[DavidCartagena]

I am very happy with my new SONY G FE 4/70-200mm OSS! I don't miss the 2.8 at all, which would make the lens more bulky and expensive!

Great that you like your new lens. Congrats ;-).

I personally would miss the f/2.8 of my Sony 70 -200 G SSM. I would miss that extra stop and the bokeh together with the narrower DOF.

 

Greetings from David

[sonicbuffalo]

I use to own the F2.8 version and I was a very sad day went I had to sell it.  An outstanding lens, tack sharp and it produced beautiful tones and colours too.  It is good to see Sony kitting out their full frame E mount cameras with high quality lenses, especially the 16-35, 24-70 and now the 70-200.

 

Si

Completes a Trinity for Sony's newest E mount cameras.  Way to go Sony!  Just bought the 16-35 this week and got it yesterday..  Will be testing it today!

[Cheatah]

Great that you like your new lens. Congrats ;-).

I personally would miss the f/2.8 of my Sony 70 -200 G SSM. I would miss that extra stop and the bokeh together with the narrower DOF.

Greetings from David

The missed 2.8 f/stop can be easily compensated with an higher ISO setting! 2.8 and 4.0 are noch very far apart, but the weight saving is signifikant!

[AlexanderWaetzel]

I got the 70-200/4 for my A7 aswell and its beautiful to use. I was also worried about it being just an f4 but it works just fine! And bokeh is very smooth even with f4 aperture.

I have a few shots on my blog if you guys are interested:

 

http://passportsandlenses.com/how-to-take-pictures-of-your-girlfriend/

 

All the best,

Alex

[Guest all8]

I am very happy with my new SONY G FE 4/70-200mm OSS! I don't miss the 2.8 at all, which would make the lens more bulky and expensive!

 

This lens has made a good first impression on me   Its fast enough, very compact, does not extend and is easy to handle. Images seem good too, but its been a grey winter so far ...

 

... in any case, impressed enough to buy a nice little sport backpack (Lower Flipside Sport 10) so that I can take it with me whenever the weather looks right.

[Guest all8]

I've been using this lens a bit more, firstly is OSS is really great and takes care of a lot of issues with such a long focal length. What is also quite impressive the the Autofocus which I got to test today - with the following settings: AF-C, Focus Area set to Wide, P-Mode and Phase detect Area set to "On" in the Menu.

 

This is one of a burst of 10 or so, they were all in focus.

[Spotlight]

The missed 2.8 f/stop can be easily compensated with an higher ISO setting! 2.8 and 4.0 are noch very far apart, but the weight saving is signifikant!

I don't agree! 2.8 against 4.0 means a different depth of field. Obviously this is at a cost of bigger dimensions, weight and price!

[Cheatah]

I don't agree! 2.8 against 4.0 means a different depth of field. Obviously this is at a cost of bigger dimensions, weight and price!

The difference 2.8 to 4.0 is minor, but not the costs!

[JimmyD]

Love this lens.  If i need fast glass I'll go with the Zeiss ZA 85mm f/1.4 or 135 f/1.8; much rather have the lighter weight for the zoom.  Attached was taken in not great light (in the rain at f/11, ISO 320); PP was a slight amount of sharpening and split tone filter from Alienskin Exposure.

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!

[bwana]

I use both the Canon 200mm f/2.8 and 70-200mm f/2.8 lenses with both Canon and Sony A7 cameras.  I also have the Sony 70-200 f/4.0.  The Sony zoom is the most expensive and the lowest quality.  For the price I did not expect the Sony lens to have star stretch and coma on the edges of full frame images; neither of the Canon lenses have this problem.

 

bwa

[Cheatah]

I use both the Canon 200mm f/2.8 and 70-200mm f/2.8 lenses with both Canon and Sony A7 cameras.  I also have the Sony 70-200 f/4.0.  The Sony zoom is the most expensive and the lowest quality.  For the price I did not expect the Sony lens to have star stretch and coma on the edges of full frame images; neither of the Canon lenses have this problem.

 

bwa

Then, I would rapitly sell the SONY FE 70-200mm ! Why do you have it?