70-200 F4 L series cannon, is there a sony equivalent ?

[wildman]

The one thing that always makes me wish I went into cannon or nikkon is simply the massive choice of glass users of these 2 systems have. Currently the telephot I have on my Sony is a sigma 70-300 APO. Its an ok lens but I need something faster with bvetter optics that won't break the bank.

I see for cannon users they have a defacto standard where they can pick up an L series piece of glass for a lot less than a grand and with whats left still have enough to get a x2 Tele extender to get 140-400 which on a 1.5 crop is the same as 210 - 600 which will still auto focus ok as the stop count increases to 5.6 ( I think that's correct 2 stops up from 4 ?)

The sony Offering does not actually exist in this price bracket, sure we can get the minolta beer can for a snippet at around 80 - 100 quid 2nd hand. But my main issue here is that is the beer can really up to the same standard as L series cannon glass ? Sometimes I feel as an Alpha user I get seriously short chnaged on the glass front. A Mount lenses always seem to be rare and to boot more expensive than their cannon / nikon cousins in the same model.

A lot of the shops I have seen that hold lenses for those 3 mounts always slap and extra tenner plus tips on the sony version. A good example is the Tamron 17-50 f2.8 a shop I visited in london had all 3 mount versions in, the sony mount was breaking 300 quid where as the cannon and nikkon versions were over 20 quid cheaper !!!

This http://www.amazon.co.uk/Canon-70-20...1?ie=UTF8&s=electronics&qid=1276871602&sr=1-1 is less than a monkey !!! and its an L series

This http://www.amazon.co.uk/SONY-SAL-70...1?s=electronics&ie=UTF8&qid=1331753800&sr=1-1 is over a grand (not the same comparison I know)

and there is nothing I can find in the same price range an optical quality as the cannon for sony of the same specs. I could go out for a tammy 70-200 f2.8 but again thats close to 800 quid

 

[squishy]

I see for cannon users they have a defacto standard where they can pick up an L series piece of glass for a lot less than a grand and with whats left still have enough to get a x2 Tele extender to get 140-400 which on a 1.5 crop is the same as 210 - 600 which will still auto focus ok as the stop count increases to 5.6 ( I think that's correct 2 stops up from 4 ?)

Not quite right, a two stop increase is multiplying the aperture by 2, so the f/4 becomes f/8 (1 stop is x1.4 (root 2 if you're being exact)). This means the 70-200 f/4L with a 2x converter doesn't AF on any canon bodies except the 1D series centre point (apparently excluding the upcoming 1Dx).

Just over £20 isn't that much more expensive for a nearly £300 lens, it's only ~7% more. It's a shame, but I expect it's because they simply sell a lot less of the sony mount versions. But prices of third party lenses often vary with mount inexplicably. A few weeks ago I was checking on amazon and they were selling the sigma 8-16 for £200 less in nikon mount than in canon mount, for no obviously reason :shrug:

Currently only pentax and canon have lenses in the ~70-200 f/4 range (pentax have a 60-250 f/4), nikon doesn't have anything like it either.

 

[pete.rush]

http://www.mifsuds.com/acatalog/Used_Minolta_AF_Lenses.html

Has a Used Sigma 70-200mm F2.8 EX for £439 and if you could find a Sigma 100-300mm f4 that's another very good lens and sony/minolta fit

I think you would have to search the used minolta lens range to find anything in that range unless you pay the $$$$

F-stops are .....f2.8, f4, f5.6, f8, f11, f16 and f22 the other stops are 1/2, 1/3 and 1/4 stops which don't come into the equation when TCs are involved.

Best bet is hunt through the for sale forums, used equipment dealers if you want to keep the $$$ down or find a good supply of used minolta lenses

http://www.dyxum.com/lenses/index.asp

 

[seriousrikk]

A few weeks ago I was checking on amazon and they were selling the sigma 8-16 for £200 less in nikon mount than in canon mount, for no obviously reason :shrug:

Amazon are a bit different/odd - they work on tight margins rather than fixed prices. Often big price differences like that are because they got one mount/variation much cheaper at a time.

 

[squishy]

F-stops are .....f2.8, f4, f5.6, f8, f11, f16 and f22 the other stops are 1/2, 1/3 and 1/4 stops which don't come into the equation when TCs are involved.

Unless you have a lens with a max aperture that's one of the other values.

 

[wildman]

http://www.mifsuds.com/acatalog/Used_Minolta_AF_Lenses.html



Best bet is hunt through the for sale forums, used equipment dealers if you want to keep the $$$ down or find a good supply of used minolta lenses

http://www.dyxum.com/lenses/index.asp

you see this is my main issue I think. Why do I have to look at older tech (although in some cases they are probbaly still optically as good as new versions). Its a royal pain in the ass, I spend more time looking for gear than i do in the field actually taking shots

 

[pete.rush]

Unless you have a lens with a max aperture that's one of the other values.

But f6.3 not a true f-stop and as I've never attempted to put a 2x TC on a f6.3
lens or would want too, I assume that its either a 1/2 f-stop scale and f13 (not sure) would be the equivalent or full f-stops f16 is the next one which sounds more feasible... but that would be one truly horrible combination.

 

[squishy]

But f6.3 not a true f-stop and as I've never attempted to put a 2x TC on a f6.3
lens or would want too, I assume that its either a 1/2 f-stop scale and f13 (not sure) would be the equivalent or full f-stops f16 is the next one which sounds more feasible... but that would be one truly horrible combination.

f/6.3 with a 2x would become f/13, it's 1/3 of a stop slower than f/11 rounded to 2 sig figures (all the f stops except 2, 4, 8, 16, 32 etc. are rounded since it's moving up in multiples of root 2 which is irrational).

It's not just f/6.3 max apertures though, a 2x converter on something like a 180 f/3.5 macro would give you a f/7.1 max aperture.

The full stops count up in multiples of root 2 which halfs amount of light every stop, but you can set it anywhere in between. For example, some older lenses have aperture rings that don't click to set values, so it's just a sliding scale. A 2x tc doesn't do anything special with the aperture, it's simply doubling the focal length while the maximum aperture stays the same size, which doubles the f/stop thus losing two stops of light.

 

[heidfirst]

you see this is my main issue I think. Why do I have to look at older tech (although in some cases they are probbaly still optically as good as new versions). Its a royal pain in the ass, I spend more time looking for gear than i do in the field actually taking shots

even Nikon don't (yet) have a 70-200/4.
& the Canon won't be stabilised (unless you want to pay £900) whereas a beercan or a Sigma/Tamron 70-200/2.8 would be on an Alpha.
Same with the Tamron 17-50 (the VC version for CaNikon isn't as sharp as the older non-VC for Alpha).
Apart from a very few limited areas the lens options are out there.

 

[onomatopoeia]

This http://www.amazon.co.uk/Canon-70-20...1?ie=UTF8&s=electronics&qid=1276871602&sr=1-1 is less than a monkey !!! and its an L series

This http://www.amazon.co.uk/SONY-SAL-70...1?s=electronics&ie=UTF8&qid=1331753800&sr=1-1 is over a grand (not the same comparison I know)

You are comparing two different lenses. The difference between f/4 and f/2.8 is huge, both in physical size and weigh of the lens and pricing.

Please compare a stabilised Canon 70-200/2.8 L with the Sony lens for price, for that will be a valid comparison. (Incidentally the Sony lens has gone up a lot in the last few years, I almost bought one new for £1080 three years back at Focus, ended up getting one s/h later).


The beercan is excellent on the a700, I used one until I bought my 70-200/2.8G, only problem with it is some CA on bright edges, mine was sharp all the way to f/4. Wish I'd kep it really for when I don't want to lug over a kilo of lens around.

My lenses have mostly come from dyxum or ebay, I'm sure more patience is required than Canikon users need, but I've managed to get everything I need without massive trauma.

 

[Soulman]

I recently switched from a A900 with a selection of "good" minolta lenses back to a much older canon 1Ds mk2 just because of the lack of affordable, quality lenses. On the A900 all of the older lenses (km17-35, minolta 50/1.7, minolta 24-105 and a beercan) just weren't up to the job and couldn't be used wide open, were slow to focus, had lots of fringing and soft edges and corners.

If you can afford them then the G lenses and CZ lenses make the alpha system competative and the A900 was a joy to use, unfortunately I can get better results with an 8 year old body and the three F4 zooms (17-40, 24-105 and 70-200) for my work. Just backs up the glass first ethos people pu forward...

 

[heidfirst]

the three F4 zooms (17-40, 24-105 and 70-200) for my work. Just backs up the glass first ethos people pu forward...

I bet that you paid a lot more (even s/h) for them though than the ~£600 that your 4 A-mount lenses would have cost s/h ?
I would be very surprised if the the 50/1.7 was slow to focus, the 17-35 2.8-4 is known to have variable copies [I'm assuming that it wasn't the 17-35/3.5 G].
Tbh I would class those 3 A-mount lenses as average rather than good, the beercan is good (exceptional even) for it's s/h price but I don't think that anyone really considers it as a true competitor for a modern 70-200/4 or 2.8 & I would suggest that if you had spent the same amount on A-mount glass as I suspect that you did on Canon you could have achieved better.
I know that David Kilpatrick preferred the 24-85 to the 24-105 on the A900 but if you genuinely needed that little extra range then yes, on FF it is 1 of the genuine gaps in the range.

I can understand that there may well have been valid reasons for going with the 1DS Mkii as a body over the A900 (after all it was once a £6000 body) or indeed the system for pro support but I find the glass argument hard apart from a few exotics & a quality ~24-120.

 

[wildman]

I still find it hard to agree with you Heid. I understand where you are coming from but can you really compare the beercan to the 70-200 F4 L series and say they come out in the same ballpark ?

This is the problem I see for Alpha owners, we have to simply 'make do' with the old minolta generation glass that is kicking around. Cannon owners get to choose new (well newer than Minolta range) glass that has good to superior IQ for a failry reasonable price and can source it directly from a high street vendor / on-line direct vendor. Alpha owners have to scrape the barrel in ebay, 2nd hand market to get a look in for this range / quality. That's what ****es me off. Why do I have to crawl through 2nd hand sites in the hope I might get a good copy beer-can, rather than go to the high-street try the lens firs, if its a good copy buy it. Or better yet if I receive a bad copy from an e-tailer send it back under distance selling rules or ask for another one in exchange.

yeah I can likely get my money back from an ebay seller providing they are not a scum-bag but that's not the point as I still won't have the glass I wanted or needed.

If you give a starving man a Jacob's cream cracker he will of course tell you it's the best god damn meal he ever had (quote Eddie Murphy) and currently that's how I feel a lot of alpha owners are. They simply have to be content with some of the dross available to them because there simply is nothing else better, while our cannon cousins gorge themselves at the lens banquet table...................

In the last 4 weeks I have been in and out of dozens of Photography stores in my area and the story is the same everytime. Canikkon used glass falling off the shelves, with the alpha shelf being dustier than old mother hubards cupboard (both new and used !!!!)

Even on Jessops, over 50% of the current alpha glass range is flagged as out of stock. A simple search on jessops reveals this. Go to the lens section selection Cannon AF fit, and sort by popular, every single lens on the first page is in stock ready for delivery. now select Sony A-mount and filter the same way, more than half are either out of stock or need special delivery circa 28 days.

Even these forums, look at classified, Cannon gets its own section, Nikkon gets its own section.... where is Alpha, dumped into another section with 'other + film'

 

[Rajkay]

That's the same reason I sold my beloved a300 and got a 7d just felt hacked off that every lens and accessory was so much more £ and harder to obtain! Though I do damn miss in body stabilisation with anything you stick on the front!

 

[Soulman]

But there isn't the equivalent money lenses, there may be better alpha mount lenses than the three f4 canon L's but they are a damn site more expensive. The gap between beer can and 70-200g is £1k secondhand and the 70-300g isn't as good as the 70-200L. Same at 24-whatever zoom the only real option is the zeiss which generally fetches £1k used.

I paid £1200 for all 3 in good condition but save half the difference in body price.

 

[wildman]

But there isn't the equivalent money lenses, there may be better alpha mount lenses than the three f4 canon L's but they are a damn site more expensive. The gap between beer can and 70-200g is £1k secondhand and the 70-300g isn't as good as the 70-200L. Same at 24-whatever zoom the only real option is the zeiss which generally fetches £1k used.

I paid £1200 for all 3 in good condition but save half the difference in body price.

This is exactly my main Beef. There is no equivalent at the same price point. To get similar IQ you have to go to the F2.8 G series which presents over a 1000 quid difference in price from the 70-200 F4 L offering for cannon users which I feel is at a great price point for the normal 'enthusiast'. Spending close to 1500 quid is not. If I was a pro it wouldn't matter I would just spend with wild abandon and get a bag full of Zeiss and G.

 

[heidfirst]

but can you really compare the beercan to the 70-200 F4 L series and say they come out in the same ballpark ?

No & I said so - but then again you can't get an equivalent for the beercan in Canon mount for similar money.
On the other hand you can get a 70-200/2.8 which will be stabilised for similar money to an unstabilised 70-200/4.

This is the problem I see for Alpha owners, we have to simply 'make do' with the old minolta generation glass that is kicking around. Cannon owners get to choose new (well newer than Minolta range) glass that has good to superior IQ for a failry reasonable price and can source it directly from a high street vendor / on-line direct vendor. Alpha owners have to scrape the barrel in ebay, 2nd hand market to get a look in for this range / quality. That's what ****es me off. Why do I have to crawl through 2nd hand sites in the hope I might get a good copy beer-can, rather than go to the high-street try the lens firs, if its a good copy buy it.

You don't have to - other than for a few exotics there are decent brand new options available in Alpha mount albeit it may mean buying a Sigma or Tamron for a few. & I don't find a problem buying new lenses - more than enough vendors.
Certainly the growth in Alpha sales has meant that the available pool of s/h lenses is smaller relative to demand than it used to be but there is virtually always what you want available somewhere within a short period of time.
& you seem to not be taking into account that every lens is stabilised on Alpha - therefore there are more stabilised lenses available than for either Canon or Nikon.

 

[heidfirst]

But there isn't the equivalent money lenses, there may be better alpha mount lenses than the three f4 canon L's but they are a damn site more expensive. The gap between beer can and 70-200g is £1k secondhand and the 70-300g isn't as good as the 70-200L. Same at 24-whatever zoom the only real option is the zeiss which generally fetches £1k used.

well buy a Sigma or Tamron 70-200/2.8 - you'll gain a stop & be stabilised ...
Sigma do a decent 24-70/2.8 & Tamron have 1 coming.
ZAs tend to go for ~£900 afaik (Mifsuds had 1 recently).
The 24-85 tends to go for ~£100-120.
I did agree that if you want a 24-1xx in FF that it's a noticeable gap.

I paid £1200 for all 3 in good condition but save half the difference in body price.

a quick look suggests that a s/h 1DS Mkii is ~£1300 - similar to an A900 so I don't see a saving?

 

[Soulman]

I'm not a fan of Sigma or Tamron to be honest, tried a few and not been impressed, also heard lots of issues with QC on both brands.

I'm not trying to say Canon is better just different. I just the A900 needed the best Alpha glass available to get the best from it and I couldn't afford it, the 1ds mk2 probably doesn't overly tax the glass I have ( and it cost £950 ) so any body upgrades in the future should only get more out of the glass I have, so in effect he opposite to what I felt when I had the Sony system.

Most of the mid range Sony lenses are mildly reworked Tamron or minolta lenses which just don't cut it with the A900 anywhere near wideopen, I found myself shooting at F8 most of the time to combat low contrast and fringing.

 

[wildman]

I'm not a fan of Sigma or Tamron to be honest, tried a few and not been impressed, also heard lots of issues with QC on both brands.

I'm not trying to say Canon is better just different. I just the A900 needed the best Alpha glass available to get the best from it and I couldn't afford it, the 1ds mk2 probably doesn't overly tax the glass I have ( and it cost £950 ) so any body upgrades in the future should only get more out of the glass I have, so in effect he opposite to what I felt when I had the Sony system.

Most of the mid range Sony lenses are mildly reworked Tamron or minolta lenses which just don't cut it with the A900 anywhere near wideopen, I found myself shooting at F8 most of the time to combat low contrast and fringing.

So are you saying if you want to go FF then Alpha is not he way to go unless you are flush ? I still live in hope that by the time I want to make the move to FF sony will be better positioned in the glass market. I am also hoping that the release of the A99 will come with a few new lens options.

 

[gary43]

Having recently converted from Canon to Sony; I had about six years experience of Canon bodies (40D up to 1DsIII) and lenses including Canon's: 16-35LII, 24LII, 35L, 50L, 85LI, 100L, 200LII, 300Lf4 and f2.8, 500L, 600L, 24-70L, 70-200f4LIS, 70-200f2.8ISL I and II) etc.... I have a bit of a view on some of the points raised above.

Firstly, this list includes some amazing gear as you can imagine and I am now lucky enough to have some nice Sony lenses including the 24-70 and 85f1.4 but also some older Minolta stuff. It is important to realise that the good Canon gear is crushingly expensive even second-hand nowadays.

Secondly, before selling any of my Canon gear I did a lot of comparative testing and was suprised how well the alpha mount stuff performed; I would not have made the switch otherwise. I did this in a very phased way. Some things like the screw drive I'm not keen on compares to Canon's USM but things like the in-body stabilisation I really like about the Sony bodies.

Thirdly, in short, I am very happy with the switch. The a77 plus alpha mount lenses TO ME is more fun and gives ME better images than the 7D it replaced with some nice Canon glass attached. OOI, I do a mix of photography from weddings to gigs to wildlife.

Fourthly, I am though gambling on a decent FF camera coming out sometime and really do hope the a99 will be good when it arrives - 24MP of high iso shooting machine for GBP2000 would do me very nicelly, Mr Sony ! This is definitely a gamble ! If I were a full-time pro shooter I think I would have stuck with Canon for the 5D2 body. Hopefully a99 will compare well with 5D2 in low available-light situations.

Bottom lline is, the grass is not always greener in Canikon land and even though it might be a bit of a pain getting hold of alpha mount gear it is not exactly impossible either. I have put Sony gear up against Canon gear in lots of shootouts and find old Minolta glass to be as good as anything Canon can put up and the Zeiss lenses to be possilby better than the Canon equivalents.

Just my GBP0.02 worth.

 

[Soulman]

From my point of view as someone, due to a change in circumstances, trying to make a bit of a living from photography, the Alpha system has some superb bits of kit in it but to get the best from the A900 (and whatever follows it) needs the best glass available for it. This means spending lots of money, the two Zeiss zooms (no doubt better than the canon equivalents) are rare secondhand and will usually set you back £1k each (or £1300 each new) and th 70-200 is priced to match the canikon equivalents.

The A77 is a great bit of kit and I almost swapped the A900 for one and if shooting a crop body feel that an A77 with Tokina 11-16, sony 16-50 and the 70-300g would have been a better and cheaper bet than either the canon or nikon equivalents.

Gary I agree that the best of he Alpha mount glass takes some beating but it was out of my reach financially, I wanted to stick with full frame and thought better glass was a better long term option, I can also, hopefully look forward to the 5d mk3 in the future and rent any specialist lenses I may need for projects. Hopefull Sony will produce another cracking FF body for all the alpha users

 

[odd jim]

I'm not a fan of Sigma or Tamron to be honest, tried a few and not been impressed, also heard lots of issues with QC on both brands.

I'm not trying to say Canon is better just different. I just the A900 needed the best Alpha glass available to get the best from it and I couldn't afford it, the 1ds mk2 probably doesn't overly tax the glass I have ( and it cost £950 ) so any body upgrades in the future should only get more out of the glass I have, so in effect he opposite to what I felt when I had the Sony system.

Most of the mid range Sony lenses are mildly reworked Tamron or minolta lenses which just don't cut it with the A900 anywhere near wideopen, I found myself shooting at F8 most of the time to combat low contrast and fringing.

The Sigma 70-200 f/2.8 EX is a stunning lens. If you choose to ignore it, it kind of wipes out your argument about the lack of decent affordable 70-200 Sony mount lenses and you may as well end the thread here!

Go out and try one.

 

[Soulman]

I'm sure there are many good copies of the Sigma available (which version do you mean) but they have a reputation of being a bit of a lottery as to whether you get a good one. My main issue with Sigma is the colour rendition, every one I've owned has a very yellow cast to the colours that I dislike. I didn't dismiss it just stated my preference not to use third party lenses if I can manage it.

 

[gary43]

I've had the Siggy 70-200f2.8 HSM version (Canon fit) and I agree with Jim that it is a really high quality lens. You have to pixel peep to extraordinary degrees to discriminate it from the Canon versions which are over twice the price (used).

Back to the OP though, wildman if you want something like a 70-200f4 the Sigma 100-300f4 is just as good (plus or minus the odd few tens of mm in focal length) in every way.

Sigma lenses do generate a bit of yellow colour cast but that can easilly be addressed in PP if it annoys.

Having tried so much gear over the years I am happy that the Sony range fits my needs lens-wise and I shoot a bit of a mix. I know they are expensive but I think a Sony 24-70, 85f1.4 and 50f1.4 would fill most peoples needs with really great glass. I am aware shorter and longer glass is available BTW.

Des, good luck with the photo jobs. You will need to be pretty busy to afford the 5D3 !
Seriously, good luck.

Gary

 

[Soulman]

Thanks Gary, i would probably have stayed with Sony if i could have afforded the 24-70 and 16-35, I didn't shoot much over 100mm generally but have been doing far more kid portraiture (not posed so often between 70 and 200 outdoors) and animal work so the AF and 70-200 have been getting a bit of a workout.

The 5d3 will have to wait a couple of years but I'm happy I've got good, lightweight glass that will last a lifetime and cover most of my paid shooting requirements. I think the A77 is an amazing bit of kit and very nearly went with it as my main camera, enjoy the Alpha kit, those Minolta lenses produce a beautiful and distnct ivecolour palette...

 

[seriousrikk]

No & I said so - but then again you can't get an equivalent for the beercan in Canon mount for similar money.

Apart from the Canon EF 70-210mm F4, of course.

 

[Faldrax]

There are not the constant f/4 lenses in the Sony linup (or via 3rd party) without going for older s/h lenses like the Minolta 70-210 f/4.

However, the Sony 70-300G is only slightly slower (4.5-5.6), and has the range to 300mm. It is also a G lens - the Sony / Minolta equivelent of the Canon L.

The Tamron 70-300 Di USD is also highly rated, and significantly cheaper than the Sony G.

 

[heidfirst]

Apart from the Canon EF 70-210mm F4, of course.

not stabilised (beercan is due to SSS). :shrug: I have absolutely no idea of it's s/h value either.

Sigma 100-300/4 is another good alternative for Alpha.

Soulman, if I was earning my living from photography I almost certainly would be shooting CaNikon too bit it would be largely due to the professional support & rental opportunities rather than lack of Alpha glass.

 

[odd jim]

Apart from the Canon EF 70-210mm F4, of course.

Was thinking about getting an old FD mount 70-210 f/4 after seeing one VERY cheap in LCE today! I know the FD is MF only so no use to me for sports (I have the Siggy 70-200 for that!) but I reckon it would make a beautiful portrait lens as the IQ from these old but solid lenses looks very nice! Hmmmm....

 

[heidfirst]

it gets interesting - David Kilpatrick has tested a beercan against a Canon 70-200/4 IS & his conclusion "Most of all, comparing this lens with the relatively expensive and much larger Canon it’s clear that the performance is either equal, or better." :O
http://www.photoclubalpha.com/2012/03/24/minolta-70-210mm-f4-versus-canon-70-200mm-f4-l-is/

 

[BacktotheFuji]

The EF 70-210/4 is still a cracker and can be had for around £80. Beware though, the older FD lens is a different design and does not perform as well. Also, it will not work on an Eos without a glass adapter which will affect iq and act as a teleconverter. BTW I swapped from Sony a while back. The beercan really disappointed me after the hype. The purple fringing was painful if you got the conditions wrong.

 

[Chobber]

Sony 70300G is awesome.