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

[CanonFanBoy]

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.

I'll wait for the $299 Venus 70-200 then.

 

[George47]

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.

Thanks for confirming Sony’s are also lighter, but don’t worry you don’t have to do all that math again.
i like both systems and use both and sometimes a like a lens better on the R mount, other times a lens on the FE mount. Some older lenses on the FE mount suck, and have no problem with acknowledging that.

 

[neuroanatomist]

Thanks for confirming Sony’s are also lighter, but don’t worry you don’t have to do all that math again.
i like both systems and use both and sometimes a like a lens better on the RF, other times a lens on the FE mount. Some older lenses on the FE mount suck, and have no problem with acknowledging that.

Lol, 0.1% to 4% differences. If you find that significant, there's not much else to say except that you really should have quit while you were behind.

 

[George47]

Lol, 0.1% to 4% differences. If you find that significant, there's not much else to say except that you really should have quit while you were behind.

Ok since you like numbers here’s a real example comparing apples to apples: the 50 1.2 canon is over 20% heavier than Sony’s! Not to mention slower, clunkier and little noisy..

 

[mariosk1gr]

It's difficult to imagine how Canon took these decisions on their 70-200 really...
All these years you couldn't say a bad word about Canon's 70-200 versions until now!

 

[AlanF]

Lenstip has just reviewed the lens. Its resolution is simply spectacular - unlike its second-rate predecessor.

Sony FE 70-200 mm f/2.8 GM OSS II review - Introduction - LensTip.com

Best digital cameras and lens reviews. If you are looking for the information about digital cameras and lenses you are in a right place. We have many professional tests of digital photography equipment.

www.lenstip.com

 

[neuroanatomist]

Ok since you like numbers here’s a real example comparing apples to apples: the 50 1.2 canon is over 20% heavier than Sony’s! Not to mention slower, clunkier and little noisy..

Yes, I can apple-pick numbers, too . The Sony FE 70-200/4 is over 20% heavier than Canon’s RF 70-200/4. Not to mention over 5 cm / 2” longer. Did you have a point?

 

[Neutral]

Ok since you like numbers here’s a real example comparing apples to apples: the 50 1.2 canon is over 20% heavier than Sony’s! Not to mention slower, clunkier and little noisy..

As a matter of fact Sony made huge advances in lens design, before Canon and Nikon were considered to be the best in this area, but now new Sony lenses are better in many respects.
Part of lens performance, let alone optical quality (which is not significantly different from Canon and Sony in practical experience), the most significant is all aspects of focusig - speed, precision ( especially in high speed burst mode), smoothnes, motor noise. And this all is achieved by using XD linear motors that have high torque and speed. This helps a lot in getting required performance, including what is required for video, and possibly to reduce size.
I wonder why Canon is still not using that in their new RF lenses? Just compare latest 50mm f1.2 from Sony and Canon. Huge difference in performace. Is this patent protected by Sony? Not sure as Fujifilm using the same in their latest GF lenses, providing high AF speed and accuracy which seemed before impossible for Medium Format lens systems ( e.g. GF 45-100 which focuses as fast so no one does feel any difference compared to FF systems). Also Fuji uses that in latest lenses for X system. May be they are cross patented as Fuji is a big customer for Sony sensors?
Would be interested to know why Canon still not using this approach and continue to use USM AF motors.

As for different design of Canon RF 70-200 and new Sony 70-200 (telescopic vs internal zoom) - both are good but I beleive they are aimed at slightly different groups of user. I think that Canon is more aimed at high end enthusiasts, event photographers, hikers, travellers where packaging size is important ( and this represents a huge user base), whereas Sony target audience is pro hybrid shooters where actual lens performance and conviniece for use both for photo and video is primary priority and portability is second or third one in the list of priorities. Also this is probaly showcase for latest Sony lens technology achievements - should be best of the best. I like second (Sony) approach better, especially ability to have accurate AF during zooming, and fast full range zoom using one finger. But if I need something more compact for events or travel - then Canon design would be better. But for this upcoming Tamron 35-150mm f/2-2.8 might be even better and possibly ideal choice, interesting if Tamron do version of this for Canon RF system.

I still keep my Canon EF 70-200 f/2.8L m2 with 1DXm2 and this combo works perfectly well when I do not need big high res files fom Sony a7rIV, on which I mostly use 70-200 f/2.8 GM. I tested Canon 70-200 on a7r4 using Metabones adapter and optically they are practically the same, may by Sony bit better, especially at corners, but I have very good copy, had ability to select best one from several ones from different batches at dealer shop at the place where I stayed at that time.

And one more thing regarding DSLR and mirrorles - DSLR AF on PRO bodied is still better and faster when using single point AF in difficult light condition, mirrorles ( even sony A9 and A1) are sometimes still struggling with that, but this depends on lenses, on last generation high-resolution GM lenses this much better practically on par with 1DXm2. This is why I still sometimes prefer 1DXm2 to the latest MILS.
Excuse me for any typing errors, it is difficult to avoid them on mobile devices.

 

[Kit.]

As a matter of fact Sony made huge advances in lens design, before Canon and Nikon were considered to be the best in this area, but now new Sony lenses are better in many respects.
Part of lens performance, let alone optical quality (which is not significantly different from Canon and Sony in practical experience), the most significant is all aspects of focusig - speed, precision ( especially in high speed burst mode), smoothnes, motor noise. And this all is achieved by using XD linear motors that have high torque and speed. This helps a lot in getting required performance, including what is required for video, and possibly to reduce size.
I wonder why Canon is still not using that in their new RF lenses?

Isn't it? Nano USM is a linear type.

 

[Finn]

People arguing about differences in grams countable on our fingers and toes and a few mm hair length differences and saying it’s revolutionary technology that crushes X competitors Y.

 

[jayphotoworks]

And one more thing regarding DSLR and mirrorles - DSLR AF on PRO bodied is still better and faster when using single point AF in difficult light condition, mirrorles ( even sony A9 and A1) are sometimes still struggling with that, but this depends on lenses, on last generation high-resolution GM lenses this much better practically on par with 1DXm2. This is why I still sometimes prefer 1DXm2 to the latest MILS.
Excuse me for any typing errors, it is difficult to avoid them on mobile devices.

I think this will probably be transitory. As more R&D is spent on mirrorless and less on DSLRs along with a dwindling consumer base, it will catch up and surpass those few areas where DSLRs still shine. I think battery life is still an achilles heel for some shooters, but adjusting to EVF vs OVF still depends on what MILC you shoot on. A rebel with a pentamirror may be dimmer than a prism, but it is still an OVF. A cheaper MILC body has terrible lag/color fidelity and blackout issues compared to $3000+ MILCs. Even with the newest bodies, you still need certain lenses to achieve their highest frame rate and AF performance.

 

[Neutral]

Isn't it? Nano USM is a linear type.

Yes, you are right, nano USM is linear, just checked this:

Canon U.S.A., Inc. | Nano USM - A New Ultrasonic Motor Technology

www.usa.canon.com

Did not look that for a long time, was thinking about old ring type USM,, which I have on my EF 70-200 f2.8 IS USM II, good that Canon now have nano USM

Then strange why Canon did not utilized that in the best way for RF 50 f1.2 lens.
Sony 50 f1.2 iGM s just amazing, as well as 135 f1.8 GM, love both.
As Canon RF 70-200 f2.8 is using linear nano USM then AF performance should be better than old EF mark II version.
Would be interesting to compare Canon RF and new Sony 70-200 af performance, Canon have two AF motors, Sony have 4 of them.

 

[jayphotoworks]

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.

It really depends on the use case, but I prefer some form of quick disconnect for the tripod foot or a completely removable collar. I take the collars/feet off my long lenses all the time for video work and back on when I'm mainly shooting stills. The collar and/or feet get in the way of my 15mm rod system/matte box and makes lens changes a PITA which is also why I can never mount such a lens by its tripod collar. That being said, with a long lens, I'm always using a rod system lens support to minimize movement of the lens when operating my follow focus which also supports the weight of the lens so it doesn't strain the lens mount.

 

[amorse]

Maybe I'm in the minority here, but I love those collapsable RF 70-200's. I'm more than happy to tolerate the compromises to shave that length off and reduce the packed size of my kit. I honestly considered a complete kit overhaul to reduce size/weight and that 70-200 was a cornerstone the plan. I already have the EF 70-200 ii and the iii wasn't enough reason to upgrade. Would I be interested if they were able to shave the weight down as they did with the Sony? Probably. Would I be interested if they shaved the weight and size down like the Canon? Absolutely.

 

[Neutral]

I think this will probably be transitory. As more R&D is spent on mirrorless and less on DSLRs along with a dwindling consumer base, it will catch up and surpass those few areas where DSLRs still shine. I think battery life is still an achilles heel for some shooters, but adjusting to EVF vs OVF still depends on what MILC you shoot on. A rebel with a pentamirror may be dimmer than a prism, but it is still an OVF. A cheaper MILC body has terrible lag/color fidelity and blackout issues compared to $3000+ MILCs. Even with the newest bodies, you still need certain lenses to achieve their highest frame rate and AF performance.

As for EVF vs OVF I think Sony a1 came very close with their EVF - selecting high frame rate ( of course at the expense of resolution) gives almost same conviniece shooting fast erratically moving object as using OVF on 1DXm2, plus bonus of blackout free and ability to see well in very dim environment.
Sure, as all big players are investing more resources in R&D for MILS technology at some time MILCs will be outperforming DSLR in all aspects.

 

[neuroanatomist]

Part of lens performance, let alone optical quality (which is not significantly different from Canon and Sony in practical experience), the most significant is all aspects of focusig - speed, precision ( especially in high speed burst mode), smoothnes, motor noise. And this all is achieved by using XD linear motors that have high torque and speed. This helps a lot in getting required performance, including what is required for video, and possibly to reduce size.
I wonder why Canon is still not using that in their new RF lenses?

Innovative Sony has OSS lenses, why is Canon still using IS? That’s what you’re asking. A technology by any other name…

As @Kit. points out, Canon’s Nano USM is linear, high speed, precise, and quiet.

Just compare latest 50mm f1.2 from Sony and Canon. Huge difference in performace.

The focus speed difference is due to lens design, not the speed of the focus motors. The Sony 50/1.2 has two small focusing groups, the Canon RF 50/1.2 has one large front focusing group comprising ~3/4 of the lens elements. It’s the same reason the EF 85L focuses slowly – a lot of heavy glass to move. But the end result is the same, the Sony lens focuses faster.

 

[neuroanatomist]

Maybe I'm in the minority here, but I love those collapsable RF 70-200's. I'm more than happy to tolerate the compromises to shave that length off and reduce the packed size of my kit. I honestly considered a complete kit overhaul to reduce size/weight and that 70-200 was a cornerstone the plan. I already have the EF 70-200 ii and the iii wasn't enough reason to upgrade. Would I be interested if they were able to shave the weight down as they did with the Sony? Probably. Would I be interested if they shaved the weight and size down like the Canon? Absolutely.

I feel the same way. I suspect Canon believes we’re in the majority, which is why they designed the RF 70-200 zooms this way.

I don’t plan on a ‘complete overhaul’. Where RF lenses offer a significant advantage, I’ll swap as I swapped EF 70-200/2.8 IS II for the RF version. The 24-70/2.8 adds IS, that’s worth it to me. The 100L Macro adds 1.4x mag that I don’t need (I have the MP-E 65) and adds focus shift that I don’t want, so I’ll keep the EF 100L. Still on the fence about the 14-35, but leaning toward keeping the 16-35/4 IS.

 

[Neutral]

The focus speed difference is due to lens design, not the speed of the focus motors. The Sony 50/1.2 has two small focusing groups, the Canon RF 50/1.2 has one large front focusing group comprising ~3/4 of the lens elements. It’s the same reason the EF 85L focuses slowly – a lot of heavy glass to move. But the end result is the same, the Sony lens focuses faster.

So I understand that we are in general agreement that Canon, Nikon and Sony have all the latest technological pieces ( optical and mechanical) availabe at their hands and the end results depends on their design approach and how they use these technology pieces.
From our (user end) we observe results and vote by our wallets
As Canon stated sometime ago (I remember some white paper) their larger mount diameter compared to some competitors would allow them for better and smaller lens design, as they could do front element smaller by using larger back element in lens. May be that was Nikon - do not remember exactly.
I do not see this happeng in reality and 50 f1.2 is perfect example of how overall lens design approach results in what we got at the end. I do not doubt that Canon could take different design approach for rf 50 f1.2 and have the same or even better overall results than Sony. May be this is thinking inertia, may be something else but end result is that Sony 50 f1.2 is hugely operationally outperforms Canon rf 50 f1.2 ( not talking about resolution where both are excellent). Or Canon do not have enough processing power to handle simaltaneously two small focus groups inside the lens, I doubt that, or Sony solution patent protected ? Would be interesting to know.
Anyway it is good that there is much stronger competition in these areas, as result all brands customers getting better products faster and there no stagnation as it was about 10 years ago.

 

[SHAMwow]

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.

Yeah thats what I was referring to. I know its really only an issue or concern of sports action to be able to throw that fast, but it was so enjoyable and ergonomic. The throw distance now changes how I hold the lens when shooting.

 

[SHAMwow]

A lot of good discussion in here. I'm not sure on what Canon does and doesn't know from market research. Personal preference, but I never have and probably never will want to use a teleconverter from my 70-200, BUT I definitely see the why people want that ability.

Back to my main issue and inability to understand the throw distance is that people will say that the size reduction for packing a bag is worth it. But that's the part I don't really get. If this is a lens for professionals, which I am not, then I don't see how packing a bag takes precedence over operability. I mean when I'm packing my 70-200, I'm planning on shooting something very specific and I often only use that lens on that specific shoot. So the size reduction doesn't really matter, and I'd rather have the throw distance back. So that's the part where I'm not sure on what feedback Canon got. This RF version of the 70-200 would seem more geared towards your weekend warrior, or enthusiast rather than a professional where packing the bag for an event isn't going to make or break their decision to take a lens.