philiplipetz
Veteran
I was wondering if anyone has tested both on an A7x? The Canon shares a filter size with the Sony 24-70mm. Our team has a Canon and love it. Naturally I meant the FE version of the Sony.
Last edited:
Sony or Canon 70-200mm F4?
- Thread starter philiplipetz
- Start date
philiplipetz
Veteran
Optically, a question since some lenses, principly but not exclusively WA, do not play well with e mount. That is why zeiss is modifiying rear element on its lenses so they will shine with e mount.
Terrence Wilkins
Active member
I'd say the headache of not working with dodgy adapters is a no brainer. As some one who loves canon glass, but got tired of dealing with the adapter issues.
I'm actually really impressed by sonys lenses. Some research into it led me to discover the reason, All of sonys FE Mount glass has just been released in 2014.
So it makes sense for it be optically on par or superior to the canon glass. Where as the canon 70-200 f4 was originally released in 1999, withe the IS version being 2006.
One thing I will make note of is Sony's Image stabilization is incredible, literally some of the best on lens IS I have used.
I'm actually really impressed by sonys lenses. Some research into it led me to discover the reason, All of sonys FE Mount glass has just been released in 2014.
So it makes sense for it be optically on par or superior to the canon glass. Where as the canon 70-200 f4 was originally released in 1999, withe the IS version being 2006.
One thing I will make note of is Sony's Image stabilization is incredible, literally some of the best on lens IS I have used.
photochris
Well-known member
The FE 70-200 is very, very good - the only thing I miss from the Canon 70-200 2.8 IS mkII is the shallower DOF, but the FE is much smaller/lighter and Sony's extra DR makes up for the loss of a stop. The Canon is a good lens too, but all things equal I'll take the native AF over fiddling with dodgy adapters.
The thing is, by using "dodgy" adapters you save yourself a small fortune. Sony lenses only work on Sony cameras. Canons work on Canons, BMD, RED, Sony FS and Sony F. From what I understand, Metabones is working on an EF to MFT active adapter as well. So if you plan on selling and buying a new set of lenses every time the next best camera comes out, get Sony.
Otherwise, save tons of cash and get Canon or Nikon might even be better since their aperture can be controlled manually on adapters (but it doesn't seem to be as ideal as doing it from the camera or aperture ring).
Personally, I use Zeiss ZF Nikon mount primes to future proof as well. But those Canon zooms do come in real handy.
chrisbernard
Well-known member
I've owned, and sold, the Canon 70-200 F2.8 IS Mark II and I now own the Sony FE 70-200. I know we're comparing Apples to Oranges here but the Canon was a far superior lens (Also it literally costs about a $1000 bucks more but it was by far my favorite Canon lens that I owned). The FE is also a great lens and I actually think it's a great value for the money, it's massively smaller but still a substantial lens, it's also a much easier lens to pop in the bag. In my case the Canon didn't get out much because it was simple a big and bulky set up with 5D Mark III. I think for most users of the A7S that the Sony is a better choice in terms of ergonomics and weight but the Canon is a lens I regret selling a bit (but need to save up for that Atomos recorder). I've also found that the Sony FE on an A6000 body is a pretty good sports and action shooter, not as good at a Canon 5D combo, but probably gets you 85% there in a package that weighs far less.
photochris
Well-known member
The center and edge resolution numbers for the FE are easily as good as Canons zooms at comparable apertures. The FE does have a dramatic drop in sharpness in the extreme corners wide open, it improves stopped down. I haven't shot them side by side as I sold the 2.8 mkII to get the FE, but on the A7 the FE's sharpness and detail is very impressive. There's nothing a Canon or Nikon f4 zoom can do better with the A7s shooting stills or video. The resolution numbers are eye popping on the A7r, and its a great match for a Sony body, light, fast AF and great OSS. YMMV.
Andrius Simutis
Veteran
There's more to a lens than just resolution numbers. The Canon 70-200 2.8 II is legendary, and not just because of the stats. It just has a certain "magic" in the image that is hard to replicate.
I haven't used the Sony, so I can't really comment on its image, but I just had to chime in on the numbers aspect. Maybe the Sony is awesome, maybe it's flat and boring looking, but the numbers won't really tell you the full story.
One other point, or question, how's the resale market on Sony lenses? Canons hold their value and have a big and brisk used market. If you already have a good adapter, it might make more sense to stick to the Canon.
photochris
Well-known member
I know its more than numbers, my point was just that the FE is as capable as the best f/4 zooms available. So far I've bought all my Sony lenses used, paid $1300 for the zoom, $700 for the FE55, and $600 for the 10-18. They may decrease in value a bit more, but I doubt it'll be dramatically more than a used lens from anyone else. I paid $1900 used for the 2.8 II and sold it for $1800 after a little more than a year. The guy I bought it from paid $2400 the previous year. All the modern AF lenses drop in value over time, for me the value is shooting with it, not what it'll be worth 3 years from now. YMMV
There's definitely truth to this. 70-200 II is just an amazing lens. I know it's considered by many as one of the best lenses Canon has ever made.
dustylense
Veteran
But would be ridiculous to buy if you have no Canon body to utilize it on. Adapting Canon on the Sony via Metabones sort of takes away the power of the Canon glass (AF and sometimes fishy operation due to the adapter). The 70-200 EF V2 is a wonderful optic however.
I have the Sony 24-70 and it a very nice optic. When I bought the Sony A7s (and the Sony A7r for stills) I wanted one lens that was native to the system. It's nice because the lens is so compact making the camera nice and light. If the Sony 70-200 performs like the 24-70 I probably will pick it up. They are well built and just work wonderfully on the Sony Alpha FF's. Yeah, it's not a 2.8 but the compactness is very handy.
This is the 24-70 Sony on the A7r:
