Sony 70-200 Concerns

Hey guys I'll try to keep it brief.


I'm think of jumping from Canon to Sony; 6D to the A7iii.

I have rented an A7iii and a Metabones IV, and really enjoyed the Sony. My 70-200 2.8L II had weird vignetting with the MBIV though so..

that brings us to a Sony 70-200. I love my Canon 2.8L IS II, and I do love it a lot.


The Lens Rentals blog threw a shadow on the 70-200 2.8 G series OSS with their tests, claiming it was pretty soft...and a few gents over on Luminous Landscape were iffy on them as well.
Additionally, when Tony Northrup did one of his tests, his RAW files with the 70-200 2.8 Sony looked...not good.
$2600 ($2200 used) a blankety-blank LOT of cash for a lens to be anything other than stellar.

On the other hand, DXO says they're amazing--more so than the Canon 70-200 2.8L II. Were the early Sony ones iffy? Are they better now? Any experience back-to-backing these lenses?
Is there any info or consensus on these lenses that I've missed?

Also, how is the much cheaper 70-200 F/4 G OSS? I'd miss that nice bokeh of a 2.8 ... but...maybe it's a tack sharp option?


This has been one of my big hang ups on switching to Sony. My 6D won't live forever. The EOS-R series is a joke. I only get to pull of this big brand switch ONCE (because it's expensive).
Any thoughts?

Actually i would like to hear what u found out

Had the same concerns when I switched to Sony.

I only ever use the 70-200 GM for weddings and I feel that it's adequate in that capacity.
I don't think it's as good as the Canon counterpart but for me it was a lenses I HAD TO have for weddings and felt this was the only good option in Sony land so I went for it.

That said, I feel that for what I use it for, it's more than sharp enough, fast enough, and the IQ coming out of it is very good.

hey JP,


A bit of searching on Fred Miranda, some test samples and a few other places kinda of brought me to this general conclusion:
- The copy-to-copy variation is high. Some are excellent, on par with the Canon IS II. Some are really sub par and soft.
- When LensRentals released it's findings, apparently even Sony reached out to them and were a tad concerned--so it appears they're aware of the issue.
- There has been no update to the lens design or anything else that I am aware of. Version 2 is hopefully in the works somewhere.
- The design itself seems to be highly complex and potentially subject to easily falling out of spec...the Lens Rentals guy suggested making sure the lens never gets bumped around.
- The f/4 variant didn't seem to get a lot of love for sharpness or much else. Not sure why.
- It seems like if a guy is gonna use a 70-200 with the Sony rigs he either has to adapt the Canon version or spend a lot and be able to pick thru 70-200 G series copy by copy.

A lot of this prompted me to look at the Nikon Z6 as a possibility too...Nikon is releasing both a 24-70 and a 70-200 in the new mount this year.
What's sad is just how good the Canon 70-200 2.8L IS II is, and for $1500 used. If I go Sony I guess it'll have to hang around.
Hope that helps!

Yeah, there seems to be some chatter about the 70-200 GM.
When I switched, I completely committed to it, and after testing out the converter with the 70-200 L II, I was convinced I needed to get the native 70-200 GM.
I bought it used so I saved some money on it.
Mounted on the A9, seemed to work as expected, so scratched that off from my to-buy list.
Truth be told, after using the lens in every wedding since switching to Sony, it has performed well and I have not noticed any glaring deficiencies.
Also, from what I've read, the lens performs better on the more recent Sony bodies. Namely the A9, A7R3 and A73.

I did a lot of comparisons of 5D3/7D2 + 70-200 2.8 IS II vs A7iii/A9 + 70-200 GM when I switched to Sony, and I find the performance of my two lenses to be near identical in terms of sharpness. I have heard of bad copies but mine, and the one I rented prior to buying from LensProToGo (bc of the rumors/complaints) were both very sharp.

AF is definitely faster natively than using the Canon on an adapter, especially if you’re trying to track a subject.

Lyndön wrote in post #18816088
I did a lot of comparisons of 5D3/7D2 + 70-200 2.8 IS II vs A7iii/A9 + 70-200 GM when I switched to Sony, and I find the performance of my two lenses to be near identical in terms of sharpness. I have heard of bad copies but mine, and the one I rented prior to buying from LensProToGo (bc of the rumors/complaints) were both very sharp.

AF is definitely faster natively than using the Canon on an adapter, especially if you’re trying to track a subject.

I'm guessing most of the grumbling comes with high MP bodies. When I used the Tam 70-200 f2.8, thought it was a great lens back in the canon days. I used alongside the 70-200ii for some time, and the IQ difference was very small at best..... then I started using it on the R3, and holy moly it gets weak on the long end. I'm shooting in good light, good shutter speeds, and focus is on the mark..... it's just a bit soft. On the A9, it's sharp again.

The high MP is unforgiving, and I think that's where most of the complaints come in. Lensrental tests on a test bench with the R2 sensor I believe. Many places test with the R2 body, and it's not forgiving.

Charlie wrote in post #18816093
I'm guessing most of the grumbling comes with high MP bodies. When I used the Tam 70-200 f2.8, thought it was a great lens back in the canon days. I used alongside the 70-200ii for some time, and the IQ difference was very small at best..... then I started using it on the R3, and holy moly it gets weak on the long end. I'm shooting in good light, good shutter speeds, and focus is on the mark..... it's just a bit soft. On the A9, it's sharp again.

The high MP is unforgiving, and I think that's where most of the complaints come in. Lensrental tests on a test bench with the R2 sensor I believe. Many places test with the R2 body, and it's not forgiving.

That could be the case. I’ve never used any of the R bodies, so I don’t have any experience with that.

I read speculation recently that the first batches were worse and QC improved later on. Idk if there is any truth to that