Sony FE 70-200mm F2.8 GM galleries: Roller derby and daylight base ISO samples

I checked the RAW files in Adobe Camera Raw, and yes, they are overexposed.

Oct 16, 2016permalink

Jonath

I did the same. I think Graham is right, there aren't too many. Most are OK, the ones exposed for the players with windows behind are obviously over exposed and I don't count the light bulbs as 'clipped highlights'.

Oct 16, 2016permalink

I think that Graham is sitting a dark, windowless room with the brightness on his monitor turned down to 50 nits. Overexposed is overexposed. Looking at the RAW files, there are lots of blown highlight. I could fix most of the exposure issues in post, although I can't do much about the noise in the high ISO images or the general softness.

Oct 16, 2016permalink

Jonath

We must have different versions of ACR. I don't see 'lots' of blown highlights. I see a 'few' yes. I also see lights that are blown, yes as in light bulbs - but would you seriously expose for them not to be blown??. I also see shots where the photographer has exposed for the players but the windows behind are blown.

My assumption is that DPR have done this as they've uploaded the RAW's untouched. Would be a strange looking gallery if they'd exposed for highlights to lift shadows in ACR - would be a pretty dark gallery.

Oct 16, 2016permalink

fatdeeman

They are on the bright side but correct exposure is somewhat objective, it seems like the subjects are mostly properly exposed which has caused some blowing out in other less important areas. If all the highlights had been preserved the subjects would probably be underexposed, you can't have it all, especially with challenging light.

The "correct" exposure has as much to do with artistic intent as it does technicalities, hence high and low key lighting, silhouettes etc.....

Oct 17, 2016permalink

mferencz

Stray is blind or uses a monitor from 2006. M43 dynamic range is surprisingly good, but your eyes are shot so you wouldn't know.

Oct 18, 2016permalink

BadScience

good point fatdeeman - many photographs I see on the net are "underexposed" so they look super-saturated on a LCD screen. Its a look that is becoming tiresome - printed they look murky. Typically, shots that are 1/2 stop "over-exposed" for a screen look "correct" when printed.

Oct 18, 2016permalink

dcolak

The ISO used on these pictures is way too high, the exposure is too bright. I bet Sony RX10 would give better IQ.

These pictures really cannot be the example of what that lens and camera can do.

Oct 16, 2016permalink

kreislauf

no? isn't it a perfect example of real world usage?

Mar 22, 2017permalink

Spectro

the iso seem to be too high for that about of light for the derby playoff set. I done arena with less light and was using iso 2000 +/- and getting at least 1/500s. easily with the sony sensor you can lift some exposure. One reason I don't use auto ISO.

Oct 15, 2016permalink

Noise is all about exposure setting, not ISO setting. This is the beauty of ISO-free sensor, if you understand the concept.

Oct 16, 2016permalink

AmateurSnaps

ISO free sensor, tell me more.

Oct 16, 2016permalink

Apparently Magnar's "ISO-free" sensor isn't noise free! There's nothing all that wonderful about the ISO 12,800 shots.

I personally despise AUTO ISO. There's nothing shameful about letting a camera do it's own light metering, but it makes a lot more sense to do it through shutter speed, than an AUTO ISO setting that always seems to go for the highest allowed ISO.

Oct 16, 2016permalink

noflashplease: Do you think ISO free means noise free? LOL!

A sensor has a given useable dynamic range, cleanest for the highlights and most noisy close to the noise floor. And what determine how the data is distributed for a digital file? The exposure (amount of light reaching the sensor), which is controlled by two parameters: shutter speed and aperture value.

You may turn the ISO dial as much as you want, but this does NOT affect the amount of light that hits the sensor. This can only be done by altering shutter speed and/or aperture value!

With an ISO-free camera you can as well use the same shutter speed and aperture value at base ISO, and then brighten the exposure at post processing to get an similar result as when using high ISO setting - with one major difference: when using base ISO and brightening the file at post, you keep much more bright highlight detail! This comes very handy for cityscapes at night, polar light photography, etc. High ISO might clip the highlights.

Oct 16, 2016*permalink

AmateurSnaps: An ISO free sensor is a sensor where the full dynamic range is kept when exposing at base-ISO.

In theory there is no difference between a file when you make a correct very high ISO exposure or push a seriously underexposed base ISO exposure to the same look at post processing - given that the exposure is exactly the same (using the same shutter speed and aperture value). I have tested this troughoutly with different Sony cameras, and the difference between a correct exposed ISO 6400 file and an underexposed file at base ISO, is neglible. This is about keeping as much sensor data - and highlight data - as possible.

For real world use there is some differences though, since there is going on some in-camera post processing and noise smoothing when punping up the ISO value. For the Sony A7rII (and the A7 too, I suppose) there also is something going on from ISO 640, ensuring a bit more shadow detail when the files are pushed to the extreme, way beyond ordinary use.

Oct 16, 2016*permalink

Vanitas Photo

1/500th wouldn't ebe enough to freeze people in sports

Oct 19, 2016permalink

VadymA

The lens is probably good but the noise and colors of the camera are very unimpressive.

Oct 15, 2016permalink

joe_leads

And how impressive is the noise of a 5DS at ISO 12800 compared this?

Don't like the colors? Just select another color curve in your favorite RAW editor.

Oct 16, 2016permalink

Najinsky

Absolutely beautiful 'optical' rendering properties, but it looks like it needs a totally different color response profile (aka tone curves) before it can be appreciated in beautiful colour too.

These colors just don't work for me. Looks a lot closer to an old dead skin vacated by a chameleon, than its current one.

Color is supposed to give off an energy. These are lethargic. Wait, stop the press, maybe this is the dark energy everyone is looking for.

Oct 15, 2016*permalink

Hahaha, described my feelings about those colors.

Oct 15, 2016permalink

malabito

That's what got me out of sony, (and the battery power). I never was satisfied completely with the colors, no matter how much I tired :(

Oct 15, 2016permalink

malabito:
I just have to say that your photographic work is excellent! :-)

Oct 15, 2016*permalink

malabito

Magnar W thanks for the kind words!

Oct 15, 2016permalink

MrBrightSide

There is definitely a green push to the skin tones. Probably a green spike in the lights or the arena has green walls. Either way, it ain't no way to treat a lady let alone a rinkful. If I were those women I'd hunt Mr. McDaniel down and teach him the importance of making sure that female RGBs are correct before he hits the “post” button.

Oct 16, 2016permalink

Mihai Muntean

I can't wait to pay 5000$ to get this lens ! I'm sure that with the 1000$ zoom the corners in these high-iso shots would of been much different. And look at that center ! Oh and let's not forget sony's usual amazing jpeg engine that has its usual great colours...

Oct 15, 2016permalink

Sarcasm too much? =P

Oct 15, 2016permalink

SwissSwiss

What is Roller Derby? Googled it and learnt something new :-)

Oct 15, 2016permalink

naththo

Terrible colour cast with that new lens, same issue problem as my 70-200mm F4 with A7. Culprit is the lens causing a major colour cast.

Oct 15, 2016permalink

You have masured the colors, so you know exactly if the major color cast is caused by the lens itself, the comination of lens and sensor, camera settings, exposure, available light, your newly calibrated monitor, or something else ... and you will for sure tell us which colors and how much these are drifting off from "neutral". ;-)

Oct 15, 2016*permalink

surlezi

And what color is the color cast you pretend to see ?

Oct 15, 2016permalink

naththo

What I find is the colour cast is less problem with 24-70mm F4 compare to 70-200mm has more colour cast. Mostly toward cyan and green cast. Like what I see in those sample, same story of that. That test photos are all AWB I believed it should be as I know Dpreview does that to test it using AWB to see how it goes with the new lens. My best guess is that, more glasses are needed for telephoto to create a telephoto lens, so probably more colour cast than usual is to be expected. 10/12 lens groups/elements for 24-70 compare to 70-200 is 15/21 is a lot more.

Oct 15, 2016permalink

So exactly how bad is this? And do you have something more than "my best guess"?

Oct 15, 2016permalink

SmilerGrogan

When you say "AWB" do you mean Auto white balance or is that Sony's name for custom? Because I see a color cast to these photos as well.
The only way to really get rid of a cast is to set your white balance before you start shooting using a calibrated gray card. I prefer the WhiBal card from Michael Tapes, the guy who does the LensAlign tool.

Oct 15, 2016permalink

@naththo
No other way to say this but you don't really know what you're talking about. Lenses do not have colour casts in the sense you mean. If the pictures look too green or two blue (check white) it's white balance.

A lens of this quality is likely to be more colour neutral than a cheaper lens, not less.

Oct 15, 2016permalink

What?
Non sense talk, you can have a color cast on a lens and the camera tries to compensate it with awb causing another color problems.
How many nikon lenses like the 24-70 2.8 has a golden color cast?
Its a pro expensive lens with color cast.

Oct 15, 2016permalink

Hawaii-geek

Yes, I would love to see more images at 200mm @ f2.8

And a compare with the Canon v2 and Nikon VR2 200mm @ f2.8

Oct 15, 2016permalink

Digimat

sharp, but whats up with thoose colors? uah.

Oct 15, 2016*permalink

surlezi

Ask the roller teams about the color they chose, nothing to do with the lens.

Oct 15, 2016permalink

RAW og jpg files? Or both?

And what exactly is the problem with the colors? please tell us! Then we might understand what your are trying to say!

Also, the roller pictures are obviously taken under artificial light, so please check what kind of light sourches is used, like the emitted spectrum, and compare this to how the sensor "sees" such colors.

Oct 15, 2016*permalink

https://2.img-dpreview.com/files/p/TS7952x5304~sample_galleries/1304509160/0265820795.jpg

DPReview, in the first shot:

Was the focal point the tree in the centre of the frame?
If so (it wasn't acquired accurately) do you know why?

Oct 15, 2016permalink

(unknown member)

1/500s is too slow for such kind of action, but going faster would mean also too much noise for the poor a7r2. In both cases the quality suffers. IMHO the derby photo shoot is for the d5 or 1dx2 paired with a 200 f/2.

Oct 15, 2016permalink

But the test is for a Sony 2.8/70-200.

Oct 15, 2016permalink

If there is too low light for the Sony camera, there will not be more light for a Canon camera. I bet the results under the actual conditions would be pretty much the same with any of the best FF cameras.

Oct 15, 2016permalink

@AngularJS
You just suggested that the test photos for a Sony 70-200mm lens should have been taken with a 200mm Nikon or Canon lens and 4 people liked it. They must genuinely be complete idiots.

Oct 15, 2016permalink

RubberDials: Sure, something sounds wrong when one want to compare a telezoom lens with a one stop brighter prime lens, to get one full stop faster shutter speed. Why? First: This is a test of the Sony GM 70-200 mm zoom lens. Second: The roller pictures are action photos where medium fast shutter speed (1/500 sec) plays a significant role; we can see that some subject motion is causing blur, and for some of the samples might camera shake also add some blur. Third: The lens is used with a native full frame E mount mirrorless camera, to test how this spesific lens performs when tracking fast moving subjects.

Sure, one could compare cameras and AF performance, or sharpness, or noise, or whatever. But that would be something completely different than what is described by the Dpreview staff here!

Oct 15, 2016permalink

(unknown member)

@RubberDials - be polite, no need to call people idiots.

All I was trying to say is the test is not good to demonstrate the lens performance, unless getting noisy and blurry images was the goal. An outdoor sports event in a good light would yield much better results.

A 200/2 + a sports body would be my personal preference for an indoor event like that one. It's quite hard to catch a "peak moment" with a 5fps camera. Each camera / lens has own purpose - you don't bring a knife to a gunfight.

Oct 15, 2016permalink

AngularJS wrote: "It's quite hard to catch a "peak moment" with a 5fps camera".

Unless you practise to push the shutter release button slightly before the peak moment - timing. Not that hard, and a technique that was widely used by photographers for more than a hundred year before high frame per second cameras were available, and still is pretty widely used. With 5 fps "spray and pray" often comes much worse out than shooting single frame with good timing.

Oct 15, 2016permalink

(unknown member)

Theoretically you can shoot action with a camera obscura if you have enough luck and practice. In fact I saw a bunch of folks shooting with those cameras at the last Olympics, oh wait, that were Canon and Nikon sports cameras :)
Just kidding. IRL pre-focusing works only when you expect your subject at a certain place and when your DoF is deep enough. For erratically moving subjects shooting wide open the fps matter IMHO.

Oct 18, 2016permalink

AngularJS: I am not talking about pre-focusing, I am talking about using autofocus and single frame shooting.

With some experience, one really know how much that is missing between frames with, say, pray & spray 5 fps shooting. For many of us, we get better results (capturing the decisive moment) when we learn to time the shutter response, and then use single frame shooting! And autofocus!

Oct 19, 2016permalink

(unknown member)

Man, it's hard, at least for me...

Oct 20, 2016permalink

msstudio

So sad, but turning amusing, how Sony promised this lens for March 2016 and here we are, mid October with no solid delivery date (and i just saw a Sony Rep at my dealer without any answer). Not quite the pro league they want to play at. Happy the lens works and seems to be doing well. Now, if we all could have one and actually use it on shoots that would be something...

Oct 15, 2016permalink

Why do people write lies?

This lens was not 'promised in March', it was announced in March with late June/July availability. https://www.dpreview.com/news/8790599865/sony-announces-price-and-release-date-for-fe-70-200mm-f2-8-gm-oss

That was pushed back to September - a two month delay - hardly unprecedented.

'No solid delivery date'. It is available now, it's just backordered. Much the same thing happened with the Batis 85, out of stock just after launch and unavailable anywhere for eight months. Demand is very high for these lenses. Perhaps you want to suggest that Zeiss aren't 'pro league' either.

Oct 15, 2016permalink

Sometimes, no, often, the Zeiss produc demand is artificially high.
It's less of a demand and more of a lack of supply to create the impression of high demand.

Canon and Nikon somehow don't have the issues Zeiss do and sell MANY more products. I was waiting months for a Batis, then the 85GM was announced and I cancelled my order and bought the Sony, which was in stock only 4 weeks after launch.

Oct 15, 2016permalink

thx1138

A little earthquake you may have heard about has delayed a lot of things from Sony and Nikon.

Oct 15, 2016permalink

@DamianFl
Got any figures to back up your assertion? I bet more people were trying to buy the Batis 85 than any Canon or Nikon 85. Canon may have sold more 85mm lenses over a ten year period but in the same time frame - I doubt it.

Oct 15, 2016*permalink

samtheman2014

@RubberDials

it is a tad silly to think a lens made for a smaller system that is at least double the price of equivalent lenses from Canon and Nikon will sell more looking at B&H the Batis 85mm F/1.8 is nineteenth on the best seller list for mirrorless lenses . The Canon 85mm is 7th in the bestselling DSLR lens list and the Nikon 85mm is 12th

In Amazon UK the Batis lens does not even feature in the top 100 selling lenses. The Canon and Nikon 85mm both appear

Oct 15, 2016permalink

Expecting a lens that isn't available to buy to be high up on a list of best selling lenses is even sillier.

If you look at my comment I was responding to the claim that Zeiss inflated the impression of demand by offering a small supply. The popularity of a lens at B&H will not answer that question because it doesn't indicate the number of units they got to sell or the number of people who wanted it but couldn't get it.

Oct 16, 2016permalink

I have a few friends that work in sales at different camera stores.
They say they cannot possibly order as many Zeiss products as they can Canikon products.

They can almost order as many Canikon products as they like, but Zeiss are restricted to very few at any one time and there's always a back-order issue or some other similar supply issue.

Canikon products far, far out-sell Zeiss products.

I live in Australia, this may affect the data I have as Zeiss *may* (doubt it) prioritise other markets. I doubt it as Australians are almost always charged a premium, we're considered a cream market.

For example, Zeiss Otus 55mm was AU$5500 when I enquired, it was AU$4000 to buy from B&H with shipping.
2.8/15 Distagon was AU$4.5K in Aus, $3K inc. shipping from the US or any other country.

Oct 16, 2016*permalink

msstudio

Dear rubber dials, I wish you wouldn't call me liar. And please don't reference an article dating September 2016 regarding the spring delivery of the lens. Any delivery squabbling is pity anyways. They announced the lenses, I ordered them from my pro supplier here in NY, got the 24-70 early June if recall correctly and still haven't seen the 70-200. It's mid October. Now, I fully trust my guys, and I'm sure they just tell me what they've been told, and as mentioned above, even the new Sony rep for NY does not have an answer re availability (so much for available now and it's back ordered). Just today I edited pictures that I need to deliver to a high end client, that were shot with the new 24-70 and the older 70-200, backlit, side lit, and the lens quality is so vastly different, it's embarrassing.
...and by the way, the earthquake affected their sensor factory, a reason for the delayed lenses was never published.

Oct 19, 2016*permalink

You said the lens 'was promised in March'. It wasn't. It was announced in March with June/July availability. I didn't call you a liar I said; 'why do people write lies.' Saying it was promised in March is a lie.

I didn't say anything about an earthquake or offer any explanation for the delay. I've no idea what the reason is. Cameras and lenses rarely ship on time. You can't blame Sony for not giving you equipment to serve a pro client - you have to manage any contingency yourself.

Oct 19, 2016permalink

TheBitterntwisted1

Awesome shots! Anyone dissing the roller derby shots should go along to a local league bout (pay for entry) and try and shoot decent shots with out strobes etc... Bare in mind that these skaters are moving and moving fast not to mention being hit and swapping direction with minimal warning! These shots are far better than decent and you all should back up and give the photographer the credit he deserves! And for the record even as a pentax dedicated shooter I think the Sony has done an awesome job too!

Oct 15, 2016permalink

piratejabez

Great shots, fun event, super impressive results... but oh those Sony colors X^o

Oct 15, 2016permalink

I don't like the neon grass you see in some landscapes, but these pictures are positively anaemic. They're crying out for decent processing, but the lens looks good.

Oct 15, 2016permalink

evangelos k

Oh please.... as if you could tell which are "Sony colors" from a gallery of mixed photographs...

Oct 15, 2016permalink

naththo

Lens is the problem can introduce colour cast like that and 70-200mm F4 previously with A7, green colour cast can be seen from this lens I own with A7. Thats a major issue problem. So far with 24-70mm F4 with A7, haven't had much issue problem so far. So its the lens, not the camera AWB.

Oct 15, 2016permalink

lol, Sony colours.

Almost every broadcast cam in studios I go into is Sony, no one complains about the colours.

Canikon guys (read: Ken Rockwell readers) use 'Sony colours' as an excuse to bag a product, Sony doesn't have bad colour just as Zeiss products don't have imaginary '3D pop'.

Sony colours are different to Canikon colours, if you don't know how to post a Sony output, it's your fault, not Sony's, Sony JPG's are sweet, they look different to Canikon, Leica and Blad, but they are, in my subjective opinion, just as great in a different way.

Oct 16, 2016permalink

piratejabez

Yikes, the hate is strong in this thread... Could I pick out shots from a Sony in a mix? No, I doubt it. Can you get amazing shots with just about any camera and tone the colors to your liking in post if you want to? Absolutely. But I look at the sampling here, and really don't care for the default color rendition. It's no secret that very brand calibrates their machines using a slightly different methodology, and people are bound to prefer one over another (with wide room for healthy disagreement). I feel similarly about Sony's color methodology as I do about Panasonic's (though I am a Panasonic shooter), and the Abobe Standard color profiles used by ACR (though ACR is integral to my workflow, and results obviously vary by camera). I would be the first to admit that this is a matter of subjective taste—I do not believe Sony's colors are "bad" or "worse" per se, just that I find them strongly unappealing in general. And that's OK.

Oct 17, 2016*permalink

justmeMN

DPR should take some action shots at a dog agility competition. #dogsrule

Oct 14, 2016permalink

Joed700

All I wanted to know is that can this lens outperform the Canon 70-200mm f/2.8 L II? Does it have focus breathing issue like the Nikon 70-200mm f/2.8 vR II?

Oct 14, 2016permalink

salamander1

no, i don't think it does. (outperform the canon)

Oct 15, 2016permalink

straylightrun

The Canon is sharper and cheaper. It also won't have the poor Sony quality control, so you don't have to buy multiple copies to get a good copy that isn't decentered.

Oct 16, 2016permalink

Nephi

Does the DPR staff agree these are unusually soft?

Oct 14, 2016permalink

The pictures are not soft at all. Did you look at the daylight ones?

The lens looks very uniform across the whole image height, has very little chromatic aberration and renders out-of focus-areas beautifully.

The images themselves are very poor though. I wouldn't have posted them. Too windy to shoot foliage at distance and some of the aperture/subject choices are bizarre.

No variety, no portraits - with a 70-200? No body shots even. All the people are tiny in the shots and there are lots of small structures or objects that are framed as small. Although that's not actually bad for testing the resolution of a lens, it doesn't make for eye-poping images.

They weren't taken by DPreview staffers and it shows.

Oct 15, 2016permalink

deluk

Are all of the action shots selected from spray and pray bursts? Call me old fashioned, but I've never used this method. Recently bought a D7000 though, so looks like I will have to give it a go.

Oct 14, 2016permalink

Elite83

I too truly see the value in "composing" shots versus the dragnet approach, I primarily stick to it myself. However, in high-action (what ever you consider high action anyway... it's all relative) situations, I also see the equal value in bursting photos. I've gotten numerous "perfectly" framed shots thanks to my NEX-6 high speed burst. I see no reason to omit the use of new technology to our advantage for the sake of tradition. Sure, like anything else, it can be abused, I agree.

Oct 14, 2016permalink

Max Iso

I thought a lot looked soft too. Wider ones and those stopped down were a bit better but wide open near 200mm looked pretty bad. The people shot on the bench is a good example, very soft considering the ISO and SS.

Oct 15, 2016permalink

jackspra

Prefer samples from the Nikon and canon equivalent but if you have Sony equipment I am sure you would enjoy the lens.

Oct 14, 2016permalink

ZJ24

A lot of good images here in terms of the photographer capturing an event. I wouldn't say the images are very soft, I would say though that they are not as sharp as I would expect from a premium 70-200 F2.8, even at 8 x 10 size. The sharpness just seems good but not great.

Oct 14, 2016permalink

Georgeee

ISO4000 one is very noisey. A7rII?

Oct 14, 2016*permalink

paulski66

I agree. Even the ISO 3200 ones appear very noisy. I know little about Sony and their current offerings (is this an APS-C camera? top-of-the-line full frame?) but I find the noise in these to be simply awful.

Oct 15, 2016permalink

bluevellet

The base ISO gallery is nice, the roller derby one is too noisy and washed up.

Oct 14, 2016permalink

Trk

Serious noise there, I would think that a7r ii should be much more better in low light. Maybe underexposed and pushed in post, incorrect understanding of isoless feature?

Oct 14, 2016permalink

I played with RAW file for the front page image and it definitely was overexposed, so assuming that the file was unmodified, it isn't a case of underexposing and pushing in post? There's just a lot of noise in these images, aside for the lack of sharpness. I really, really don't like the noise performance either. I can only hope that the A7S III will be a lot more pleasing than the A7R II. BSI sensors can't work miracles at 42MP, apparently. Maybe they'll work better at less than 16MP?

Oct 14, 2016permalink

Trk: How could underexposed and pushed in post be incorrect understanding of ISO-less sensors?

Noise is not about ISO, it is all about exposure (if you understand the concept of ISO-less sensors).

Oct 14, 2016*permalink

Retzius

It all seems very hipster...

Oct 14, 2016permalink

knappe duivel

Only the jpg's, please check the raws

Oct 14, 2016permalink

Barney Britton

There needs to be a new rule. Unless you know what 'hipster' means, you shouldn't be allowed to use it in snarky internet comments.

Oct 14, 2016permalink

Aroart

Today's definition of hipster is those who try to look like old school sailers... but take baths on a regular basis...

Oct 14, 2016permalink

J Chris

Photos shot from the hip, right?

Why yes, I am old...

Oct 14, 2016permalink

angus rocks

There needs to be a new rule. DPR staff needs to know what the definition of 'Troll' is.

Oct 14, 2016permalink

Barney Britton

Oh I assure you, we extend that entry every day ;)

Oct 14, 2016permalink

I like this definition from a 2009 article quoted on Wikipedia: in PopMatters magazine, Rob Horning asserted that the hipster might be the "embodiment of postmodernism as a spent force, revealing what happens when pastiche and irony exhaust themselves as aesthetics."

Oct 15, 2016permalink

samtheman2014

Barney, may I suggest without being banned from the site that your headshot rather shouts hipster at me ;} Seattle is also high on the hipster cities of the USA , just saying !

Oct 15, 2016permalink

Barney Britton

@ rfslll - that's not a definition.

Oct 16, 2016permalink

Barney: You wouldn't say that if you were alive during the cultural bloodbath that was postmodernism: shibboleths plundered, archetypes denounced, nothing withstood it. Semiotics—heaven help us—became the religion of an entire generation.
And now 40 years on....once again the sleep of reason produces monsters.

Oct 18, 2016permalink

knappe duivel

I'm with Barney on this one. Rob Horning quoted on wike states an opinion, not a definition. Also, I have yet to see the term hipster to be used in a meaningfull way.

Oct 20, 2016permalink

Those images all look very, very soft? There's nothing sharp about any of those sample images? Worse than a lot of legacy lenses. Is the Sony FE 70-200mm F2.8 GM OSS really this awful? With mirrorless cameras, there can't be any front or back focus issues? Did Sony just make the worst recent 70-200mm F/2.8 or is this just an awful copy? Test charts?

Oct 14, 2016permalink

Can you hit the capslock before posting again?

Oct 14, 2016permalink

I have downloaded jpgs and raws, and inspected the files at 100% and 200% view on a calibrated monitor, but I am unable to spot this claimed softness. Contrast is high, dynamic range is marvellous, and the amount of fine detail is great, even for shots taken at 200 mm focal length.

But then, the pictures might look less sharp for people used with much lower Mp sensors, since those are great for surprssing aberrations = they don't resolve that much fine detail.

Or it even might be your monitor.

Oct 14, 2016*permalink

Astrotripper

@noflashplease

Clean up the spit from your monitor, it should help.

Oct 14, 2016permalink

NicoPPC

Indeed, they look really soft 1:1, to me as well.

However, resample to 24MP, they look pretty sharp. Probably the lens can not resolve 42MP.

Regards

Oct 14, 2016permalink

These images are just plain soft for a 70-200mm F/2.8 lens. I'm not talking about high ISO noise and I'm well away of the resolution. Nothing in these images is in the sort of sharp focus that I'd expect from a lens in this category. If we were talking about a DSLR, I'd suspect an issue with front/back focus, but that's not possible with a mirrorless body? Regardless of price, assuming that this copy is representative, the FE 70-200mm F2.8 GM OSS would appear to be unworthy of my camera bag. Sony needs to do better.

Oct 14, 2016permalink

noflashplease: You are repeating yourself here! Again.

Oct 14, 2016permalink

'Sony needs to do better'. People say such stupid things. Have you seen the MTFs of this lens?

'Unworthy of my camera bag' Which is full of Nikons, anyway. Go and look at the Nikon mtfs and then come back and tell us how soft this is.

Oct 14, 2016permalink

Some images are out of focus. For example focus on the rollerskates instead of the body/face. Image 6496 is in focus (helmet).
f/2.8 appears to result in not enough DoF for this subject.
1/500s exposure appears to be too long to freeze the action.
There are several manual settings by photographer that were not really neccessary. Like overexposure, manual exposure. High-iso NR set to off. IS set to on.
Most of the rollerderby pictures improve when you apply daylight color balance.

Daylight base ISO pictures are very good. These images are more suitable for judging lens sharpness.
In focus, sharp, good contrast, color.
Some of these pictures diplay some distortion by atmosphere (00373 far left).

Oct 14, 2016permalink

They have a smearing, i guess its the overprocessing that sony does to correct the lens. Yes all are cooked raws with lens profile pre-added then you can correct over the previous correction to give the impression that the lens itself is really good wich is not.
The images have an smearing and seems over all the edges they seems strangely soft.
Looking on a 4k monitor color corrected.

Oct 14, 2016permalink

@Marcelobtp
I don't agree. Most pictures are fine. At 100% viewing, high ISO and mostly out-of-focus parts of the image are what you are looking at. Caused by maybe not the best low-light action camera and possibly a photographer who is new to this type of camera.

Oct 14, 2016permalink

thx1138

Nothing special at all about this lens based on the low ISO samples, they aren't bad but given the sensor I'd expect better, much better. Then again the jpg engine maybe crap, although I thought the Sony wasn't too bad in that area.

Oct 15, 2016permalink

How can you possibly judge the sharpness of a lens this way?
This is really just a bunch of useless comments.
The only way to do this is by pixel peeping in carefully controlled studio scene shots. I 'd like to see a 70-200 showdown done this way now with all the most recent canon-nikon-sony cameras and lenses. That would be they only thing that makes any sense.
The only thing I can say is that it costs too much 4me.

Oct 15, 2016permalink

@virtualreality I don't agree with you, at least they should be much better than fine for the actual price and marketing. But no, they don't look fine to me, they look typical sony zooms, they cause me headaches, and smeared edges, hope to see it vs the canon one comparison.
Wich btw costs less.

Oct 15, 2016permalink

@photomedium When you have some years of photography you quickly spot what is a good lens and a bad lens, in terms of sharpness this lens is obviously lacking on the finer, high frequency details, there are sufficient photos at diferent lights that should be enough to spot.

Oct 15, 2016permalink

@Marcelobtp
nonsense.

Oct 15, 2016permalink

thx1138

@photomedium

Sounds like you own one and are in denial to justify the price.

Oct 16, 2016permalink

@thx1138
Sounds like you're jealous of people who buy premium lenses and don't care about the price.

Oct 16, 2016permalink

thx1138,
Dude, high school ended over 30 years ago for me. I reserve denial for other more important things.
When the DPR guys go to the roof and take a few comparative shots of the surrounding buildings we'll learn all about sharpness. I will form my opinion then.

Oct 16, 2016permalink

brazzy

On Monday I'll get my 2X teleconverter, then I'll test my GM against my Nikon 70-200 (with and without teleconverters).
Although it seems like Nikon is going to update its lens soon.

Oct 14, 2016permalink

steelhead3

Isn't the Nikon an update just a few years ago?

Oct 14, 2016permalink

Rajeshb

Nikon is releasing a 19 T/S and updated 70-200 soon

Oct 14, 2016permalink

steelhead3

Why? Is the 70/200 a substandard lens like the previous version?

Oct 14, 2016permalink

Rajeshb

Ask Nikon

Oct 14, 2016permalink

Nephi

I looked over most of the shots. When looking at images at 100% they all look soft to me. I couldn't find one image that I thought was sharp. They all look like they have some sort of lens blur.

Oct 14, 2016permalink

AstroStan

not surprising based on MTF charts (re B&H). It seems impossible to design a Zoom that does not compromise in significant ways.

Oct 14, 2016permalink

1) Are you used with evaluating files from a high density sensor like the Sony A7rII at 100% pixel?

2) Looks like there is going on some kind of compressing/softing when large files are posted on Dpreview galleries - is the same true for their jpg samples?

Oct 14, 2016permalink

I'm not the only one seeing the fundamental softness in these samples.

Oct 14, 2016permalink

Nephi

The softness I am seeing has nothing to do with DPR or compression. These images are just plain soft. Just look at other samples lens images for an apple to apple comparison.

Oct 14, 2016permalink

Wonderful work, lots of decisive moments....But is it my monitor or are these skin tones kind of greyed out and funky? Maybe he needs to throw some Bees up in the rafters like sports shooters do at basketball games...

Oct 14, 2016permalink

bobbarber

The roller derby shots make me nostalgic. Way back in the day (w-a-a-a-a-y-y-y-y back) we used to watch roller derby on our black and white T.V. set on Saturday mornings. We were breaking the rules. We loved it. Roller derby was a sport for bookies and the kind of guys with three days' growth of beard who hung around at the dog track.

Then it disappeared. I figured roller derby was like Iron Butterfly or hula hoops, a decent idea that played itself out after a respectable run.

But no.

Now people who are way cooler than I'll ever be have rediscovered roller derby, and the track is the happening place to be. It only confirms that I will never ever be in sync with the times, something I should already know after many decades on this planet.

Oct 14, 2016*permalink

Yake

Looks like a tough sport!

Oct 14, 2016permalink

PVCdroid

Extremely impressive shots at high ISO. Who says this system can't do sports?

Oct 14, 2016permalink

Would be interesting to see even more action shots where tracking AF is pushed to it's limit, since these look very promising!

Oct 14, 2016permalink

PhotoKhan

Professional sports shooters, as overwhelmingly shown by their choices.

Oct 15, 2016permalink

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=roller+derby

Apparently, quite a lot of professionals have chosen Sony a6300...
http://i1266.photobucket.com/albums/jj524/picrumors/picrumors001/picrumors001007/Bildschirmfoto%202016-10-06%20um%2016.31.53_zpsn8lcmcm8.png

I don't know why DPreview staff chose high-res studio cam instead of fast crop camera.

Oct 16, 2016permalink

stratplaya

What's the objective of roller derby? Just skate in a circle and grab others?

Not complaining, just curious.

Oct 14, 2016permalink

(unknown member)

Not 100% sure myself but it's something along the lines of (someone knowledgeable jump in and correct me) - the person with the star covering on their helmet is 'it' and has to skate either in the lead or around the track and score points. It's the rest of the teams job to block the opposing team to make sure the 'star' player scores points.

I've been to a few derby's here and the thing I come away with is the level of fitness of the players is insane! Even the larger players (think football sized blockers - the blockers shown in this derby were kinda small) can keep up the level of intensity for the entire match. Impressive to say the least.

The male teams in my area are always looking for players and although I've thought about it, I can't afford the injury/injuries this sport is known for.

Oct 14, 2016permalink

Dennis

Oct 14, 2016permalink

Adrian Harris

The 'star' jammer on each team gets a point for each opposing player she laps. The 'blocker's job is to stop her. Very rough tough and exciting. .... oh and about the most difficult thing to photograph.

Oct 15, 2016permalink

IamJF

Looks like bad light and AWB setting ...

Oct 14, 2016permalink

Becksvart

Having shot a couple of Roller "Darby" competitions in what must have been a similiarly cavey cave, I think these are pretty well done, if a bit cold in color and sometimes a bit too tilted for my liking.

Some at ISO10000..haha, the A77 I shot with was called too noisy herearound at ISO2000, even if I liked the shots compositionally speaking.

As for "198mm" fetish, most aren't there, the mms are all over the place.

Some commentators here should surely switch to the Light reading mode.

Oct 14, 2016permalink

Eric Hensel

Some commentators here should switch to People magazine.

Oct 14, 2016permalink

zeratulmrye

neither bad nor impressive

Oct 14, 2016permalink

I have been impressed by worse lenses than this one. What do you expect from such a lens?

Oct 14, 2016permalink

baltimorecaesar

Anybody know what the hell is going on with their production of this lens? Was the lens factory damaged in the earthquake as well? I've been waiting for 3 months for my pre-order

Oct 14, 2016*permalink

Barbu

Umm... Some of the RAWs were improperly uploaded. More precisely, they were not uploaded at all; instead of the RAW images, the sidecar (XMP) files got on the site.
See image 2 and 6, for example.

Oct 14, 2016*permalink

Eric Calabros

Waiting for m4/3 fighters to show up
"We get same result with much lighter 35-100"

Oct 14, 2016permalink

princecody

Since you asked 🤔 This lens is Johnny come lately if you ask me! Us micro four thirds guys have had a lens like this for years now. Yawn! Same lens @ almost 4 times cheaper & way lighter can be found here 👍🏻 https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/892457-REG/Panasonic_h_hs35100_35_100mm_f_2_8_Lumix_G.html

Oct 14, 2016permalink

aephe

You've got nothing better to do by to wait for that? Ok....

Anywhoo, it's been stated plenty of times before: we're quite happy we the loss of image quality in exchange for weight and price gains. I know I am.

Now move along and find something constructive to do.

Oct 14, 2016permalink

(unknown member)

@princecody

When I had my m4/3's kit, that Pana 35-100 was a total cracker of a lens! Very nice optic for the price. Sharp, contrasty, nice colours, lightweight.

Oct 14, 2016permalink

https://www.dpreview.com/articles/7789772414/field-test-shooting-roller-derby-with-the-olympus-om-d-e-m5-ii

Not the same as these images show.
https://www.dpreview.com/articles/2883122405/roller-derby-photography-james-mcdaniel-micro-four-thirds

The amount of isolation and perspective is very different

Oct 14, 2016permalink

Treeshade

A FF F2.8 telezoom is better only when you need that extra isolation (shallow dof). I often stop down my 35-100 to make sure two people are in focus. If I use FF, I would use a F4 zoom for weight & cost saving. Better to use a less ideal lens for the 1% shot than to carry extra weight all day.

I am sure most m43 users that paid for the 35-100 know the trade-off.

Oct 14, 2016permalink

The trade off being their picks look like snapshots.

Oct 14, 2016permalink

There has been a 4/3rds equivalent to this lens almost since the dawn of the format and you guys don't seem to be very enthusiastic about it...it's the Olympus 35-100 f/2.0 (not 2.8, it is a real f/2) and it has unimaginably amazing performance. It costs about the same as its Canon and Nikon equivalents and as I recall it was the same size. But you can still buy it new.... I don't know why they're not flying off the shelves.

Oct 14, 2016*permalink

Internet Enzyme

Are there any micro 4/3's 35-100 f/1.4?

Oct 14, 2016permalink

I thought 4/3rds and micro 4/3rds had the same sensor size...no?

Oct 14, 2016permalink

The Rale

I have to admit I am totally unimpressed with "full frame" noise handling in this particular situation compared to E-M5II shoot they did couple months ago. Yes sensor obviously has more resolution and it can be down sampled, I know ... but still disappointing.

Oct 14, 2016permalink

sarenz

The Olympus 35-100 f/2.0 is indeed an admirable lens for squeezing the most out of an E-M1, but it doesn't focus well on m4/3 cameras without good PDAF. I use mine often, and it's my favorite lens for the system (the Oly 150mm f2 being another) despite its size and weight disadvantages compared to othe m4/3 lenses. IMO, the lens has potential beyond what the EM-1's sensor can reveal and I'm looking forward to seeing how it will perform with the enhanced capabilities of the E-M1mk2.

Oct 14, 2016*permalink

Cool, and let's keep this between us so the price doesn't skyrocket, but how does it do for shooting video? I've been thinking of it on something like the GH4 or 5...

Oct 14, 2016permalink

DarnGoodPhotos

So how do your m4/3 shots look at ISO6400+ and 1/500? Just as good right.

Oct 14, 2016*permalink

sarenz

rfsIII, I haven't used the lens for video so I couldn't say. The AF motor is highly audible though, so you wouldn't want your mic anywhere near the camera.

As for the other kind of noise, that's simply the ultimate limitation of the m4/3 system. One either lives with some noise, becomes a master of reducing it, and/or uses a different system if its too much of an issue. I'm shopping around for a FF system to add alongside my m4/3 for this reason.

Oct 14, 2016*permalink

Olympus, in particular, makes nice glass, regardless of image circle.

Oct 14, 2016permalink

princecody

If Panasonic makes a Leica version like the Nocticron image will be equal to this Sony 😉

Oct 14, 2016permalink

NoMirror99

And if this sharp gem-of-a-MFT-lens covered my FF sensor, I'd buy it.

Oct 15, 2016permalink

Thanks sarenz...and as for noise, instead of investing in full frame, why not just spend some money on lighting equipment? It's far less expensive and much more fun to work with (I use Nikons and while it's a great upper body workout, it's a little limiting in tight spaces).

Oct 15, 2016permalink

sarenz

Good idea to increase the lighting on the subject when possible, but the genres of photography that are capturing my interest lately are often inherently low light and/or action: dance performance, runway fashion, and low key portraits. :) So while I love the EM-1, I feel that I'm butting up against its practical limits for shadow noise and CAF. Guess I should start lifting weights ;)

Oct 15, 2016permalink

Marko2

Favorable Exponynt, the main difference between a snapshot and a keeper is the photographer not the equipment. Turning the aperture dial is not a substitute for skill even though many wish it was.

You are also obviously unaware of all the things that affect subject isolation because those shots are in no way comparable.

Btw, 28-105mm F3.5-5.6 on your wish list losses all the light gathering advantage of a FF sensor on the tele end compared to Panasonic 35-100mm f/2.8 on a M43 camera and it has inferior subject isolation capabilities.

Oct 16, 2016*permalink

marko2 I never said so but you are trying to dress me down telling me I suck . You know nothing about me. Got it? God how I hate this m43 crowd.

Oct 16, 2016permalink

Marko2

@Favorable Exponynt you never said what?

Did you say that that photos from Panny 35-100mm photos look like snapshots? Yes you did.

Did you pick photos with vastly different FOVs when comparing subject isolation? Did you say perspective difference was down to sensor size? Yes.

It is also a fact that you have 100mm @ f/5.6 FF lens on your wish list, which makes all your complaints about subject isolation all the more weird.

I don't know you but I know what you wrote and I called you on your BS.

Oct 16, 2016permalink

Different lenses for different purposes you idiot. Don't try to use that lens to prove your stupid point. Who are you Trump?

I never said gear is a substitute for skill. I said smaller sensors make snapshottisch pictures. Not a particular lens. I don't BS but you bother people because you have to compensate for your tiny sensor.

Oct 16, 2016permalink

Marko2

You can rage and insult me all you want but the more you talk the more you prove my point.

"I never said gear is a substitute for skill. I said smaller sensors make snapshottisch pictures. Not a particular lens."

And this is where your complete lack of photo knowledge becomes apparent, both the technical and artistic aspect of it.

100mm f/5.6 FF lens will have zero light gathering advantage compared to a 50 f/2.8 m43 lens. Assuming same sensor tech FF combo will perform no better in lowlight when you are shutter speed limited than a M43 combo as far as noise and dynamic range goes, and it will have same perspective and same subject isolation. That lens is actually inferior to 35-100mm f/2.8 Panny that you criticize as far as subject isolation goes, because 200mm eq will compress background more.

And the fact that you think it is the equipment, and not the photographer, that determines whether photo will be a snapshot tells me you would produce crappy snapshots with any camera.

Oct 16, 2016permalink