Taking Telephoto Landscape Photography to the Next Level: Sony 70-200 f4 G II Lens Review

[@obayedh]

Sold! Thanks for sharing your experience mate. :)

[@bobdrawbaugh4207]

I also had that Canon 70-200 F4 on a Canon APSC. It was a great lens. I moved long ago to F2.8 lenes. I’m purchasing my first Sony and this lens is at the top of my list.

[@summitbid]

I have fond memories of that canon 70-200 f4. Just was looking at a print of a shot I took with it and it was underrated even at the time.

[@tsizzle]

Great video! I saw your previous 2 lens recommendation which is this 70-200 f4 lens and the Sony 20-70mm f4 G. I do think that that’s a great combo. I wonder how that might compare to a 2 lens combo with the Tamron 17-50mm f4 and the Tamron 50-400mm f4.5-6.3 for landscape?

[@professionalpotato4764]

The Tamron 17-50 looks great, but a bit soft in the corners. If ultimate sharpness is key, the Sony 16-35 f4 PZ will be a better lens.

[@jasonperry6079]

I’m so close to pulling the trigger on this one. I really wanna see someone use the 2x teleconverter on it because I’d love to sell my 200-600 to make a lighter pack out.

[@eddy.alexandru]

Got the 20-70 and this 70-200 would complete it very well.

[@GlennKroeger]

Kemper: did you discuss your tripod/head setup in a video? Looks like an Acratech panorama head, but what legs?

[@salvirji]

Thats for the wonderful review. Is the 70 to 200 F2.8 sharp at 70mm and when fully extended at 200mm. Thanks

[@summitbid]

The 2.8 is razor sharp at all focal lengths!

[@SalVirji-i3l]

​@@summitbidglad to know, Thank you 😊

[@salvirji]

@@summitbid that's great to know, thanks 👍

[@chrisdera]

what about sigma 2.8?

[@jameiealehandro]

so for astrophotography get the 2.8 right ?

[@Gabriel-it5jy]

1.4

[@_HalfDuck_]

F4 vs F2.8 is just 1 stop of light, so you won't notice any real difference, you would have to go at least F1.8 to have a sustancial light advantage

[@HK-NYC]

Dust issues?