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

▵ SUPPORT THE WILDLIFE CONSERVANCY ▵

*TO SEE THE GIRAFFES, WE BOOKED A WILD ENCOUNTER WITH THE ZOO*

▵ SKIP TO THE GOOD STUFF ▵
0:00 - INTRO
0:30 - WILDLIFE PHOTOGRAPHY AT THE ZOO
4:27 - SPORTS PHOTOGRAPHY
5:32 - LANDSCAPE PHOTOGRAPHY DOWNTOWN

▵ SHOP + LEARN▵

▵ GEAR I USE ▵

▵ LET'S BE FRIENDS ▵

▵ PODCAST ▵ (Listen on Spotify, Apple Podcast, Anchor)

▵ MUSIC ▵

▵ FREE STUFF ▵

▵ MORE ▵
Promo Code: LIZZIEPEIRCE

[rmclark]

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.

[Jonathantuba]

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

[williamhindle]

I’ve been shooting wildlife on and off for over 7 years and I find with wildlife photography, wide aperture lenses make a huge difference to the quality of photos, due to their ability to isolate the subject from distracting background and capture movement using low ISOs. That said, I’ve used a Canon 100-400L, Sony 200-600 G, Canon 70-200 f/4L and Sigma 120-300mm f/2.8, and my best shots were from the sigma. My shots from my f/2.8 lens were able to isolate the subject in such a way that the background became beautiful and less distracting. I was able to print and sell them to friends and family, and most of the time, the best photos were when the subject was somewhat close to the car, at approximately 135-180mm. I’m currently shooting with a Sony A7R III and rented a Sony 200-600mm which was great but it lacked a certain quality of an f/2.8 lens.

Firstly, at f/6.3 or 5.6 there isn’t enough light to get a clean shot to capture movement during golden hour or overcast days. I understand that cameras have improved in ISO performance, but nothing beats a shot taken at iso 800 or less.

Secondly, if most of my interesting subject matter was closer, the shots taken at 200mm at f/5 would have rather distracting backgrounds, say of an ugly car or poorly lit bush or thorn tree. At f/2.8, the background becomes far less prominent and you’re able to get away with shots taken in undesirable shooting scenarios.

But that said, 400mm is a great to have and more often or not you’ll wish you had that reach. If I were looking between the two, I’d buy a 70-200mm f/2.8 lens as my main wildlife lens (the 70-200mm is more versatile and can be used for portraiture and landscapes) and rent the 100-400 GM or even the 400mm f/2.8 GM and a 1.4x teleconverter for those shots that require a bit more reach.

[mvannetti]

Got a 100-400 GM a few months back and I'm absolutely in love with that lens! So I don't feel like I need this new one, but glad I get to experience it a bit through your vids 😊

[Aestheticnerdlife]

I really like using the 24-105 and the 200-600 lenses; low light performance isn't great but for the majority of stuff that I shoot it works perfect.

[LizziePeirce]

eating my words that the 100-400 is my fav lens

[jbravo]

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.

[jeffmartin-gr]

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.

[Eli-lblc]

But you can also put the teleconverters on the 100-400. So you can get two lenses in one with that as well. I’d say they both have very different uses.

[PhotoTrekr]

I already have the 100-400mm GM which I use for wildlife and landscapes. If I shot weddings or portraits I would choose the 70-200mm GM.

[australianboy]

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!

[keystonebrotherb]

Love my Sigma 100-400. I’m a hobbyist and $1000 was a great bargain for a surprisingly sharp lens.

[ChristianLawrence]

Thanks Lizzie, I have been looking at this setup as it seemed the best option. Great that you have confirmed this in the video. Thanks. Will be interesting to see if a new 100-400 is released soon. But I do like the 70-200m+ TC option, makes a lot of sense.

[Ejpwr]

I was literally there a week ago shooting with my 70-200 f/4. Lens had a lil bit of trouble with auto focus and zooming at the same time. I thought it was just me!!. Btw you met my friend at a techno event about a month ago

[nyndo]

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.

[entsongmachonagago]

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

[aveardofficial]

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

[worldchangeryee]

I like both but why not go for the 100 - 400 it's one less piece of glass and its cheaper with an extra f stop

[chirantha]

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.

[DiegoTerzano]

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