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

[unfocused]

That's true in my limited experience - I've never had an issue with multiple externally extending lenses. But, I guess it depends on how much dust we're talking about. I recall people referring to the EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6 as an 'air pump', and being actually disconcerting to use. Yet it was also meant to be an exceptionally good lens through-out the range.

The 100-400 was a push-pull lens and there was a myth surrounding the lens that claimed that this design drew more dust in. It didn't, but myths don't need facts.

 

[justaCanonuser]

I hope for Sony users that this one is fantastic. It’s predecessor is quite abysmal by all accounts.

I cite Lensrental's take on the original OSS version:
---

Joey's Take​

Senior Photo Tech

This is the top of the line 70-200 for Sony, but it’s unfortunately a little lackluster compared to other brands. If you absolutely need f/2.8, for sports and such, this is still your best option since native lenses always focus better than adapted lenses. Just don’t expect the same optical quality as the Canon 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II or Nikon 70-200mm f/2.8E FL ED AF-S VR. There’s a lot of copy-to-copy variation, too. Just something to be aware of.
---


Now back to my own take: Lensrentals had also problems with bend lenses returning from customers and found out, that its too quite heavy parts were connected with a flimsy soft aluminum plate:

Completing the Teardown of the Sony FE 70-200 f/2.8 GM OSS: Part II

You probably shouldn't read this article unless you've at least skimmed through Part 1. To summarize, we had a Sony FE 70-200mm f/2.8 GM OSS lens that had been dropped and no longer would focus. We tore it down both to see if we could repair it and to see what-all was up inside there. In the [...]

www.lensrentals.com

Unbelievable, an over-engineered lens with such weak spots! So, we hope for Sony users that the new version will be a really professional tool that is technically and mechanically up to its premium price.

 

[SNJ Ops]

As the tripod mount cannot be removed from the sony, the canon is way lighter when you dont need this item -> when the weight really count...

Actually it can be removed just like the other Sony telephoto lenses both zooms and primes. Has the same mechanism as my 200-600 G which allows for a 3rd party Arca Swiss foot to be attached instead.

 

[neuroanatomist]

Actually it can be removed just like the other Sony telephoto lenses both zooms and primes. Has the same mechanism as my 200-600 G which allows for a 3rd party Arca Swiss foot to be attached instead.

The Canon mount is completely removable Like this:



The Sony 70-200 and 200-600 collars are not removable. The foot itself can be removed, but it leaves a mounting bracket sticking out (and since that bracket has a 1/4”-20 tripod socket, even with the foot removed the collar is still a tripod mount).



Having a replaceable tripod foot on a non-removable collar is fine for a large lens like a 200-600, or a 600/4. IMO, the quick-release Sony uses is nice (assuming it doesn’t introduce vibration) but unnecessary. How often do you pop the foot off?

Canon provided two interchangeable feet for my 600/4 II’s non-removable collar (for tripod vs monopod use). I use the RRS foot instead, but I don’t think I’d ever want/need/be able to use the lens without a foot of some sort installed.



However, with a relatively small and light lens like the 70-200/2.8, the ability to completely remove the tripod mount is an advantage.

 

[angelisland]

The Sony 50/1.2 is lighter, as is the new 70-200/2.8. The Sony 50/1.2 is the same length and 3mm (<4%) narrower in diameter. Not sure that qualifies as smaller in any meaningful way.

Sony’s FE 70-200mm f/4 is substantially longer and heavier than Canon’s RF version. Sony’s 24-240 is 3% shorter and 4% heavier than Canon’s.

The 400/2.8 and 600/4 lenses have insignificant differences.

Sorry, but the data don’t support the conclusion that, “Sony seems to be able to design smaller and lighter lenses than Canon.” But then, some people on this forum think their opinions are fact, and don’t bother checking the actual, easily verified facts before posting their correspondingly easily discredited opinion.

I have some RF lenses and an R5, but the fact that the Sony lenses are have IMO better bokeh, faster focusing, less focus breathing, etc. is great news.
I shoot both Sony (A7r4) and Canon, R5 and the R.

 

[SNJ Ops]

The Canon mount is completely removable Like this:

View attachment 200757

The Sony 70-200 and 200-600 collars are not removable. The foot itself can be removed, but it leaves a mounting bracket sticking out (and since that bracket has a 1/4”-20 tripod socket, even with the foot removed the collar is still a tripod mount).

View attachment 200758

Having a replaceable tripod foot on a non-removable collar is fine for a large lens like a 200-600, or a 600/4. IMO, the quick-release Sony uses is nice (assuming it doesn’t introduce vibration) but unnecessary. How often do you pop the foot off?

Canon provided two interchangeable feet for my 600/4 II’s non-removable collar (for tripod vs monopod use). I use the RRS foot instead, but I don’t think I’d ever want/need/be able to use the lens without a foot of some sort installed.

View attachment 200759

However, with a relatively small and light lens like the 70-200/2.8, the ability to completely remove the tripod mount is an advantage.

The Sony doesn’t have a collar as such, the foot mounts directly onto the lens. Different designs but on each lens the tripod mount can be removed so I’d say neither lens has an advantage over the other in this regard.

The Sony is lighter but by 25g which won’t be noticeable in real world use at all. The internal zoom, TC compatibility and focus throw are where the lenses have significant differences.

 

[SHAMwow]

The Sony doesn’t have a collar as such, the foot mounts directly onto the lens. Different designs but on each lens the tripod mount can be removed so I’d say neither lens has an advantage over the other in this regard.

The Sony is lighter but by 25g which won’t be noticeable in real world use at all. The internal zoom, TC compatibility and focus throw are where the lenses have significant differences.

I still don't know why Canon let the zoom throw distance get to such an abysmal state on the RF 70-200 2.8. While I love the lens, I'd trade it in in a heartbeat for a better throw, even if that returns the lens to an internal zoom and larger footprint. It seems like such a large oversight for a brand that normally prides itself in ergonomics for professional situations.

 

[neuroanatomist]

The Sony doesn’t have a collar as such, the foot mounts directly onto the lens. Different designs but on each lens the tripod mount can be removed so I’d say neither lens has an advantage over the other in this regard.

Have to disagree with that. The Sony lenses have a collar, or else you could not rotate them around the attachment point. That collar may be integrated into the lens barrel, but it's functionally a collar. As you know, removing the Sony foot leaves a mounting bracket for the foot exposed and that bracket is part of the collar. The Canon tripod collar comes off completely, leaving nothing jutting out from the barrel. I think I probably put my EF 70-200/2.8 on a tripod two or three times, but with the internal zoom the lens was long enough that the tripod foot provided a better strap attachment point. The RF 70-200 is compact enough that a body attachment will work well, so I will likely leave the tripod collar off almost all the time.

The Sony is lighter but by 25g which won’t be noticeable in real world use at all. The internal zoom, TC compatibility and focus throw are where the lenses have significant differences.

Definitely agree, and those parameters are very user-dependent preferences. Personally, I prefer the extending zoom design and the correspondingly much more convenient packed length of the lens.

For my EF 70-200/2.8, I had both the 1.4x and 2x TCs and I used a TC with the 70-200 for less than 1% of my images with the lens. So incompatibility with TCs is a non-issue for me, more than worth the 'sacrifice' for a shorter lens.

I have no idea how the focus throw is a differentiator, on a Canon body the MF can be set to speed sensitive (default) or speed insensitive, but personally I so rarely use MF that it doesn't matter to me very much anyway.

 

[neuroanatomist]

I still don't know why Canon let the zoom throw distance get to such an abysmal state on the RF 70-200 2.8. While I love the lens, I'd trade it in in a heartbeat for a better throw, even if that returns the lens to an internal zoom and larger footprint. It seems like such a large oversight for a brand that normally prides itself in ergonomics for professional situations.

Presumably you mean the relatively long zoom rotation? I don't find 90° to be problematic. However, for the RF 100-500 I would prefer something closer to the 90° of the 70-200/2.8 or 100° of the EF 100-400 II, rather than the 100-500's 120° rotation.

 

[George47]

I'm happy for Canon to have the competition.

Let’s see: Sony’s lighter, faster, (probably sharper too) internal zooming and it takes teleconverters. Take that canon soon there will be more tests to confirm that. See the precedent of the 50 1.2…
BTW I shoot both systems..

 

[SNJ Ops]

Have to disagree with that. The Sony lenses have a collar, or else you could not rotate them around the attachment point. That collar may be integrated into the lens barrel, but it's functionally a collar. As you know, removing the Sony foot leaves a mounting bracket for the foot exposed and that bracket is part of the collar. The Canon tripod collar comes off completely, leaving nothing jutting out from the barrel. I think I probably put my EF 70-200/2.8 on a tripod two or three times, but with the internal zoom the lens was long enough that the tripod foot provided a better strap attachment point. The RF 70-200 is compact enough that a body attachment will work well, so I will likely leave the tripod collar off almost all the time.


Definitely agree, and those parameters are very user-dependent preferences. Personally, I prefer the extending zoom design and the correspondingly much more convenient packed length of the lens.

For my EF 70-200/2.8, I had both the 1.4x and 2x TCs and I used a TC with the 70-200 for less than 1% of my images with the lens. So incompatibility with TCs is a non-issue for me, more than worth the 'sacrifice' for a shorter lens.

I have no idea how the focus throw is a differentiator, on a Canon body the MF can be set to speed sensitive (default) or speed insensitive, but personally I so rarely use MF that it doesn't matter to me very much anyway.

When I said focus throw I meant the zoom ring has a much shorter throw on the Sony. A feature that comes from the 200-600.

As for no TCs that may not be an issue for you personally but A LOT of shooters where very disappointed when that was announced on the RF lens. Yes the Canon is more compact when being transported but the usability of any lens is how they are truly judged. Going by comments I’m seeing (anecdotal I know) most of them prefer the internal zoom and TC compatibility of the GM over the smaller (while in a bag) but less functional RF. On emount the Tamron is way to go for those that don’t want/need TC compatibility but its price reflects the lack of features.

Sports, Wildlife and landscape shooters I imagine would prefer the option of a TC as that could mean not having to bring a 100-400 to a shoot or perhaps not even buy one in the 1st place.

 

[neuroanatomist]

Let’s see: Sony’s lighter, faster, (probably sharper too) internal zooming and it takes teleconverters. Take that canon soon there will be more tests to confirm that. See the precedent of the 50 1.2…
BTW I shoot both systems..

Lighter by a functionally meaningless 25 g, assuming you leave the tripod mounts on both lenses. The full collar comes off the Canon lens, so the Canon would be lighter a functionally meaningless amount if you don't need a tripod attachment.

May be sharper, we shall see. The Canon lens certainly doesn't suffer from a lack of sharpness.

Internal zooming and TC compatibility, I have no doubt Canon could have designed the RF lens that way had they chosen to do so. I suspect their market research showed a preference for a shorter lens, and the Canon is a very significant 54mm / 2.1" shorter – enough that it fits 'vertically' in many camera bags whereas the Sony must lay flat and take two 'slots' in the bag instead of one. Similarly, they have market data on TC use with the EF 70-200/2.8 (e.g. how many owners of a 70-200/2.8 also have a TC, without other lenses for it), and that most likely supported omitting it from the RF version. Personally, <1% of my EF 70-200 shots were with a TC (I have both 1.4x and 2x); for comparison, most of my shots with the 600/4 II (~85%) are with one of the TCs on the lens.

 

[neuroanatomist]

When I said focus throw I meant the zoom ring has a much shorter throw on the Sony. A feature that comes from the 200-600.

The Canon EF 70-200mm lenses had a much shorter zoom rotation (~60°, IIRC). Not sure why it was increased with the RF versions of both the 70-200/2.8 and 100-500 (vs. 100-400 II); the 70-200/4 has a similar and shorter rotation for both EF and RF.

As for no TCs that may not be an issue for you personally but A LOT of shooters where very disappointed when that was announced on the RF lens. Yes the Canon is more compact when being transported but the usability of any lens is how they are truly judged. Going by comments I’m seeing (anecdotal I know) most of them prefer the internal zoom and TC compatibility of the GM over the smaller (while in a bag) but less functional RF.

As I stated, that's a personal choice. Comments you've read are anecdotal, as you acknowledged...so are my opinions. But Canon clearly made a choice to change the design of the 70-200mm lenses to an extending zoom and make them incompatible with TCs. Unlike you and me, they have the ability to conduct real market research...and history suggests they do a generally good job at it. Given that, regardless of what you or I think, I suspect that Canon believes that 'most people' will prefer the smaller (while in a bag) RF version.

I'm definitely in that camp that Canon likely considers the majority – if the RF version was pretty much the same as the EF version, I would not have bought the RF but rather just used the adapter with my EF 70-200/2.8 II.

 

[Finn]

As a landscape guy, I’m not sure I miss the TC in the RF 70-200. I rarely use them on such a short focal length anyway.

The 100-500 is almost always the more useful choice if I want a longer telephoto zoom in my bag. I do however think the trade off for the smaller pack size is a much better trade off than internal zoom and TC support. The RF 70-200 is very well built and I don’t leave my lenses to soak in a downpour when you can easily just throw a $20 neoprene cloth overtop.

 

[dlee13]

Fact is you should always expect a new lens to be better, regardless of manufacturer. The Sony is newer than the Canon so in that sense it should be better.

As someone who used Sony for 3 years I can say for certain they have very nice lenses that are much more competitive but often have very flat rendering compared to the likes of Sigma and Canon.

 

[Pixel]

R5 user but I'm sticking with the EF vIII. If I can't rotate the zoom easily with just my thumb then it's of no use to me.

 

[George47]

Lighter by a functionally meaningless 25 g, assuming you leave the tripod mounts on both lenses. The full collar comes off the Canon lens, so the Canon would be lighter a functionally meaningless amount if you don't need a tripod attachment.

May be sharper, we shall see. The Canon lens certainly doesn't suffer from a lack of sharpness.

Internal zooming and TC compatibility, I have no doubt Canon could have designed the RF lens that way had they chosen to do so. I suspect their market research showed a preference for a shorter lens, and the Canon is a very significant 54mm / 2.1" shorter – enough that it fits 'vertically' in many camera bags whereas the Sony must lay flat and take two 'slots' in the bag instead of one. Similarly, they have market data on TC use with the EF 70-200/2.8 (e.g. how many owners of a 70-200/2.8 also have a TC, without other lenses for it), and that most likely supported omitting it from the RF version. Personally, <1% of my EF 70-200 shots were with a TC (I have both 1.4x and 2x); for comparison, most of my shots with the 600/4 II (~85%) are with one of the TCs on the lens.

Internal zooming and teleconverter is a big deal. Most likely canon didn’t go that route as the lens would have been gigantic since their large R mount.
Canon tried to keep the size small but ended up with a rather cheap feeling 70-200 f 2.8 lens. The 70-200 f4 is great for what it is and it could address that market wanting a small and light lens. but the 2.8 version doesn’t look and feel professional level lens for $2800

 

[neuroanatomist]

Internal zooming and teleconverter is a big deal.

To some people, no doubt. To a majority of people? I am certain Canon knows more about that than either of us.

Most likely canon didn’t go that route as the lens would have been gigantic since their large R mount.

Seriously? The EF and RF mounts have the same 54mm inner and 50.6mm throat diameters. Best to stop making claims in an area where you clearly lack knowledge.

 

[George47]

To some people, no doubt. To a majority of people? I am certain Canon knows more about that than either of us.


Seriously? The EF and RF mounts have the same 54mm inner and 50.6mm throat diameters. Best to stop making claims in an area where you clearly lack knowledge.

Yes I’m not an expert on lens design but there’s something with them not being able to make smaller girth lenses compared to Sony, that’s a fact! Maybe it has to do with their USM motors being bigger or something. My canon lenses, with less motors, are thicker and bulkier compared to my sony lenses that actually have twice or 4 times more linear motors. or maybe because Sony managed to use a slightly smaller mount, or probably a combination of all these things. Thicker is not always better

 

[neuroanatomist]

There’s something with them not being able to make smaller girth lenses compared to Sony. Maybe it has to do with their USM motors being bigger or something. My canon lenses, with less linear motors, are thicker and bulkier compared to my sony lenses that actually have twice or 4 times more linear motors. or maybe because Sony managed to use a slightly smaller mount, or probably a combination of all these things.

Sony FE 50/1.2 is 2.8mm (3%) smaller in diameter than the Canon RF 50/1.2.
Sony FE 24-70/2.8 is 0.9mm (1%) smaller in diameter than the Canon RF 24-70/2.8.
Sony FE 24-70/4 is 0.1mm (0.1%) smaller in diameter than the Canon RF 24-70/24.
Sony FE 24-240/3.5-6.3 is 0.1mm (0.1%) largrer in diameter than the Canon RF 24-240/4-6.3.
Sony FE 70-200/2.8 II is 1.9mm (2%) smaller in diameter than the Canon RF 70-200/2.8.
Sony FE 70-200/4 is 3.5mm (4%) smaller in diameter than the Canon RF 70-200/4.

Those are the first 6 lenses I looked at that are equivalent between the systems, picked simply because they're popular lenses that existing in both, and there is effectively no difference in girth.

What Canon lenses do you have that are thicker and bulkier compared to their Sony counterparts? Obviously the mount end of the Canon lenses is going to be bigger, because the inner diameter of the RF mount is 54mm while the inner diameter of the FE mount is 46mm.