Sony finally offers big/fast zooms

[candc]

I don't think they will replace DSLR's any time soon for most (wildlife) users (ergonomics alone with long glass), but these last few years we have seen some interesting developments !, Being able to use all those nice canon lenses on sony's with peaking, and now even with (possibly reliable) af.... and maybe even some tracking capabilities...

Agreed. I do a lot of bird in flight shots, and I don't think we are there yet with mirrorless. The A6300's live-view mode for tracking sounds like a good innovation for normalizing high-speed wildlife photography between mirror and mirrorless designs. As nice as the A6300 looks on paper though, it still has issues. No joystick, unknown buffer size, small battery, not very rugged/weatherproofing, etc. I'm not worried about the size, as I can balance the lens/camera on my gimbal. The reality is that I have to do a lot of adjustments in different zone modes, and I often do them during fast-moving sequences. Without a joystick (and AF area select button), I don't see how it will work for me unless Sony's system is so smart I don't have to worry about it. Buffers are key, too. For slow moving wildlife though, the A6300 dynamic range + crop would be wonderful.

I do a lot of bif shooting. There seems to be a lot of speculation about how good the Sony cameras are for this but not a lot of first hand reports. I think next time out I will give it a go with the a7rii and 400doii. I will shoot crop mode and see if the af can keep up. Ive gotten used to the camera now so I know how to change af functions and such on the fly.

Why you want to use crop mode in camera ?
This doesn't give any benefits other than reduced image file size from the camera.
Object resolution in crop mode is the same as in FF mode (number of pixels per object projection on the sensor is exactly the same). AF speed is the same.
But using camera crop mode you loose wider angle of view and this makes it more difficult to keep very fast moving objects in frame and for longer focal length even to catch them in the frame.
I was trying both crop and FF mode on a7r2 with 100-400 m2 + 1.4 extender (FF focal length is 560mm) and found that is is better to do crop in post processing rather than limit angle of view using in-camera crop mode. With 840mm resulting focal length using in-camera crop mode it was extremely difficult to keep fast moving object in frame, sometimes just not possible, and also difficult to get object in frame first time ( find it) when it is erratically moving.
So wider angle of view in FF mode make things more easy.
On my a7r2 with 100-400m2 + 1.4 extender continious AF was working well enough even at max focal length, see example I posted above. For best results it is required to have latest FW both in a7r2 and Metabone IV adaptor ( 3.0 for a7r2 and 0.47 for Metabones).
But for still or slow moving objects in-camera crop mode is useful as allows to get smaller image file size out of the camera.

crop mode to keep the files sizes down (18mp) i don't know if the frame rate is any faster in crop mode but the buffer should be more?

i like to have the bird filling about half the frame so i will try some different options like 400mm crop mode vs 560 ff and see what seems to work best. i use 600 on a crop body quite a bit. i am pretty good at tracking.

 

[quod]

All he does is insults people who don't follow his narrow view on photography equipment.

Yep. I wonder why the mods haven't booted him or at least given him a warning about his conduct.

 

[3kramd5]

This Sony is likely to have much better sharpness performance and as good or better bokeh.

70-200 GM bokeh transition. Meh.

 

[Loswr]

All he does is insults people who don't follow his narrow view on photography equipment.

As opposed to what...helpful, insightful comments like this?

Let's see your S___ photos then big boy.

Oh, well done. :

Yep.

I'm glad you agree, thanks.

Oops, was that almost as out of context as your commentary?

 

[msm]

All he does is insults people who don't follow his narrow view on photography equipment.

As opposed to what...helpful, insightful comments like this?

I find it a lot more insightful than your contributions to this thread, which are as insightful and interesting as dog piss on a light pole. If I am to be generous I would guess it is the same motivation that drives both you and the dogs. Though the fact that you seem to have spend a considerable part or your awake life the last 5 years of your life writing your 18000+ posts of garbage seem to indicate a more serious compulsive disorder.

 

[Orangutan]

All he does is insults people who don't follow his narrow view on photography equipment.

Yep. I wonder why the mods haven't booted him or at least given him a warning about his conduct.

I've never noticed him cross that line, can you give a specific example?

neuroanatomist is a contradiction: while he's often caustic with people he deems lazy or trolling, he has also generously given extensive, helpful and specific advice to people who've asked for it.

 

[Aglet]

Canon are very deliberate about their lens design and take all factors, like transition areas, into account, you only need to look at their intentional portrait lenses designed for smooth transitions, like the 50 f1.2 the 85 f1.2 and the 135 f2, to see they well understand the concept and dial it in against other factors for any particular design, if you wanted a smoother 70-200 f2.8 IS then just get the MkI, that is the sole reason I have kept mine.

Exactly. Until now it's generally been a compromise, especially for a zoom. Sony's tech appears to address the ability to achieve a better compromise with a boost in all parameters; sharpness, bokeh, and size-complexity-contrast.
My point is, they've identified the weaknesses and limitations in design and production and they've addressed them. This is the kind of innovations Sony has always been very good at. Their product marketing and other business decisions I won't get into!
I'm interested in finding out how micro-contrast and other parameters fare in their new designs.

Yes, i've had ALL of Canons 70-200/2.8 L's. I liked the bokeh from the non-IS best, the v1 IS was also decent but I found mine was a bit soft and also had regular front-focus issues (before I had an AFMA body). the v2 IS was plenty sharp and contrasty, very punchy images vs its predecessors but often garish bokeh in busy compositions.
Overall, I find the Tamron has the best compromises for how I like to use such a lens.

 

[Aglet]

This Sony is likely to have much better sharpness performance and as good or better bokeh.

On what are you basing the likeliness? Sample images look fine, but they're nothing to write home about.

I'm speculating on how it will compare to my present IQ preference in 70-200/2.8; Tamron.

 

[Deleted member 91053]

Well, it's your problem.

You are the reigning example of why this site is a drag. Why don't you crawl back under that rock from which you came and stop ruining another thread with your fanboism. It's tiring. We get it. You love Canon. Whoopdeedoo! Move on and park yourself in the "I really want to get the IDXII" thread where you belong.

+1000

+ 100000000000

All he does is insults people who don't follow his narrow view on photography equipment.

I think you will find that "All he does is insults people who" live under bridges - see Nordic legends.
As to his views on photography equipment I both agree and disagree, however I have found that he does like an educated discussion with diverse views - I think that is what forums are for? However both he and I have little time for people who have little knowledge and have a hissy fit when they are questioned.
If you disagree then prove him wrong - or is it just easier to throw Teddy out of the pram?
Please feel free to have a go at me I will appreciate the compliment.

 

[Aglet]

70-200 GM bokeh transition. Meh.

I find, if anything, the OOF transition with this lens, while pleasingly smooth, is also a bit sudden.
But I'll take that over the kind of multi-imaging garbage produced by many other sharp zooms that use aspherics.

 

[3kramd5]

70-200 GM bokeh transition. Meh.

I find, if anything, the OOF transition with this lens, while pleasingly smooth, is also a bit sudden.aspherics.

I don't care for it. It looks almost like motion blur, but maybe that's the texture. Unfortunately there is practically nothing to look at yet.

 

[StudentOfLight]

This Sony is likely to have much better sharpness performance and as good or better bokeh.

On what are you basing the likeliness? Sample images look fine, but they're nothing to write home about.

I'm speculating on how it will compare to my present IQ preference in 70-200/2.8; Tamron.

I also have the Tamron 70-200 VC. Very good except wide open at 200mm. At that setting it is a bit soft. When closed down to f/4 it sharpens up nicely. I'm quite happy with mine. Autofocus is also very reliable.

 

[jd7]

Well, it's your problem.

You are the reigning example of why this site is a drag. Why don't you crawl back under that rock from which you came and stop ruining another thread with your fanboism. It's tiring. We get it. You love Canon. Whoopdeedoo! Move on and park yourself in the "I really want to get the IDXII" thread where you belong.

+1000

+ 100000000000

All he does is insults people who don't follow his narrow view on photography equipment.

I think you will find that "All he does is insults people who" live under bridges - see Nordic legends.
As to his views on photography equipment I both agree and disagree, however I have found that he does like an educated discussion with diverse views - I think that is what forums are for? However both he and I have little time for people who have little knowledge and have a hissy fit when they are questioned.
If you disagree then prove him wrong - or is it just easier to throw Teddy out of the pram?
Please feel free to have a go at me I will appreciate the compliment.

I think johnf3f has summed it up pretty well.

I would add that I don't think neuro has a narrow view about photographic equipment at all. What he tends to rail against is hyperbolic statements based on a narrow view of photographic equipment and/or misunderstandings about the practical impact of some feature. If you'd like some new feature which canon doesn't have, by all means say so and explain how you think it would benefit your photography. But think very carefully before making statements like canon must do X or Canon is finished, or canon does not innovate.

 

[candc]

There is no price listed for the 70-200 yet. I am thinking Sony is trying to ease the shock of the $3500+ price tag. The existing A mount 70-200 2.8 is $3000

 

[JBSF]

There is no price listed for the 70-200 yet. I am thinking Sony is trying to ease the shock of the $3500+ price tag. The existing A mount 70-200 2.8 is $3000

I agree. The A-mount version has no IS, so logically the price of the new lens will be higher. Interestingly, there are only 5 reviews of the A-mount lens (introduced October 2013) on B&H, while there are 2,536 reviews of Canon f2.8 IS II (introduced August 2010). Maybe the new Sony will be the be-all and end-all of 70-200s, but the Canon is pretty phenomenal, and if Sony doesn't price it in line with the Canon, I suspect people will continue to adapt the Canon to E-mount.

 

[privatebydesign]

I thought IBIS was the most innovative and best implementation of stabalization out there, so how come the 70-200 needs Optical SteadyShot Image Stabilization?

Maybe Canon and Nikon actually knew what they were doing all along.........

 

[candc]

I thought IBIS was the most innovative and best implementation of stabalization out there, so how come the 70-200 needs Optical SteadyShot Image Stabilization?

Maybe Canon and Nikon actually knew what they were doing all along.........

Ibis seems to give you a couple stops improvement and a stabilized image in the viewfinder. Nice to have for lenses that don't have "is" but having it built into the lens seems to be better for telephoto lenses and you have panning mode. The two together are supposed to have a cumulative effete with native lenses but if your adapted lens has "is" then ibis is switched off.

 

[msm]

I thought IBIS was the most innovative and best implementation of stabalization out there, so how come the 70-200 needs Optical SteadyShot Image Stabilization?

Maybe Canon and Nikon actually knew what they were doing all along.........

Not all Sony cameras have ibis. Also along some axes, ibis is less effective on long lenses as the sensor can't move enough (just think how little a tilt of 1 degree constitutes in a 125 degree fov image at 11mm compared to for instance a 600mm with ~4degree fov).

So what Sony does on some lenses is to combine ibis with optical stabilisation to use the best of both worlds.

 

[Ozarker]

1) Forgive me for posturing -- I didn't start this thread as a cause to bolt, flip, migrate, or happy dance. I just find the offering a step towards a Sony having a more fully fleshed out lens portfolio.

2) I have no delusions whatsoever that these lenses will perform across the board as well as their closest Canon counterparts. They are likely to be sharp for their ~ $2k asking prices (the 70-200 has no price as of this moment!), but other than that, all bets are off. I highly doubt they are as well-built and well thought through as current L lenses.

3) I also ran a quick weight assessment for fun (source: B&H):

The small walkaround setup:
5D3 + 28mm f/2.8 IS USM = 1,121g
A7R II + 35mm f/2.8 + 2 extra batteries = 835g

The pickle jar setup:
5D3 + 24-70 2.8L II = 1,665 g
A7R II + 24-70 2.8 GM + 2 extra batteries = 1,616g

So it's a nice little weight savings for a tiny prime, but that gets blown to hell with these fast zooms. Such is the conundrum of mirrorless. IMHO, it's only attractive for pedestrian needs -- now I love me an f/2.8 or f/2 small walkaround setup, so I find that first option appealing as a 2nd body, but there's no way I'll migrate to Sony for it.

- A

This is just it...... when talking about weight, it all comes down to the glass. No mater who makes it, lenses of the same focal length and aperture are going to weigh about the same. Bring along lots of glass and it does not matter much which body you choose.....crop or FF, mirrorless or mirrored, the full kit weighs about the same...

Yup, but I just had a look and the A7rII looks much more comfortable to carry around than the Canon.

 

[Loswr]

1) Forgive me for posturing -- I didn't start this thread as a cause to bolt, flip, migrate, or happy dance. I just find the offering a step towards a Sony having a more fully fleshed out lens portfolio.

2) I have no delusions whatsoever that these lenses will perform across the board as well as their closest Canon counterparts. They are likely to be sharp for their ~ $2k asking prices (the 70-200 has no price as of this moment!), but other than that, all bets are off. I highly doubt they are as well-built and well thought through as current L lenses.

3) I also ran a quick weight assessment for fun (source: B&H):

The small walkaround setup:
5D3 + 28mm f/2.8 IS USM = 1,121g
A7R II + 35mm f/2.8 + 2 extra batteries = 835g

The pickle jar setup:
5D3 + 24-70 2.8L II = 1,665 g
A7R II + 24-70 2.8 GM + 2 extra batteries = 1,616g
...

How about a "Lets add enough weight to the A7RII setup so that it no longer has as big of a weight advantage."

How about a 'let's stop taking pictures afte a couple of hours because of the a7RII's poor battery life." :