[Klaus]

Pretty nice (on the A7(s)):

http://www.opticallimits.com/sonyalphaff...70200f4oss

 

[davidmanze]

Seriously gorgeous looking lens, on looks alone you can see your moneys worth and it performs well.

  The A7r, at shutter speeds of 1/000 and above is the vibration still playing a role in resolution?

[Klaus]

The shutter issue is relevant from 1/20sec till at least 1/250sec. 

[stoppingdown]

Sorry, but I have the inevitable question  : what do you think about using it on a APS-C camera? Owning the 10-18 and the 16-70, this would be a perfect complement up to 200mm, which for me means landscape and some kind of wildlife. My point is that I don't see many alternatives: I'd like to see a lighter version for APS-C, but I don't see it coming anywhere. I'd probably happily trade a reduced focal range, such as 70-150, for a lighter lens, but I don't see it coming either.

[Klaus]

Sure, it should be cool on APS-C.

[Guest]

So it is on par with canon/nikon offering at a higher price point ? I wonder if this is the same lens for a slr with a different mount (not that they have a 'new' 70-200f4 for the slr but i guess what i mean is they need a unified mount of some sort ??

 

Also isn't the corner performance really poor for a tele @ 200; or is that a camera issue ?

(ack you already commented on the corners in the summary text).

[Brightcolours]

Nice looking lens, although I do not totally get the choice for white for an FE lens.

A bit disappointed at the corner performance wide open, though... Especially seeing to which troubles they have gone in the optical design: 21 elements in 15 groups, of which 2 "advanced" aspheric elements, 1 aspheric element, 1 super-ED element, 2 ED elements.

 

Compare that to the Canon EF 70-200mm f4 L IS USM from 2006 already: 20 elements in 15 groups, of which 1 fluorite element and 2  UD elements, which has better corner performance wide open.

 

Also the size and weight are a bit of a downer, especially for a mirrorless camera lens. Longer than the Canon even if you take the mirror box into account, wider than the Canon (80mm vs 76mm), heavier than the Canon (840 grams vs 760 grams), bigger filter size too (72mm vs 67mm). Luckily the A7X body will weigh less than a FF Canon DSLR.

 

Also a let down for me is the max. magnification of 0.13x at 1.5m vs 0.21x at 1.2m for the Canons. That probably means a widening of the view towards MFD. So for sure not a lens for me.

 

So, nice lens, but more expensive.

[Klaus]

Yeah, Ok, I downrated it to 3.5pts. I was struggling a bit with the rating admittedly. However, you have to keep in mind that this test was done on a 36mp sensor ... compared to the Canon ones on 21mp ...

 

As for the weight - that's unfair. The tripod mount should be responsible for the difference. Filter size ... who cares really ?

 

Klaus

[stoppingdown]

Do you still have the lens at hand? Can you please measure the tripod mount weigh? Thanks.

[Brightcolours]

Yeah, Ok, I downrated it to 3.5pts. I was struggling a bit with the rating admittedly. However, you have to keep in mind that this test was done on a 36mp sensor ... compared to the Canon ones on 21mp ...

 

As for the weight - that's unfair. The tripod mount should be responsible for the difference. Filter size ... who cares really ?

 

Klaus

You are not right about the tripod mount (according to Sony ^*¹), apparently the lens weighs 840 grams without tripod mount. A tripod mount ring for the Canon weighs 159 grams, so assuming the Sony tripod mount weighs about the same, that would bring the combined weight to 1 kilo (and that makes an A7 + 70-200mm f4 about the same weight as my 6D + 70-200mm f4  ).

 

I mentioned the filter size to illustrate the bigger dimensions of this Sony mirrorless lens compared to the DSLR lenses from Canon and Nikon. It sits right in the middle of the f4 versions of Nikon and Canon (67mm) and the f2.8 versions (77mm)

 

*1: http://www.sony.net/Products/di/en-gb/pr...0200g.html