Review on 📷 Sony SAL70200G 70-200mm f/2.8 SSM Lens for Sony Alpha DSLR Camera (Previous Version) by Jessie Lopez

Here's another item that beats the competition, but is it worth the extra cost? Sigma no longer makes the 70-200mm f2.8 without IS and there is a version with lens IS for $1400 and I don't think it makes a difference to us Sony users. I don't have any empirical evidence that lens stabilization doesn't add anything if you have body stabilization as I couldn't find anything written about it and it would be technically pointless for them to work together to reduce vibration even further from the built in stabilization. For example, the stabilized Sigma costs twice as much as the old version, $1,400, and has taken older models to over $1,000 on the used car market. The Tamron is still very affordable at under $800 but suffers from very slow focus speeds. The optics test is on par with the Sony lens and surpasses the Sigma. Sigmas are fast but suffer from optical performance. So it's easy to argue that a 70-200mm f2.8 without major limitations requires the use of a $2,000 Sony lens, and several reviewers have posted comments to that effect. As with other professional quality devices, if you don't use these features, it's worthless to you. So if you're really just shooting portraits (or anything else where autofocus isn't crucial), the Tamron is a solid choice. Sigma isn't a new option because I don't think it makes sense to buy features you can't use. If you are looking for an old Sigma on the used car market, you should be able to find a used model on Ebay for less than $900. Sony has some features that others don't have. There is an additional button that can be used as a focus button or depth of field preview (if the camera supports it). I have a580 and it is supported and the DOF preview is pretty smooth; gives you a preview of what the background will look like with the currently selected settings. Saves the installation snapshot and the screen test. Focusing is quicker than others, but slow in low light (like most). The images are clear and the colors are excellent. Edge focus may not be as good as the Sigma or Tamron. In general, the lens doesn't have any notable downsides, and that's saying something. For us Sony owners, you can't bring a better tool with you, no question. Weight can be an issue for many of you. All telephoto reviews say the lens is heavy, but this lens is a beast! It weighs more than my old 100-300mm Sigma 100mm lens. It's obviously built like a tank, so take this for what it's worth. The question is, is it worth the extra dollars? I'm tempted to say no to most people but me :) I only carry a few pairs of lenses and I want each one to be the best I can wear to each class because I only have a pair of lenses. I used to have a Sigma 100-300 f4.0 and found this lens to be less preferred for video shooting, I wanted something faster and shorter. If you're mainly shooting outdoors, I think there are much more versatile lenses out there like the Sony 70-400mm where the extra aperture doesn't matter. I work a lot indoors without flash and this lens is great for that purpose and now that I have this fast beast I can put converters on it and it will work fine so it's very versatile in that regard. This is the best 70 200mm f2.8 lens for Sony DSLR, no question. The question is whether it's worth the extra money, and in all the cases where I spend more instead of saving, that's the hardest thing to justify because the delta is just huge. If this lens cost $500 less I would easily recommend it, but due to the high cost of owning this lens currently. ******* Review updated **************** **************** 1.7.12 I was given the opportunity to use of the lens The Sigma 70-200mm F2.8 was a few weeks away from a friend of mine so I could make direct comparisons. Please look at the photos of each shot I've attached and try to replicate the same footage. The main thing I noticed is that Sony's focusing system is much better. I snapped a few shots in motion, and the Sony lens managed to rip off twice as many frames as it seemed when I asked it to refocus between frames. Also check out the shots I took to test the ability to focus and the Sony just shone. I snapped a picture of a box with a label and an open background and Sigma couldn't block, while Sony blocked immediately. Most interesting, however, was the shot of the aloe vera lotion; The picture was difficult to focus because the lotion bottle is transparent and the lotion is also translucent and the background was very light. A very difficult focusing task, and Sony Shinned. Sigma fixed but you can see for yourself the image quality was poor on the bottle itself. I like the colors on the Sigma (for those who like it warmer) and the sides are a bit better where the Sony is a bit sharper. However, the colors could be post-processed into the image, so it doesn't matter, and the Sigma's side was slightly better than the Sigma's. The feel of the Sigma lens was impressive. The all-black look and solid feel was as good as Sony's. The Sony lens looks like a pro lens due to the "white" factor, but if I didn't know better I'd say the Sigma looks better. So in terms of performance, my testing clearly showed that the Sony is definitely better than the Sigma. in almost every way, and in some cases much better. I have been told and read that the Sigma will match the Sigma in terms of speed and focusing ability and it is clear that this is not the case. I'll update this review if I ever get the chance to compare the Tamron live, but based on this review I can't recommend the Sigma lens at all. The Sigma I tested didn't have stabilization, and unless they've greatly improved performance, $1400 for a new lens is definitely a flop! Just one question left, can the Tamron as they say optically match Sony for 1/3 the price, that's the only reason I'm leaving my 4 star rating because let's face it, my Sony copy destroyed the Sigma copy I. Verified .