The new Sony 70-200mm f/4.0 E-Mount lens is finally available for preorder on European Sony online stores. There is a wrong description that hopefully Sony will fix soon. The lens aperture should be f/4.0 and not f/2.8 as described on their site. But the price is correct, 1499 Euro! Here are the links (Click on the country code):
Sony 70-200mm lens at Sony DE, UK, FR, IT, ES, NL, BE, CH, AT, SE, FI, NO, PT.
—-
Specs and order links in Europe:
Sony A7r body at Sony DE, UK, FR, IT, ES, NL, BE, CH, AT, SE, FI, NO, PT, WexUK, WexDE.
Sony A7 body at Sony DE, UK, FR, IT, ES, NL, BE, CH, AT, SE, FI, NO, PT, WexUK, WexDE, Amazon UK, Amazon DE, Amazon FR.
Sony A7 with 28-70mm kit Sony DE, UK, FR, IT, ES, NL, BE, CH, AT, SE, FI, NO, PT, WexUK, WexDE, Amazon UK, Amazon DE, Amazon FR.
Sony RX10 at Sony DE, UK, FR, IT, ES, NL, BE, CH, AT, SE, FI, NO, PT, WexUK, WexDE.
Zeiss 35mm at Sony DE, UK, FR, IT, ES, NL, BE, CH, AT, SE, FI, NO, PT,
Zeiss 55mm at Sony DE, UK, FR, IT, ES, NL, BE, CH, AT, SE, FI, NO, PT
Zeiss 24-70mm at Sony DE, UK, FR, IT, ES, NL, BE, SE, PT
Sony G 28-70mm lens at Sony DE, FR, IT, ES, NL, BE, CH, AT, SE, FI, NO.
Sony 70-200mm lens at Sony DE, UK, FR, IT, ES, NL, BE, CH, AT, SE, FI, NO, PT.
100 Responses
Wow. I am so pleased. It would likely be $1,500 then in $USD. I will order. I believe it’s a fair price. So in Germany, this 70-200 is 1499 Euro; the A mount 70-200 G2 is 2999 Euro. What did Sony put in that G2 for heaven’s sake? No way do the materials cost twice as much! Certainly that it’s f2.8 vs. f4 doesn’t make it twice as valuable. I don’t get it. Lower the price on that A mount version — it’s just out of synch with competition and even against Sony’s own gems like 70-400 G2 (almost 50% less).
Yes, I don’t get it either. I own the G1 which is fast enough for most of shooting abd even birds in flight. Howeve this lens is not powerful enough for far distance birds so I don’t get Sony why so over charge for this lens .
Telephoto lens prices tend to trend as the square of the aperture. Difference for name brand, stabilization, APO, FF vs APS-C, things like that but the general trend is there. The maximum aperture on the 70-200 f/4 is 50mm, 50^2 = 2500, the 200 f/2.8 aperture is 71.4mm, 71.4^2 = 5098. Ratio of 5098/2500 = 2.04 which is about the ratio of the prices. Since the A-mount is not stabilized and the FE-mount is the FE is a relative bargain. I think the A-mount is about $500 too much myself, but the E-mount lens appears to be pretty close to the correct price at least in the US, if the price ends up $1500, the Canon and Nikon equivalents are only slightly lower in price.
But why I have to pay now, when delivery is in April?
You’ve never pre-ordered stuff, have you? They won’t charge your credit card until they ship the item.
wrong, at least Sony Germany charges your card as soon as you placed your preorder!
Si tacuisses philosophus mansis. Why so rude? It’s OK if you don’t know better.
Yeah, this bugs me, too. I have pre-ordered the FE 24-70 but it’s supposed to be delivered end of January. I am not so happy with paying for something that’s expected in nearly four months. Bad way to do business from Sony. Although it seems to be common place with manufacturers’ shops – Olympus seems to pre-charge also.
Cheers
Heiko
I agree, not a great way to do business, especially in this day and age.
I noticed on the Sony Canada site that they were listing items as “Pre-Sell” instead of “Pro-Order,” and yes, they were also asking for payment up front.
There’s little incentive to get the lens out the door if I’ve already paid for it!
Does it will support continuos AF for video?
Would’ve preferred a 70-300mm F4-5.6 or 70-400mm F4-5.6
Then you will have to wait. This lens is a high quality lens and not for everyone. I can’t spend $1500 for such a lens either but there are those who would love for such a high quality lens and appreciate the IQ that such a lens delivers.
So for them this lens makes a lot of sense. For us it doesn’t.
both exist for A-mount, so they are adaptable today on A7. Or you wait until they release it for e-mount one day…
It seems like Sony is doing very well in getting these announced lens out.
SAL70200G2 price is insane. Just to compare, the Canon version has Image Stabilization and weathersealing for even less money and it’s a newer optical formula.. I was expecting to see a 200USD price increase with the version II but 1000USD is just insane.
Now, a 70-200 F4 is also needed in the A-mount lineup. Actually a complete F4 lineup. 70-200, 24-70, 300, Macro 200, 16-35.
You can count on never seeing that f/4 series for A mount and probably never seeing the equivalent f/2.8 lenses for full frame E mount from Sony unless they actually drop A mount in a few years.
Agreed on that point. Especially if Sony will concentrate the future of A mount towards the pro market and E mount with consumer and its FF E mount towards the pros/enthusiasts that want to travel light, it’s no doubt to me that an F4 zoom range is out of the question for A mount and an F2.8 range is out of the question for E mount. Personally I would love an F2.8 standard zoom for E mount with a compromised zoom range, perhaps like an E mount version of the fantastic 16-50 F2.8, but I think Sony’s lens strategy here for A/E mount makes the most sense so I’m also not really complaining here either.
Actually a 24-105mm f4 is rumoured to be launching with the new A mount FF camera next month in Jan.
So at least 1 FF lens will be launched but I agree a 70-200mm f4 will be a good buy provided they price it sanely.
It’s still easy for me to believe this is a Sony conspiracy to price the A mount to death. I can easily imagine a future announcement “we are discontinuing the A mount due to lack of sales….”
That’s why I will buy the old model or Tamron model, $3000 is a insane value for the SAL70200G2.
Get the Tamron. Much better than the G1 – and most likely the g2 for that matter.
To be fair, it actually is weather resistant and you do have stabilization on a-mount cameras. As to the Canon’s new optical formula, it is the actual performance that should be relevant here.
Agree with Rooru_S: too expensive. Canon has the (probably) better and cheaper product here.
There are so many old design lens in Canon and the new one is not cheap either.
The 70-200/4L IS is a modern lens with at least 4 stops of IS, super fast focusing, very high colour correction using fluorite elements and is also weather sealed. At around f/5.6, the one I had was cleaner than my 85/1.2L II. To put things in to perspective, the Canon 85LII at f/1.2 is sharper than the Nikon AF-S 85/1.4G at f/1.4 (google my test on flickr).
The even newer 70-200/2.8L IS II has even better correction, sure. But the f4L IS (not plain f/4L) is very much good prime-quality.
Seems like a fair price for this lens and kind of what we were all expecting it to cost since it was first announced. I am definitely interested in this lens since I’ve bee holding out on getting any sort of telephoto lens until they released a faster and higher quality option. I would love a faster lens which is why I’m waiting for any possible telephoto primes to come for next year, otherwise I would have my pre-order in for this lens by now. Hard to sit here and wait! That 85mm has long been rumored but I’d love love LOVE a 105/135 type focal length to top out my prime collection.
Well, Sony never learns on mistakes, they are too big and so stupid.
of course they would earn more if they sell lenses cheaper. Everyone buys Tamron and Sigma lenses for fraction of the price, while they’re not worse.
Canon 70-200/4 IS USM is almost perfect and can be bought here in Russia for only 33000 rubles, that is about €740.
And I have some doubts about lens quality. People who tried so called “zeiss” 24-70/4 found it’s performance underwhelming and being not much better than the kit, which is kinda ridiculous for its price. I am afraid this will be the case for 70-200/4 as well.
35/2.8 too: I wonder about idiots who seriously thought this crap is a good performer. It is as good WO on edges as Sigma at f1.4. Look at that: it is not better at f2.8 than Sigma f1.4, which costs less than this crap!
Thanks – I am one of these idiots. Do you own the FE 35/2.8? I do, and I used it, and it’s a great performer. Maybe Sony has too large tolerances, but I am pretty happy with my copy.
Cheers
Heiko
Have you actually had your hands on this lens and the zeiss 24-70/4? If you haven’t, then could you please STFU? Maybe your photography is the one that is crappy.
My photography is most likely better than yours, although I’m just an amateur.
Hi CFB…
So you already know some people who tried the 2470Z FE? And your pro’s who tested it judge it not much better than the kit lens. Aha.
35/2.8 is crap? Aha. And people using it and liking their images taken with it are idiot? Aha.
And the Sigma 35/1.4 is cheaper than the 35/2.8 FE) Hm, true, here in Germany it is 80 € difference, but have you taken the price for the adapter into account?
Maybe your tolerance is kind of crap? 🙂
Yes, via google translate from russian: http://www.google.com/translate?hl=en&ie=UTF8&sl=ru&tl=en&u=http%3A%2F%2Fsony-club.ru%2Fshowthread.php%3Ft%3D67854%26page%3D103%26p%3D1122987%26viewfull%3D1%23post1122987
Search for post #1026
We know you don’t appreciate Zeiss optics, Emacs, but you should at least have the courtesy to backup your claims with facts. Contrary to the fact that the 24mm f/1.8 received multiple reviews by professional websites, most of which said it was a top lens, you’ve spent months denigrating it without showing any proof of its supposed mediocrity.
Now you’re doing the same with the 24-70mm f/4, again without any proof. That link you posted shows or proves absolutely nothing – it actually boggles my mind how you think that link could be anything of use to anybody here who might be considering that lens.
Put your money where your mouth is – let’s see your shots taken with these lenses. At the same time, we can see your elite photography skills.
+1
Sony “zeisses” has no relation other than zeiss badge to real zeisses. They are designed in Japan by japanese. And, frankly, no one of them is unique. ZA 135 was the best some time ago, but recently it was outdone by real zeiss, APO-Sonnar 135/2. Others are quite ordinal, not bad, but not much to talk about.
My Zeiss ZM lens also is made in Japan… does that make it any less “Zeiss”?
+1
First, I’m using really good lenses and 24/1.8 is not of their kind from my experience technically: not sharp enough WO, not sharp enough even stopped down (I have very high expectations though).
Second, for 35mm equivalent, especially this price range, I expect to see DoF scale for zone focusing with stopped down lens.
Third, and most valuable, it’s overpriced for what it does.
Take canon 22/2: it is about as fast, it is 4-6 times cheaper, it is two times lighter, it is three times shorter. It also lacks of DoF scale, but so SEL does.
And now see how they compares to each other:
http://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/12196364/gallery/different/Screenshot%20from%202013-10-14%2000%3A07%3A42.png
eMac how old are you kid? Now I know you’re an amateur teenager who wants to join grown ups convo; however,
In order to do this, you’ve gotta learn how to talk like ones. All of your posts clearly show you’re young and confused.
Are you the same eMac from the one in dpreview forum? Cause that kid reminds me so much of you. Full of confusion.
Hey Emacs the Sigma 35/1.4 and the Sony 35/2.8 both look like excellent lenses from the images I’ve seen. On the other hand these are *very* different lenses. The Sony is intended to be as small as possible while maintaining excellent image quality. I haven’t seen any sharpness charts, but the rendering of the Sony sure does look amazing. The Sigma on the other hand is a huge telecentric lens. Apples and oranges. I will wait until we see a manual focus Zeiss Distagon 35/1.4 for E mount and that will probably beat everything except Leica.
And Sony cannot afford to put out a crappy 24-70/4. The A7 cameras are competing with two markets at the same time: on one had with Canon 6D where Canon has an excellent 24-70/4. On the other hand with Olympus OM-D where Olympus has an excellent 12-40/2.8 and an incredible selection of top quality primes. Sony cannot afford to put out crappy lenses at the beginning of this system…
@ Mike “”Canon 6D where Canon has an excellent 24-70/4. On the other hand with Olympus OM-D where Olympus has an excellent 12-40/2.8 and an incredible selection of top quality primes.””
With its limitations I am not sure that the Sony A7/R are currently replacements for a true system camera. While Canon do have the 24-70mm F4 .I would take the Nikon D610 with the Tamron 24-70mm F2.8VC, you get a better sensor and a faster lens for a £100 less.
As for the E-M1 the sensor performance and DOF control are sadly lacking having made no advance on the image quality of the nearly 2 yr old E-M5. The much hyped lenses for mFT are not really a surprise,it’s easier to design a lens for a sensor a quarter the size, the 4×3 sensor ratio also helps as it uses considerably less of the extremes of the image circle.
It is amazing just how much “better” lenses appear when cropped to a 4×3 ratio either by the camera having a sensor that shape or in post {same end result}. A D800/D800e/a7R gives a 4×3 crop of 32mp.
http://www.dxomark.com/Cameras/Compare/Side-by-side/Nikon-D610-versus-Olympus-OM-D-E-M1-versus-Canon-EOS-6D___915_909_836
Check the image on the Sony websites. On the lens front there is “FE 4/7…”. Are my eyes bad or does anyone else see the same?
FE 4/70-200mm
If you read this news article (under the picture or even the headline) you’d know that this is a mistake on the Sony site. It’s F4 for sure
It’s the “FE” that makes me confused, not the F4…
aaaaand? Your point is?
My point is that an E-Mount lens begins with “E” and a Full Frame E-Mount lens with “FE”. So is this a Full Frame lens or an APS-C lens?
Hello!!!It’s a full frame lens..
You are my hero! And where is this mentioned in this article, or on the Sony pages? Nowhere. Thank you.
The lens is marked FE and is an E-mount lens. E-mount is E-mount so it is not FE-mount. The article would be more clear if it said, new full frame E-mount lens, but I think most regular readers of this site know the 70-200 f/4 was a full frame FE lens.
Another e-crap? Make it stop!!! This used to be an informative, fun and exciting site full of new info I used to check several times a day. You’ve managed to turn it into a spam site. Do you really think people actively looking into buying that A7 carp font know where and what is available?
Yes, there are a lot (tons) of people, why are looking into buying that A7!
and the site is still very informative, full of new info
Salut
The A7 and A7r have caused quite a stir in the photography world. Sony has created a new kind of camera, and I applaud them for taking some risks and being creative. No one else is doing that now, except a couple of smaller players, certainly not Canon or Nikon.
Really? Yes a stir on websites like this but that is not translating to sales yet. In South Korea yes. American not so much. UK it sits on camera shops shelves. Amazon sales are far from great either.
@Stu5
That is a bit of an exaggeration the A7r is in stock in only a couple of shops, all the major sites { WEX, Calumet,Jessops, Park Camera etc} are all showing awaiting stock or pre-orders on their listings.
http://www.camerapricebuster.co.uk/Sony/Sony-NEX-Cameras/Sony-Alpha-A7R-Body
From the MTF, http://www.sony.net/Products/di/en-us/products/lenses/lineup/detail/sel70200g.html it looks like this lens will be comparable to the faster A mount version. I was worried the OSS was going to impact the design.
“E-mount 70–200mm power zoom lens with Optical SteadyShot, F2.8 aperture & two ED glass elements”
I’m totally confused: F4 or F2.8 ?!
For those who think Sony lense should be cheaper…Sony cannot compete with cheap lenses…there are too many cheap high quality competitors..people wanting cheaper will buy those..not Sony.
Sony needs to make enough on each lens to make it worthwile.
nobody is asking for cheap lenses (well we are, but that’s not why we complain about the 70-200/2.8), we’d just like lenses like the 70-200/2.8 to be more reasonably priced. Last time I checked, and it was a while ago, maybe even before any updates other than the logo change, the 70-200/2.8 was as expensive as the 70-200/2.8L IS. Maybe it needs to be as sony aren’t selling as many of these as canon are, but it’s hard to justify that a non-stabilized lens is as expensive as one which is stabilized even if the performance is otherwise on par.
The canon 70-200/4L (without IS) is said to be a very good lens. fwiw I think sony should consider a non-stabilized 70-200/4 for both A and E-mount.
The 70-200/4L IS is optically better than the non-IS.
While I do not have any personal experience with either Canon 70-200mm F4 L.A number of reviews I have seen such as:
SLRgear http://slrgear.com/reviews/showproduct.php/product/999
Suggest that the optical performance of the non-IS version is just as good , which makes it a spectacular bargain.The non IS version is around £500 which for a high grade, pro build quality lens is a true bargain.
Nikon’s AF-S 70-200 f/4 costs £999 – http://www.wexphotographic.com/buy-nikon-70-200mm-f4-g-ed-vr-lens/p1533630
Why is this Sony so expensive?
The Nikon also comes with a separate expensive tripod collar right? Plus the Sony will drop slightly in the year after launch. Most lenses do.
I suspect the Sony at launch will be 1400 pounds or 1300 even?
but you are right Sony lenses are overall a bit expensive.
Michel
thanks for the response
Off the top of my head, two reasons. It is e-mount – new system and small market.
sounds like great reasons
Not sure if that was sarcasm, so I will elaborate, as I should’ve done to begin with. Given that Sony is selling a rather unique product, that certainly gives them some leeway as to its pricing. Also, if they see a small market for it, that would also make them hike up prices.
sarcasm for sure 😉
Ok 🙂 But you disagree then?
not sure about the strategy, expensive lenses won’t increase user base. we shall see but this is approaching f/2.8 territory price-wise
Just give me an A-mount Zeiss 35mm f/1.4 or f/2, weather sealed and SSM, for my a99 and a900, My Zeiss prime lineup would then be complete.
+1 Zeiss 35mm f1.4, many of us waiting for it.
There is no preorder for UK.
It just says available ‘from your local store’.
Probably waiting for the taxman to see how much he can add on top.
A-mount Sony 70-200 g2 UK preorder. Ha! Why so cheap?
http://www.wexphotographic.com/buy-sony-70-200mm-f2-8-g-ssm-ii-lens/p1544419
Did anybody here looked at the pages of Sony?
It is written 2,8 in every language.It is a ASP-C E-mount 70-200/f2,8.
I looked at Sony global, the same photo is for the 70-200/f4. Did they made a huge mistake on all Europe’s pages?
Won’t surprise me, they always have some mistakes on their websites.
@detail: seems the same for me too, looks like a APS-C E-mount lens, if this will be a full frame lens there would be descripted, that this lens is made for 35mm FF-sensor and this is a 2.8, like it is in the description for sel35(55)f28(18)z.
Does Sony think 200mm is the farthest focal length a E mount camera should have ??
Do you think Sony will never release another lens?
Sony will NEVER release a full frame lens with more than 200 mm focal length for E mount,not even 2.8 ,take it for granted.The key word is COMPACTNESS.Otherwise no need for E mount.This is what’s all about.Period!
Yeah, I won’t take that for granted.
Here are some prices for similar lenses at B&H:
Canon 70-200 f/4 IS without tripod collar $1350, collar is $144
Nikon 70-200 f/4 VR without tripod collar $1397, collar is $170
Assuming the Sony has similar quality, I would say that $1500 is about right. I just hope the Sony lens is smaller and lighter than the competition.
When the lenses were announced sites listed about 840 grams. which would make it heavier than the canon version, I think.
Damn! Physics intervenes again.
One extra piece of information to clarify the pricing at B&H:
The Canon EF 70-200 f/4L USM (without collar) is $709, vs $1350 for the newer IS version.
Image stabilization seems to add quite a bit to the price of this type of lens, so be sure to take that into account when comparing the Sony to Canon. The Sony does have image stabilization.
It remains to be seen how good the lens is – we’ll have to wait for reviews.
They got to be kidding. Canon’s 70-200 f/4L USM costs 737 EUR. What’s there to pay TWICE as much for???
There’s more to a price than production costs.
You might be looking at the non-IS version, which is about half the price.
Nope. The non-IS version is 404 EUR
What? That’s half the price of the A-mount 70-200 2.8. I wonder how long it will take Tamron/Sigma to come out with equivalent lenses at half the price. If these companies can continuously make these lenses for so much less than Sony, I wonder why Sony can’t do the same.
I think if Sony believed they would make more money by pricing competitively, they would do it. So I’d really like to know why they can’t be competitive. Personally, having used the the Tamron, and the Sony A-mount, I think it’s a waste to purchase Sony lenses at list prices. If you don’t have any choice, and really think the A7/r is the best ever, fine, but a lens like this really defeats the purpose of such a camera. I would think most people buying the A7 at such an early stage already have another camera, and probably an equivalent lens for that camera.
>That’s half the price of the A-mount 70-200 2.8
That’s the WHOLE price of a brand-new Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II USM (at least when translated into rubles)
Where do you see the SEL being even close to the 70-200 II Canon?
Exactly, the f/4 lens should be significantly less expensive than a f/2.8
Price is a little higher than I expected, but it is an ideal product. At 36 mega-pixels it can easily be cropped to a 300mm angle of view in one of the smallest zoom packages in that range. Hope it is sharp and well built.
Looks like a winner !
Tokina 80-200mm with an adaptor- done. Save over half the money. Don’t like that option…take about anything else over this.
Sony screwed up here big time, this is the type of lens that A mount needs but not E mount. Anyway that to one side, the price is more than the Canon 70-200mm f4 IS, which isn’t a good idea.
Never mind we can buy the beercan for peanuts and Sony make £0 on those sales. Or we can buy 2 version of the Tamron 70-200mm f2.8, and simply ignore the overprice non sealed Sony 70-200mm f2.8 MkII. Yes £2000 making it more expensive than Canon or Nikon.
And people wonder why many A Mount users ignore most of Sony’s lenses. If people don’t buy them they don’t make money simple as that. Price competitively or gather dust on shelves. I don’t really care anymore if Sony do make an A mount 70-200mm f4, if they are charging over £1000 for one few would buy it
Andrea, the 70-400 E-mount is at the agenda or not finally ?
Thx !!!