70-200mm F4 on A6000

Started Apr 20, 2014 | Discussions
Siobhan A Senior Member • Posts: 1,857
Re: That must be a fake

Siobhan A wrote:

I hope that is not the real FE 70-200. There is no advantage over a small DSLR.

How do you propose that they make a smaller 70-200mm f4 internal zoom?

Canon and nikon are smaller. Check diameters and see it could be smaller.

Siobhan A Senior Member • Posts: 1,857
Re: The numbers

Siobhan A wrote:

nevercat wrote:

Look HERE to see the size difference between a DSLR (Canon 70D) and the A6000. both with a 70-200 F4 lens.

Why did you ignore what I said? I said a smaller DSLR.

http://camerasize.com/compact/#448.294,535.392,449.294,ha,t

The difference won't be noticed, but the big grip will. The SL1 has a poor grip though and the Rebel has the best grip. The Canons are longer but the Sony lens is wider.

The Sony lens weighs 840g and body 344g =1184g

The Canon lens weighs 760 and SL1 body 407g = 1167g

The Canon lens weighs 760 and T5i body 575g = 1335g

You can clearly see that the Canon camera/lens combination is longer, but that is not all. The Canon combination weight: 1515 grams, the Sony combination weight: 1184 grams.

When you change lenses for a 50mm f1.8 then you get the following...

http://camerasize.com/compact/#448.306,535.87,449.306,ha,t

Canon 537g vs. Sony 546g

I would keep the A6000 and all the fun things it can do better and for action take the $1500 and get a non-IS Canon lens and body - save some extra cash. Canon is proven for action and you can use the A6000 for other stuff. You can take the savings and get an EOS adapter too!

Another fanboy post....hurray!

Why on earth would anyone want to choose a Canon below 70D when comparing with the A6000, is this some kind of a joke.

I would like you to show me a Canon DSLR combo that can match this size:

http://camerasize.com/compact/#535.369,448.306,449.306,ha,t

Any suggestions mate??

I said keep the a6000 for small size and use the $1500 on something better for action.

Siobhan A Senior Member • Posts: 1,857
Re: Some more numbers

What is real and what is not? The Canon DSLRs are all larger and heavier then the A6000. The SL1 is just 3mm less wide but 23 mm higher and 24mm 5hicker then the A6000.

Ilike the way you use the lenses that are larger and heavier for the Sony then they are fir the Canon. Why not compare the 35mm stabilized lens on both? Size and weght, even for the SL1 is way better for the Sony systwm. And to ve true, the Sony will offer a better grip and better AF spedd too.

The Canon DSLR entry level cameras are not that great in AF, that's why I used the 70D and not the SL1 as a comparisson. And even when using an other Rebel, for the better grip, you will find that size and weight for the Sony A6000 will usualy be better...

Why did you not include lens comparisons too? We need lenses too. A6000 is great with short focal length lenses, but has no advantage with longer. DSLRs focus better with sports.

dotborg Veteran Member • Posts: 8,492
Re: That must be a fake
2

Siobhan A wrote:

Siobhan A wrote:

I hope that is not the real FE 70-200. There is no advantage over a small DSLR.

How do you propose that they make a smaller 70-200mm f4 internal zoom?

Canon and nikon are smaller. Check diameters and see it could be smaller.

Totally insignificant differences.

Tuloom Senior Member • Posts: 2,650
Re: That must be a fake
2

dotborg wrote:

Siobhan A wrote:

I hope that is not the real FE 70-200. There is no advantage over a small DSLR.

How do you propose that they make a smaller 70-200mm f4 internal zoom?

Rub lanterns at antique shops. Wait for smoke and subsequent wishes.

Siobhan A Senior Member • Posts: 1,857
Re: That must be a fake
2

dotborg wrote:

Siobhan A wrote:

Siobhan A wrote:

I hope that is not the real FE 70-200. There is no advantage over a small DSLR.

How do you propose that they make a smaller 70-200mm f4 internal zoom?

Canon and nikon are smaller. Check diameters and see it could be smaller.

Totally insignificant differences.

A small difference in diameter equates to a larger difference in size due the nature of diameter vs. 3 dimensions.   So could the Sony be smaller, yes.  What is more significant is the focus ability of a DSLR over the A6000 which is either close to or behind the Nikon 1.  The Nikon 1 is a step behind DSLRs. I advocate keeping a NEX 6 or 7 or A6000, but don't spend $1500 on this lens.  Get a manual focus lens or get a DSLR and 70-200mm lens.

Post this question in the open forum to be fair if you wish and we can see what everyone says.

ryan92084
ryan92084 Contributing Member • Posts: 521
Re: That must be a fake
3

Tuloom wrote:

dotborg wrote:

Siobhan A wrote:

I hope that is not the real FE 70-200. There is no advantage over a small DSLR.

How do you propose that they make a smaller 70-200mm f4 internal zoom?

Rub lanterns at antique shops. Wait for smoke and subsequent wishes.

next time I see someone with a 4/5/600mm lens on their dslr I'll make sure to tell them their camera is too small for their lens and they need to go medium format

 ryan92084's gear list:ryan92084's gear list
Sony a6000 Sony E 16-50mm F3.5-5.6 PZ OSS +3 more
RonFrank
RonFrank Senior Member • Posts: 2,130
Re: 70-200mm F4 on A6000

There comes a time when a heavier camera is an advantage, and that is when you attach a huge lens to the camera. A 70-200mm f4 is not massive but it is heavy and long enough to where you really want a sturdy body and a mount designed to handle the weight. The A6000 is not the perfect solution.

The A6000 is a great body especially for mounting a 16-50mm, 55-210mm or 35mm lens and running around a park. But if you need to shoot a lens that weighs close to 2bs the idea of weight savings kinda goes out the window.  Size is also a factor and at almost 7" without a hood (the hood is kinda necessary unless shooting indoors) a larger body keeps the lens balanced.

There are photo applications that require beefy lenses and there is nothing wrong with that. One thing I find annoying about these forums is all the Sony bigots, or Nikon bigots, or Canon fanboys.... Cameras are tools and it is not unheard of for people to own different types for different applications.

 RonFrank's gear list:RonFrank's gear list
Nikon D1X Nikon D200 Nikon D300S Sony a6000 Nikon AF-S DX Nikkor 18-200mm f/3.5-5.6G IF-ED VR +7 more
nevercat Veteran Member • Posts: 3,193
Re: Some more numbers
2

Siobhan A wrote:

What is real and what is not? The Canon DSLRs are all larger and heavier then the A6000. The SL1 is just 3mm less wide but 23 mm higher and 24mm 5hicker then the A6000.

Ilike the way you use the lenses that are larger and heavier for the Sony then they are fir the Canon. Why not compare the 35mm stabilized lens on both? Size and weght, even for the SL1 is way better for the Sony systwm. And to ve true, the Sony will offer a better grip and better AF spedd too.

The Canon DSLR entry level cameras are not that great in AF, that's why I used the 70D and not the SL1 as a comparisson. And even when using an other Rebel, for the better grip, you will find that size and weight for the Sony A6000 will usualy be better...

Why did you not include lens comparisons too? We need lenses too. A6000 is great with short focal length lenses, but has no advantage with longer. DSLRs focus better with sports.

Most entry level DSLRs do not focus that well for sports compared to the A6000. Then there is the weight, all DSLRs but the Canon SL1 are more heavy then the A6000 both with lenses. Yes a long telelens will be long on a A6000 too, so some of the size difference will be lost, but I would like it better to have a camera that is smaller and not as heavy to carry with me all day. When comparing the Rebel T5i with the 70-200 f4 lens and the Sony A6000 and the 70-200 f4 lens I can see that the A6000 is smaller in all dimentions and it is not as heavy (1180 grams for the sony and 1330grams for the Canon.

But when you liked the Canon better go for it!

When you compare the A6000 with the 55-210 the differences are a lot more pleasant for the Sony too, look here This combination is under the 700 grams, there is no Canon DSLR combination that gives this small size and weight as an option! And that is what the E-mount is all about: options! You can go very small and  all the way up to large, no DSLR gives you those options!

nevercat Veteran Member • Posts: 3,193
Re: That must be a fake
1

Siobhan A wrote:

dotborg wrote:

Siobhan A wrote:

Siobhan A wrote:

I hope that is not the real FE 70-200. There is no advantage over a small DSLR.

How do you propose that they make a smaller 70-200mm f4 internal zoom?

Canon and nikon are smaller. Check diameters and see it could be smaller.

Totally insignificant differences.

A small difference in diameter equates to a larger difference in size due the nature of diameter vs. 3 dimensions. So could the Sony be smaller, yes. What is more significant is the focus ability of a DSLR over the A6000 which is either close to or behind the Nikon 1. The Nikon 1 is a step behind DSLRs. I advocate keeping a NEX 6 or 7 or A6000, but don't spend $1500 on this lens. Get a manual focus lens or get a DSLR and 70-200mm lens.

So you advice to buy a DSLR (for about $549 in the gear shop, Canon Rebel T5) and the 70-200mm f4 ($1349), making a total of allmost $1900? Not everybody has that kind of money and not everybody want to take two cameras with them when going out on a footoshoot.

Post this question in the open forum to be fair if you wish and we can see what everyone says.

There will be na thousand different answers there, just like here

nevercat Veteran Member • Posts: 3,193
Re: 70-200mm F4 on A6000
2

RonFrank wrote:

There comes a time when a heavier camera is an advantage, and that is when you attach a huge lens to the camera. A 70-200mm f4 is not massive but it is heavy and long enough to where you really want a sturdy body and a mount designed to handle the weight. The A6000 is not the perfect solution.

In fact I think this is not 100% true. When handling my 70-400mm G on my A700 I balance the camera/lens combination by holding the lens in my left hand and the camera in the right. The lens (esp. zoomed in at 400mm) is long and heavy. When you use a tripod there is no reason to have a large and heavy camera at all... Hand holding the combination is handled mostly by the lens, even with my A700

The A6000 is a great body especially for mounting a 16-50mm, 55-210mm or 35mm lens and running around a park. But if you need to shoot a lens that weighs close to 2bs the idea of weight savings kinda goes out the window. Size is also a factor and at almost 7" without a hood (the hood is kinda necessary unless shooting indoors) a larger body keeps the lens balanced.

The problem is that not everybosdy is willing to take twop cameras out especialy when one of them is large and heavy. So the A6000 gives you the choice of going very small (with the pancake lenses) larger (with the normal lenses) or large (with the 70-200mm) no other DSLR system gives you that!

There are photo applications that require beefy lenses and there is nothing wrong with that. One thing I find annoying about these forums is all the Sony bigots, or Nikon bigots, or Canon fanboys.... Cameras are tools and it is not unheard of for people to own different types for different applications.

Very true!

miro3 Veteran Member • Posts: 3,048
Re: 70-200mm F4 on A6000

RonFrank wrote:

There comes a time when a heavier camera is an advantage, and that is when you attach a huge lens to the camera. A 70-200mm f4 is not massive but it is heavy and long enough to where you really want a sturdy body and a mount designed to handle the weight. The A6000 is not the perfect solution.

+1

The A6000 is a great body especially for mounting a 16-50mm, 55-210mm or 35mm lens and running around a park. But if you need to shoot a lens that weighs close to 2bs the idea of weight savings kinda goes out the window. Size is also a factor and at almost 7" without a hood (the hood is kinda necessary unless shooting indoors) a larger body keeps the lens balanced.

+1

There are photo applications that require beefy lenses and there is nothing wrong with that. One thing I find annoying about these forums is all the Sony bigots, or Nikon bigots, or Canon fanboys.... Cameras are tools and it is not unheard of for people to own different types for different applications.

locke42 Regular Member • Posts: 169
Re: 70-200mm F4 on A6000
3

RonFrank wrote:

There comes a time when a heavier camera is an advantage, and that is when you attach a huge lens to the camera. A 70-200mm f4 is not massive but it is heavy and long enough to where you really want a sturdy body and a mount designed to handle the weight. The A6000 is not the perfect solution.

I disagree. At the point when the balance of the combination shifts forward into the lens, then you should be looking at supporting the lens rather than the camera with your hand (or your tripod). In such a case, the strength of the body and mount is unimportant, because the body/mount is only supporting its own weight, not the weight of the lens. That's why these lenses have tripod rings to begin with.

This goes for carrying this combination around, too. You should be carrying it using the lens or tripod ring, not with the camera grip.

 locke42's gear list:locke42's gear list
Sony RX100 II Canon EOS 60D Sony Alpha a7 Canon EF 50mm f/1.4 USM Sony FE 55mm F1.8
Siobhan A Senior Member • Posts: 1,857
Re: That must be a fake

nevercat wrote:

Siobhan A wrote:

dotborg wrote:

Siobhan A wrote:

Siobhan A wrote:

I hope that is not the real FE 70-200. There is no advantage over a small DSLR.

How do you propose that they make a smaller 70-200mm f4 internal zoom?

Canon and nikon are smaller. Check diameters and see it could be smaller.

Totally insignificant differences.

A small difference in diameter equates to a larger difference in size due the nature of diameter vs. 3 dimensions. So could the Sony be smaller, yes. What is more significant is the focus ability of a DSLR over the A6000 which is either close to or behind the Nikon 1. The Nikon 1 is a step behind DSLRs. I advocate keeping a NEX 6 or 7 or A6000, but don't spend $1500 on this lens. Get a manual focus lens or get a DSLR and 70-200mm lens.

So you advice to buy a DSLR (for about $549 in the gear shop, Canon Rebel T5) and the 70-200mm f4 ($1349), making a total of allmost $1900? Not everybody has that kind of money and not everybody want to take two cameras with them when going out on a footoshoot.

I advise buying a T3i and 70-200mm non-IS lens 70-200 f/4 for $300 less than than  theSony lens.  A used IS lens would be another option.  Both options would yield significantly better results IMHO.  Plus you would have money left over to buy an EOS adpapter and you can keep the smaller camera too.

Post this question in the open forum to be fair if you wish and we can see what everyone says.

There will be na thousand different answers there, just like here

Most would be the DSLR would yield beter results, but I am open.  Post the question and let's see.

EinsteinsGhost
EinsteinsGhost Forum Pro • Posts: 11,977
BUT, one doesn't have to deal with that
2

dotborg wrote:

Siobhan A wrote:

Siobhan A wrote:

I hope that is not the real FE 70-200. There is no advantage over a small DSLR.

How do you propose that they make a smaller 70-200mm f4 internal zoom?

Canon and nikon are smaller. Check diameters and see it could be smaller.

Totally insignificant differences.

A small difference in diameter equates to a larger difference in size due the nature of diameter vs. 3 dimensions.   So could the Sony be smaller, yes.  What is more significant is the focus ability of a DSLR over the A6000 which is either close to or behind the Nikon 1.  The Nikon 1 is a step behind DSLRs. I advocate keeping a NEX 6 or 7 or A6000, but don't spend $1500 on this lens.  Get a manual focus lens or get a DSLR and 70-200mm lens.

Post this question in the open forum to be fair if you wish and we can see what everyone says.

Eh, not all of us have to share your ideas about what we should or shouldn't. I didn't expect any lens of this spec to be smaller... im fact I have wanted to see this lens from Sony for a while... And it is the only tele zoom lens I find worth considering for E-mount bodies, the alternative being a prime which can be faster but not necessarily smaller (as I have mentioned, Minolta 200/2.8 is my favorite tele lens on NEX-6... Easy to handle and carry in my sling bag while the combination is larger and heavier than 70-200G would be with NEX-6/a6000).

If you want to buy dedicated bodies based on lens size, feel free to do so for yourself instead of railing against a fantastic choice that exists for E-mount.

BTW, a55 is comparable in size and weight to SL1, but with better grip, speed and features. And yet, my 200/2.8 usually goes on NEX-6 (a55 generally keeps 16-50/2.8). Hint: The NEX-6 combo actually fits better in my sling than the lens does when put on a55 in the same space) and handling is a non issue).

This comes from experience, not armchair spec matching.

 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
EinsteinsGhost
EinsteinsGhost Forum Pro • Posts: 11,977
Re: 70-200mm F4 on A6000
1

the FE 70-200 on a A7 weights 3 lbs 1 oz (with battery and without tripod ring).

That matches Sony a55 (which weighs the same as a7) and Minolta 200/2.8. In fact, that also matches NEX-6+LAEA2+Minolta 200/2.8 to the oz, something I have considered a nice and portable tele solution for over two years.

So, the FE70-200 will actually be lighter on NEX-6.

But, the most useful info I have gathered from this thread is that the lens actually has multiple Focus Hold buttons. Nice! Do you happen to know if it is programmable?

 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
ProfHankD
ProfHankD Veteran Member • Posts: 6,165
There are so many ??-2??mm zooms...

utahkelly wrote:

This is what the 70-200 looks like on a A6000.

Very professional looking (including the white paint, which is rare on an f/4).

However, this confirms that many other zooms are still viable choices. For example, my beercan on an LA-EA4 works fine on my NEX-7 and even better on my A7, and it doesn't look too much bigger. Then there are also those old manual-focus zooms, like the sub-$30 Vivitar Series I. Here's one on my original NEX-5 with an LCD magnifier (fake EVF) on the back:

NEX-5, LCD magnifier, and Vivitar Series I 70-210mm f/3.5 zoom

People definitely noticed that combo... and thought it looked very professional....  

Unfortunately, no OSS on any of those much cheaper alternatives....

 ProfHankD's gear list:ProfHankD's gear list
Canon PowerShot SX530 Olympus TG-860 Sony Alpha a7R II Canon EOS 5D Mark IV Sony a6500 +30 more
Jabba23 Regular Member • Posts: 304
Re: 70-200mm F4 on A6000
1

So the way it sounds walking around with max 2kgs of gear is too hard for many people. Especially if part of it is a mirrorless Sony camera.
Handled one in Shanghai with a7 attached and I'm pretty sure those 1kgs dumb bells feel heavier. Will post pictures of the a7 and lens as well as an a99 with a 500f4 for comparison.
--
Darren Krusi

 Jabba23's gear list:Jabba23's gear list
Sony Alpha NEX-5N Sony Alpha a7 Sony E 18-55mm F3.5-5.6 OSS Google Nexus 4 Google Nexus 7
dotborg Veteran Member • Posts: 8,492
Re: That must be a fake
3

dotborg wrote:

Siobhan A wrote:

Siobhan A wrote:

I hope that is not the real FE 70-200. There is no advantage over a small DSLR.

How do you propose that they make a smaller 70-200mm f4 internal zoom?

Canon and nikon are smaller. Check diameters and see it could be smaller.

Totally insignificant differences.

A small difference in diameter equates to a larger difference in size due the nature of diameter vs. 3 dimensions.   So could the Sony be smaller, yes.  What is more significant is the focus ability of a DSLR over the A6000 which is either close to or behind the Nikon 1.  The Nikon 1 is a step behind DSLRs. I advocate keeping a NEX 6 or 7 or A6000, but don't spend $1500 on this lens.  Get a manual focus lens or get a DSLR and 70-200mm lens.

Post this question in the open forum to be fair if you wish and we can see what everyone says.

So, you suggest carrying a DSLR in addition to a mirrorless system in order to save a wee bit of diameter on one lens. Good plan.

Siobhan A Senior Member • Posts: 1,857
No

dotborg wrote:

dotborg wrote:

Siobhan A wrote:

Siobhan A wrote:

I hope that is not the real FE 70-200. There is no advantage over a small DSLR.

How do you propose that they make a smaller 70-200mm f4 internal zoom?

Canon and nikon are smaller. Check diameters and see it could be smaller.

Totally insignificant differences.

A small difference in diameter equates to a larger difference in size due the nature of diameter vs. 3 dimensions. So could the Sony be smaller, yes. What is more significant is the focus ability of a DSLR over the A6000 which is either close to or behind the Nikon 1. The Nikon 1 is a step behind DSLRs. I advocate keeping a NEX 6 or 7 or A6000, but don't spend $1500 on this lens. Get a manual focus lens or get a DSLR and 70-200mm lens.

Post this question in the open forum to be fair if you wish and we can see what everyone says.

So, you suggest carrying a DSLR in addition to a mirrorless system in order to save a wee bit of diameter on one lens. Good plan.

No. I recommend buying a DSLR and lens if you plan on taking action pictures and saving some money too.  The DSLR will do a better job and won't miss near as much.  Still keep the smaller camera for when it is better.

My store just received an a6000.  During lunch we compared it to a D3300 and D5300.  The D3300 and D5300 were more comfortable to hold.  We put the 18-200 on the a6000.  Yuck.  That made my decision.  I am going the small DSLR route since there are still many focus problems being reported on the a6000.   Since I want longer lenses, size difference - and I check in person- is gone.

Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum MMy threads