DPReview TV: Battle of the 70-200mm F2.8 zooms (Canon, Nikon, Sony, Panasonic)

@LowPassFilter

"Canon is still going to sell more of their 70-200's than all of the other lens manufacturers put together."

You obviously like Canon a lot, but how can I put this politely... Your statement has no grounding in reality.

The FF mirrorless market is owned by Sony and has been since its inception.

Well that wasn't particularly polite if that was your intention,

I don't particularly "like" Canon. In fact, I mostly find Canon quite un-likeable for a variety of reasons.

I am, however, a rational person who acknowledges Canon's worldwide domination of the camera market.

@LowPassFilter

My reply to you was very polite because what you said was utterly ridiculous.

We have figures for the mirrorless market and Sony's dominance of it is emphatic.

Mirrorless camera shipments in 2019
Sony: 1.65 million
Canon: 940,000
Fujifilm: 500,000
Olympus: 330,000
Nikon: 280,000
Others: 240,000

It isn't in any way rational to claim that Canon has a 'worldwide domination of the camera market' because they sell the most cameras overall (4.16m in 2019) as these are legacy DSLR products which cannot mount the 70-200 which you claim is going to outsell everyone else combined.

https://translate.google.co.uk/translate?sl=auto&tl=en&u=https%3A%2F%2Fdigicame-info.com%2F2020%2F09%2Fpost-1379.html

2019 Data? Really? Canon had barely even entered the market at that point. The idea that Sony is going to be able to compete with Canon when they direct their extraordinary resources to the full frame MILC market is wishful thinking.

Sony had a nice run while they had the market to themselves but IMO that period is over and they have failed to consolidate their position. Canon is just getting started. They are going to roll over Sony just like they rolled over everybody else.

FYI. I said Canon's 70-200's. There are currently four L 70-200 variants and, yes, I expect they will continue to sell more of those then all other manufacturer's 70-200's put together.

@LowPassFilter

The data is from Nikkei. It is the latest data.

Canon entered the mirrorless market in 2012 - only two years after Sony. They have had ample time to catch up but have not managed it.

For Canon to pass Sony in mirrorless sales they would have to sell twice as much as they're currently selling and Sony would have to not grow at all. That's obviously not going to happen. The evidence points to a future of Sony leading with Canon second and Nikon/Fuji fighting it out for third.

As for your comment about 70-200s - I'd expect both RF lenses to be popular but EF sales will decline sharply - the mount is deprecated and s/h units will be available as people transition away from DSLR.

I don't think the evidence points to that conclusion but I guess we'll see. Nothing against Sony, but based on history there is no way I'd bet against Canon.There's still a huge number of Canon DSLR users out there and if they go mirror-less which brand do you think they'll choose, I doubt that many of them even know that Sony makes cameras.

As I said, IMO Sony had a nice run but they have not properly consolidated the market despite the fact that it is a market that they largely created. I expect them to struggle to maintain their previous market share leadership as Canon releases a compelling parade of new products over the next year or two. I also think Nikon will do better than many currently expect. Fuji has their on thing going and they probably focus on other targets than overall market share.

Pioneers get the arrows, Settlers get the land.

Well the evidence does point to Sony dominating and Canon following, you just don't want to accept it. I see a lot of people who can't imagine a scenario where Canon is no longer the market leader but I'm old enough to remember a time when they weren't so I don't find it difficult.

Canon has just invested a huge amount of time and money into creating good FF mirrorless cameras after what was arguably an uninspiring first effort. We're used to Canon cameras arriving without much of a splash in recent years, so the R5 and R6 seem impossibly good. In reality they are late entrants to the market and bring little or nothing new. They stand out against venerable Sony models but will have to best new ones to significantly increase Canon's market share. The 20mp sensor in the R6 is on the low side and the 2.5K price is high. It's not hard to see a 30mp A7IV body with a higher res EVF and a lower price wiping it out.

No, I didn't 'selectively edit' the data, I mentioned that Canon sold the most cameras overall in my second post. I even gave the figure so you could compare it with the mirrorless totals.

Here's the direct quote:
"they (Canon) sell the most cameras overall (4.16m in 2019) as these are legacy DSLR products which cannot mount the 70-200 which you claim is going to outsell everyone else combined".

The DSLR sales are not relevant to the RF70-200 (which is what we were originally discussing) because you can't mount the lens on a DSLR.

But you don't appear to have any grasp of the meaning of the figures. More than 75% of Canon's sales are DSLRs, which are legacy products. The majority of them are low-end rebel kits and aps-c bodies. This market is vanishing as we speak. When it reaches tipping point these buyers will be shaken out across all mirrorless manufacturers. Of course many will go to Canon milc, but equally many won't. Some won't buy another camera.

They should ask Sony to repair it, I wonder what the response will be.

Agreed. My copy of GM is as sharp as my previous EF 70-200L/2.8 IS II. Lensrentals also said if you can find a good copy it is as good as Canon mark II.

If that is the case, it is only Sony to blame, all of the four lenses weren't cherry picked, they worked perfectly fine, what they should have done was to add one more category to the test, Lemon Rate.

@Simone S

"Dear Dpreview, I think your copy of the Sony GM is obviously faulty and consequently the test is partially flawed..."

The Sony lens is not faulty. It would not have achieved the fasted focussing if it was faulty.

If you mean Jordan and Chris had a bad copy - that's possible, but I doubt that too. The lens does not have a good reputation for either sharpness or low unit variation. It is one of two FE lenses (the other being the 35/1.4) that need mark II versions.

The 70-200GM is a staggeringly over-complex design and should be simplified in its next version.

When it comes to lenses Canon has always been the most innovative. Even today their EF lenses are popular on RF, E and MFT mounts as well as EF. I think there are 8 or 9 good EF to E mount adapters and most sell well.
It is a shame the RF 70-200 doesn’t work on E and MFT, it might be very popular like the EF 70-200.

Oh look, it's our resident multiple banned troll incorporating into his name two words he's very familiar with: 'Unknown User'.

@stu-C and Photoshop off course.

Agree. Photoshop is the great equalizer. The only people that will be able to tell differences between these lenses are anal pixel peepers.

The Panny 35-100 2.8 would walk the size/weight section at 360g ;-)

Re aperture, would it be DOF or light sensitivity or both? Many wouldn't be too bothered about DOF with that lens, and model versus model ISO might well make it up without noticeable loss of quality.

It’s both in terms of practical results, even if those results are not achieved at the same ISO setting.

Of course, efficiency varies across camera models, but among current offering, not by two stops.

The cropping factor has no bearing on the effective f/stop.

@Ed Ingold: it has a bearing on what focal length you use to get a certain angle of view, and a longer focal length at the same f-ratio receives more light from the subject, since f-ratios are relative to the focal length. (Guess what the “f” means in “f/2.8”.)

That’s true not only when you crop by using a smaller format but also when you crop within one format. https://clarkvision.com/articles/low.light.photography.and.f-ratios/

Therefore, while it doesn’t affect the f-ratio, it does affect the light gathering, assuming that an equivalent (rather than identical) focal length is used. Just as it doesn’t change the focal length but does change the *effect* of focal length on angle of view.

One should multiply none or both, not just one of them.

The Canon EF lens is very popular on E mount. Many of the Canon EF sports lenses are popular because they outperform the Sony’s, they are less expensive, or Sony doesn’t have a comparable lens.

I like that Nikon did the sharpest 70-200 2.8 as they usually do

Ah yes here is Magnar W, the great full frame spokesman... never short of talking nonsense when called upon.

Stu-C: So what are your argumensts against these claims:

1) You can crop files from full frame sensors to get more reach
2) A full frame camera with the same physical focal length as a crop camera has pretty much the same bulk and weight as the smaller sensor cameras
3) A larger sensor area ensures higher technical image quality

Note that name calling is not valid as an argument.

I need you define the word ‘loads’ for me, I mean I can look it up myself but it’s better being spoken in your words, perhaps quantifying it in numbers, because to me it means at least 50% or perhaps even more, this word ‘loads’.

Also please, without cherry picking certain models from each format that suit your argument but aren’t actually anywhere near comparable, tell me where this same bulk and weight comes from, because that is laughable, especially on an article about 70-200 lenses.

Point 3 is just utter nonsense and the very definition of a sweeping statement if ever there was one, talk about casting a huge net in of catching something.

Oh and if you think that’s name calling, you need to grow a spine.

Stu-C:

1 load is 1x surface area (the sensor as it is)
2 loads are 2x surface area (FF compared to aps-c)
4 loads is 4x surface area (FF compared to MFT)

Satisfied? Or do I have to mantion that I own two MFT cameras?

Yes this is an artice on 70-200 mm lenses, and I answered to saeba77, who brought shorter focal length lenses into the discussion.

Stu-C: Did you notice that I wrote "same physical focal length" and "crop from the sensor"?

My guess is that those who are visiting this tread can judge for themselves what variable factors mean for the real world results.

For the same weight and bulk? And give me the examples of which lenses and what the crop would be on what full frame sensor? Come on, let’s have the facts on these sweeping statements.

Stu-C: The web is there, right in front of you.

1) Search for compact FF camera bodies
2) Search for the same physical focal lengths for the cameras you compare
3) Look for about same bulk and weight

This is consistent with my claims here.

So your not willing to answer, I’m done here, talking utter nonsense then avoiding backing up your claims.

@Magnar W
Thanks the momentum of the lens stays the same regardless of body weight. Adding additional weight in fulcrum doesn't help with anything

Magnar, weight of the camera definitely impacts the balance and comfort. The heavier the camera, the closer the center of gravity to the body is. Heavier cameras decrease torsion thanks to the shorter center of gravity length.
If lens is much heavier, then lens + camera won't only apply vertical weight but also an angular one (because center of gravity will be far in the lens). If you have a heavier camera, senter of gravity will be much closer to your body so it'll be mostly vertical weight. Angular weight is more stressing on your wrists and arm.
This is tried and tested and confirmed by many sports photographers. Shy do you think they prefer heavier bodies? Some even attach battery grip to smaller cameras.

Actually with this type of lens the relative contribution of camera weight is something to care less, unless you have a really heavy camera greatly exceeding the lens weight. When I carry my 70-200mm f/2.8 lens, I hold it from the lens and very little from the camera during shooting. The spot where you hold it doesn't matter, as there is a large area to find the right spot to hold. I am not aware if there is any 70-200mm f/2.8 that you need to hold it very close to the camera body that could be an issue.
The camera+lens weight is what matters with this type of lenses. The relative weight is important on much shorter lenses, which have a lot of weight. Not much relative with the camera body as the relative with the length of the lens. That can be a concern in my opinion with Sigma 40mm and 105mm f/1.4 Art or Nikon 58mm Z f/0.95 lenses which they haven't a large area to catch the system from the lens.
Camera body does matter when you talk about how much easy is to hold it and operate it.

@NexUser
That is a misunderstanding of mechanics:

Let's say your lens weighs 1kg and the center of gravity for the lens is 10cm away from your body.
If your body now also weighs 1kg the total center of gravity is 5cm in front of the body.
>The total torque on your hand is now 0.981Nm, the total force on your hand is now 19.62N

Now we increase the weight of the body to 2kg. The total center of gravity moves closer to the camera body. It is now 3.3cm in front of the body. But the total mass also increased to 3kg
>The total torque on your hand is now still 0.981Nm, the total force on your hand is now 29.43N

So you cannot decrease the twisting torque by increasing body weight

@ NexUser: After using long telephoto lenses for many years, starting with the Leitz 400 mm and 560 mm Tely lenses with a light and small camera body without extra grip (comparable to the smallest modern full frame mirrorless cameras), I really prefer a lighter camera body when handling the combo, compared to, say, high end DSLR camera bodies.

Les weight is very wercome not only when you shoot, but also when you walk for hours with loads of gear,

Magnar W, please post a link to your photographs!

But Tamron 70-180mm will work on your and my Sony cameras and Tamron is half price of Sony and better optically.

If you're here (so a photographer) and you've not invested in Mirrorless you probably have a DSLR and quite possibly an excellent 70-200 2.8 you can adapt (if you stay with the same manufacturer).

@Jon555
Not necessarily, you may be coming from a M43 or APSC system.

@CaPi
Well Leica says their lenses are THE reason to buy Leica

Google “Doug Herr Leica” — nice shots of birds using a Leica lenses. He’s an expert and a gentleman.

@DC: Except it is a 'stacked', or limited comparison.
On the strength of this, I would dismiss the Sony option, and probably the Panasonic, but in reality they might actually be the best options because of third party offerings.
To me, it is more a lesson in how reviews can be misleading by omission.

You are telling me, you will invest in a system based on the results of a comparison of a 70-200 2.8 lens?

Try this argument with Sony 135 1.8

To be clear I was being sarcastic. I think the reason might be, as Chris points out, that it is an earlier design. Is there actually anything that suggests the smaller mount diameter is a problem?

Apparently, Nikon made the sharpest DSLR 70-200 on the smallest mount (F-mount), how was that possible? Maybe because 70-200s are generally telecentric and so mount size doesn't matter at all?
If Nikon used the full mount width close to the actual mount they wouldn't be able to use a teleconverter. If anything Canon makes more use of their mount (even if in this case it doesn't help the user)

Having used a Sony and moved to Nikon I can say the smaller mount makes a difference with IBIS. It is notably better handholding in low light with the Nikon which has much more latitude for movement than the Sony.

@Tom, what’s the CIPA IBIS rating of Nikon cameras?

Did you try it with any of the modern Sony cameras?

At the end of the day buy what works for you and enjoy your Nikon

If money is not a concern, then I would agree with you. But in my 'real world', the option of the Tamron 70-180 would probably beat all these lenses.

@vscd: This being a forum, I guess in the real work the Sony is better?

Oh yeah. An African swallow, maybe -- but not a European swallow, that's my point.

Title of article:
"DPReview TV: Battle of the 70-200mm F2.8 zooms (Canon, Nikon, Sony, Panasonic)"

Title of video:
"Best 70-200mm F2.8 Lens (Canon, Nikon, Sony, Panasonic)"

Where does it say mirrorless? Oops?

so you did not watch the vid when chris say it was a test of ML lenses so compectnes will be the 1st category...anyway only 4 pataxeons will be watching anyway
joking aside pentax not being very popular will be one reason the other is pentax don't seem to want to give kit for testing ...Tony Northrup got fed up of asking ...is not the pentax 70-200 a tamron lens anyway but more expensive ?

No, it's an in-house design. The difference between the two lenses is as obvious as your prejudice against Pentax.

Pentax 70-200/2.8 is a nice lens (I have it), but I don't think it would do all that great in this test.

1. AF speed either on par with Panasonic or worse (probably worse)
2. Not sure about Loca, but it certainly doesn't have Sony's blue fringing
3. Image resolution wide open better in the centre than Sony, but corners are as weak
4. Bokeh is pretty good I think, in this category could work well
5. Absurd amount of focus breathing and also not really parfocal
6. Heaviest of the bunch by quite a margin

Breakfast
Nikon makes the sharpest 70-200 for the DSRLs too
The AF-S Nikkor 70-200mm f/2,8E FL ED VR

Not for me, it doesnt.
And - these are all excellent lenses

I think they picked 1 OEM lens per system.
Actually if they picked Tamron, Sony GM lens would look even worse in the comparison.

The Sigma/Tamron DSLR 70-200 f/2.8s are about half the price, so maybe worth adapting...