Sony 70-200mm F2.8 G SSM II w/ A99 for weddings - HELP

Started Dec 17, 2014 | Questions thread
Douglas F Watt Veteran Member • Posts: 3,784
Re: Sony heavy bulky, not according to dyxum

digitalshooter wrote:

Douglas F Watt wrote:

vinnylo wrote:

I am literally about to purchase this lens as I am a lead wedding photographer. is this a great lens or does anyone have any other option in mind, as far performance goes...


It's a great lens for weddings for sure, but it is built like a tank, heavy, and frankly overpriced. Also heavy and built like a tank, but between $1500 and $2000 less money is the new USD Tamron 70-200 2.8 (not to be confused with their older macro lens which was decent, but noisy because of the screw drive, and not as sharp as the newer lens).

I've been shooting With the Tamron all week and absolutely love it. Indeed it's so much like the Sony G2 that I wonder if Tamron made this for Sony. The Sony G2 came out nine months after the Tamron, weighs within 25 g of it, has identical dimensions to the millimeter, and does not extend – just like the Sony. Going against the supposition that they are the same lens, the 2 lenses have reportedly different numbers of elements (reportedly anyway), and the general assumption has been that Sony's G2 lens is an update of an older Minolta design. In any case, the Tamron is very sharp, and will mate very well with your A 99.

Here's a link:

I thought long and hard about getting the Sony and just swallowing the obscene price, but I'm very glad that I got the Tamron. I think both Tamron and Sigma with some of their newer releases are rewriting the old assumption about the inevitable trade-off between sharper more expensive brand-name lenses and lesser cheaper third-party lenses. They are releasing lenses that are in many instances just a sharp as Sony's for a lot less money. The longer Tamron 150-600 F5-6.3 is also a home run in my judgment as well, and 1000 bucks less than the almost competing Sony 70-400 F4

Hope that's helpful feedback.

Sony 1300 grams

Tamron A001 1112 or A009 1470 grams

Yup, but this estimable website lists the Sony at 1500 grms. I don't have that lens, but when I have used it in the store, it was no lightweight.  Would love to do a close comparison, with test shots.  The available testing suggests that they are close in sharpness.

Just checked at  Your report is correct, and the DPR listing is not!  I stand corrected.  So much for my theory . . .

-- hide signature --


 Douglas F Watt's gear list:Douglas F Watt's gear list
Sony RX100 III Sony RX10 III Sony RX100 V Sony a77 II Sony a99 II +16 more
Post (hide subjects) Posted by
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow