Sony FE 70-200 review

Sony FE 70-200mm Lens

Check The Latest Prices

Starting at around $1,500 which includes a box and no cat:

My Other Sony Goodies and Lenses and About My Reviews

Go visit my often-updated camera equipment page to see all my goodies!

As for the reviews here on the site, I only review stuff I actually use! I get a lot of goodies from manufacturers and stuff, and I just tell them it will go into a black hole and never be reviewed if I don’t actually use it! So, whenever you see me review something, like this cool lens, then you know I love it and use it enough to share with you!

Also, my reviews are a little strange. I don’t get super-techy. I show a lot of sample photos and just talk to you like a normal person. In all honestly, I don’t even understand a lot of the hardcore specs from some of this equipment. I just bend this equipment to my will! And if the final photos come out looking awesome, well then I’m more than happy to share some of the credit with the gear!

Sony FE 70-200 review – what a lens!

I’m so impressed with this lens!

I used to be a big Nikon shooter. I had a D2X, D3X, D800, you name it. And I loved my Nikon 70-200mm lens when I was over on that side of the fence. It took a while for Sony to come out with this lens, but now they have! I currently use it extensively on my Sony A7r (see my Sony A7r Review), Sony A7s (see my Sony A7s Review), and my Sony A6000 (see my Sony A6000 Review).

Let’s get started with a few photos! Here are some that I took with the lens on my Sony A6000. For those of you that don’t know (some do, I don’t mean to talk down to people that know about these somewhat esoteric things), the A6000 is a “cropped sensor” camera, which means that this 70-200mm becomes a 105-300mm lens. This means you can zoom in even further, which is sometimes a great advantage.

Note that I unapologetically post-process my photos! Regulars here on the site are very forgiving (welcoming, in fact!) of this notion, but purists don’t like it. That’s okay. But, if you are new and interested in more about this style of photography, check out my free HDR Tutorial!

One great thing about a zoom lens for landscape photography is it allows this nice effect called “compression,” where you can do effects like this: Bring in the two layers of sand dunes from beyond and make them look nice and overpowering.


Don’t get used to it. This is the extremely endangered wild dog (or Painted Wolf) in Botswana. BTW, you’ll see a lot of special effects on my final shots — that is not the camera, that’s my post-processing.


Sony FE 70-200 – Why I love it

I feel like I get just as good with this lens as they were back with my Nikon 70-200 f/2.8. Now, yes, aficionados will note that the Sony lens is f/4, and the Nikon one was f/2.8. This means that the Nikon one lets in more light and can theoretically do a better job with that bokeh (out-of-focus) area.

To address those two possible, shortcomings, I can give you the following personal experience. First, I never found the lens “too slow.” You can see one of those shots below that was practically in the dark of that rare cat, the serval. Sure, F/2.8 might have gotten less noise, but I am still really happy with it. Besides, most of my zoom shooting is during the daytime, when a little less light getting into the lens quickly is not a problem.

But as you can see from the images below, you can see the out-of-focus area is perfectly soft and buttery! I’m not sure f/2.8 would be a lot better. Perhaps at 70mm on a very close subject, but I’m often zooming in a bit more than that. Well, you can look at the images yourself and decide if the out-of-focus area is smooth and buttery enough for you!

Small and Light

This lens is supa-dupa-light! It doesn’t have all that heft and size of its Nikon counterpart. It’s just amazing, really. I gave it to all my DSLR-carrying friends and they just look at me with a bitter expression. I love it.


I was quite worried about this! I thought there was no way that Sony’s lighter, smaller, more inexpensive lenses would have a stabilization system that is as good as Nikon’s, but I was wrong! When you have this option turned on (a switch on the lens), then whenever you press halfway down on the shutter, the who shakey scene comes to a smooth stoppage. I feel like a sniper in a video game!

More Sample Photos

Looking sharp at 1/4000s shutter speed!


It was quite dark when I took this… the ISO was 800 so there was a bit of noise, but nothing too bad.


I didn’t do much people photography with it, but a little bit… You can see Bel there is holding the Sony A7s… she was using that to film me during the adventure.

Botswana Amaze (307 of 2505)-7

When I shot with the A6000 and this lens, I was able to get 11FPS, which made getting these kind of shots a bit easier!


A happy elephant family!


Hello pretty bird. I cropped in more on the one… the 24MP helped with that.


Oh Hai! You’ll notice a lot of “effects” in my photos… that’s not the camera that’s me doing post-processing, which I do without apology.


It’s such a fun lens!


I shot this one from air, hanging out of a helicopter without a door. The A6000 was plenty rugged enough! I used the 70-200mm lens here with image stabilization, which really helped.


Coming in for a landing… BTW, you can click on any photo then go through to see the EXIF on SmugMug – just click the little “i”.


You can also use this lens to take black and white photos. (that was a joke)


I could have gotten this shot with a wider lens, but I would have lost all the detail if I had to crop in post. I’m so happy to have this lens in my (limited) arsenal!


  • Lyn Rees

    “It doesn’t have all that heft and size of its Nikon counterpart.”

    The Nikon counterpart, the Nikon 70-200mm f4 G ED VR, is pretty much the same size and weight, so that statement doesn’t stand up I’m afraid.

  • FYI, the pretty bird photo is a Lilac-breasted Roller, the national bird of Botswana.

  • piersvan

    Thanks Trey. You have tempted me to get this. I recently sold my Nikon version because I am moving more and more to the Sony system and I often didn’t carry the Nikon one because of the weight. I might just go for the Sony though.

  • Casey Colomb

    What are you talking about? It’s quite a bit different. Your Nikon weighing in 1/3 more than this Sony lens. Not to mention it is smaller in dimension. And this is being said without taking into consideration of coupling your Nikon with any SLR or with the appropriate adapter to the A6000. But I guess it’s always fun to nitpick isn’t it?

  • Vlad

    I suggest you verify the dimensions and weight of the Nikkor and realize how wrong you are.

  • Vlad

    Very nice photos, but I don’t see why Canon and Nikon owners should be bitter, when they have the option of 70-200 F4 lenses, which are nearly identical in size and dimensions to the Sony.

  • Denis Mamaev

    Right. But neither Canon nor Nikon don’t have FF body of A7’s size and weight

  • Omi

    The Sony, Canon and Nikon 70-200 f4 are very close regarding dimension, and the Canon is a little bit lighter. But without a body, a lens or a bottle of wine do the same job for photographying : nothing….
    Sony a6000 or a7+fe 70-200 combinaison is smaller and lighter than any other, i think that this was the goal… And i with he was speaking about the f2,8 Nikkor
    Mirrorless get more interest for shooting with lenses under 100mm.
    Very beautiful pictures anyway, even if we should discuss about postprocessing 😉

  • someone

    Well, actually I suggest you do the same! Apparently, you didn’t even compare the specs side to side. Otherwise, you wouldn’t make that comment, would you ?

    Here are the specs of both lenses :

    Sony FE 70-200mm F4

    Weight : 840 g.
    Dimensions: Dia. x L (mm) : 80×175

    Nikkor 70-200mm F/4G ED VR

    Weight : 850 g.
    Dimensions: Dia. x L (mm) : 78×178.5

    Sony is 10 grams lighter and 3.5mm shorter than Nikon equivalent! In the other hand Nikon has only (!) 2mm smaller diameter, if that makes any sense!

    Let’s take it further with comparing body weights and sizes/dimensions as well ! :

    Sony A7R

    Weight (without battery) : 407 g.
    Dimensions (W/H/D) : 126.9 x 94.4 x 48.2mm

    Nikon D800

    Weight (without battery) : 900 g.
    Dimensions (W/H/D) : 146 x 123 x 81.5 mm

    Nikon D800 + 70-200mm F/4G ED VR = 900 + 850 = 1.750 KG!

    Sony A7R + FE 70-200mm F4 = 407 + 840 = 1.247 KG!

    1.750 / 1.247 = 1.403 (Meaning Nikon is 1.4 times weightier than the Sony combo! Even not taking into account how the Sony A7R body is small when compared to Nikon (or any other DSLRs in that context)

    So, please get your facts right before commenting, if you don’t want to be sorry and proven that you are actually wrong!

  • userz

    I thought this was a lens review. The weight of a particular attached camera is not part of the lens spec.

    The weight advantage you cite is nearly fully to the credit of the lighter camera, not the lens. Could you tell the 10 grams difference if you have the two lenses in your hands? I doubt it.

  • someone

    As you may see, this was against the Vlad’s comment : “I suggest you verify the dimensions and weight of the Nikkor and realize how wrong you are.”

    He was claiming that nikkor lens is more smaller and less weightier. I know that 10 grams of difference will not make too much of a sense. But, I think that should go to Vlad, not me. Hence, he’s the original claimer.

  • John Clark

    Actually it’s not that far off, and they still have a 2.8 option …

    The Sony lens weighs 840gm, the canon f4 705gm

  • Xam

    Hi Trey, I don’t have any problems with PP. I’m all for it in fact.
    But the blur vignetting and is it some kind of motion blur vignetting on the hyenas? Yeah that was having the reverse effect for me. Instead of being drawn to the center subject my eyes immediately went to the edges of the shot.

    I find white vignetting does the same but to a lesser degree. Maybe just me vOv

  • Vlad

    It would be easier to have a discussion if you stop putting words in my mouth and try to follow. First, I was replying to a comment claiming that the Nikkor is “1/3” heavier than the Sony. Second, I never claimed the Nikkor is smaller and lighter. Third, what does the Sony combo weight has to see with me correcting someone about the weight of a lens?
    Maybe you should think twice before commenting.

  • Vlad

    Agreed, the Sony combo will be lighter; however, nobody is arguing against that.

  • Vlad

    True, but that really isn’t how the article is worded, is it?
    “This lens is supa-dupa-light! It doesn’t have all that heft and size of its Nikon counterpart.”
    So, no, I still don’t understand why the article chose to compare to the 2.8 Nikkor and based on that decide that Canon and Nikon users should be bitter. The problem is the article, not the weight of the a7, which we can all easily agree on.

  • Casey Colomb

    Yes I made a mistake and saw the dimensions of the 80-200 Nikkor lens. Either way, you can’t use a lens without a camera so what it’s combination wait ends up being does mean alot.

  • Lyn Rees

    A fuller quote is: “This lens is supa-dupa-light! It doesn’t have all that heft and size of its Nikon counterpart.”

    That’s clearly referring to the lens, not the lens body combo, and is therefore misleading.

    You are quite right, the A7r is lighter than a Nikon D800.

    But, if you want to play that game, you need to consider the kit you may be carrying. Once you add the weight of the body and ALL the lenses in the kit, there MAY not be that much difference in percentage terms, or in real weight terms.

    I’m not here to pick a fight, I’m no DSLR fanboy — I sold mine — however, one needs to understand that mirrorless is no magic bullet for making your camera bag lighter… Maybe curved sensors or liquid lenses will help in that regard, but full frame mirrorless still needs full frame lenses.

  • Anton Berlin

    A quick point – the Sony 70-200 FOV is that of 105-300mm on an APSc camera. But the ‘reach’ is strictly determined by pixel density.

    So the reach or magnification of a 24 mp APSc (NEX7 or 6100) is about 25.5% more than a 36mp FF. (A7r)

    The reach is then only about 87mm to 251mm.

  • Just Thinking

    I stopped by a Sony Store today and saw this lens; it’s huge. It truly is in the same league sizewise as the 70-200 f4 Canon and Nikon equivalents. It’s seems bigger than the Canon. Put the Canon 70-200 f4 on an SL1 and you have what is probably a similar size and weight for the entire system.

    I’m sure it’s a great lens, and of course Trey uses it to maximum effect, but it does seem that this article overplays its supposedly small size and weight a bit. Also, I didn’t ask the sales person at the Sony Store to remove this big lens from behind glass and mount in on an A6000 or A7, but it seems to me that it would be a bit unbalanced, with such a big lens on a small body.

    But to each his own. And as others have said, Canon and Nikon owners have nothing to feel bad about.

  • Denis Mamaev

    SL1 is APS-C, I talked about FF cameras

  • Johnrw

    Great wildlife photos. I started out as a bird photographer but the typical images are so repetitive. I resorted to changing them in snapseed. I wish NIK just had a filter in their software package called Snapseed modeled after the ipad app

  • Just Thinking

    Yes, but this article talks about using this lens with the A6000, which is also APS-C. Hence the comparison; Canon SL1 w/ 70-200 f4 vs Sony A6000 w/ 70-200 f4.

    I don’t know for sure, but my guess is that the A6000 was used, versus any of the A7 models, due to the greater reach of APS-C and the far better and quicker AF. The A7 series have great sensors, but relatively slow AF, not really suited for capturing wildlife.

    In fact if you consider that in many cases a 70-200 lens will be used for photographing wildlife, BIF, or sports, then the A7 series is not a viable option. Now there are rumors that Sony will change that next year, but for the moment the only option in the Sony E mount you really have for fast moving action is the A6000.

  • Just Thinking

    The Sony combo will be lighter, but proportionately maybe not so much. Then again…
    For instance, A6000 + 70-200 F4 = 344 g + 840 g = 1184 g.
    Canon SL1 + 70-200 f4 = 370 g + 760 g = 1130 g.

    So we have an instance where this Canon APS-C setup is actually lighter than the Sony APS-C setup.
    If you choose a mid level APS-C Nikon, like the D5300 + 70-200 F4, you have
    480g + 850 g = 1330 g.
    So the Nikon system is only about 12% more weight.

    Bottom line: choose the Sony system if you want to…it definitely has its strengths. But it’s not that much lighter than the alternatives with this relatively large 70-200 lens.

  • Yes – I like that quite a bit @disqus_oXjePMoEQ6:disqus !

  • Aha – yes some of that was done with Analog Efex Pro 2 !

  • Hey you are right here @Vlad ! I am comparing it to my f/2.8 Nikon, which is quite a bit heaver.

  • The sweet LBR! 🙂

  • Johnrw

    NIK software makes post-processing whimsical and spontaneous. Luv it! My dream kit right now is the a6000 with the 10-18mm in one pocket and the 20-70mm in the other– oh yes and a carbon fiber tripod attached to my pack!

  • Cal Mukumoto

    Great Shots. I bought the Sony 70-200mm f/4 and I love it. I was using my Canon 70 to 200mm f/2.8 with my Sony A7s and A7. I much rather used this super duper light lens. I also bought the Sony 24mm-70mm (nice lens!), Sony Zeiss 35mm and the Nex 10-18mm. All great lens at a fraction of the weight of my Canon gear. I am a happy camper.

  • Gene Naftulyev

    Damn it Trey – After owning $29k of Canon glass I’m falling into the Sony (A7r) rabbit hole. I love what I am getting out of the Sony with Zeiss glass – but I still verbally complain about the assinie menu UI system in the Sony and bad position buttons and dials compared to the Canon UI and Ergonomics. Why can’t Sony hire a UI guy!

  • @Cal Mukumoto, do you have any thoughts on the Canon 70-200 f/4 vs. the Sony 70-200 f/4? I’m looking to get a new system for a year of travels coming up and am thinking that I will leave behind my Canon gear and have to invest in a whole new set up just for my travels… I’m just reading through the reviews on the lenses and have not yet compared these two (quality, weight, size). Any thoughts?

  • Cal Mukumoto

    For traveling I have to say, get the Sony 70-200mm. Although it is a f/4 the difference in weight and size compared to the Canon is very significant. Plus if you are using Canon gear on the Sony bodies then you will have the additional weight of the adapter. I do not have any experience with the Canon 70-20mm f/4 as I have the Canon 70-200mm f/2.8 but I do love the the Sony 70-200mm f/4 and recommend it. AFS with the native Sony lens is very fast on the A7 or A7s

  • Thanks Cal. I just did a comparison of the specs (weight and size) of the Sony 20-700 and the canon 70-300 f/4 is lenses on B&H and based on that, the Sony comes out .5″ larger and 80g heavier than the Canon. So if this is the case, then I wouldn’t consider going Sony. It wouldn’t be worth purchasing just for my year of travels when I already have this type of lens, so I’m thinking this isn’t the right lens…..however, I posted another comment on a different thread asking Trey about this possible combination (trying to use a lens I already have, realizing I’ll need an adapter, plus buy some new lenses just for the Sony camera….but ONLY if this will make a big enough difference in size and weight to warrant me investing in a whole new system)….canon 16-35 f/2.8 for wide angle; Sony 24-70 f/4 as my everyday lens; and the not yet released, Sony 24-240 f/3.5-6.3 OSS for zoom. Any thoughts on that set up? (Will this cover as much as I can for landscape and everyday photography? Note- I would be shooting for editorial, so I want to ensure fairly good quality, as I’m used to working with my Canon setup and I don’t want to be too far off from that in terms of quality). Thanks Cal!

  • Cal Mukumoto

    You are right! I just checked myself, the Canon f/4 is remarkably lighter than the Sony. However, that is not the case with the Canon F/2.8, I guess there is more glass in the F/2.8. The one thing I miss from my Canon lineup is the speed but since I carry the A7s it has not been too much of an issue. The set up you mention sounds like it can work very well. That Canon 16-35 is a wonderful lens. I like the Sony 24-70. The Sony 24-240, sounds like the perfect all around travel lens, do you need the 24-70 if you have that lens? The Sony 24-240 is a little slower though. One thing I like about using native lenses on the Sony body is the AFS response. I use a metabones adapter when I use my Canon lens. I shoot in manual when I use the Metabones because it is so slow in AFS. I still carry my Canon 50mm f/1.2 and my Canon 100mm F/2.8. You might check out Samyang 14mm with a Sony mount. Low cost and I have that lens for my Canon and it is sharp. I have used it on the Sony with the Metabones and it is just as sharp.

  • That’s a really good point you made, about questioning if I would need the 24-70 if I bought the 24-240 (if it gets released in time!)….I hope that means I would only have to purchase the latter! A bit slower, yes, it’s hard not to know how it will perform or to be able to test it out first (where i live, we would have to special order the lens in, so I likely wouldn’t be able to “test” it for a day:( I don’t know anything about native lenses and AFS system. No ice what a metabones adapter is. Is that what I will need to my 16-35? Do you need just one adapter for multiple canon lenses, or a different one depending on the size? Thanks Cal!

  • Cal Mukumoto

    Yes, without the 24 to 240 being available, it is hard to know if you might like it. When I mention Native lenses, I am talking about using a Sony e mount lens on a Sony A7 series body. The speed by which everything works is increased dramatically. So much so, the speed would justify the extra few ozs. of the Sony 70-200mm f/4 over the Canon f/4 for me. When I attach a Canon lens to a Sony A7 body, you need an adapter that takes Canon EF on one side and the Sony e mount on the other. There are many brands of adapters; the metabones brand of adapter allows you to use the light meter and AFS (albeit slowly) on many of the Canon lenses. You need only one adapter for Canon ef to Sony e mount. If you buy a Leica lens, you will need an adapter for those lenses (such as novaflex). Every individual lens mount style requires a different adapter. The Metabones works very well but there are times when I have the lens locked up and I have to remount the lens. There is a list of what lens are compatible with the adapter and the Sony A7 series camera is on the Metabones site. I noticed they have new products. Maybe they work better now.

  • Thanks Cal. Let’s hope the 24-240 works for me!!! (I would prefer to have fastest afs, given that I won’t have the best lenses compared toy canon lenses. So I take your advice of trying to keep with native lenses (although those are few).

  • Cal Mukumoto

    I suspect the 24-240mm will be a fine travel lens but I don’t know. As far as sharpness, you may be surprised, I hope in a good way :). I have been very satisfied with my Sony purchases. So now you will carry one longer zoom and a Canon with the adapter. Not bad. Be sure to take some extra batteries too! Good luck and bon voyage.

  • Stefan Niethammer

    really nice pictures! well composed. I am impressed.

    but I heard of one problem and haven’t got the time to test this yet (still waiting for the postman to bring the cam): shooting low light is supposed to be too bright? is that true? how do you deal with it? e.g. the cat with the tiny head looks a bit brighter than it should (?). still a very nice picture, though.

  • Helloguy

    I think it is not an appropriate comparison.
    If you choose Sony A6000, the corresponding canon should be 7D/7DII; or you choose Sony A5000( 210g only) as per Canon SL1.

  • Adam Kohtz

    Hi, I recently have acquired an A7R which is great. I am looking into this as a possible telephoto. Can any comment on their experience of this lens with the A7R with regards to shutter-shock issues? Also, the OSS in conjunction with the A7R. Cheers, Adam

  • Ron Greer

    “This lens is supa-dupa-light! It doesn’t have all that heft and size of its Nikon counterpart” Actually it’s the same size and weight as the Nikon 70-200 f4; and uses a larger filter. The Canon version is even lighter!

  • chris

    Great review on this lens BUT…. A6000 is a “cropped sensor” camera, which means that this 70-200mm becomes a 105-300mm lens – IT DOES NOT BECOME A 105-300MM LENS!! It becomes a 70-200mm lens with a reduced field of view EQUIVALENT to 105-300mm. No further reach!!

  • best to contact [email protected] – thanks ! 🙂

  • Mike

    I have this lens on the A7r. Not overly impressed to be honest. Below f/8 the corners and sides are ghastly the further you zoom and the shutter slap of the A7r generally kills the whole experience. Centre sharpness and colour rendition are however fairly good. Certainly would not pay the full retial UK price for this lens.

  • Jerry

    All the shots here seem far too “warm” to me for some reason. I believe I would have cooled them down a bit in post processing.

  • jazz1

    Well I hope I don’t get in trouble for reviving an old thread. But I have one of these on the way. I’m hoping this isn’t too unwieldy on my A6000. However, I assume I will be holding the lens in my left hand and working the camera with my right. So the A6000 will just be hanging off the lens.

  • JohnnyO

    I got my 70-200 G a month ago…and yea…it looks funny with my little a6000 on the end of it…hey, the A6000 is just a light sensor and the lens just a light director…does awesome

  • JohnnyO

    All the shots here seem far better then the ones you have here…In fact, they ALL seem so much better than your shots…maybe you could direct us to your website…specifically the page where you are in Africa…being a professional photographer, author and webmaster? Please.

  • JohnnyO

    You are full of shit. SHOW us your A7r and 70-200 you troll.

  • JohnnyO

    Alright y there Mrs. English major….it BECOMES equivalent…I got his point. EVERYBODY got his point. Cept you…you did not. Therefore, you my fair lady, are an idiot. Seems to reason,

  • JohnnyO

    He was comparing it to the f2.8…dummy.

  • JohnnyO

    Because YOU and ME are going to buy one anyway.

  • JohnnyO

    Don’t listen to Cal, he is a certified imbecile. Listen to me. I’m a moron: Buy the Sony lens you see…with me so far T? Yes, go ahead and buy the damn lens…use it for a year…then…stay with me sugar…then after a year…when you are done doing whatever girls do when they travel…sell the lens…list it on eBay, consign it, whatever…it’s quality glass and it is holding steady at about 95% of what they sell for new when sold as used…that way you see, when you balance your checkbook at the end of the year, the cost of the lens will be about $60….less than an adapter…I’m sorry, I didn’t mean to use logic…logic never makes sense to girls anyway…what I meant to say was: It will FEEL so good at the end of the year of spending god knows how much on all your traveling that the $1000 out of pocket will feel even better going back in the pocket….it will make your feelings so warm and fuzzy…see? I am a moron!

  • JohnnyO

    That was a terrible point Tawana…I told you: Cal is a dumbsky.

  • JohnnyO


  • Ron Greer

    uh, I think you’re the dummy, The Nikon counterpart is the Nikon 70-200 f4; not their f2.8! Of course a f2.8 lens is heavier than a f4 lens.

  • Sony’s 70-200 got bad reviews everywhere because its too soft – are your photos over sharpened? A6000 shots very fast and one they tested it, it shot all these burst photos out of focus. Can you explain that?

  • mauipete

    The Sony 70 – 200 is a dog on the A6000. Terrible resolution. Haven’t tied the A7R.

  • Trey,
    You fail to mention that the 70-200 has a major a major shutter shake problem when used with the A7R! Its very bad and unusable up to around 200ms shutter speeds, and starts to be OK above 250msec and faster.
    I use it exclusively with Sony 6000 with its very fast focussing (as indeed you also appear to do). Its not up to the famous Canon 70-200mm, but for its size and cost its pretty dammned sharp even with the 6000. Unlike some comments below, I find performance at f4 very clean and the corners just good to exceleent. At high speeds above 250msec, when used with the A7r it can produce really super sharp shots realizing the full resolution of the A7r sensor. But the focussing is slow single shot!
    Concerning resolution with lenses like this, shooting settings and technique are critical. I use AFC with a small or medium spot focus. I always shoot as fast as possible to mitigate against subject motion blur even though at times I’m at iso 800 or 1600. Better a noisy RAW thats in focus and ‘sharp’ than a low noise blurred shot that you cannot recover. Noise reduction tools are now so good at cleaning noise even at iso 1600.
    Bottom line : Sony stuffed up badly with a basic compatibility problem between the 70-200F4 and the A7r. The lense works well with the Sony6000. No other Sony lense has shown Shutter Shake blurring with the A7r. Sony maybe can fix the A7r Shutter Shake issue with a firmware update to allow time for the shutter to settle down before activating the sensor. Its not clear whether they are committed to this.
    The only other gripe I have is the cost of Sony EF lenses which are obscene. Better to buy second hand Canon fixed lenses and use the Metabones 4 Adaptor. The manual focussing highlighting with the Sony is absolutely excellent. Canon resolution with the Sony sensor is about as good as it gets. I have Canon 35mmf2 and 85mmf1.8 that produce outstanding quality with the A7R. No good for sports or action shots needing fast focus tracking however!
    Life is a never ending circle of compromises.
    Next time Trey, tell the whole story and not just the shiny goody goody bits!

  • Joe

    After the UPS guy dropped off my FE 70-200 I took a shot of my granddaughter up in a tree with my A7r @ 1/320 F4 @200mm 400iso handheld and it came out very sharp.

  • Chris Estonia

    @Phil Green. This is not the case with Trey only, reviewers, once they latch onto a brand just give glowing tributes to it. I always take all reviews with a pinch of salt. Any review with a link to an online shopping site is……………………………………………….

  • jazz1

    I’m pretty happy with mine after lugging it to Boston and Santa Barbara. Using it with an A6000. I have not used it in burst mode though.

  • TrushABC

    Why lash back. It’s clear by looking at the shots that they are pretty warm. I don’t think you need photo samples to prove their warmth. I don’t think judging coolness or warmth of a photo requires qualifications of a professional photographer, webmaster, or author. I actually should not even bother with a reply. I see your angry responses everywhere else here. Please don’t reply. If you do, I’m not going to bother to answer.

  • Chris Lane

    Wow, pedant mode on….

  • tinplater

    You should stop reading the reviews and commenting then, no one cares about your “unbiased” opinion!

  • Chris Estonia

    You cared enough to comment. Thanks. 🙂 I own the Sony A7ii and also the 70-200 F4. Some things I like about the Sony and other things like Auto focus on the Canon, I miss a lot.

  • Artie Gregorsome

    Just what I was looking for. Now we know all pros and cons of the form. If you ever need to fill out a form, here is a really useful tool. Very easy to navigate and use.

  • Shake gonzales

    I was looking for Canada HLTH 203 V2 last year and was informed of a great service that has a huge forms library . If people are requiring Canada HLTH 203 V2 too , here’s a

  • yitzchak

    You may want to change the title of your article to indicate this is a Sony 70-200mm f4 G OSS review, not to be confused with the new (and superior) Sony 70-200mm f2.8 GM OSS…

  • Vintersorg

    Seriously. All you do is yell at people. Been looking at your comment history, and oh my god, you must be the biggest aggressive PoS keyboard warrior I’ve ever seen. I work at an institution for the criminally insane, and if you haven’t already been in one, I got a feeling you’ll end up in one. Can’t stand morons like you, that type around and destroy comment sections, acting like a bad ass behind the computer screen. Laughable.

  • Sarah

    Nice photo

Newsletter Sign Up

The most beautiful newsletter ever!