View Full Version : SONY 70-200mm f/2.8 G SSM

10-18-2007, 01:41 PM
As you well know, I have waited as long as I could concerning the SONY 70-200mm f/2.8 G SSM lens ... hoping to avert buying it by opting to get the TAMRON SP AF 70-200mm f/2.8 Di LD. Sadly, TAMRON didn't make it to the gate and the need has arose. So, the big white lens returns to my bag ... to allow for low light photography to continue. I did mitigate the costs as best I could, though, opting to source it from B&H Photo, rather than the SONY-Style site and saving an additional $100 plus some tax. The lens had a price reduction, since August, which also made it far more attractive to my wallet (I have to watch that wallet closer though ... it seems to have an affinity for pricey, glass objects).

I considered struggling with the TAMRON 90mm f/2.8 and the TAMRON 180mm f/3.5, but since I'm handing off the Photography chores to my brother, during this event ... having him swap these lenses in and out of the A700 just doesn't seem prudent ... nor does the idea of having him fight between the A100 with one lens and the A700 with another. The potential costs could be far more than just a lost shot or two. It could be some busted glass ... uh, no thanks. :(

Look, I'm not implying that he's clumsy or anything of that sort, but we all know that swapping glass is ALWAYS tricky, especially when you are under pressure to "get the shot." Keeping it simple, in this regard, just seems all too obvious. The more I thought about it, the worse the anxiety got. What do you do? Heck, grab the plastic and solve the problem!

It just seems simpler ... albeit a bit more pricey. I really had been leaning toward the SONY lens, anyway ... but still, I would have rather had the choice, than no choice. Just watch, as always happens, a week after the event occurs ... the TAMRON lens will finally get released. I really did like the 0.95m (3.2-ft) minimum focus distance the TAMRON sports.

Anyway, it'll be here, next week. Superior firepower ... always seems the better solution.

Bottom line: "Gear up & GET THE SHOT!"

Aw geez ... I need a bigger bag! :eek:

(playing softly in the background "Don't cry for me, Argentina (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kx9f11m0zgc)") - okay, perhaps that's a bit cynical ... just struck me funny

10-18-2007, 03:17 PM
I wish I had your budget.
The lens appears to have excellent build quality and MTF resolution.
Kudos on the purchase.

10-18-2007, 04:02 PM
I feel that if your needs are there, then buy what you need. I got a lot of use out of the Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS USM when I had it. It was a supremely useful lens and I know I will find this one to be "clearly" the same.

Next year's photography should begin to pay for these "investments."

You know, what I do find amusing is that B&H Photo has this lens in stock, at a lower price ... and that the online SONY Style store does not. :confused:

I'm not going to bark about it, though, since the SONY Style 15% off "camera-registration offer" does not include cameras, lenses or lens shields.

10-18-2007, 08:36 PM
Well, I was actually going to shell out for this lens yesterday.
I put some careful thought into it, and well.... unfortunately...

...this happened.
Sorry to say it, but I had to make a difficult decision.
I ended up buying the Canon version of the same lens. The 70-200 2.8 L IS USM is sitting on a loaner 5d for the time being. I'm in the middle of justifying a 1d mk3 over the 40d.
I'm gonna miss you guys, but i'll keep you posted.

10-18-2007, 09:29 PM
Well ... I'm not abandoning SONY for Canon ... having been in Canon's camp for the past two years ... and was only left WANTING. It's kind like building a church and forgetting the steeple.

My EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS USM was sold ... and not for being anything bad ... but because I just gave up WANTING something more for my other lenses ... not fortunate enough to have been built with IS inside each and every one.

Good luck with your Canon decision ... perhaps the tide has been turned with the focus issues the EOS 1D MKIII is having. We can only hope ... as their approach is kind of like what they did with the screw-up concerning the EF 70-300mm f/4-5.6 IS USM ... and its vertical-orientation problem. It took months to correct that problem, also. Then, mysteriously, it was never spoken of afterwards. The technical bulletin was removed from the website information screen for the lens and never seen, again.

QC can be a scary business. It means it's going to cost someone money.

Enjoy your swim, Vega, in the Sea of Quality Control Doubt and Uncertainty ... I'll toss you a towel, later. :p

10-19-2007, 04:35 PM
I'm not jumping because I dislike the sony systems. In fact, it's quite the opposite. I LOVE my a100. For the money, it's a fantastic camera with cool features. The a700 looks to be the same and I had 100% intended on buying one. I honestly was about to order the sony 70-200, but I realized that for future purposes, in the line of work I want to get into, Canon made the most sense.

System vs. System really doesn't matter. It's which brand is considered the "industry standard" which made my decision for me.

I'm happy to see that the focusing issue has been solved, because there is a VERY good chance that I'll be picking up a mk3.

10-23-2007, 04:36 PM
Okay ... here's where the rubber meets the road.

Inside the shipping container ... a valuable ... a very valuable ... well, in certain circles of course. ;)

Count the elements, folks ... they're on the box.


It even looks good when you sneak up on it ...

So, when your spouse asks: "Hey Honey, whadda want for Christmas, this year?"

You can gleefully turn around, without a second word of explanation ... armed with only a copy print from DonSchap's SONY 70-200mm f/2.8 G thread and say:



And when you finally get them out of the box ... you get



A killer dreadnought ready for the most serious of down-the-aisle-shot weddings ... ballroom dinner parties ... what have you.

'Nuff said, now go enjoy your Holiday Season ;)

11-20-2007, 05:39 PM
Well, after trying out the SAL 70-200 f/2.8 G, I discovered, after I took it outside that my aperture failed to close down. No matter what aperture setting I put in, the camera would indicate it was changed and set ... but the lens physically disagreed ... it stayed wide-open at f/2.8. After some closer inspection, I found the aperture arm inside of the lens was getting hung up during shutter release. The camera body tried to throw the aperture down to its set point ... but the lens' aperture arm resisted enough to prohibit blade activation.

Anyway ... the problem would be impossible to correct without opening the optic. It went back to SONY. I have decided not to purchase this lens, at this time, due to my belief that there is a possible "QC-issue" present with the 70-200mm f/2.8 G that I simply do not want to deal with. I will use my inventory of various other glass to make up the difference for the current holiday season.

I know there are members who will gleeful point and guffaw about this turn of events, but I still believe the SONY system is definitely worth investing in. As I have explained in other threads, this particular lens was chancy ... due to the fact that many units were "shelved" for nearly two years, during the Minolta/SONY transition. What happened to these units, when they were "rebadged", is a matter left to question. Their handling could have been compromised. I believe that is the source of the "QC-issue" and it has not been completely ferreted out, yet. I have gotten a defective one and it has gone back.

Believe me when I say this lens design is amazing to look at ... compared to my earlier Canon 70-200mm f/2.8L IS USM. Both lenses are a terrific testimony to optical science. One day, perhaps, I will purchase another ... but for now, no.

I just wanted to make sure you all were honestly aware of why the lens in not in my gear list. As you could probably tell, I was excited about the prospect of having this lens in my bag ... but, it has to work to be of much use ... otherwise, it's just a $2000 piece of well-polished glass & machined-aluminum. Honestly, it still surprises me. :(