Why I chose the 70-200 F2.8 OSS GM II

[-ST-]

I just wrote this in response to the question, "What was your first GM lens, why did you get it, and what were you using before?" This was in another community, but I thought it might be helpful to someone here.

/edit
First - this is a reflection of my current priorities and how I applied them to the choice described below. The other lenses have proven to be fine choices for others. Please don't take the following to be a criticism of any of these wonderful lenses. /edit

First GM lens

70-200 F2.8 OSS GM II
I just got it a few weeks ago, and I've been ecstatically happy with it. Unfortunately, I haven't been able to find the 2x teleconverter I had planned to get with it - until today. I picked it up late this afternoon and plan to check it out tomorrow.
Here's an example of why I wanted the 2x teleconverter. I would have liked to fill the frame with these eagles, but I couldn't crop that much without degrading the results. Taken two days ago. All at 1/2000-1/2500, F2.8, 200 mm, ISO 100.





History - what I was using before
I had used the FE 24–105mm F4 G OSS Lens (SEL24105G) as my daily all-around lens for about five months, and I was very happy with that. I also got the PZ 16-35 F4 for some environmental portraits, landscape and some video. I walk outdoors daily, and lately, there has been more wildlife, but most of those creatures were beyond the reach of the 24-105. And since I often walk in the early hours, I wondered about how much more I could photograph with a wider aperture.


Why did I choose the FE 70-200mm F2.8 GM OSS II?


See the list below of the lenses I considered. I have shown the features that mattered most to me.

• Weight and, to a lesser extent, size
  • I have to be able to carry it for 10 miles
  • Use it hand-held
• Versatility
  • widest to the narrowest field of view
    • Wildlife and landscapes
  • fastest aperture
• Performance
  • All three lenses below get great reviews
  • Autofocus speed
  • Image quality

I considered

1. FE 70-200mm F2.8 GM OSS II (SEL70200GM2) with 2x Teleconverter Lens (SEL20TC)
   1045 + 207 = 1252 grams / 88 x 200 mm + 62.4 x 42.7 mm (total length 242.7 mm)
   • This combination would give me a fast zoom
     • F2.8 for 70-200
       and with the teleconverter
     • F5.6 for 140-400
   • Reviews of this combination suggested that I should get comparable results at 400mm to the FE 100-400 F4.5-5.6 GM below
   • Internal zoom
   • All the latest GM II features(announced 2022)
     • XD Linear Motors
     • Aperture ring
     • 3 mode OSS
   • Shortest minimum focus distance 0.4–0.82 m
2. FE 100-400mm F4.5-5.6 GM OSS (SEL100400GM) 1,395 grams / 93.9 x 280 mm at 400 mm
   • Older GM design (announced 2017)
     • Linear motor and Direct Drive SSM
   • External zoom
   • Minimum focus distance 0.98 m/3.22 ft
3. FE 200–600 mm F5.6–6.3 G OSS (SEL200600G) 2,115 grams / 111.5 x 318 mm
   • Not GM
   • Announced 2019
   • Minimum focus distance 2.4 m
   • Internal zoom
   • Too heavy to carry for the duration of my long walks, and I'd probably need to carry
     • a tripod or monopod
     • a second lens for more typical landscape shots
   • I had a chance to try this lens on my camera today. It was challenging to hand-hold it at 600 mm. Edit/ On reflection, I did not check the OSS mode. Also, this was a first impression - coming from the 70-200.
     It's still a real possibility that I'll pick up the 200-600 instead of using the 2x teleconverter.
     /edit

 

[iamdlewis]

You are going to be disappointed with the weight distribution of the 70-200+2xTC. My 100-400+1.4xTC weighs less than my 200-600 but because the TC changes the weight balance the 200-600 feels much lighter when shooting.

 

[Deleted Member 5045]

Can you elaborate on the struggle to hand hold at 600mm please ST? That's pretty bloody odd...

 

[-ST-]

I've added a couple of edits to my post above.

First - this is a reflection of my current priorities and how I applied them to the choice described below. The other lenses have proven to be fine choices for others. Please don't take the following to be a criticism of any of these wonderful lenses

and concerning the 200-600 "I had a chance to try this lens on my camera today. It was challenging to hand-hold it at 600 mm. "

On reflection, I did not check the OSS mode. Also, this was a first impression - coming from the 70-200.
It's still a real possibility that I'll pick up the 200-600 instead of using the 2x teleconverter.

 

[-ST-]

You are going to be disappointed with the weight distribution of the 70-200+2xTC. My 100-400+1.4xTC weighs less than my 200-600 but because the TC changes the weight balance the 200-600 feels much lighter when shooting.

Hi, David,

I imagine the weight distribution of the 100-400 is different from the 70-200, especially since the 70-200 is an internal zoom like the 200-600.

This morning, I marched around for three hours with the 70-200+2x teleconverter. I didn't have any issues with the weight distribution. I held the 70-200 as I usually do. Although the teleconverter adds 207 grams to the total package, it moves the fulcrum forward. If anything, there was a better balance with the body. The A1 with battery is 737 grams and adding the 207 grams from the teleconverter, together they are close to the weight of the lens at 1045 grams.

I was well aware of the added weight from the teleconverter, but it was no worse than I had expected.

 

[-ST-]

Can you elaborate on the struggle to hand hold at 600mm please ST? That's pretty bloody odd...

Hi Clint.

As I added in my edit to the initial post,
On reflection, I did not check the OSS mode. Also, this was a first impression - coming from the 70-200.
It's still a real possibility that I'll pick up the 200-600 instead of using the 2x teleconverter.

This is the first time I'd laid eyes on the 200-600. I was excited to put it on the camera to try it out (as much as you can do in a shop).
The 200-600 is roughly twice the weight of the 70-200, and the weight distribution is different. When I zoomed out to 600 mm, I had trouble holding it steady. I fired off a few test shots, and they weren't all that sharp. That's on me and my inexperience with it.

I've admired and enjoyed the photographs people are taking with their 200-600 lens (including yours). There are so many great examples of what that lens can do, I was inspired to get something longer than the 24-105. For me, the 70-200 GM II is a keeper.

I'm not sure which way I'll go - keep the 2x teleconverter or get the 200-600.

 

[spudhead]

I do not see the point of having a Sony a1 and no long reach lens when you shoot birds all the time, the 200-600 takes a little adjusting too but is great value for money and quite capable of super sharp images.

 

[Clix Pix]

I have the 200-600mm, which I bought about a month after having entered the Sony FF system, and while it was (and still is) great for shooting off my deck, especially when I can use the railing for support or can set up the tripod, when Spring came that year I realized I needed a walk-around lens that was still long enough to capture the subjects I wanted. No way I could carry the 200-600mm around for any amount of time or distance! I wasn't about to give up that wonderful lens, though. It really is terrific -- especially on the A1.

As a walk-around lens, the 100-400mm fits the bill perfectly. It quickly became my second favorite lens and one which in good weather I use almost daily when I walk around the lake. I have the 1.4x TC, which works very nicely on both the 100-400mm and the 200-600mm. ( I never even bothered buying and trying a 2X TC on either of them, just would be too much light loss.). The weight and size of the 1.4x TC is really barely noticeable on either lens.

Spring is coming again, and now I am getting more and more tempted to also add the new 70-200mm f/2.8 GM II to the family. At this point I'm thinking that I wouldn't put a TC on it, no need to do so since I've got both of those other lenses, anyway. I can easily think of situations in which it would work very nicely when the range covered by one of the others is too long when it comes to close-focusing distance and or reach or the lens is simply too heavy to carry for a long time.

Sony offers us so many good lenses, so many choices....

 

[-ST-]

Update to the thread. I got the FE 200–600 mm F5.6–6.3 G OSS a week ago, and I'm enjoying it immensely. I'm getting used to the weight, and figuring out how to look far enough ahead to find my photos.

 

[jeffj3]

Update to the thread. I got the FE 200–600 mm F5.6–6.3 G OSS a week ago, and I'm enjoying it immensely. I'm getting used to the weight, and figuring out how to look far enough ahead to find my photos.

It's such a great lens. With the latest firmware it's even better on my a7IV. I'm going to use my RV with it soon as the weather cooperates and the moon makers her appearance again.

 

[Shooter41]

You are going to be disappointed with the weight distribution of the 70-200+2xTC. My 100-400+1.4xTC weighs less than my 200-600 but because the TC changes the weight balance the 200-600 feels much lighter when shooting.

 

[Shooter41]

Thank you for the information on changing the weight distribution. Good to know in advance. Shooter41

 

[Shooter41]

It's such a great lens. With the latest firmware it's even better on my a7IV. I'm going to use my RV with it soon as the weather cooperates and the moon makers her appearance again.

Go have fun! Shooter41

 

[Shooter41]

Update to the thread. I got the FE 200–600 mm F5.6–6.3 G OSS a week ago, and I'm enjoying it immensely. I'm getting used to the weight, and figuring out how to look far enough ahead to find my photos.

Planning ahead pays of in the long haul. (There is nothing worse than trying to find a specific shot amongst 10,000 unorganized images. Shooter41