SAL 70-200 F2.8 or SEL 70-200 F4 — For A7m2 and A6000

[Al Pha]

Please give your opinion (based on experience or not)!

 

I have an A7m2 and an A6000 along with Zeiss 55mm F1.8, Sony FE24240... and a bunch of good E-mount glass as well as lots of A-mount Sony & Minolta lenses.

 

I can get a used Sony SAL 70-200mm F2.8 for about $1250. For the same price I can get a new SEL 70-200mm F4.

 

I mainly shoot events and portraits and I already have Sony's LA-EA3 and LA-EA4 adaptors.

 

Which would you get? Or perhaps something else? e.g. (Sigma 70-200mm F2.8—$1,100 new, $800 used)

 

Thanks!

[Guest all8]

The F4 is (IIRC) lighter, so I would get that.

[tarkane]

Hi Al Pha,

 

I guess, first you need to answer these questions yourself :

 

- Do you need 70-400mm reach or 70-200mm is enough ?

- Do you need fast F/2.8 aperture or F/4 and slowers are good enough as well ?

 

If you're fine with 70-200mm range with F/4, then choice is obvious. Also, a native FE lens will always work better than anything with an adapter, logically. I'm not saying that, these lenses that your referred, will perform poorly. Just, no adapted lenses will be able to keep up with the native FE lenses. Though, that also pretty much depends on your shooting style, lighting conditions etc. 

 

Perhaps best is to try all of these options via renting etc. and see which one works for you. 

 

Cheers,

 

Tarkan

[Al Pha]

I guess, first you need to answer these questions yourself :

 

- Do you need 70-400mm reach or 70-200mm is enough ?

- Do you need fast F/2.8 aperture or F/4 and slowers are good enough as well ?

 

========

 

Hi Tarkan,

 

I'm not considering 70-400, just 70-200 (SAL 2.8 vs. SEL 4). I shoot events and portraits so the 2.8 is tempting but it is much larger/heavier and requires an adapter. I was trying to avoid renting but may have to do so in order to make an informed decision.

[tarkane]

I guess, first you need to answer these questions yourself :

 

- Do you need 70-400mm reach or 70-200mm is enough ?

- Do you need fast F/2.8 aperture or F/4 and slowers are good enough as well ?

 

========

 

Hi Tarkan,

 

I'm not considering 70-400, just 70-200 (SAL 2.8 vs. SEL 4). I shoot events and portraits so the 2.8 is tempting but it is much larger/heavier and requires an adapter. I was trying to avoid renting but may have to do so in order to make an informed decision.

 

Apparently, I was dreaming about 70-400mm. Somehow I read your post like you're also considering the 70-400mm as well. Sorry about that and I guess, I need more coffee ;-)

 

Cheers,

 

Tarkan

[BobIndy]

I also have thought about these choices. I currently have the 55/1.8 and use an older Sigma 70-200 macro II with an Laea3 adapter on my A7II. (as a side note, I originally used an Laea4 but dumped it due to the improved af with the last firmware upgrade) I also shoot mainly portraits and events, but toss in some high school sports. I'm happy with the 70-200/2.8 for all my uses. I've convinced myself that the extra stop I'd lose with the f4 would bother me more than the extra weight, but that's only because I shoot some sports as well in gyms with horrific lighting. I think the only thing that would ever change my mind is if I either give up sports (which I know I won't) or if we do get a new Sony FE mount 70-200/2.8. Even then, I'm sure it'll be ungodly expensive. All that being said, how have you lived this long without a 70-200??? lol That's the one lens I could never part with, it's such a jack of all trades. They all hold their value pretty well, so you really can't go wrong. I'm getting long winded here, but I am a HUGE fan of Lensrentals.com. They have what they call a Keeper program where you can purchase a lens if you decide you like it. You don't get all your money back, but they do apply your rental fees toward the purchase, plus it's already discounted because it is used equipment. I just received the FE 28/2 from them today that I have a feeling I will never send back. Best of luck, and Happy Shooting!

 

Bob 

[Al Pha]

I also have thought about these choices. I currently have the 55/1.8 and use an older Sigma 70-200 macro II with an Laea3 adapter on my A7II. (as a side note, I originally used an Laea4 but dumped it due to the improved af with the last firmware upgrade) I also shoot mainly portraits and events, but toss in some high school sports. I'm happy with the 70-200/2.8 for all my uses. I've convinced myself that the extra stop I'd lose with the f4 would bother me more than the extra weight, but that's only because I shoot some sports as well in gyms with horrific lighting. I think the only thing that would ever change my mind is if I either give up sports (which I know I won't) or if we do get a new Sony FE mount 70-200/2.8. Even then, I'm sure it'll be ungodly expensive. All that being said, how have you lived this long without a 70-200??? lol That's the one lens I could never part with, it's such a jack of all trades. They all hold their value pretty well, so you really can't go wrong. I'm getting long winded here, but I am a HUGE fan of Lensrentals.com. They have what they call a Keeper program where you can purchase a lens if you decide you like it. You don't get all your money back, but they do apply your rental fees toward the purchase, plus it's already discounted because it is used equipment. I just received the FE 28/2 from them today that I have a feeling I will never send back. Best of luck, and Happy Shooting!

 

Bob 

Hi Bob, I agree that a 70-200mm is a must. I had a Sigma 70-200 F2.8 HS SSM that I used on my A7m2 for a while but, coupled with the necessary adaptor, it was just too unwieldy so I sold it. I guess I'll wait to see just how much $$$ Sony will shake us down for when (if) the SEL 70-200mm F2.8 finally arrives but, till then, if I see a good deal on an SAL 70-200 F2.8 I'll pick one up.

[Sanddan4u]

Will the LA-EA4 even track on an A6000?  I've been trying to get a Minolta 200 2.8 HS lens to track on that combo for about a week and it won't.  That adapter and lens seem marginally better, with much better IQ, on my A7R but still not suitable to use at the bowl game I'm going to on Jan 1. 

 

I'm actually considering buying a cheap used A77 to use for sports and just ditching the adapter altogether as I bought the adapter specifically to use with the 200 2.8.  The original plan of using the last of my Canon lenses, the EF 200 2.8L ii, with a Metabones IV was a bust as it would take 3-4 seconds to lock AF.

 

Thoughts/input?

[Al Pha]

Will the LA-EA4 even track on an A6000?  I've been trying to get a Minolta 200 2.8 HS lens to track on that combo for about a week and it won't.  That adapter and lens seem marginally better, with much better IQ, on my A7R but still not suitable to use at the bowl game I'm going to on Jan 1. 

 

I'm actually considering buying a cheap used A77 to use for sports and just ditching the adapter altogether as I bought the adapter specifically to use with the 200 2.8.  The original plan of using the last of my Canon lenses, the EF 200 2.8L ii, with a Metabones IV was a bust as it would take 3-4 seconds to lock AF.

 

Thoughts/input?

 

Sanddan4u, The LA-EA4 should work with the A6000 and any Minolta AF lens. I have an A6000 and the LA-EA4 and they work with all my Minolta & Sony AF, screw-drive lenses & SAM/SSM lenses. 

 

For best results you should use a version 2 Sony A body (preferably A7ii, A7Rii) in PDAF mode with the LA-EA3 or LA-EA1. Those combos will give you faster focusing with any Sony or Minolta lens that has an SSM or SAM motor. I don't think that your Minolta 200 F2.8 HS has an SSM motor so no PDAF possible.

 

The Canon will also work better with a version 2 A body, in PDAF mode, and the latest (v4?) Metabones adapter.

[Sanddan4u]

The Minolta 200 2.8 focuses very fast--as fast as most native lenses on most bodies would hope to--on both bodies but won't track worth anything.  Any movement by the subject forward or backward and they are OOF. 

 

I suspected the problem was that I didn't have a Mark II body.

 

The Canon is sold, long live the 200 2.8ii!

 

I'm not against getting a Mark II body, but selling the LA-EA4 and throwing another $100 in to buy an A77 is way more cost effective for me at this point.  The 200 on the A7R really needs to be stabilized, either by in-body stabilization or a monopod, and on the A6000 the adapter seems to make it suffer a major lack of sharpness and saturation.  I'm pretty much going to use it for the bowl game and then through Spring Training, and then re-evaluate. 

[Al Pha]

The Minolta 200 2.8 focuses very fast--as fast as most native lenses on most bodies would hope to--on both bodies but won't track worth anything.  Any movement by the subject forward or backward and they are OOF. 

 

I suspected the problem was that I didn't have a Mark II body.

 

The Canon is sold, long live the 200 2.8ii!

 

I'm not against getting a Mark II body, but selling the LA-EA4 and throwing another $100 in to buy an A77 is way more cost effective for me at this point.  The 200 on the A7R really needs to be stabilized, either by in-body stabilization or a monopod, and on the A6000 the adapter seems to make it suffer a major lack of sharpness and saturation.  I'm pretty much going to use it for the bowl game and then through Spring Training, and then re-evaluate. 

 

I agree with your logic, however, make sure that you get the A77 ii, not the A77! Focusing and tracking on the mark 2 are way better than the original A77!

[Sanddan4u]

​I just put in a bid on Greentoe for an A77ii, pretty low offer so we'll see what happens!

 

I've researched it the Mark I and II and photographers really seem to feel strongly about the Mark II in the same way that Canon sports shooters feel about the 7D vs 7Dii.

 

I used Canon 18MP crop sensors (60D/T4i) to shoot most of the last three Spring Trainings (used a 6D/135L as my second setup this year), and it seemed the original A77 would have been a side-grade.  Nothing wrong with that, but for a few hundred more I can get a for-real upgrade. 

 

We'll see what happens!

[Campbreann]

 

​I just put in a bid on Greentoe for an A77ii, pretty low offer so we'll see what happens!

 

I've researched it the Mark I and II and photographers really seem to feel strongly about the Mark II in the same way that Canon sports shooters feel about the 7D vs 7Dii.

 

I used Canon 18MP crop sensors (60D/T4i) to shoot most of the last three Spring Trainings (used a 6D/135L as my second setup this year), and it seemed the original A77 would have been a side-grade. Nothing wrong with that, but for a few hundred more I can get a for-real upgrade.

 

We'll see what happens![/quote

 

How did your bid on green toe go? I've tried a couple times now and they have been accepted.

[Campbreann]

I'm new to the forum so I'm not sure if I'm doing this right.

 

How did your Greentoe bid go? I've placed 2 bids for an a77ii and they haven't been accepted. Trying to decide if I should bid again or just purchase on amazon

[Sanddan4u]

I'm new to the forum so I'm not sure if I'm doing this right.

 

How did your Greentoe bid go? I've placed 2 bids for an a77ii and they haven't been accepted. Trying to decide if I should bid again or just purchase on amazon

 

Hey there!  Sorry I am just now responding you your post, but my Greentoe bid of $715 was not accepted.  They countered with $799, and I raised my bid to $755--no luck.

 

B&H had a "V" condition used A77 for $339 so I snapped it up just in time for the Citrus Bowl.  I received the body the day before the game, so I only had a little bit of time to get familiar with it.  I also didn't have time to do a firmware update.

 

I'm pretty pleased with the results I got at the game, as well as with the stills I took of several deer on a trip I made to TN immediately after the game.

 

I was very pleased with IQ at low ISO, as it blew the doors off my old 60D there.  The AF and tracking was somewhat similar to the 60D in terms of consistency, the 60D does track better IMO.

 

The A77 is a ton of camera for $350 shipped, and I would probably be OK keeping it for Spring Training.  But I'm very curious as to how much better the A77ii is, so I'll probably upgrade.

 

Something I am also very curious about is the LA-EA3 adapter, and if it would work better on my A6000/Minolta 200 combo than the LA-EA4 did.  I bought the A6000 partly to try it out as a sports shooter, although I'm thrilled with it as a personal camera after two months of pretty heavy use.

[reinheaven]

Hello i'm new here

i'm using A6000 for sports, i have 55-210 but i need a fast lens... since i have LAEA4 so i buy the old minolta 70-210 F4 bercan.

 

But the focus is not there... when i shoot triathlon, the AF not really show the good result at all, especially when i shoot the cyclist.

 

so i decide to buy the sony lens either 70-200 F4 or 70-200 F2.8

I wanna ask about 70-200 F2.8 is the AF good enough on A6000? is that really accurate for shooting sports in A6000 body?

 

thanks

[Al Pha]

Hello i'm new here

i'm using A6000 for sports, i have 55-210 but i need a fast lens... since i have LAEA4 so i buy the old minolta 70-210 F4 bercan.

 

But the focus is not there... when i shoot triathlon, the AF not really show the good result at all, especially when i shoot the cyclist.

 

so i decide to buy the sony lens either 70-200 F4 or 70-200 F2.8

I wanna ask about 70-200 F2.8 is the AF good enough on A6000? is that really accurate for shooting sports in A6000 body?

 

thanks

 

I recommend that you get the SEL 70-200 F4. It's native (no adapter required), fast focusing, lighter, and cheaper than the SAL 70-200 F2.8. 

[reinheaven]

Yes and sony launches new G lens master 70-200 F 2.8 on march. This is what we need right?

[Al Pha]

Yes and sony launches new G lens master 70-200 F 2.8 on march. This is what we need right?

 

It looks like a wonderful piece of equipment to have if you can afford it! I can't so for now I'll keep using my FE 70-200 F4! However, I do plan to get the A6300 when it comes out!

[Sanddan4u]

I recommend that you get the SEL 70-200 F4. It's native (no adapter required), fast focusing, lighter, and cheaper than the SAL 70-200 F2.8. 

 

I agree with this.  The LA-EA4 won't allow native AF tracking like you would get with the FE 70-200.