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

amorse

EOS R
Jan 26, 2017
823
1,113
www.instagram.com
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.
That all makes sense - changing for the sake of changing is rarely a good idea, but for me I wanted to reduce packed size and weight, while maintaining zoom range and IQ for hiking this fall. It was 7 days of back country camping with all food, camping gear and camera gear on my back - I thought that was a good incentive to look at options. In the end I decided not to make the switch (other than a tripod change) because it was just so much money to make a meaningful difference in weight, but my upgrade path is mostly laid out for when time comes to make a slower change.

5DIV switch to R5
EF 16-35 f/4 and Rokinon 14mm f/2.8 switch to just RF 15-35 f/2.8
EF 24-70 f/2.8Lii stays in the bag with a converter
EF 70-200 f/2.8Lii switch to RF 70-200 f/4 (f/2.8 is unnecessary for me on these hikes)
Manfrotto 055cxpro4 with XPRO ball head switch for FLM CP30-S4 II with a RRS BH40

All in that was going to save me 4.2 lbs (or 28% of my previous kit weight), reduce packed size by a fair but, cut one lens out, while maintaining a very comparable zoom range, and maintaining or improving IQ. The issue was it was going to cost over $9K CAD. Piecemeal change it is!
 
  • Like
Reactions: navastronia

neuroanatomist

I post too Much on Here!!
CR Pro
Jul 21, 2010
26,131
4,732
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.
Another possibility to consider – the EF MkIII was a stellar lens, and the RF version needed to be differentiated. The MkII was stellar, and I saw no need to get the MkIII. How do you make an already excellent lens different if there's little room to make it better? Make it lighter and much smaller.

For the other f/2.8 zoom trinity members, the 24-70 got IS, the 16-35 got wider and IS. The 70-200 got to be close in length to the other two.
 
  • Like
Reactions: SHAMwow

derrald

I'm New Here
Oct 20, 2014
24
4
www.journeyoflight.com
That all makes sense - changing for the sake of changing is rarely a good idea, but for me I wanted to reduce packed size and weight, while maintaining zoom range and IQ for hiking this fall. It was 7 days of back country camping with all food, camping gear and camera gear on my back - I thought that was a good incentive to look at options. In the end I decided not to make the switch (other than a tripod change) because it was just so much money to make a meaningful difference in weight, but my upgrade path is mostly laid out for when time comes to make a slower change.

5DIV switch to R5
EF 16-35 f/4 and Rokinon 14mm f/2.8 switch to just RF 15-35 f/2.8
EF 24-70 f/2.8Lii stays in the bag with a converter
EF 70-200 f/2.8Lii switch to RF 70-200 f/4 (f/2.8 is unnecessary for me on these hikes)
Manfrotto 055cxpro4 with XPRO ball head switch for FLM CP30-S4 II with a RRS BH40

All in that was going to save me 4.2 lbs (or 28% of my previous kit weight), reduce packed size by a fair but, cut one lens out, while maintaining a very comparable zoom range, and maintaining or improving IQ. The issue was it was going to cost over $9K CAD. Piecemeal change it is!
I built out an ef-m kit for this very purpose. M5, 11-22 ef-m, 28 macro, 55-200 ef-m. Granted, it wasn't as good as my 5DsR kit (11-24 f/4l + 100 f/2.8L macro + 100-400 ii), but as I got older I couldn't handle the weight and size anymore. I switched to the R5, 14-35 f/4l, etc., and while I really like the image quality, I went back up in weight and as you know in backcountry camping, every ounce counts. I ultimately decided to buy the M6 ii and a Laowa 9mm (I needed something wider) to round it out and I am extremely pleased with the combo. I am a bit disappointed that things are going RF and it looks like the EF-M line is being abandoned. Regardless, my cameras and lenses still work and that kit will probably continue to be my backcountry kit for years to come. Now, if only they could make a RF to EF-M adapter I would love to see that!
 
Last edited:

entoman

wildlife photography
May 8, 2015
477
530
UK
IMO it's better to have an internal zoom rather than telescopic. The former eventually introduces dust no matter how much you baby your lens. Kudos to Sony for making this zoom have very minor focus breathing, much less than the RF counterpart and with the optical quality of the new Nikkor 70-200 f2.8!
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.
In practice a bit of dust won’t make any difference to image quality, although it may affect resale value. Theoretically, extending lenses allow greater ingress of dust or moisture, but there seems to be no hard evidence that this is the case.

My experience is that focusing and zooming are smoother in non-extending lenses. With extending lenses the centre of gravity shifts as the lens extends - not a problem with a 70-200mm, but with a larger lens such as a Sigma 150-600mm it can be, if the lens is on a gimbal.

Another minor issue is that when an extending zoom is at or near maximum focal length, there can be a small degree of play or wobble, which can be disconcerting although it doesn’t seem to affect sharpness.

The compactness of extending lenses is advantageous when packing gear for travelling, but when in the field I usually work with just one or two lenses, so for me it’s not a factor.

I have a variety of extending and non-extending lenses, and I much prefer the non-extending designs, if all other aspects are equal (sharpness, weight, MFD, bokeh etc).
 
  • Like
Reactions: SHAMwow and vjlex

Finn

EOS M6 Mark II
Mar 6, 2021
72
48
Another minor issue is that when an extending zoom is at or near maximum focal length, there can be a small degree of play or wobble
I would encourage you to read the Lensrentals.com tear down of the RF 70-200. It is very robustly built as is the 100-500.
The compactness of extending lenses is advantageous when packing gear for travelling, but when in the field I usually work with just one or two lenses, so for me it’s not a factor.
If there is more room and weight budget in your bag (from carrying a smaller lens like the RF 70-200) you can choose to have a lighter kit or bring a prime that can do something your other lenses can't. Point is, you get a choice!
In practice a bit of dust won’t make any difference to image quality, although it may affect resale value.
I think you have a good point here. Dust rarely if ever has a noticeable negative effect on quality of images...even on MFT tests. It's the resale value of "perceived" flaws that will probably be the worst drawback. Again, I would point people to Lensrentals.com that has an excellent article about a fly being stuck in a lens and it had an undetectable impact on the quality of images!
 

neuroanatomist

I post too Much on Here!!
CR Pro
Jul 21, 2010
26,131
4,732
I'm in the same camp, but for the teleconverter and non-extending zoom reasons.
I get the TC incompatibility as a reason, even though it doesn’t matter to me. What’s the issue with an extending zoom? Most of them are…
 

AlanF

Stay at home
CR Pro
Aug 16, 2012
8,900
12,214
I would encourage you to read the Lensrentals.com tear down of the RF 70-200. It is very robustly built as is the 100-500.

If there is more room and weight budget in your bag (from carrying a smaller lens like the RF 70-200) you can choose to have a lighter kit or bring a prime that can do something your other lenses can't. Point is, you get a choice!

I think you have a good point here. Dust rarely if ever has a noticeable negative effect on quality of images...even on MFT tests. It's the resale value of "perceived" flaws that will probably be the worst drawback. Again, I would point people to Lensrentals.com that has an excellent article about a fly being stuck in a lens and it had an undetectable impact on the quality of images!
That's not what the fly thought.
 

vjlex

EOS R5
Oct 15, 2011
416
314
Osaka, Japan
I get the TC incompatibility as a reason, even though it doesn’t matter to me. What’s the issue with an extending zoom? Most of them are…
As you noted, probably just personal preference. I admit it would be nice if my EF version fit in my bag better. But I also have memories of lugging around other zoom lenses that would creep when hanging from my shoulder. For the ones that had it, the lens lock was often stubborn, and just kind of a hassle. The internal zoom just feels better and more solid for me.
 
Oct 14, 2021
8
5
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!
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?
Sonys f4 is 8 years old lens from a time when canon had no idea what mirrorless was;)
 

vjlex

EOS R5
Oct 15, 2011
416
314
Osaka, Japan
5DIV switch to R5
EF 16-35 f/4 and Rokinon 14mm f/2.8 switch to just RF 15-35 f/2.8
EF 24-70 f/2.8Lii stays in the bag with a converter
EF 70-200 f/2.8Lii switch to RF 70-200 f/4 (f/2.8 is unnecessary for me on these hikes)
Manfrotto 055cxpro4 with XPRO ball head switch for FLM CP30-S4 II with a RRS BH40

All in that was going to save me 4.2 lbs (or 28% of my previous kit weight), reduce packed size by a fair but, cut one lens out, while maintaining a very comparable zoom range, and maintaining or improving IQ. The issue was it was going to cost over $9K CAD. Piecemeal change it is!
Piecemeal is how I'm going about it too. I just broke up my EF trinity and replaced my EF 24-70mm with the RF. The 16-35mm is the next one, but I'm not sure what to replace it with. I think it is one of my least used lens, but I still want an UWA. I'm really curious what the quality of the RF 16mm is going to be, but already wish there was an L version.
 
  • Like
Reactions: amorse

neuroanatomist

I post too Much on Here!!
CR Pro
Jul 21, 2010
26,131
4,732
As you noted, probably just personal preference. I admit it would be nice if my EF version fit in my bag better. But I also have memories of lugging around other zoom lenses that would creep when hanging from my shoulder. For the ones that had it, the lens lock was often stubborn, and just kind of a hassle. The internal zoom just feels better and more solid for me.
I’ve never had a lens that suffered from zoom creep.
 

neuroanatomist

I post too Much on Here!!
CR Pro
Jul 21, 2010
26,131
4,732
Sonys f4 is 8 years old lens from a time when canon had no idea what mirrorless was;)
Lol. The EOS M came out before that, which is probably why Sony went to FF MILC – the 800 pound Canon gorilla entered the APS-C MILC market, and Sony was afraid they lose too much market share. That fear was justified, although it took ~5 years before Canon took the lead in APS-C MILCs. Canon is only in their third year of FF MILCs. I wonder where Sony can run to next? ;)
 

esglord

EOS RP
May 9, 2019
53
64
Not sure another internal zoom rf 70-200 and an EOS R would’ve entice many people who already owned an ef 70-200 iii to move over to their mirrorless platform. The collapsable rf version offered something novel that could attract some users to try out the system. Anyway, that’s how I saw Canon’s strategy.
 

Rzrsharp

EOS M6 Mark II
Sep 8, 2020
74
26
2021-10-17_10-34-01.jpg

8:36
What happened on the left?
 

AlanF

Stay at home
CR Pro
Aug 16, 2012
8,900
12,214
I’ve never had a lens that suffered from zoom creep.
In the dim and distant past, I bought in the 1990s a Canon EOS IX APS-C which was bundled with a 24-85mm zoom that was considered remarkable at the time. Separately, the lens was expensive but bundled it was cheap. It had awful lens creep.
 

SHAMwow

EOS M6 Mark II
CR Pro
Sep 7, 2020
55
89
Another possibility to consider – the EF MkIII was a stellar lens, and the RF version needed to be differentiated. The MkII was stellar, and I saw no need to get the MkIII. How do you make an already excellent lens different if there's little room to make it better? Make it lighter and much smaller.

For the other f/2.8 zoom trinity members, the 24-70 got IS, the 16-35 got wider and IS. The 70-200 got to be close in length to the other two.
I've thought about that a lot too. It still would have been nice if they could have shaved a smaller amount of weight, length, and had a native mount.
 

SHAMwow

EOS M6 Mark II
CR Pro
Sep 7, 2020
55
89
As you noted, probably just personal preference. I admit it would be nice if my EF version fit in my bag better. But I also have memories of lugging around other zoom lenses that would creep when hanging from my shoulder. For the ones that had it, the lens lock was often stubborn, and just kind of a hassle. The internal zoom just feels better and more solid for me.
Yup, deal with this on a weekly basis. I shoot my R5 and rf 70-200 in a sling carry, and it just extends out as I walk or wait for the next bit of action. It's not like I don't like the lens, but I still don't understand how the tradeoffs were deemed worth it for a "professional" lens, because the decisions seem the opposite.
 

FrenchFry

Wildlife enthusiast!
Jun 14, 2020
460
576
That all makes sense - changing for the sake of changing is rarely a good idea, but for me I wanted to reduce packed size and weight, while maintaining zoom range and IQ for hiking this fall. It was 7 days of back country camping with all food, camping gear and camera gear on my back - I thought that was a good incentive to look at options. In the end I decided not to make the switch (other than a tripod change) because it was just so much money to make a meaningful difference in weight, but my upgrade path is mostly laid out for when time comes to make a slower change.

5DIV switch to R5
EF 16-35 f/4 and Rokinon 14mm f/2.8 switch to just RF 15-35 f/2.8
EF 24-70 f/2.8Lii stays in the bag with a converter
EF 70-200 f/2.8Lii switch to RF 70-200 f/4 (f/2.8 is unnecessary for me on these hikes)
Manfrotto 055cxpro4 with XPRO ball head switch for FLM CP30-S4 II with a RRS BH40

All in that was going to save me 4.2 lbs (or 28% of my previous kit weight), reduce packed size by a fair but, cut one lens out, while maintaining a very comparable zoom range, and maintaining or improving IQ. The issue was it was going to cost over $9K CAD. Piecemeal change it is!
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.
 
  • Like
Reactions: amorse and ScottO