Why is FE 70-200 bigger and heavier than Canon's

Started 9 months ago | Discussions
EinsteinsGhost
Forum ProPosts: 11,922Gear list
Like?
Pro Features Included
In reply to Cheng Bao, 9 months ago

The FE 70-200/4 looks like a well finished lens and includes couple of thoughtful features as well that I doubt anybody has discussed yet:
- Dual Mode optical stabilization
- Focus Hold button

And people are worried about a couple of ounces that is a bit too much for them (and an mm or two which is easily absorbed by a smaller body/flange to begin with).

 EinsteinsGhost's gear list:EinsteinsGhost's gear list
Sony Cyber-shot DSC-F828 Sony SLT-A55 Sony Alpha NEX-6 Sigma 18-250mm F3.5-6.3 DC OS HSM Sony 135mm F2.8 (T4.5) STF +12 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
stevo23
Senior MemberPosts: 4,390Gear list
Like?
Re: i will not buy this lens
In reply to Erik Magnuson, 9 months ago

Erik Magnuson wrote:

stevo23 wrote:

Erik Magnuson wrote:

stevo23 wrote:

You will have to move to M43 to get any significant improvement in weight / bulk. I think it will be hard to do otherwise in full frame.

An MFT 70-200mm f/4 would be the roughly the same size weight. As would an MFT 35-100mm f/2 which would be equivalent in FOV and total light.

Panasonic's 35-100 2.8 weighs 13 oz. Not quite the same light, but close enough for a valid comparison.

Look at the filter diameter: 58mm vs. 67mm. That's enough glass diameter to make a difference. No one makes a 70-200mm f/5.6 -- the closest would be the Nikkor 55-200mm AF-S VR f/4.5-5.6 which weighs 335g. While that's a DX lens, Canon had a 55-200mm EF lens (no IS) that was about the same size, so a 70-200 f/5.6 FX is plausible except there is no demand.

The other big difference with the 35-100 is vignetting:

All designs are compromised and panasonic allowed extra vignetting to shave size.

-- hide signature --

Erik

Dude - you're taking this waaay too seriously. Most M43's owners will be more than happy with the sub-standard performance of said  lenses. Of course it's not an exact comparison.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
stevo23
Senior MemberPosts: 4,390Gear list
Like?
Re: i will not buy this lens
In reply to EinsteinsGhost, 9 months ago

EinsteinsGhost wrote:

jamesfrmphilly wrote:

way too heavy

Yeah. I know what you mean. My 55/1.2 is 650g, and you can easily see in the photos from it that they were taken with a heavy lens.

-- hide signature --

A7 with kit lens and a number of legacy lenses (mostly Canon FD)

I wonder if one could even use a Zeiss Otus... That thing weighs 1030g on Nikon F mount.

No one can. It's actually never been photographed in use. We've only seen it's name in EXIF information.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
stevo23
Senior MemberPosts: 4,390Gear list
Like?
Re: Why is FE 70-200 bigger and heavier than Canon's
In reply to Erik Magnuson, 9 months ago

Erik Magnuson wrote:

stevo23 wrote:

Since we're counting oz.'s, I wonder what the Sony weighs without the tripod collar - a collar which doesn't come on the Canon as far as I know.

840g. Companies do not typically include collars or hoods if they are removable. If you include the collar in the weight, you'd also include it in the diameter.

Seriously? Do you not get my point in any small way?

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
stevo23
Senior MemberPosts: 4,390Gear list
Like?
Re: Why is FE 70-200 bigger and heavier than Canon's
In reply to Cheng Bao, 9 months ago

Cheng Bao wrote:

At least on paper, this lens is sharper than canon 70-200 F4L IS


SONY FE 70-200G OSS F4 vs CANON 70-200 F4L IS

At 70mm, sony is shaper all round,

At 200mm full open, sony is sharper, only the extreme corner is less sharper

So that settles it, right? Sharpness. No concern for CAs, distortion or anything else? (Actually, this lens probably beats the Canon in other performan too.)

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
stevo23
Senior MemberPosts: 4,390Gear list
Like?
Re: Pro Features Included
In reply to EinsteinsGhost, 9 months ago

EinsteinsGhost wrote:

The FE 70-200/4 looks like a well finished lens and includes couple of thoughtful features as well that I doubt anybody has discussed yet:
- Dual Mode optical stabilization
- Focus Hold button

And people are worried about a couple of ounces that is a bit too much for them (and an mm or two which is easily absorbed by a smaller body/flange to begin with).

Exactly. You're already starting out a pound lighter by using the A7. (Lighter than a 5DmkIII that is...)

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Erik Magnuson
Forum ProPosts: 12,083Gear list
Like?
Re: Why is FE 70-200 bigger and heavier than Canon's
In reply to stevo23, 9 months ago

stevo23 wrote:

Erik Magnuson wrote:

stevo23 wrote:

Since we're counting oz.'s, I wonder what the Sony weighs without the tripod collar - a collar which doesn't come on the Canon as far as I know.

840g. Companies do not typically include collars or hoods if they are removable. If you include the collar in the weight, you'd also include it in the diameter.

Seriously? Do you not get my point in any small way?

Nope.  I assume you know that you can buy a collar for the Canon either from Canon or cheaper 3rd party knockoffs.  The collar weighs about 180g.

-- hide signature --

Erik

 Erik Magnuson's gear list:Erik Magnuson's gear list
Canon EOS 5D Mark II Canon EOS 450D Sigma SD10 Sony Alpha NEX-5 Nikon D3200 +28 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
stevo23
Senior MemberPosts: 4,390Gear list
Like?
Re: Why is FE 70-200 bigger and heavier than Canon's
In reply to Erik Magnuson, 9 months ago

Erik Magnuson wrote:

stevo23 wrote:

Erik Magnuson wrote:

stevo23 wrote:

Since we're counting oz.'s, I wonder what the Sony weighs without the tripod collar - a collar which doesn't come on the Canon as far as I know.

840g. Companies do not typically include collars or hoods if they are removable. If you include the collar in the weight, you'd also include it in the diameter.

Seriously? Do you not get my point in any small way?

Nope. I assume you know that you can buy a collar for the Canon either from Canon or cheaper 3rd party knockoffs. The collar weighs about 180g.

Yes, I know you can buy the collar for the Canon.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
hellocrowley
Senior MemberPosts: 1,195
Like?
Re: Pro Features Included
In reply to EinsteinsGhost, 9 months ago

Well if anything this thread has shown me why Sony loves releasing monster zooms before compact primes, because apparently that's what many people want. I'll sit it out for a few years and see where FE goes.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
spacemn
Senior MemberPosts: 1,080
Like?
Re: Why is FE 70-200 bigger and heavier than Canon's
In reply to stevo23, 9 months ago

stevo23 wrote:

Erik Magnuson wrote:

stevo23 wrote:

Erik Magnuson wrote:

stevo23 wrote:

Since we're counting oz.'s, I wonder what the Sony weighs without the tripod collar - a collar which doesn't come on the Canon as far as I know.

840g. Companies do not typically include collars or hoods if they are removable. If you include the collar in the weight, you'd also include it in the diameter.

Seriously? Do you not get my point in any small way?

Nope. I assume you know that you can buy a collar for the Canon either from Canon or cheaper 3rd party knockoffs. The collar weighs about 180g.

Yes, I know you can buy the collar for the Canon.

I wouldn't count on that the collar weight is included in those 840g for the Sony. Nice though that the collar is included when buying the lens.

When you are dealing with lenses that big 100g in either direction doesn't matter much. For $1500 I rather want supreme build quality and it seems Sony delivers on that account but tests will tell. I am really curious to know about the Af speed on this thing.

I would really want to see a comparison test between the Sony FE 70-200mm f/4 and the Latest Sigma 70-200mm f/2.8 HSM OS for A-mount.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Chengis
Junior MemberPosts: 41Gear list
Like?
Re: Why is FE 70-200 bigger and heavier than Canon's
In reply to pew pew, 9 months ago

Well one can only make the camera small. On the other hand, the lens... one can only modify a glass or push glasses around so much to alter it's focal length.

 Chengis's gear list:Chengis's gear list
Ricoh GR Digital IV Sony RX100 Sony SLT-A65 Sony Alpha 7 Sony 500mm F8 Reflex +9 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
EinsteinsGhost
Forum ProPosts: 11,922Gear list
Like?
Re: Pro Features Included
In reply to hellocrowley, 9 months ago

Well if anything this thread has shown me why Sony loves releasing monster zooms before compact primes, because apparently that's what many people want. I'll sit it out for a few years and see where FE goes.

OTOH, people are going gags over Sony not releasing faster zooms. You think 72mm filter is too big? Try 77mm on upcoming Fuji 16-55/2.8 that people think Sony should build.

And you jave no idea how "monstrous" the 70-200/4 is. It is actually smaller and lighter than my personal compact choice for telephoto lens on NEX: Minolta 200/2.8 G APO HS. With 70-200/4, you lose a stop, the adapter and gain zoom.

I would be speaking like you, if this were a 70-200/2.8 which are much larger and nearly 2x heavier.

As for primes, I think the sizes are kept in check. The issue is mostly of perception since E-mount bodies are significantly slimmer so relatively speaking the lenses appear larger.

 EinsteinsGhost's gear list:EinsteinsGhost's gear list
Sony Cyber-shot DSC-F828 Sony SLT-A55 Sony Alpha NEX-6 Sigma 18-250mm F3.5-6.3 DC OS HSM Sony 135mm F2.8 (T4.5) STF +12 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Steven-T
Veteran MemberPosts: 3,131Gear list
Like?
Re: Why is FE 70-200 bigger and heavier than Canon's
In reply to pevece, 9 months ago

pevece wrote:

hellocrowley wrote:

I had high hopes for the FE system, was thinking that I'd eventually switch from Fuji, but it seems the size and weight advantage are not there?

Sony:
Filter Thread 72 mm
Dimensions (DxL) Approx. 3.15 x 6.89" (80 x 175 mm)
Weight 29.63 oz (840 g)

Canon 70-200/4 IS:
Filter Thread Front:67 mm
Dimensions (DxL) Approx. 3.0 x 6.8" (7.62 x 17.27 cm)
Weight 1.67 lb (760 g)

They should hire someone from Pentax to design the lenses.

use the canon version on a 36mp sensor and see what happens !

you want high quality , small in size, lightweight and cheap, sorry that's not feasible today

I have been using the Canon EF 70-200/4L IS on my A7R with MB3. Aperture control works, AF a bit slow, IS works, accurate focus, good IQ.

Steven

 Steven-T's gear list:Steven-T's gear list
Canon EOS 5D Mark II Leica M9 Nikon D800E Sony Alpha 7R Panasonic Lumix DMC-GH4 +5 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Steven-T
Veteran MemberPosts: 3,131Gear list
Like?
Re: Why is FE 70-200 bigger and heavier than Canon's
In reply to EinsteinsGhost, 9 months ago

EinsteinsGhost wrote:

pevece wrote:

hellocrowley wrote:

I had high hopes for the FE system, was thinking that I'd eventually switch from Fuji, but it seems the size and weight advantage are not there?

Sony:
Filter Thread 72 mm
Dimensions (DxL) Approx. 3.15 x 6.89" (80 x 175 mm)
Weight 29.63 oz (840 g)

Canon 70-200/4 IS:
Filter Thread Front:67 mm
Dimensions (DxL) Approx. 3.0 x 6.8" (7.62 x 17.27 cm)
Weight 1.67 lb (760 g)

They should hire someone from Pentax to design the lenses.

use the canon version on a 36mp sensor and see what happens !

you want high quality , small in size, lightweight and cheap, sorry that's not feasible today

The centre of the Canon lens has been tested on 18MP APS-C, you'd need 46MP full frame to be as demanding. Its corners on 21MP full frame are not an issue. There are some A7R user using one with an adapter, ask them.

Andrew

How much does the Canon weigh with the adapter? Dimensions added too?

You can carry one MB3 for all the EF lenses (mount the adapter on the camera A7/R), rather than adding an "adapter-tube" to each FE lens.  AF speed? Hmm . . .

Steven

 Steven-T's gear list:Steven-T's gear list
Canon EOS 5D Mark II Leica M9 Nikon D800E Sony Alpha 7R Panasonic Lumix DMC-GH4 +5 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
EinsteinsGhost
Forum ProPosts: 11,922Gear list
Like?
Re: Why is FE 70-200 bigger and heavier than Canon's
In reply to Steven-T, 9 months ago

EinsteinsGhost wrote:

pevece wrote:

hellocrowley wrote:

I had high hopes for the FE system, was thinking that I'd eventually switch from Fuji, but it seems the size and weight advantage are not there?

Sony:
Filter Thread 72 mm
Dimensions (DxL) Approx. 3.15 x 6.89" (80 x 175 mm)
Weight 29.63 oz (840 g)

Canon 70-200/4 IS:
Filter Thread Front:67 mm
Dimensions (DxL) Approx. 3.0 x 6.8" (7.62 x 17.27 cm)
Weight 1.67 lb (760 g)

They should hire someone from Pentax to design the lenses.

use the canon version on a 36mp sensor and see what happens !

you want high quality , small in size, lightweight and cheap, sorry that's not feasible today

The centre of the Canon lens has been tested on 18MP APS-C, you'd need 46MP full frame to be as demanding. Its corners on 21MP full frame are not an issue. There are some A7R user using one with an adapter, ask them.

Andrew

How much does the Canon weigh with the adapter? Dimensions added too?

You can carry one MB3 for all the EF lenses (mount the adapter on the camera A7/R), rather than adding an "adapter-tube" to each FE lens.  AF speed? Hmm . . .

Steven

Thats what I do (in fact, have EA2 and MBSB in my bag right now, so a lens can be used for two different FOV as well). You are already fine with a larger and heavier set up while accepting slower AF, we should expect 70-200/4G to be fast if not the fastest lens which will not be as large or as heavy set up.

Such discussions also seem to miss the point that we are talking about lens on camera and how the two setup together as a unit.

 EinsteinsGhost's gear list:EinsteinsGhost's gear list
Sony Cyber-shot DSC-F828 Sony SLT-A55 Sony Alpha NEX-6 Sigma 18-250mm F3.5-6.3 DC OS HSM Sony 135mm F2.8 (T4.5) STF +12 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
hellocrowley
Senior MemberPosts: 1,195
Like?
Re: Pro Features Included
In reply to EinsteinsGhost, 9 months ago

EinsteinsGhost wrote:

Well if anything this thread has shown me why Sony loves releasing monster zooms before compact primes, because apparently that's what many people want. I'll sit it out for a few years and see where FE goes.

OTOH, people are going gags over Sony not releasing faster zooms. You think 72mm filter is too big? Try 77mm on upcoming Fuji 16-55/2.8 that people think Sony should build.

Yes, that Fuji is the one lens I'd never buy. Even the 10-24 is already too big. Luckily Fuji has released smallish primes first so most users got their needs covered.

And you jave no idea how "monstrous" the 70-200/4 is. It is actually smaller and lighter than my personal compact choice for telephoto lens on NEX: Minolta 200/2.8 G APO HS. With 70-200/4, you lose a stop, the adapter and gain zoom.

The fact that you use a 200/2.8 on NEX puts this discussion into a different perspective.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum MMy threads