Other: Sony FE 70-200 2.8 GM vs Canon 70-200 2.8 III w/Metabones - PHOTO+VIDEO

A

alohype

Veteran
You could maybe help me. I want to get a telephoto lens for both photo and video on A7(RII) and FS7 and I cannot decide.

Pros:
Sony FE 70-200 2.8 GM
- native lens definitely better with photos
- better weather sealed than adapted

Canon 70-200 2.8 III w/Metabones
- can be used with SpeedBooster on FS7
- can be used on other cameras like RED od Panasonic


Is there any dealbreaker that should steer me to buy one of them?
 
A couple of weeks ago I was doing a shoot where the producer brought his two FS7's and his new Sony 70-200/2.8. I was impressed with the lens -- the focus linkage seemed better than on many of the other Sony lenses, and the image was great. I put a Sigma 50-100 w/MC-11 adapter on the other camera and they matched very nicely.

I think you've made the arguments pretty well for both lenses. I think the real question is whether you are going to be using it much for stills (in which case the Sony makes the most sense). Otherwise (and if you plan to use it on other cameras) the Canon offers more options. In either case, depending on how much moving around you'll be doing, you might want to consider some support bracketry when using on the FS7.
 
I wouldn't touch the Sony lens; it's focus-by-wire, which means there is no focus window, and manually focusing for video will be virtually impossible. I've used Sony's stills lenses for video before, and they are impossible to pull focus with. The focus "ramps" based on how fast your turn the focus wheel, so it's really not usable for video.

Also, the Canon will have better resale value. I bought a Canon 70-200 more than 10 years ago, and it's still worth 75% of it's original value on ebay. The Sony lenses are too new to say how their resale and reliability will be over the long term. Lots of electronics and plastic parts inside the Sony, so I doubt they'll last half as long as any Canon L lens.
 
dipstik said:
I wouldn't touch the Sony lens; it's focus-by-wire, which means there is no focus window, and manually focusing for video will be virtually impossible. I've used Sony's stills lenses for video before, and they are impossible to pull focus with. The focus "ramps" based on how fast your turn the focus wheel, so it's really not usable for video.
Click to expand...

As I mentioned in previous post, I did use the lens for a day -- for a series of interviews -- shooting pretty much wide open -- and the manual focusing on the lens actually worked fine for me, even making constant adjustments for those subjects who lean forward and back during an interview. That's why I made the comment about the focus link seeming better. I do agree that on many of the Sony lenses the fly-by-wire can be maddeningly frustrating, but after a day with this lens I wasn't bothered by it the way I have been in the past with their 24-70, or the older 70-200 f/4.
... Just my personal experience with it for a day...
 
Agree with comments re stills - I gave up trying to use an adapted Canon 70-200 2.8 for AF stills - fine otherwise on FS7.

I went completely native Sony - but went for the Sony 70-200/f4. Smaller, just as sharp and still plenty fast enough for both FF stills and S35 video.
 
I find I use the Canon 70-200 with speed booster very often on the FS7 for interviews. It converts to 50-150 which IMHO is perfect range for interviews and the f2 gives me lower DOF which it seems all my clients are crazy for and getting an additional stop is often valuable. On the FS7 AF is marginal anyway but were I using it on an A7sii or A7iii than the native Sony AF could be an advantage. Very happy with the sharpness.
 
Might also consider the Sigma 70-200/2.8 with an MC-11... used one a couple months ago and was supermegahappy with the results. Just throwing that in there to much up your decision-making process :D
 
I bought the Sony 70-200 2.8 when it was first introduced a few years ago and I love it. I use it with my FS7 in all types of scenarios. It is a long and weighty lens, and i should probably use some lens support...but i don't. I take it out in the field a lot for doc work and so far so good...its been in rain, sleet, snow and everything in between so i can attest to build.


I shot the above a couple years ago with the lens right out of the box the day after i got it. It was shot with my Fs7 which is on a small jib and also a good exercise for its auto focus capabilities. It certainly does not have a long focus throw like some of my primes but like anything else...once you spend some time with it you'll get a feel for it. So anyways, from somebody who bought the lens specifically for use w the Fs7...i have zero complaints.
 
One more question guys.
How's OSS on Sony 70-200 2.8? Does it work well when hand holding?
I decided for now to get a different kind of breed, 100-400 GM but I've heard it's stabilisation works pretty poorly during video. Will have to test that today if it's very bad I'll return it. What about 70-200 2.8 version?
 
I own the GM 70-200 2.8 and use it on my A7R3 for stills, and my FS7 MK2 for video. If you are going to stay Sony it is an excellent lens for both applications. Focus is easy and very smooth, and so much better then non GM lens I have used. And for stills it is also excellent. As for the GM 100-400 I also have that lens, and only use it for stills, so don't have feedback on the FS7 MK2.
 
Paul Cronin said:
I own the GM 70-200 2.8 and use it on my A7R3 for stills, and my FS7 MK2 for video. If you are going to stay Sony it is an excellent lens for both applications. Focus is easy and very smooth, and so much better then non GM lens I have used. And for stills it is also excellent. As for the GM 100-400 I also have that lens, and only use it for stills, so don't have feedback on the FS7 MK2.
Click to expand...

Wow, that's great, many thanks for your input!
Any chance you could check both lenses for stabilization if there's any difference with performance on FS7?
I would greatly appreciate it!!!

Still cannot decide on which one to set on, 100-400 or 70-200 2.8
 
My gear is not were I am editing, so sorry on checking both. But from memory, I think the 70-200 is better OIS. Even with the 1.4x on it. The 100-400 is nice if you need that reach for a low budget, but it is not the same quality of the 70-200 optically in my opinion. For stills it is easy with so much control in post using the A7R3. Those are the reasons I own both. And if the stills need to be really sharp I rent the GM400 2.8 prime, now there is a hell of a lens.
 
I own both the 70-200 2.8 GM and the 100-400 4.5-5.6 GM. I use them both regularly on my FS7II, A7RIII and A7III. For photography, they both rock. I disagree with Paul (sorry Paul!) about the 70-200 being optically better than the 100-400 GM. It has been my experience that they both perform about the same and if anything the 100-400 slightly edges out the 70-200. But, perhaps that's chalked up to lens variance.

As for video with the two lenses, the OSS works well handheld (that's if you actually plan to use such long lenses handheld), but their OSS kicks off automatically when on a tripod. I know that you're supposed to turn OSS off when on a tripod anyway, but personally back when I used Canon lenses adapted to my FS7, I often left the OSS on to eliminate micro jitters. It worked well for me with very little drift issues, but you cannot do that with the Sony GM lenses as the OSS automatically detects the tripod and shuts off unless you jar your camera to "wake it up", which obviously you cannot do during a shot.

Overall the two lenses are great optically and are wonderful to shoot photos with, but for me personally, I struggle focusing with them when shooting video. The Canon L lenses with their geared focus rings were much easier to work with than the Sony lenses which use focus-by-wire. I agree that these two GM lenses are better than previous Sony lenses in terms of manual focus, but they are still nowhere near the same as using a gear driven lens.
 
Love it Joshua, each having their own experience is what it is all about.

How I notice the difference is at my printers. At times I print 6'x 8' canvas prints and often at 48" wide. And when looking at the two lens I will still stick by the 70-200 is optically better.

Agree not as good as geared lens for manual focus video. But for that I would use the Fujinon MK lens which perform way beyond their cost.

Lots of good choices.
 
Thanks for a write up guys!
Currently I'm thinking maybe going for 70-200 2.8 first and then for 200-600 G.
What I found so far that 100-400 GM is much faster focusing lens than 70-200 2.8.

Regarding OSS on tripod, does it behave same on both 100-400 and 70-200?
It's a real shame, I do a lot of live shooting with rented Canon 70-200 2.8 and stabilization is always on to eliminate micro jitters. That's almost a deal breaker for me :/
 
It does behave the same on both, unfortunately. It almost became a deal breaker for me as well. I wish they would give a firmware update that would allow the OSS to remain on like the Canon lenses do, however that doesn't seem likely.
 
One thing not often considered is that your camera's sensor is better protected when using a metabones adapter than when using e-mount lenses and no metabones.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top