1. Reminder: Please use our affiliate links for holiday shopping!

SEL70200G or SEL70300G

Discussion in 'Sony Alpha E-Mount Lenses' started by WestOkid, Sep 7, 2016.

  1. WestOkid

    WestOkid TalkEmount All-Pro

    Jan 25, 2014
    New Jersey, USA
    Gary
    I need some help choosing between the SEL70200G and the SEL70300G

    I've been researching native telephoto options for use with my a6000 and A7r. Currently, I'm using a Canon 70-300 IS USM with a Fotodiox Auto AF adapter. I only went that route because at the time there were no native options. I really don't like adapters for a number of reasons, but don't want to debate that topic.

    I was leaning towards the 70300G simply because I thought the extra reach would be useful and I read it was F/4.5 through 150mm. However, after seeing shots from this lens, I'm not so sure. I don't know what it is, but to me the images it produces looks very digital, whereas the 70-200 seems to produce a more realistic rendering. I know @Kiwi Paul@Kiwi Paul and others recently purchased the lens and seem pleased, but I don't like what I'm seeing from a >$1100 lens. One example is birds. The feathers look sharp, but they also look crisp instead of feathery. It's like it only captures the outline of things and not the nuances (maybe micro-contrast?). This is the same reason why I dislike my SEL55210.
    I also want to use it as a portrait lens. This crispy rendering wouldn't be great in that application either.

    I realize this is subjective, because Paul and others are obviously happy.
    Am I seeing something that isn't there? or do others understand what I'm talking about and agree?
    Has anyone used both? Is there a difference in rendering?

    I want to make sure I make the right choice because excluding the GM these are the only 2 native teles available and they are very expensive.

    Thanks for any help.
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
  2. Kiwi Paul

    Kiwi Paul TalkEmount Veteran

    334
    Feb 14, 2016
    Aberdeen, Scotland
    Paul
    My most recent bird photos (Ducks and Geese) were taken in very harsh light and while nothing was blown out I've found the high contrast can reduce detail and nuances. I had to wind the highlights right back in post to bring out any detail in white feathers etc so those photos aren't really the best to judge the lens performance by. They were mostly quite severe post crops as well as the birds weren't that close so the resolution is very much reduced. The largest post crop shot was only 18MP and the smallest 6MP and the others in between, so considering its a 42MP sensor you can see there is a lot of post cropping involved so the quality is compromised and the resolution reduced. With that in mind I think they came out very well but maybe not showing how good the lens can be, the harsh lighting been the worst culprit.
    Also all the shots were taken with the lens wide open f5.6 and at ISO ranging from 200 to 800. The lens may well have more pronounced detail when stopped down a bit.
    Possibly my processing is a bit harsh with those shots too, I was trying to get as much detail out to compensate for the lower resolution and poor quality light so possibly over sharpened and a bit much on the clarity adjustment.
    The 70-300 is a much better lens that the 55-210. I have got a few shots taken with the Canon 70-200 f4 L lens but these were taken in more favourable conditions so not really comparing apples with apples and also the birds are completely different so can't really be subjective.
    If the weather is favourable tomorrow I'll try to get out and rattle some more duck shots off from the local loch and post them, hopefully the light will be kinder and I'll be able to get close shots so the resolution isn't reduced.

    Paul
     
    Last edited: Sep 7, 2016
    • Informative Informative x 2
    • Like Like x 1
  3. WestOkid

    WestOkid TalkEmount All-Pro

    Jan 25, 2014
    New Jersey, USA
    Gary
    Thanks Paul. I really appreciate you taking the time to explain with such detail. The lighting and cropping does explain a lot. Looking forward to the pics if you have an opportunity.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  4. Kiwi Paul

    Kiwi Paul TalkEmount Veteran

    334
    Feb 14, 2016
    Aberdeen, Scotland
    Paul
    Having read reviews on both lenses, they both get very good reports, it seems the 70-200 is favoured by some due to its constant f4 aperture and overall the general opinion seems to suggest it does have the edge in IQ. But most of the reviews state if the extra reach of the 70-300 is something you value and can cope with the f4.5-5.6 aperture then it's a fine lens.
    It does appear it benefits from stopping down, at 300 mm f8 - f16 gives the absolute best according to one review, although they stated even wide open at 300mm it was still a very good performer.
     
    • Like Like x 2
  5. unlo

    unlo Sony ******

    Jan 19, 2014
    Ohio
    Matt
    @WestOkid@WestOkid If you take a look through my post The Wilds nearly all save the first, and the spider pic were taken with the SEL70300 albeit on the a6300
     
    • Like Like x 1
  6. WestOkid

    WestOkid TalkEmount All-Pro

    Jan 25, 2014
    New Jersey, USA
    Gary
    Thanks Matt.

    Those do look very nice:thumbup:. I remember when you posted those. Did you try the 70-200?
     
  7. unlo

    unlo Sony ******

    Jan 19, 2014
    Ohio
    Matt
    I wanted to try all the lenses. But we were responsible for all the stuff they loaned out. And I wasn't sure about being in an open air bus riding around a bunch of animals juggling lenses. So the body and the lenses I grabbed were more than enough. Mind you i also had with me my Tamaron 70-300 and Minolta 200 2.8

    Sent from my A0001 using Tapatalk
     
    • Like Like x 1
  8. NickCyprus

    NickCyprus Super Moderator

    Oct 11, 2012
    Cyprus
    Nick
    That's a tough one Gary... Basically you're looking for opinions from somebody who had both lenses...I'm very happy with me FE 70-200 f4 G but I never tried the FE 70-300 so I can't compare/be helpful :(

    I agree with Matt @unlo@unlo : if you value to extra 100mm reach, go with the 70-300. IQ seems good and comparable and F4 is not exactly fast either so the light gathering isn't a signifacant factor deciding IMO (if it were 2.8 ok).
     
    • Like Like x 2
  9. unlo

    unlo Sony ******

    Jan 19, 2014
    Ohio
    Matt
    @ the end of the day after shooting with both of my adapted lenses. I walked away feeling confident I could keep both and just buy the body. And not miss out on native lenses. I know you already stated you want to be adapter free. But in my case I'm already invested in both the laea3 and 4. And for a lot less $$$. That being said. I loved how light weight the native 70-300 felt. Of course it wasn't available when i got my lenses and adapters.

    Sent from my LG-V500 using Tapatalk
     
    Last edited: Sep 8, 2016
    • Like Like x 1
  10. Kiwi Paul

    Kiwi Paul TalkEmount Veteran

    334
    Feb 14, 2016
    Aberdeen, Scotland
    Paul
    One of the reasons I preferred the 70-300 was it fits into all my bags so I was able to sell both Canon 70-200 and the Sony 55-210, the 70-200 is too long to fit into my Crumpler Light Delight 4000 bag where the 70-300 fits in nicely (without hood) even attached to the A6000, the Crumpler bag is my compact, easy access, lightweight (ish) APS-C kit bag comprising the A6000, 10-18, 16-50 and now 70-300.



     
    • Like Like x 1
    • Informative Informative x 1
  11. unlo

    unlo Sony ******

    Jan 19, 2014
    Ohio
    Matt
    • Like Like x 2
    • Informative Informative x 2
  12. WestOkid

    WestOkid TalkEmount All-Pro

    Jan 25, 2014
    New Jersey, USA
    Gary
    Thanks Matt. It looks pretty good. Funny thing about the samples he chose is that many seem to be either missed focus or I don't get the subject. Either way, the ones where I understand the focus looks good. I may be leaning back to this lens.
     
  13. unlo

    unlo Sony ******

    Jan 19, 2014
    Ohio
    Matt
    Yea after reading the article on my tab and then visiting it again on my laptop I sort of felt the same way. After paging through some of his other reviews it seems it may just be how he shoots. I didn't have any issues nailing focus where i wanted it with the a6300. If you'd like i can post some more samples and provide un touched raws if you are Really interested.

    Sent from my A0001 using Tapatalk
     
    • Like Like x 1
  14. WestOkid

    WestOkid TalkEmount All-Pro

    Jan 25, 2014
    New Jersey, USA
    Gary
    Thanks Matt. Much appreciated.

    It's up to you. I'm fine with what I have seen. It looks like it's a good lens. I just wish someone had both to compare.

    Now I just have to sell my Canon 73-300 and the SEL55210 and make a decision.
     
  15. Kiwi Paul

    Kiwi Paul TalkEmount Veteran

    334
    Feb 14, 2016
    Aberdeen, Scotland
    Paul
    A friend of Mikes has the 70-200, I'll see if I can borrow it then I can do a comparison, I'd be curious too.

    Here's 5 more duck shots straight off the press this morning, overcast day so nice diffuse light, ducks were being co-operative and getting in close.
    I set the A7R2 to manual, fixed shutter and aperture to 1/1000 and f8, turned off OSS and used my mono pod to keep things steady. The only caveat now is the ISO was anywhere between 1000 - 2000. I also used flexible spot focusing with the smallest square selected and focused on the ducks head in every shot. All at 300mm I think.
    All the shots are full frame, RAW, no post cropping and just a bit of pp in LR but nothing very radical.
    So in theory this is as good as it gets.
    One thing that sticks out is how shallow the DOF is, even at f8, in some shots even though I focused on the head the end of the ducks bill is already slightly oof.
    I attached large images too (1600 x 1068).

    28934631174_027328eab2_h.

    28934629844_de40ad773a_h.

    29450527112_10560c6e98_h.

    28934627794_263afaf375_h.

    29525947776_d1ca008629_h.
     
    Last edited: Sep 9, 2016
    • Like Like x 4
  16. WestOkid

    WestOkid TalkEmount All-Pro

    Jan 25, 2014
    New Jersey, USA
    Gary
    Thanks Paul. Much appreciated! I see what you mean about the shallow DOF, but that aside, these look good. In fact they they look very good considering the ISO.
     
  17. unlo

    unlo Sony ******

    Jan 19, 2014
    Ohio
    Matt
    yea those 42mp do wonders!

    Just for my own curiosity, when you turn off OSS on the lens does IBIS Still kick in?
     
    Last edited: Sep 9, 2016
  18. Kiwi Paul

    Kiwi Paul TalkEmount Veteran

    334
    Feb 14, 2016
    Aberdeen, Scotland
    Paul
    I turned off OSS using the switch on the lens and it turned off all image stabilisation (lens and camera).
     
  19. Kiwi Paul

    Kiwi Paul TalkEmount Veteran

    334
    Feb 14, 2016
    Aberdeen, Scotland
    Paul
    Here's 2 shots, one with the 70-200 and the other with the 70-300 @200mm, both 1/500, f8, ISO250, OSS turned off using a mono pod. Unprocessed RAW shots.
    Not a very interesting subject but it all I had time to do. The foliage offers a good comparison of the resolution and fine detail performance.
    Looking at 100% the 70-200 is marginally sharper overall, the 70-300 is a bit soft at the bottom RHS, but nothing in it really.

    70-200
    29479304162_7718e37118_h.

    70-300

    29589162525_9c952d670a_h.
     
    Last edited: Sep 11, 2016
    • Like Like x 1
  20. bdbits

    bdbits TalkEmount Veteran

    401
    Sep 10, 2015
    Bob
    Both of them are horrible near the center though, I mean just look at the jaggies along that roof line. ;)
     
    • Funny Funny x 3
    • Like Like x 1