NEW Sony 70-200 F2.8 GM II - Which Telephoto Lens Should You Buy?

If you don't own a 70-200 GMii already and think you need to by a new 70-200 GMII + a 2x teleconverter for your photography, you might as well buy the 100-400 GM and 1.4x teleconverter. Because that gives you more options and reach.

Hi Lizzie, just came across your video as I am considering the options you discussed here and thank you so much for this very informative post 😊

Use your lens hood. 😅

Hello there Lizzie ! I'm kinda new here ... and somewhat new even to this photo-shooting business, BUT : is it technically possible to get the Tamron 35-150 mm f/2-2,8 Di III VXD and combine it with the Sony FE 2x teleconverter? Just an idea ...

Here in the uk the 70-200 is 450£ more expensive, ie 20% more expensive

Great video

We need to hold out for the 600-3000 mm F2.8.

The 100 - 400 is at around 2300 €. The 70 - 200 II is at 3000 € plus 500 € for the Teleconvertor. Quite a difference.

The sportphotos seems to be quite noisy. For me loosing 2 stops is a very big deal because otherwise I have to crank up the ISO or get more motion blur

My situation: I’ve already got both the 28-75mm/f2.8 Tammy & the 85mm/f1.8 Sony, so I feel I’m kind of already covered in the sub-100mm, midrange focal length. Therefore, the verdict for me is the 100-400mm, for both the added weight and picture degradation that a teleconverter would bring, even if the auto-focus is 100% as good, about which I’d still be skeptical.

Meanwhile, let’s work together. Your first step, move to Austin. I just did. 😎

I'm looking for a zoom lens and I borrowed the 70/200mm from someone but was kind of disappointed with the distance you can reach, I really want to be able to zoom even further for sports and concert photography, might consider the 100/400 :)

Ah, you have answered my prayers with this comparison. This new 70-200 is breaking all the old rules; and it’s taking names and numbers while do’in it . Hooray Sony !😊

Nice review.

I’m sold on this one

I shoot almost all wildlife and I rented the new 70-200 and a 2x and found similar results as you. But I also found with the 2X and 70-200 at 400MM to be noticeable softer (at least my experience) than the 100-400 @400. I could clean some of that up with Topaz so if someone really loves a 70-200 and also wants to shoot some wildlife or needs more reach then adding the 2x is a nice option. But for me I'll stick with the 100-400 that I occasionally use with the 1.4x. Nice video, glad I found your channel.

Thanks! My mk1 70-200 was my most used lens (indoor volleyball); I upgraded to the MKII for the improvements in clarity and autofocus. It hadn't occurred to me that it would make a big improvement with my 2.0x TC. I'm excited to try that out - and happy to have another bullet item when justifying the upgrade cost to my wife.

Liked your video :) Your city/landscape photo with telezoom lenses are really good. But you zoo and sports photos need some practice ;) No criticism, I enjoyed that you showed several example photos

So effing expensive. I wish sigma would come out with a 70-200 for Sony

Hi, For the sport shots at night wasn’t the 2stops of light loss an issue ? I want to do dog agility, it’s similar to the sports, dogs are faster than humans and go through tight obstacles in this sport. I have a 7iii. Thanks

Wish I had a spare 3000 euro just laying around 😂

I have the 100-400 and have always loved it. That being said, I use that lens mostly for my daughter who sings and dances, so sometimes I have to shoot her from far away. I just bought the 70-200ii, and OMG…It is now my favorite lens in the world! The tracking, autofocus, sharpness, and new macro capability just blew me away!!! One thing that I love about the new 70-200ii is just how buttery smooth the zoom & focus rings are now, this is a big game changer for me when I take 4K videos of my daughter. The zoom & focus ring on the 100-400 is not really good for video, too stiff. I’m thinking of ordering a 2x converter and see if the 70-200ii keeps all of its new capabilities(focus, image quality, tracking…). If so, I might sell my 100-400 and buy 50mm 1.2 or rumored 85mm 1.2 that Sony is releasing.

If you are a hobbyist, i would recommend the Sony 70 200 f4. It is lighter, cheaper and has good enough image quality. For wildlife i use the 200-600 lens and this outperforms the 100-400 for that, because it has simply more focal length. Longer is better some would say for this purpose.

Thanks for the sharing ! Keep the great job going

Hmmm... I feel like I need to try the 100-400 and the new 70-200 w/ TC side by side. The 100-400 is amazingly fast for sports, and I can't imagine, the 70-200 w/ TC could keep up with it. I'd love to be wrong!

Highly enjoyed this Video ! Thank you Lizz !

At the low end the difference between both lenses is 30mm while at the top end is 200mm but to get that extra reach with the 70-200mm I need to pay how much $$ for the 2x teleconverter? Buying the 100-400mm makes sense; buying the 70-200mm + 2x tele...to get the reach of the 400mm...doesn't.

Awesome video 💛💛💛

So do you think the 70-200 GMII with the 2x Teleconvertor kept up in a aports situation? This is what I mostly use my 70-200 GMII for and the extra reach would be great but of the autofocus is faster with the 100-400 then that would be worth the extra $. So is the focus speed/accuracy of the 70-200 GMII+Teleconvertor a similar or lesser experience to that of the 100-400?

I like 100-400 too.

Thank you for the advice!!

This is the conclusion I reached. I have replaced my 100-400 with the new 70-200 GM2 F2.8 and 2x teleconverter when I need more reach. I also prefer the 70-200 for the internal zoom, and even with converter it is still lighter. And if even more than 400 reach is required, I use the 200-600. Everyone’s use is different, but this suits my use

Lizzie, the first video I saw from you. I enjoyed it for two reasons. 🥰

Here I am after being recommended the 100-400 on Chris’s video from 10 months ago. You are both so great with your cameras!

BEEEN LOOKING FOR THIS COMPARISON

This helps me decide to take 70-200 over 100-400. Thank you so much 💓

Whenever I use 70-200 I feel zooming is not enough

Very nice video, thanks a lot for it!
Thumb up and subscribed :)

I could see that you were using 70-200 GM II on sony a7r4 which is not really a sport/action camera.
How would you compare 100-400 to new 70-200 on a7r4 in terms of AF and tracking?

Additionally, it is quite interesting time if you want do buy some lenses for Sony system. Two bellow sets are giving you similar results with the same (almost) price tag:
1) Sony 100-400 GM + Sony 135 GM, you have reach and low light capabilities at 1.8 135mm (+ superior quality)
2) Sony 70-200 GM II + x2, you have reach and low light zoom at 2.8, and all with one lens (and all of it with single lens)

Option 2. seems to be better for sport/action in general :)
Any thoughts?

Best regards!

I’m wondering how this lens will preform with the A7R3..

Nice video,and amazing lenses,u convinced me to take it

Wait so 70-200mm with the converter or the 100-400??

those test photos blew my mind, I was almost ready to dump my money into trash than buying any lenses, omg....

Thanks for your amazing contents, but please don't support zoos :)

2 lenses in 1…..you get a 70-400 focal range but you need to fart around with a teleconverter to get it.Sounds like a pain the butt to me.Just get the 100-400….or both as I did 😂😂😂

I love u 😍

Only

Question… Does the teleconverter affect the overall quality and sharpness of images? That could be a big factor to consider.

I'm subscribing and liking because you're photographing Ultimate! Plus, nice video! Quite interested in getting this lens

I really love my 100-400 GM w/ 1.4x Tele (the loss is 1 stop getting me to 560mm F/8.0). I do own the 70-180mm F/2.8 Tamron which is a terrific value and light weight compared to the 70-200 GM

up close and personal.....

Aj19a