FE 70-200mm F2.8 GM OSS II

The Mark I GM used a thin aluminum ring to hold its two halves together. Lens Rentals replaces those with some custom titanium pieces. I am all for reducing mass, but not so much when the previous edition could have used a bit more mass in at least one place.

Sony is touting reduced breathing which requires even more focal length reduction than the Mark I. Is that a good tradeoff for this type of lens?

I am thinking of getting another old Minolta G to use with the LA-EA5. I sold the Tamron 70-180 VXD which was too short.

QuietOC wrote: The Mark I GM used a thin aluminum ring to hold its two halves together. Lens Rentals replaces those with some custom titanium pieces. I am all for reducing mass, but not so much when the previous edition could have used a bit more mass in at least one place. Sony is touting reduced breathing which requires even more focal length reduction than the Mark I. Is that a good tradeoff for this type of lens? I am thinking of getting another old Minolta G to use with the LA-EA5. I sold the Tamron 70-180 VXD which was too short.

As per above mass doesn't mean robustness.

I don't really understand what you mean by focal length reduction but it seems to compare well to the mk1 in terms of field of view while keeping the breathing down and increasing the sharpness.

Older minolta G is certainly an option if you don't need the fast accurate smooth tracking native modern lenses offer.

QuietOC wrote: I haven't heard much about the aperture lock. Does it lock at any setting or just A? It does sound like this new lens has the best AF tracking on the A1 at least.

On the sigma 85mm/1.4 DN it locks to A or it prevents you from going into A if you are using the aperture ring.

Basically it prevents the user from mistakenly going into or out of A (which ever they choose)

I imagine the Sony one is the same.

From the different minimum focus distances and similar maximum magnifications it must be a varifocal design.

Yeah, I have had these electronic aperture rings give me grief a few times. They are only a liability for me. Sony couldn't even get the markings to line up on the two I own.

I really dislike switches on lenses--it is just bad UI. Steady Shot modes, full-time DMF, and Focus Limiter should be all be universal on the camera body. I am sure the majority of consumers see big arrays of switches and electronic rings as valuable features instead liabilities.

Edited by QuietOC - 13 October 2021 at 19:17

addy landzaat wrote: nandbytes wrote: I normally use the aperture ring when available. Me not I do understand a lot of people use it, but I prefer using my thumb or index finger to change the aperture. To my surprise it is easier to move the aperture ring off A then it is to move it on A on my 20/1.8G. It basically is the only downside of the lens.

I tried the aperture ring on the 20G once and then set it to A where it remains. It feels plasticky, fragile and has a slight lag. The lens is steller for mfd shots.

(The Voigt 21/3,5 and I imagine every other Voigt for E-mount has a non-laggy aperture ring. Am not talking about the physical aperture changing, only the number on the camera display. )

As for this lens, it's interesting that Gerald Undone would choose it and the 2x tc over the 100-400. Both options are very expensive here.

Hmmm. I bought the f4 version before the f2.8 FE was released.

Once I get my f4 fixed, should I keep it or buy the f2.8? Is there a hell of a lot of difference or is that extra stop of light all there is (no extra sharpness, same bokeh etc)?