Good objective review for Sony 70-200mm f/4 lens

[PorscheDoc]

LensRentals blog compared the Sony with the corresponding Canon and Nikon lenses (https://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2016/03/just-the-lenses-the-70-200mm-f4-comparison/). The Sony held its own against the two rivals. While the C/N lenses showed higher central MTFs, the Sony held its curves further out and showed little astigmatism. I was also pleasantly surprised that the Sony had comparable lens-to-lens variabilty to that of C/N. Due to many reports about Sony poor QC and one bad experience with a badly decentered 35mm f/1.4, I had been hesitant to buy another Sony lens. It may be time for the 70-200mm f/4 to join my only other Sony lens (55mm f/1.8).

 

[PWPhotography]

I have this lens and had owned Canon 70-200L/4.0 IS for years which I sold to get Sony version. My experience is the same as most owners I have read. In general it's an excellent lens. But it's true it's noticeable softer at tele side wide open especially at 200mm and f/4 in edges/corners. In comparison, Canon EF 70-200L/4.0 IS particularly is sharp at 200mm side. But Sony is very sharp (probably slightly sharper than Canon) at near side at least in 70-135mm range.

 

[Tristimulus]

My 4/70-200 mm lens show some improvement at f/5.6 and get even a bit better at f/8. The lens is good at full aperture and images taken with it is contrasty and show fine color even wide open. Some degrading perfomance towards the extreme corners. Just as expected for a lens in this league.

This is not a perfect lens, but it is very good - and quite handy too. Very pleased with mine. And even my CaNikon foes (we are playing that game in a very friendly way) are impressed with images taken with this lens (even knowing it is a Sony lens)! ;-)

Have several Sony lenses and no problems in sight. Are testing every new lens extensively for sharpness, curvature, seidel abberations, reflexes and hot spots in the center of the field of view (common with several cheaper lenses but have not seen that mentioned often) - and then some.

My number of tested Sony lenses is statistically dubious (about a dozen E and FE) but no lemons hhage been found here, not a single one. Some of the lenses show slight deviations from perfect centering but that is also something expected in this price class (even my 1.8/55 is ever so slightly unsymmetrical but nothing that shows up in real life images anyway - so in that regard not perfect, but still more than good enough).

So real life use or reviews - the 4/24-70 is not the worst lens to collect. And the sample variation hysteria have yet to reach my local world. :-D

 

[AiryDiscus]

My 4/70-200 mm lens show some improvement at f/5.6 and get even a bit better at f/8. The lens is good at full aperture and images taken with it is contrasty and show fine color even wide open. Some degrading perfomance towards the extreme corners. Just as expected for a lens in this league.

This is not a perfect lens, but it is very good - and quite handy too. Very pleased with mine. And even my CaNikon foes (we are playing that game in a very friendly way) are impressed with images taken with this lens (even knowing it is a Sony lens)! ;-)

Have several Sony lenses and no problems in sight. Are testing every new lens extensively for sharpness, curvature, seidel abberations, reflexes and hot spots in the center of the field of view (common with several cheaper lenses but have not seen that mentioned often) - and then some.

My number of tested Sony lenses is statistically dubious (about a dozen E and FE) but no lemons hhage been found here, not a single one. Some of the lenses show slight deviations from perfect centering but that is also something expected in this price class (even my 1.8/55 is ever so slightly unsymmetrical but nothing that shows up in real life images anyway - so in that regard not perfect, but still more than good enough).

So real life use or reviews - the 4/24-70 is not the worst lens to collect. And the sample variation hysteria have yet to reach my local world. :-D

I would be very interested to know how you are testing the aberrations of the lenses. Short of a Shack-Hartmann sensor or an interferometer, they cannot be easily measured. Even then, both of those methods will return a measure of the wavefront from the lens, which you may evaluate with zernike polynomials, and not the Seidel polynomial.

 

[Tristimulus]

My 4/70-200 mm lens show some improvement at f/5.6 and get even a bit better at f/8. The lens is good at full aperture and images taken with it is contrasty and show fine color even wide open. Some degrading perfomance towards the extreme corners. Just as expected for a lens in this league.

This is not a perfect lens, but it is very good - and quite handy too. Very pleased with mine. And even my CaNikon foes (we are playing that game in a very friendly way) are impressed with images taken with this lens (even knowing it is a Sony lens)! ;-)

Have several Sony lenses and no problems in sight. Are testing every new lens extensively for sharpness, curvature, seidel abberations, reflexes and hot spots in the center of the field of view (common with several cheaper lenses but have not seen that mentioned often) - and then some.

My number of tested Sony lenses is statistically dubious (about a dozen E and FE) but no lemons hhage been found here, not a single one. Some of the lenses show slight deviations from perfect centering but that is also something expected in this price class (even my 1.8/55 is ever so slightly unsymmetrical but nothing that shows up in real life images anyway - so in that regard not perfect, but still more than good enough).

So real life use or reviews - the 4/24-70 is not the worst lens to collect. And the sample variation hysteria have yet to reach my local world. :-D

I would be very interested to know how you are testing the aberrations of the lenses. Short of a Shack-Hartmann sensor or an interferometer, they cannot be easily measured. Even then, both of those methods will return a measure of the wavefront from the lens, which you may evaluate with zernike polynomials, and not the Seidel polynomial.

Have to dissapoint you here!

Have been playing with camera lenses, enlargerrs, projectors, microscopes and telescopes all my life so optics is simply something interesting me - but my professional life happened to fall far from that area of interest. So just into it for the fun of it - and even having a hard time to be dead serious about it.

Not beeing an optician I simply take the ordinary test photos + star testing + using a homemade optical bench. Using video recording to watch the results (using the ImagingSource camera as base).

Nothing fancy, just enough to get an idea about what is going on. Testing for coma, astigmatism, longitudinal and lateral chromatic abberation - no scientific results, just seeing trends (which I guess would be verified by stringent testing). Just beeing curious so this is a fun project - nothing more and nothing less. Guess I am also guilty of mixing in some (more or less conciously) black art into my testing but that is a common mistake by most amateurs...

Anyway, seeing some interesting trends and getting to see the optics from another angle. And have to admit that a professional migh find my setup a bit odd... :-D

 

[LBJ2]

LensRentals blog compared the Sony with the corresponding Canon and Nikon lenses (https://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2016/03/just-the-lenses-the-70-200mm-f4-comparison/). The Sony held its own against the two rivals. While the C/N lenses showed higher central MTFs, the Sony held its curves further out and showed little astigmatism. I was also pleasantly surprised that the Sony had comparable lens-to-lens variabilty to that of C/N. Due to many reports about Sony poor QC and one bad experience with a badly decentered 35mm f/1.4, I had been hesitant to buy another Sony lens. It may be time for the 70-200mm f/4 to join my only other Sony lens (55mm f/1.8).

Some of my most personally memorable images have been made with the FE 70-200 F4. I tend to use this lens for portraits and close to medium distance wildlife to include one of my recent favorites, posted here:

http://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/57507238

This lens is certainly sharp enough for my type of photography and given its light weight, an easy choice to grab and go when I feel like chasing wildlife through the hot/humid wetlands.

 

[AiryDiscus]

My 4/70-200 mm lens show some improvement at f/5.6 and get even a bit better at f/8. The lens is good at full aperture and images taken with it is contrasty and show fine color even wide open. Some degrading perfomance towards the extreme corners. Just as expected for a lens in this league.

This is not a perfect lens, but it is very good - and quite handy too. Very pleased with mine. And even my CaNikon foes (we are playing that game in a very friendly way) are impressed with images taken with this lens (even knowing it is a Sony lens)! ;-)

Have several Sony lenses and no problems in sight. Are testing every new lens extensively for sharpness, curvature, seidel abberations, reflexes and hot spots in the center of the field of view (common with several cheaper lenses but have not seen that mentioned often) - and then some.

My number of tested Sony lenses is statistically dubious (about a dozen E and FE) but no lemons hhage been found here, not a single one. Some of the lenses show slight deviations from perfect centering but that is also something expected in this price class (even my 1.8/55 is ever so slightly unsymmetrical but nothing that shows up in real life images anyway - so in that regard not perfect, but still more than good enough).

So real life use or reviews - the 4/24-70 is not the worst lens to collect. And the sample variation hysteria have yet to reach my local world. :-D

I would be very interested to know how you are testing the aberrations of the lenses. Short of a Shack-Hartmann sensor or an interferometer, they cannot be easily measured. Even then, both of those methods will return a measure of the wavefront from the lens, which you may evaluate with zernike polynomials, and not the Seidel polynomial.

Have to dissapoint you here!

Have been playing with camera lenses, enlargerrs, projectors, microscopes and telescopes all my life so optics is simply something interesting me - but my professional life happened to fall far from that area of interest. So just into it for the fun of it - and even having a hard time to be dead serious about it.

Not beeing an optician I simply take the ordinary test photos + star testing + using a homemade optical bench. Using video recording to watch the results (using the ImagingSource camera as base).

Nothing fancy, just enough to get an idea about what is going on. Testing for coma, astigmatism, longitudinal and lateral chromatic abberation - no scientific results, just seeing trends (which I guess would be verified by stringent testing). Just beeing curious so this is a fun project - nothing more and nothing less. Guess I am also guilty of mixing in some (more or less conciously) black art into my testing but that is a common mistake by most amateurs...

Anyway, seeing some interesting trends and getting to see the optics from another angle. And have to admit that a professional migh find my setup a bit odd... :-D

An "Optical bench" is not really descriptive of what you have made... "testing for" aberrations isn't descriptive of how they are tested for either...

 

[venice]

The Sony 70-200 FE has a lovely look and even though all lenses shall be judged solely by center resolution I have thouroughly enjoyed mine.

-Bill

 

[Sr1racha]

I would panic if I didn't have my 70-200 f4. It's an essential part of my portraiture kit. It's sharp wide open, and razor sharp at f5.6 which is typically where I shoot it at. Center sharpness is my main focus and it's never let me down from that perspective.

I've been using the batis 85mm more and more, but I find that for subjects that are perhaps a bit more.. challenging, throwing the 70-200 at around 150mm is a great way to make a more flattering portrait.

 

[kamituel]

Good to see low enough lens variation on this one.

Seems like a nice lens (I don't own one, yet...) - the only real complaint might be the price. Given that all those three lenses offer similar IQ, it'd be nicer if Sony lens was priced more closely to competition. bhptotovideo.com lists Sony at $1.50k, Nikon at $1.30k and Canon at $1.15k.

--
http://kamituel.pl

 

[Jose Viegas]

Good to see low enough lens variation on this one.

Seems like a nice lens (I don't own one, yet...) - the only real complaint might be the price. Given that all those three lenses offer similar IQ, it'd be nicer if Sony lens was priced more closely to competition. bhptotovideo.com lists Sony at $1.50k, Nikon at $1.30k and Canon at $1.15k.

 

[No account anymore]

I would be very interested to know how you are testing the aberrations of the lenses. Short of a Shack-Hartmann sensor or an interferometer, they cannot be easily measured. Even then, both of those methods will return a measure of the wavefront from the lens, which you may evaluate with zernike polynomials, and not the Seidel polynomial.

Oh my ... this is a forum for photographers, not for engineers trained in optics.

Why not just shoot some pictures with your new lens(es), and then judge how you like the results? At the end, we are working with content, not studies of resolution, astigmatism, coma and other aberrations. :-D

 

[kamituel]

Good to see low enough lens variation on this one.

Seems like a nice lens (I don't own one, yet...) - the only real complaint might be the price. Given that all those three lenses offer similar IQ, it'd be nicer if Sony lens was priced more closely to competition. bhptotovideo.com lists Sony at $1.50k, Nikon at $1.30k and Canon at $1.15k.

 

[Tristimulus]

My 4/70-200 mm lens show some improvement at f/5.6 and get even a bit better at f/8. The lens is good at full aperture and images taken with it is contrasty and show fine color even wide open. Some degrading perfomance towards the extreme corners. Just as expected for a lens in this league.

This is not a perfect lens, but it is very good - and quite handy too. Very pleased with mine. And even my CaNikon foes (we are playing that game in a very friendly way) are impressed with images taken with this lens (even knowing it is a Sony lens)! ;-)

Have several Sony lenses and no problems in sight. Are testing every new lens extensively for sharpness, curvature, seidel abberations, reflexes and hot spots in the center of the field of view (common with several cheaper lenses but have not seen that mentioned often) - and then some.

My number of tested Sony lenses is statistically dubious (about a dozen E and FE) but no lemons hhage been found here, not a single one. Some of the lenses show slight deviations from perfect centering but that is also something expected in this price class (even my 1.8/55 is ever so slightly unsymmetrical but nothing that shows up in real life images anyway - so in that regard not perfect, but still more than good enough).

So real life use or reviews - the 4/24-70 is not the worst lens to collect. And the sample variation hysteria have yet to reach my local world. :-D

I would be very interested to know how you are testing the aberrations of the lenses. Short of a Shack-Hartmann sensor or an interferometer, they cannot be easily measured. Even then, both of those methods will return a measure of the wavefront from the lens, which you may evaluate with zernike polynomials, and not the Seidel polynomial.

Have to dissapoint you here!

Have been playing with camera lenses, enlargerrs, projectors, microscopes and telescopes all my life so optics is simply something interesting me - but my professional life happened to fall far from that area of interest. So just into it for the fun of it - and even having a hard time to be dead serious about it.

Not beeing an optician I simply take the ordinary test photos + star testing + using a homemade optical bench. Using video recording to watch the results (using the ImagingSource camera as base).

Nothing fancy, just enough to get an idea about what is going on. Testing for coma, astigmatism, longitudinal and lateral chromatic abberation - no scientific results, just seeing trends (which I guess would be verified by stringent testing). Just beeing curious so this is a fun project - nothing more and nothing less. Guess I am also guilty of mixing in some (more or less conciously) black art into my testing but that is a common mistake by most amateurs...

Anyway, seeing some interesting trends and getting to see the optics from another angle. And have to admit that a professional migh find my setup a bit odd... :-D

An "Optical bench" is not really descriptive of what you have made... "testing for" aberrations isn't descriptive of how they are tested for either...

That is fair enough - but this is not a science magazine, I am no scientist just curious, and I have no plans for a report whatsoever.

Besides I kept my promise: to give a dissapointing answer! And I am still having a lot of fun tinkering and testing and even actually using my cameras and lenses - a lot!

My humble economy does not allow me to shop something like a Zygo interferometer, so I am also strandede by lack of private funds. Sad but true. I know that this is at least what is needed to test a dozen lenses for my own satisfaction only. Why settle for less! :-D

So sorry - if you want extensive and documeted test results you have to contact the manufacturer - or if wanting some fun simply do it yourself! Seems like you have the skills and gear needed! :-D

No offence intended!