Image sourtesy: Photozone.de.
The Sony FE 70-200mm f4G OSS has been reviewed at CameraLabs:
I think you’ve got the message by now: if you want a decent 70-200mm in the native FE-mount, this is your only choice, so thank goodness it’s a decent one. Highly recommended.
StuckinCustoms also tested the lens and writes:
This lens is supa-dupa-light! It doesn’t have all that heft and size of its Nikon counterpart. It’s just amazing, really. I gave it to all my DSLR-carrying friends and they just look at me with a bitter expression. I love it.
Sony 70-200mm FE at Amazon (Click here), BHphoto (Click here), SonyStore (Click here). In Europe at Sony DE, UK, FR, IT, ES, AT, NL, BE, CH, FI, SE, PT
0 Responses
Fail, when is Sony releasing some faster lenses for E mount. This lens is way too big and too slow. Double Fail !
This lens is side by side with Canon 70-200mm very much the same.
What do you expect, the sensor size is exactly the same…..!
I do not expect anything I did answer “SensorEnvy” comment …
Make it a triple fail by not sticking to signal strategy of an awesome FF COMPACT system. This is such a joke….and all the fuss about discontinuing the “larger” a-mount. too much sake at sony!
Looked with “bitter expression” in wonder of the fly-wire focus without distance scale or end stops, trying to figure if the wobble is a “design feature”.
Fly by wire was tried with aircraft, FAIL.
Actually fly by wire is the standard of the industry in modern aircraft technology.
Why? When wires and pulleys work so much better.
I’ll believe that when cameras fly.
You need to get out more often. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZTWHP80hei0
That’s not a flying camera. That’s a helicopter with a camera on it. Can do the same with pigs.
Now I want to see a pig under a drone 😀
Wires and pulleys in a big airbus or boeing? Perhaps you should look into the reasons why those aircraft all fly by wire these days? Go read up some aviation history.
I remember that Boeing 777 was the first airliner with fly-by-wire, and aircraft steer so much slower than the speed you need for focusing(especially on moving subjects) that there’s no comparison. Besides, the quality of similar systems in a thousand-dollar lens and multi-million-dollar aircraft may not be comparable either? Don’t you agree?
E-mount has too many lenses now, getting confusing.
Sony FE 70-200/4 HonkyTonk vs Minolta 70-200/4 Beercan.
Weight:
HT 840G
BC 695G
Filter Size:
HT 72mm
BC 55mm
Min Focus:
HT 1.5M
BC 1.1M
Price:
HT $1,499.99
BC $99.42
Bokeh:
FE – as the reviewer says “Bokeh rendering can look a little busy.”
BC – vs Canon EF 70-200/4 as the reviewer says “Yet just study the bokeh (differential focus) of the Minolta images. Look at the thickness of the blurred dry plant stem crossing upper right in the background. Look at the green leaf behind the hyacinth. Study the larger version for the focus point in each case (it’s comparable). The beercan just seems so much better able to separate out the subject from the background, without losing depth of field within the flower.” http://www.photoclubalpha.com/2012/03/24/minolta-70-210mm-f4-versus-canon-70-200mm-f4-l-is/
Thanks Obama.
Length:
HT 175mm
BC 152mm
Width:
HT 80mm
BC 72mm
EDIT: Beercan is a 210mm max telephoto. HonkyTonk stops at 200mm.
The Mind of Minolta must have been a complete lunatic. I hope they froze his brain next to Einstien’s.
Totally irrelevant, the beer can is a 80’s vintage A-mount with screw drive. This new lens is better in every way and mounts to E&FE cameras without any adapter.
LOL so bigger, longer, fatter, heavier, whiter-er is “better in every way” to you for a small camera that was created from the beginning to be compact system… yet never delivered one original vision promise… thirty years later with modern technology on our side…? OMG funny!
Your comments are irrelevant. But your user name definitely fits you.
“yet never delivered one original vision promise”
Yes because there are whiners who want “fast lenses” on a small body.
And a 70-200/4 with OSS will *never* be small.
Oh, so you’re blaming the OSS.
I’m not blaming anything, it’s just a fact.
Trey is a great Sony salesperson as always. The Nikon f4 lens is exactly the same size and weight as the Sony, but of course he’s not going to mention this and only compares it to the Nikon 2.8.
“Nikon’s AF-S 70-200mm f4 VR is also a lens designed for DSLRs and it’s also a bit smaller than the Sony at 78x179mm, albeit roughly the same weight at 850g.” Say what?
I’d say you misunderstood which article he is taking about.
I’d say you misunderstood the tone of my comment 😉 I was piling on, not contradicting.
“This lens is supa-dupa-light! It doesn’t have all that heft and size of its Nikon counterpart.” The Nikon counterpart is the 70-200 f4G and is exactly the same size and weight. QED. Trey is either lying or disingenuous. His enthusiasm is infectious and he’s a nice guy, but impartial reviews are not his strong suit.
Reading comprehension is not your strong suit.
Oh, the irony!
Agree with you on the Nikon. This guy who writes, writes to sell. And the DXO of the Nikon is so much better than this wobbly Sony.
Exactly what I thought. The Canon version of the lens weights even less. Obviously not the most trustworthy review.
The prices on all the native lenses are a joke. Come on Sony, show some respect to your customers !
Is Sony to assume all it’s customers are welfare recipients? If these lenses are too expensive for you get a better job and stop complaining.
Have fun with your pricey new HonkyTonk “OhPlease”. Don’t wobble it too much in public. Makes you go blind.
Or maybe switch back to Nikon :/ When I bought the A7 I didnt expect that the lenses cost 2-4 times what equivalent lenses cost for other systems. Can not recomend anyone to buy a fe system with the current priced native lens story.
I checked the Nikon 70-200 f4 and it’s $1396 on BHPhoto. What are you complaining?
They could have updated the Mino beercan for one third the price and had a huge hit… and a party too!
Partly only: The beercan has no OSS and hence if they provided an update who would buy such a lens compared to the CaNikon ones which DO have IS/VR?
Perhaps Sony DID update the beercan and put in OSS, which is why you’ve got this price to pay.
Besides which, how many externals controls do you get on the beercan?
The better comparison would be the 70-300G – smaller, lighter and cheaper (even with the adapter). You do lose the OSS and a bit of light, but gain some reach.
Not really smaller when you factor in the gigantic lens hood, and it’s certainly not lighter with the adapter – slightly heavier in fact.
In fact I just sold my 70-300mm and put the cash towards the FE 70-200.
All true. Leave it at reach vs OSS. May I inquire as to the reasons behind your switch?
A number of reasons.
Basically E-mount suits my needs better – it’s more flexible and I can’t really justify having two systems. I’m down to just the A77 and 16-50/2.8 on the A-mount side and I’m not sure how long they will stay.
Owning both APS-C and FF E-mount bodies means the FE 70-200 is a bit more flexible than the 70-300 G on the A77 – wider on the A7 than the 70-300 is on the A77 and it still has good reach on APS-C, albeit without reaching as far as the 70-300. I rarely need 450mm equivalent, so I should cope fine.
I sold the 70-300 G, 85/2.8, E 55-210mm and Sigma 10-20. The FE 70-200 as one lens can pretty much do all of what the first three lenses did for me. I’m without a UWA for the time being, but the Sigma really showed it’s limitations on the A77 and the FE 16-35 will probably be my next purchase.
Very good lens for those of us that own it and use it. Connected to A6000 11 FPS + 179 AF Points in good light = excellent sports system. f2.8 is missed for lower light situations but that would require a bigger, heavier more expensive lens. Maybe f2.8 next year ?
Then you end up with a consumer quality system priced as a professional system. Nice if you want to waste your money and dont care about the resulting images.
Nonsense.
Hehe. Would like to see a user of a A6000 anywhere trying to convince a real sport photographer to switch to the A6000. Would be like a proud owner of a new Bmw trying to convince a F1 driver that the Bmw is just as good.
There is a reason for why the photographers at a football match use dlsr with real phase detection. And there is a reason why Sony still make Dlsrs with the Alpha lenses.
That real sport photographer would probably be using a £5000/$6500 camera body.
That kind of negates your point about e-mount being priced as a pro system.
You simply added more nonsense.
A6000 isn’t build to pro standard, but delivers excellent IQ. A7000 will be in a different ballpark, I guess. Nevertheless, I would like to have fast teles nevertheless, irrespective of size. Was thinking to go with A7 and Sony 135/1.8, but the adapter has phase detection points only cramped to the center. A native solution would be better.
Oh man I’m gonna run right out and get this $1499 lens without even trying the smaller, lighter, shorter, closer focusing $99 Minolta Beercan first. Yep, that $1400 extra is definitely worth it. Yay! Great big white lenses for my E-Mount. Can’t wait to be seen at the zoo with this!
I mean, look at the reviews! Described with words like “decent”. Even said it twice!
Which Minolta beercan are you referring to here. And what is the focal length of it and the f stop range of it?
Mino 70-210/4 constant aperture. See reviews on Dyxum and link below from “Comparometer THIS”. Worth a try for $1400 cheaper. Not much difference between it and the Canon EF version compared here:
http://www.photoclubalpha.com/2012/03/24/minolta-70-210mm-f4-versus-canon-70-200mm-f4-l-is/
But I’m sure this new Sony is way way better than either of these. Like, consider it the first Otus zoom man.
The Mino doesn’t have stabilization on the E-Mount. But $1400 saved would buy a real nice mono pod.
Too bad Sony didn’t just update the Beercan and knock $1G off the price.
Hardly anything is “worth the price” these days, you could almost always get something old that’s pretty good and a fraction of the price.
That’s a good decision… Minolta Beercan is HORRIBLE. Worst lens I’ve used so far.
You should publish a review to relate your findings. Dyxum has over 300 reviews slightly different than yours. Of course they’re a little longer than the comment you offered. Or just see the comparison against the well respected Canon version at http://www.photoclubalpha.com/2012/03/24/minolta-70-210mm-f4-versus-canon-70-200mm-f4-l-is/.
Your eyes must be better than mine. Because at 100% compare, I can’t hardly see any difference between the two aside from the beautiful Mino colors vs Canon cold.
Beercan not your style? Try the cheaper 100-200/4.5. Very cool on a7R. Kurt Munger tested both and doesn’t have much difference between the Sony 70-200/2.8. See here my friend: http://kurtmunger.com/lens_reviews_id21.html
Beercan has annoying fringing, but otherwise is pretty sharp and with good contrast and bokeh. I don’t know.. maybe it is not as decent as this FE, but it’s very useful for its price.
Here’s one of the first shots that I’ve taken with it (210mm f/4, no stabilization, a6000+LA-EA4; only a slight PP): https://www.flickr.com/photos/zorglub76/14930743119/
The breech 70-210/f4 is a great value, no doubt about it. I like the 100-200mm/f4.5 even more (super compact, good quality). Is the fe 70-200 15 times better than either of them? No, there are diminishing returns with everything the higher the price goes, but the price isn’t bad (particularly compared to the price of the FA 70-200mm which gives you the extra stop but no stabilization for double the price and the weight).
So the new compact pocket size full frame camera is awesome. I wonder if the lens comes with a backpack….
it’s a 70-200 lens, what do you expect ?
Something more like an updated version of smaller lighter shorter closer focusing 70-210/4 Mino Beercan. You know, something that actually matches the philosophy of the tiny camera it’s designed for.
Remember, I said “updated version”.
Something like the new Panasonic 35-100 f/4-5.6. Small and collapsible.
Comparing apples and oranges, don’t you?
Great, if you don’t mind it being 2 stops slower at the wide end and 3 stops at the long end. Smaller means compromised.
“This lens is supa-dupa-light! It doesn’t have all that heft and size of its Nikon counterpart. It’s just amazing, really. I gave it to all my DSLR-carrying friends and they just look at me with a bitter expression.”
The “bitter” expression means “what a dolt you are”. Sony FE 70-200/4 is 840g, Nikon 70-200/4G VR is 830g, Canon 70-200/4L IS is 760g. For FLs 40mm and more, short flange distance of E mount is a handicap, not an advantage. “supa-dupa-“… moron.
Minolta version BC 695G, and focuses half a meter closer.
Yeah but dude, those lenses you compare all have end stops on the focus ring and distance scales on the lenses. They also don’t have the wired focus thingy.
So stop your whining. Rhymes too much with reality.
Add in the weight of the camera bodies.
It hasn’t been tested on A7x at cameralabs, only APSC. I like LeicaBoss’s test better. However, when looking at the measurement profiles at DXO mark (70-200/4 Nikon on D800e vs Sony on A7r), the Nikon is slightly sharper in the center and corners. But I don’t think it will be a big difference in real life. Is it true, like some reviews say, that the performance of the Sony is better at long distances than at close range?
I have this lens and agree it’s a nice lens. I hope they release a teleconverter or two for it. A 2x and/or 1.4x tc would be good.
Also if you have a NEX-7 the focus hold doesn’t work. I haven’t tried it yet on my A7S.
Yeah don’t think the focus hold is supported on ‘NEX’ menu system E-Mounts. On the newer ones with Alpha menus the focus hold button can be reprogrammed to anything that the programmable buttons can be which is quite handy.
I also got this lens and I also really like it. Nice colors and good sharpness. But compared to my old and compact Minolta 70-210 3.5-4.5 +LA-EA4 adapter, it’s not a big difference. The price is high, but I needed something with OSS since I shoot 99% of the time without a tripod and my hands are a little shaky 🙂 And I’m not a fan of adapter solutions. The Sony A7 body looks really nice, the LA-EA4 adapter does not. Black instead of white color for the lens casing would have been more discret.
There’s so much complaining on this page. Wonder if people ever go out shooting instead of criticising lenses they don’t even own.
Thing is… I don’t criticise the lens. I criticise Stuckincustoms for suggesting the lens is lighter and smaller than the Canon and Nikon Version.
Shame it is incompatible with the A7r due to shutter shock….
It isn’t incompatible. Depending on the subject, focal lengths above 100mm have problems with blur at shutter times between 1/60 and 1/320 when set onto a tripod.
Attaching the VG to the A7R reduces the shutter shock significantly, but blur can still be visible in some cases.
Handheld it isn’t a big issue at all. When using the lens with the A7R with VG attached it is almost eliminated and could be visible on pixel peep level.
while there are workarounds it’s still shame for Sony for not having EFCS
It seems that A7R does not support it via FW upgrade.
I assume it will be a given that the successor will have it.
In my opinion it is a shame that it has not been addressed during R&D phase. Apparently this was not on the to-do list…
Perhaps it was – and then put into the next line-up so that there’s an upgrade path.
In the labs people normally are two or even three steps ahead of the market.
I’m wondering as to why it is not possible to introduce it with firmware updates. Olympus did it with the EM1, Fujifilm will add 1/32000 electronic shutter via firmware.
What? Where did you get this idea? Been using the lens with both an A7S and A7R for a while and see no noticeable problems other than having to turn off the IS while shooting off a tripod but I have to do the same with a Sigma 150-500mm zoom. As for shutter shock in general; totally overblown!
I think that most of the complainers here come from one of two different camps. First you have the Cheap Charlie camp where they don’t understand that you have to fork over some money to get something, and the rest are paid shills that have part time jobs with Canon, trashing Sony in social media. You don’t think that things like that exist? Did you read about the LG exec that was charged with trashing Samsung washing machines at a trade show? Anyway the Cheap Charlie crowd should just go and buy whatever product that they think is a better value, and stop wasting everyones time complaining here. As for the others, I guess there is no real solution to get rid of them. Anyway I commend Sony for making brilliant products and pushing the technology envelope. I understand that we do have to pay for it, though. P.S. I also have the 70-200F4 and I like the lens a lot, but I do wish they made it in Black.
+1
You ‘d better go and try shooting good picture s
now whatever gears you have
That ‘s another thing and hardest to do
“This lens is supa-dupa-light! It doesn’t have all that heft and size of its Nikon counterpart”
Sony FE 70-200/4 – 840 grams
Nikon 70-200/4 – 846 grams
Canon 70-200/4 IS – 760 grams
Really not sure why people post this nonsense.
…+ the weight of the camera bodies ?
Actually, the lens feels really featherweight. I was shocked to see 840 grams on the specsheet after I’ve handled the lens, even though I use the Minolta Beercan on my A7 which weighs “only” 695 grams. This one feels much lighter. I have no explanation for this.
It will be entertaining when Canon / Nikon come out with small mirrorless cameras with different mounts and all of a sudden this size of lens and approach is a Brilliant move.
for such a small body – the lens is heavy and large and only F4.0 – the dilemma with FF is larger lenses which also means heavier – so Sony will not produce any faster zoom lenses like F2.8 – so only F4.0 zooms – if only they could create the same shallow DOF in APS-C or smaller 🙂
The FE 70-200mm F4.0 is super sharp and a great lens – but it is frustrating to see so few lenses for the FE mount – mostly Zeiss branded prime lenses at $1000 and more –
I have a strong feeling that Sony is making more money on the Zeiss branded lenses then actually on the A bodies – and deliberately are not producing many Sony branded lenses
I do not expect that the A7/r will ever be very popular with wedding photographers – which is a good chunk of the FF market buyers – so I think Canon and Nikon are safe with their FF for some time –
Yes the Sony A7s is a fantastic camera for low light – but I suspect that many wedding photographers will just continue to use their Nikon D4s with F1.2 primes for low light situations
Actually, I’ve tried that lens and it doesn’t feel heavy at all. It is heavy on paper but it never feels like it. Weird. When I got back home I checked the spec sheet and was shocked by how heavy it actually was.
Just got this lens. I part-exchanged three A-mount lenses and one E-mount lens to pay for it 😛
It is big and slightly unwieldy on the A7, so needs to be supported with the left hand. No problem really, but I might invest in the VG-C1EM vertical grip. I’m also thinking of grabbing an A6000 for a bit of extra reach and the speedy AF.
I know that sony is all about looking into the future but i think they also should take time to look into the past! The minolta 80-200 f2.8 is a cracking lens and smaller than the FE-70-200 i really wish they had mimicked that lens as i do prefer an F2.8 over F4 for portraits Maybe when they come to release an updated version they will make an 80-200 f.2.8 http://goo.gl/jQiveQ
70-200mm 1.8 please. now I know there are plenty here who will say…ridiculous! It can be done, don’t be fooled. Will it be big….maybe.
Big? Definitely!
How big? I can’t find any pictures online of even a prototype. I know it’s nuts, but so is a 4500 dollar Otus and look how that is selling….nuts sells. Come on Sigma do it.
Why?
After short comparison of A7 and A900 I have bought myself Sony A900 with Tamron F/2,8 lenses – 24-70 and 70-200. Stabilisation in body works superb, no motion blur, using excellent raw software for free from Sony – Capture One, have great application for PC remote control and interval shooting, working pilot, superb feel, superb optical viewfinder.
No motion blur? IBIS won’t help you there.
Motion blur has nothing to do with the camera.
Here is my FE 70-200 F4 G OSS samples, shoot with A6000 http://www.kaitbords.lv/wp/bildes-no-kaitpartija-sveiks-rudentin-2014-berzciema-2014-gada-14-septembri/
Huge lenses, puny camera…dat balance, tho!
Mine’s for sale if anyone wants it! Get a good price – 1 day of bidding left – bit.ly/1zUivdJ
“This lens is supa-dupa-light! It doesn’t have all that heft and size of its Nikon counterpart.”
Hmm.
Nikkor 70-200 F/4: 850g, 3.10×7.00”
SONY 70-200 F/4: 840g, 3.15×6.89”
Yeah, huge difference :~) Physics is a bitch I guess 🙂