Your view of the FE 70-200mm f/2.8 GM OSS

vett93 said:

I recently upgraded the FE70-200/F4 to FE70-200/F2.8 GM. I like it!

The image is sharper and has more contrast. Its focus speed and accuracy are great with the A9. I bought it at a local store, tested at the store, and it works great for me.

Click to expand...

mikehookipa said:

I have this lens - it's a workhorse lens. Cream of the crop. Nothing wrong with it. Best 70-200 you can buy for your sony (obviously since it's 2.8 GM).

That's not really the question though.

I bought my lens to shoot sports too. To be frank, 200mm is not even a lot of zoom for sports. I should've bought the Sigma 150-600mm instead. I need that 600mm for super cool shots. But now that I bought it 70-200mm Sony, it's not like I'm going to sell it and take a huge loss. This is a flagship lens that will I will have for 10+ foreseeable years anyways.

I would do some research to see if the 200mm reach is enough for you.

Click to expand...

Hank Radt said:

I'm assuming (?) you've found in your research that you can also use your 1.4TC with this lens, which can give you added flexibility for sports/action shooting. Can't help you with the lens - while I briefly considered it, it was heavier and more expensive than the 100-400 which I eventually acquired for the additional reach. Were I an indoor sports or portrait shooter, it would go to the top of my list.

Click to expand...

OddJobPrime said:

I have taken tens of thousands of sports photos with it on the A9 and LOVE it. Both the IQ and the focus speed + accuracy.

I tend to use f1.4-1.8 lenses for event photography, so I can’t give my opinion on it for that kind of work.

I have had zero issues with it. Always on a sling strap to my side and still rocking. Been in light rain several times and not had any problems (though I try to be smart about that...).

I love its rendering of people a lot and and am planning to start using it for portraits to replace other glass. Trying to simplify

Click to expand...

Steve W said:

So lets forget about size, weight, and price. They are what they are. That is the cost of entry for a lens like this.

I am considering getting one finally to use for event and sports shooting for my Sony system where I know it the right focal length and the speed are what I need. Have a huge amount of experience with the Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II on my Canon systems.

So what is my question? The question is what do I have to watch out for with this lens? How does it perform? What are strengths and its weaknesses? I have read the reviews but most are old from when it came out where everyone was in love with the fact that Sony created the GM family. Its been a few years now and I am wondering how owners that have had it feel about it 1 to 2 years later. Also wondering what I should watch out for?

If you have experience with one I would love to hear from you. Thank you in advance.

Steve

p.s. I have adapted my Canon to my Sony bodies but I want something that can focus faster and allow my A9 to shoot at high frame rates. So that is why I want a native lens.

Click to expand...

Rol Lei Nut said:

I read several negative rumors about its reliability and strength, but can't say anything more substantial than that.

If that's an important factor for you, maybe search Lensrentals reviews and the WWW in general.

Click to expand...

• https://www.lensrentals.com/blog/20...plicated-sony-fe-70-200mm-f2-8-gm-oss-part-1/
• https://www.lensrentals.com/blog/20...wn-of-the-sony-fe-70-200-f2-8-gm-oss-part-ii/

Rol Lei Nut said:

1mm thick aluminum plates maybe shouldn’t be used to hold two halves of a heavy lens together. And yes, [...], I know the Sony engineers are smarter than I am. They designed 962 really great parts that I couldn’t have designed. But it doesn’t take massive engineering knowledge to figure out that the thinnest piece of soft metal shouldn’t hold the two biggest pieces together.

Click to expand...

Rol Lei Nut said:

This design strikes me as "unbalanced", by which I mean that it's extremely robust in some respects but not in others. Ironically the fact that the halves are heavily built with thick metal barrels increases the vulnerability of that joint.

I also wonder how much shock and vibration testing this design saw. The middle joint looks like a shock vulnerability even at the low accelerations that are typically used for product testing, and those springs look like they wouldn't last very long on the shake table.

Click to expand...

voronspb said:

Rol Lei Nut said:

I read several negative rumors about its reliability and strength, but can't say anything more substantial than that.

If that's an important factor for you, maybe search Lensrentals reviews and the WWW in general.

Click to expand...

Here's a teardown on lensrentals:

• https://www.lensrentals.com/blog/20...plicated-sony-fe-70-200mm-f2-8-gm-oss-part-1/
• https://www.lensrentals.com/blog/20...wn-of-the-sony-fe-70-200-f2-8-gm-oss-part-ii/

There're important findings regarding this lens' reliability. It's not as strong mechanically, as its price, weight and color imply, unfortunately.

voronspb said:

1mm thick aluminum plates maybe shouldn’t be used to hold two halves of a heavy lens together. And yes, [...], I know the Sony engineers are smarter than I am. They designed 962 really great parts that I couldn’t have designed. But it doesn’t take massive engineering knowledge to figure out that the thinnest piece of soft metal shouldn’t hold the two biggest pieces together.

Click to expand...

A good quote from the comments:

voronspb said:

This design strikes me as "unbalanced", by which I mean that it's extremely robust in some respects but not in others. Ironically the fact that the halves are heavily built with thick metal barrels increases the vulnerability of that joint.

I also wonder how much shock and vibration testing this design saw. The middle joint looks like a shock vulnerability even at the low accelerations that are typically used for product testing, and those springs look like they wouldn't last very long on the shake table.

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Jeff2013 said:

My copy is as sharp as the Canon 70-200mm f2.8 II and slightly sharper than the Nikon Version II lenses that I used to shoot. Overall, it is an excellent lens. It does not tolerate teleconverters as well as the 100-400, however.

Roger with Lens Rentals says he would not buy one due to the fragile construction (they are experiencing about a 10% failure rate with this lens and Roger did not have kind things to say when he did the tear-down). That does not stop me since I tend to baby my equipment. It might be different if I was a National Geographic photographer.

Click to expand...

SilvanBromide said:

Jeff2013 said:

My copy is as sharp as the Canon 70-200mm f2.8 II and slightly sharper than the Nikon Version II lenses that I used to shoot. Overall, it is an excellent lens. It does not tolerate teleconverters as well as the 100-400, however.

Roger with Lens Rentals says he would not buy one due to the fragile construction (they are experiencing about a 10% failure rate with this lens and Roger did not have kind things to say when he did the tear-down). That does not stop me since I tend to baby my equipment. It might be different if I was a National Geographic photographer.

Click to expand...

I find mine takes the 1.4x teleconverter just fine, but there's a more noticeable drop in sharpness with the 2.0x TC. Whereas on the 100-400, both teleconverters work about equally as well from an IQ standpoint.

Regarding robustness, While I note Roger's review, I have to say I don't particularly baby my gear (though I don't deliberately abuse it either). I've had mine a bit over a year so far and it hasn't missed a beat. For anyone in the Pro Support program (as I suspect most owners of lenses at this level would be) I think it's not something to be particularly concerned about.

Click to expand...