Sony 70-200 f2.8 vs f4

[cyberpi1]

I currently own the f4 with my A7Rii and after having just returned from a trip to Tokyo, I was incredibly impressed with the image quality of this lens. After this trip, I’ve learned that I have been using my Batis 85 1.8 less and less frequently as of late and really enjoy the freedom of 70-200mm FL.

I’ve decided to do something I thought I’d never do, which is sell my 85mm. That said, do you think it’s worthwhile to upgrade to the 70-200 f2.8? I’d have to put all the money from the 85 into the upgrade. Worthwhile? I’ve seen so many videos that compared the two 70-200 and I’m just not seeing a substantial difference between the two. How much more help is the 2.8 giving you in low light conditions and subject isolation? Any help or comparisons between the two would be great!

I have the same combo - 85 Batis and 70-200 f4. And I don’t need 2.8 because of it’s weight (I’m not a pro).

If I were you, I wouldn’t sell Batis:

- It has better low light capabilities

- It’s sharper than zoom

- it’s almost flare resistant, unlike the 70-200 f4 (dunno about 2.8).

 

[IamJF]

Would take the 1635GM but the 24-105mm + 55mm.

A 70-200mm is more about 135 and 200mm for me - if you use this for portrait I would think about the F2.8 cause 2 primes would be expensive & heavy too.

 

[Jrnichols5]

I too shoot with the A7RII and 70-200 f/4. I do not have a desire to invest in the GM, or sell my Batis. The subject isolation @ 200mm & f/4 is plenty for me. I don't think the extra stop will have much of an impact on the way I shoot today. Plus that lens is much bigger than the f/4, which is a huge reason I would never upgrade. I tend to do a lot of hiking with this lens, so weight and size is a big factor for me. I use the Batis strictly for portraits @ f/1.8.

 

[Paul Barnard]

I had the same decision to make. As I shoot mainly landscape, and that when I travel, it was an easy decision once I had picked up both lens. The f4 has proven to be an absolute winner for me. Unless you really need to use the f2.8 wide open its a lot of additional weight to carry around. You could also argue that if you regularly need f2.8 you were actually better of with the Batis in the first place...

 

[superchalupa]

I currently own the f4 with my A7Rii and after having just returned from a trip to Tokyo, I was incredibly impressed with the image quality of this lens. After this trip, I’ve learned that I have been using my Batis 85 1.8 less and less frequently as of late and really enjoy the freedom of 70-200mm FL.

I’ve decided to do something I thought I’d never do, which is sell my 85mm. That said, do you think it’s worthwhile to upgrade to the 70-200 f2.8? I’d have to put all the money from the 85 into the upgrade. Worthwhile? I’ve seen so many videos that compared the two 70-200 and I’m just not seeing a substantial difference between the two. How much more help is the 2.8 giving you in low light conditions and subject isolation? Any help or comparisons between the two would be great!

I have both the f/4 and the f/2.8. Without knowing more about your specific circumstances, it's impossible to know if it would be a good tradeoff for you.

For me, personally, I kept my f/4 once I saw how heavy the f/2.8 is. It really is incredibly heavy. So much so that I never bring it on trips with me. When I travel, I usually bring the f/4 since it is so light and has pretty great image quality.

I use the f/2.8 for sports and action where I need the extra stop or faster focus. (For example, my daughter plays hockey indoors.)

Either one makes for great portraits. For the f/4 lens, just give a little more separation between your subject and the background, and nobody will ever notice. I shot for a long while with the f/4 lens, and while I really like the f/2.8, did I really need to get it? After having the 2.8 for 6 months now, I can pretty much say I could easily live without it. (but I'm not selling it).

 

[Tommy S]

As I am thinking about switching from A6300 to A7M3, having Sigma 18-35 and 50-100 both F1.8 for low light, my guess is, that long ISO range in A7M3 compared to A6300 makes 70-200 F 2.8 a bit overkill/overweight.

 

[Dog Tog]

There's a lot of talk about weight, cost, size and the one extra stop of aperture. Not much talk about image quality, does the G Master not make up for it's downsides with better image quality, contrast and sharpness? Or is the f/4 just as good minus the stop?

 

[sjazz]

There's a lot of talk about weight, cost, size and the one extra stop of aperture. Not much talk about image quality, does the G Master not make up for it's downsides with better image quality, contrast and sharpness? Or is the f/4 just as good minus the stop?

You may have a look to this article from Lens Rentals, in few words, they say that there are better 70-200mm F4 out there, please note that the Sony lens was released when the FE mount was launched and there had been a lot of improvements since then.

https://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2019/07/just-the-mtf-charts-70-200mm-f4-zoom-lenses/

I’m happy with mine but I’m not a pixel peeper, I have used the F2.8 and it is a bit sharper however the added weight is not convenient as a travel lens which is the primarily use of the 70-200mm in my case.

 

[PWPhotography]

I used to own both FE 70-200 lenses, and here is my side by side test.

https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/61139924

I sold G version just want to consolidate into less lenses and sold several less used lenses. Now I carry either Batis 135 or FE 100-400 GM to cover the range, and I also carry Tamron FE 28-75. As other said, the GM version size/weight is quite significantly more. It's heavier than FE 100-400 GM.

--
https://www.flickr.com/photos/55485085@N04/albums

 

[neokind]

16-35/4 and Batis 25/2 + 24-105/4 and 55/1.8 + 70-200/4 + 85/1.8

for roughly the same price.

Quite an obvious choice if you ask me ...

You’ve nearly exactly detailed my lens kit. Substitute the Batis 25/2 with a Zeiss 28/2.8 c/y. For me, as an enthusiast, it was an easy decision. I have had very few shooting situations where a single stop would make the difference.

 

[DFPanno]

What a fantastic lens.

 

[PWPhotography]

What a fantastic lens.

It's a great lens. But AF-C tracking has a big compromise with an adapter especially at 200mm side, also under low light AF is not decent via an adpater.

Hope Sony will do FE 70-200 G mark II and can match to Canon @200mm side. Sony has captured lens design greatly in last few years. Or hope Tamron will have such lens and as sharp as Canon or its FE 28-75.

These days I prefer not have to adapt lenses. I sold FE 70-200G as I don't miss 70mm side with Tamron FE 28-75 and Loxia 85, also not miss mid range or 200mm side with Batis 135 and FE 100-400 GM. Still keep FE 70-200 GM that is very sharp in entire range and f/2.8 is much needed in low light events, safari and sport tasks.

--
https://www.flickr.com/photos/55485085@N04/albums

 

[DFPanno]

What a fantastic lens.

It's a great lens. But AF-C tracking has a big compromise with an adapter especially at 200mm side, also under low light AF is not decent via an adpater.

Hope Sony will do FE 70-200 G mark II and can match to Canon @200mm side. Sony has captured lens design greatly in last few years. Or hope Tamron will have such lens and as sharp as Canon or its FE 28-75.

These days I prefer not have to adapt lenses. I sold FE 70-200G as I don't miss 70mm side with Tamron FE 28-75 and Loxia 85, also not miss mid range or 200mm side with Batis 135 and FE 100-400 GM. Still keep FE 70-200 GM that is very sharp in entire range and f/2.8 is much needed in low light events, safari and sport tasks.

Yeah; it's a compromise but one I'll accept for my purposes.

If an improved Mk. II is released I'll probably buy it.

 

[Danimal718]

I just switched to an A7iii and purchased the Tamron 28-75 2.8. My next purchase is one of these two zoom lenses. I am not a professional and primarily focus on landscapes but my nephew plays ice hockey indoor and I want to be able to capture those shots as well. Do you think the f4 would be significant for that or should I go for the 2.8?

 

[Hank Radt]

I just switched to an A7iii and purchased the Tamron 28-75 2.8. My next purchase is one of these two zoom lenses. I am not a professional and primarily focus on landscapes but my nephew plays ice hockey indoor and I want to be able to capture those shots as well. Do you think the f4 would be significant for that or should I go for the 2.8?

Some thoughts: https://www.dpreview.com/forums/thread/4354143

 

[PWPhotography]

What a fantastic lens.

It's a great lens. But AF-C tracking has a big compromise with an adapter especially at 200mm side, also under low light AF is not decent via an adpater.

Hope Sony will do FE 70-200 G mark II and can match to Canon @200mm side. Sony has captured lens design greatly in last few years. Or hope Tamron will have such lens and as sharp as Canon or its FE 28-75.

These days I prefer not have to adapt lenses. I sold FE 70-200G as I don't miss 70mm side with Tamron FE 28-75 and Loxia 85, also not miss mid range or 200mm side with Batis 135 and FE 100-400 GM. Still keep FE 70-200 GM that is very sharp in entire range and f/2.8 is much needed in low light events, safari and sport tasks.

Yeah; it's a compromise but one I'll accept for my purposes.

If an improved Mk. II is released I'll probably buy it.

Not really need another 70-200mm zoom after sold FE 70-200 G while still keep FE 70-200 GM. Appear Tamron is going to release a 70-200, widely speculate f2.8 version. I just hope Tamron will also release a f/4 or f/4.5 version one day, light, compact, much cheaper while still very sharp. Tamron is making Sony, Canon and Nikon to run on their money, as we see in FE 28-75/2.8 and the new FE 17-28/2.8. Tamron can make such compact zoom 85-200/210 F/4.5 VC.

https://www.sonyalpharumors.com/official-tamron-teaser-for-the-launch-of-four-new-sony-fe-lenses/

--
https://www.flickr.com/photos/55485085@N04/albums

 

[msstudio]

I went from the f4 to the 2.8 when it was introduced. As much as the f4 was perfectly fine and sharp, I had issues with backlit situations when focusing in low light and flare diffusion became an issue. The 2.8 works much better for both issues, due to better coating and the additional stop probably gives the AF module more info. So no regrets here.

As for the 85mm, if you shoot all day with this focal length, any zoom will get super heavy, obviously the 2.8 more so. But if you don’t use it that often and could benefit from the advantages the 2.8 zoom brings, then go for it.

Personally, I love the mirrorless bodies with small, fixed focal length, whereas the 2.8 zooms are much better suited on larger bodies, aka DSLRs...

 

[KE_DP]

There's a lot of talk about weight, cost, size and the one extra stop of aperture. Not much talk about image quality, does the G Master not make up for it's downsides with better image quality, contrast and sharpness? Or is the f/4 just as good minus the stop?

I had the F4 and sold it for the GM and have found the IQ to be superior - plus the bokeh/DOF = the reason for buying it. The handling of the F4 was a dream though, and I'm getting to the point in life the hands hurt if wielding the GM too long.

 

[Colin Smith1]

The 2.8 version takes both Sony Teleconverters, the F4 version does not. Even if the weight is a negative, this advantage makes it for me.