Industry News: Sony announces the completely redesigned Sony FE 70-200mm f/2.8 GM OSS II

[privatebydesign]

I am extremely pleased with my “downgrade” from the RF 15-35 to the 14-35. I find the wider look, the higher magnification for wide angle close up, and the lighter weight have all come together to make this one of my favorite lenses that I bring everywhere, whereas the 15-35mm was heavier so it stayed home on longer hikes.
For a backpacking kit where weight is very important, I would recommend considering the 14-35. The lower price is nice too.

Do you really notice a ‘wider look’ going from a 15.45mm to a 14.80mm focal length?

 

[ERHP]

Is there no zoom lock on the RF 70-200 f2.8 to prevent this?

Yes, on the right side of lens. (Figure this was rhetorical but just in case)

 

[ConanRumours]

It's not quite exactly 50mm. Is is smaller and lighter than the Canon and Nikon, but compromises have to be made to make it so.

it's also sharper, focuses faster and has better contrast with better flare resistance! it outperformed the RF in basically all areas that matter.

 

[Deleted member 381342]

it's also sharper, focuses faster and has better contrast with better flare resistance! it outperformed the RF in basically all areas that matter.

It just isn't 50mm, and has a lot of focus breathing. The RF and S 50mm f/1.2 remain the better options.

 

[ConanRumours]

It just isn't 50mm, and has a lot of focus breathing. The RF and S 50mm f/1.2 remain the better options.

Well it may be a wee bit wider and it's still a better lens, less LOCA too, I and my friend Dustin who has reviewed the RF seems to agree with me. If you own both systems the Sony is the clear winner period. https://dustinabbott.net/2021/09/sony-fe-50mm-f1-2-g-master-review/

 

[Kit.]

it's also sharper,

According to your friend, it's not.

Well it may be a wee bit wider and it's still a better lens, less LOCA too,

LoCA are less noticeable on a lens that is less sharp in the corners, that's true.

 

[Deleted member 381342]

Well it may be a wee bit wider and it's still a better lens, less LOCA too, I and my friend Dustin who has reviewed the RF seems to agree with me. If you own both systems the Sony is the clear winner period. https://dustinabbott.net/2021/09/sony-fe-50mm-f1-2-g-master-review/

Sony only have 2 of the 8 lenses I need and no pro bodies so they aren't on my radar. Regardless, the Sony 50mm f/1.2 isn't a 50mm f/1.2, Nikon's and Canon's are. Sony will need to go replace their mount to catch up or try again to make a lens that is more usable. You can't cheat when making these lenses, Nikons is the largest because I has the most corrections and least focus breathing. The RF 50 f/1.2 compromises on some of the things the Nikon does well in order to make a lighter lens. Sony compromised on IQ, focal length, and focus breathing to make the lightest '50' mm f/1.2 they could on their old mount.

 

[SHAMwow]

Is there no zoom lock on the RF 70-200 f2.8 to prevent this?

There is, but as the other post was saying it isn't really ideal to mess with that during an event. So I hate to use it other than for putting it in the bag.

 

[ConanRumours]

Sony only have 2 of the 8 lenses I need and no pro bodies so they aren't on my radar. Regardless, the Sony 50mm f/1.2 isn't a 50mm f/1.2, Nikon's and Canon's are. Sony will need to go replace their mount to catch up or try again to make a lens that is more usable. You can't cheat when making these lenses, Nikons is the largest because I has the most corrections and least focus breathing. The RF 50 f/1.2 compromises on some of the things the Nikon does well in order to make a lighter lens. Sony compromised on IQ, focal length, and focus breathing to make the lightest '50' mm f/1.2 they could on their old mount.

The RF mount has the exact same diameter as the EF mount at 54mm, the only thing that changed is flange distance which is similar in all mirrorless systems. Although the RF 50mm is by all means a great lens, the fact is that it now sits at the bottom of the class with slightly inferior IQ (especially LOCA, flare resistance), noisier and slower AF motors & chunkier). The Nikkor S50 is great except for its size but at the moment there are no Nikon pro bodies that can make it focus reliably as shown by Jared Polin and other photographers that shoot all 3 systems. Although GM is shorter in FL (around 48-49mm) still outresolves the Canon. If you own canon, you get the rf, if you own Sony and Canon like I do, the Sony is the superior lens of the 2 period.

 

[amorse]

I am extremely pleased with my “downgrade” from the RF 15-35 to the 14-35. I find the wider look, the higher magnification for wide angle close up, and the lighter weight have all come together to make this one of my favorite lenses that I bring everywhere, whereas the 15-35mm was heavier so it stayed home on longer hikes.
For a backpacking kit where weight is very important, I would recommend considering the 14-35. The lower price is nice too.

That's true and it does look great, but I need the 15mm f/2.8 if I'm going to use that lens to replace my 14 f/2.8 and my 16-35 f/4 as I use the 14 almost exclusively for night sky/aurora photos. Other than the night sky use, I'd be completely happy with the 14 f/4 I think. With that said, I'm ok with sacrificing a bit of wideness for the f/2.8 as it will cut another lens out of my bag

 

[koenkooi]

The RF mount has the exact same diameter as the EF mount at 54mm, the only thing that changed is flange distance

Canon says the position and size of the electronic contacts has changed as well, so the RF has a bit more room inside the mount compared to the EF mount. Looking at the various EF and RF lenses I have, the RF contacts give about half a mm more radius to the light hole and the protective lip seems to be a bit smaller as well.
So I think Canon is technically correct with claiming the RF is 'wider', but practically speaking, they seem to have the same room inside.

 

[ConanRumours]

Canon saus the position and size of the electronic contacts has changed as well, so the RF has a bit more room inside the mount compared to the EF mount. Looking at the various EF and RF lenses I have, the RF contacts give about half a mm more radius to the light hole and the protective lip seems to be a bit smaller as well.
So I think Canon is technically correct with claiming the RF is 'wider', but practically speaking, they seem to have the same room inside.

The point is the so called "wider mount advantage" is marketing BS from Nikon and Canon. What matters is flange distance and new optical formulas using new types of glass elements. Remember when some people, including canon representatives mentioned that smaller mounts like the FE could not design fast lenses, even when Mitakon already had a manual f.95 lens (crap) like 5 years ago and Leica was producing probably the best lenses ever made for the m-mount. Anyways, this ain't a mount thread size discussion, the point is, if you happen to have cameras on more than one system it makes sense to get the best version possible for the money. (which is not the RF 70-200mm f2.8) (and now Sony also makes a slightly better 50mm f1.2).

 

[SNJ Ops]

The point is the so called "wider mount advantage" is marketing BS from Nikon and Canon. What matters is flange distance and new optical formulas using new types of glass elements. Remember when some people, including canon representatives mentioned that smaller mounts like the FE could not design fast lenses, even when Mitakon already had a manual f.95 lens (crap) like 5 years ago and Leica was producing probably the best lenses ever made for the m-mount. Anyways, this ain't a mount thread size discussion, the point is, if you happen to have cameras on more than one system it makes sense to get the best version possible for the money. (which is not the RF 70-200mm f2.8) (and now Sony also makes a slightly better 50mm f1.2).

I haven’t seen an in depth head to head comparison between the RF and GM 50mm f1.2 lenses but I have seen the GM being used to shoot fast moving action on more than one occasion in reviews which in my opinion sets it apart from the competition. Saw an earlier comment that mentioned the 50mm f1.2 GM being compromised in its
image quality, clearly that person hasn’t seen the results of it paired with the RIV’s 61 mp.

As for a 70-200mm f2.8 head to head once the GM lens and the Nikon Z9 are widely available I’m sure the big 3 will be compared against each other.

 

[Pixel]

I'm in the same camp, but for the teleconverter and non-extending zoom reasons.

That too

 

[unfocused]

I’ve never had a lens that suffered from zoom creep.

Both my 15-85 EF-S and my version I 24-105 EF had terrible zoom creep. I just learned to live with it.