Sony 70-200mm and 70-400mm comparison

[stu7397]

Hello everyone - first post here from a new member to the forum.

Has anyone done a comparison of these 2 lenses, I was wondering what the effective difference is between a 70-200 with a 2x teleconverter and a 400mm lens (or a 70-200 with the internal teleconverter and a 400mm).

I expect that the 400mm would be better, but how much better is the question (would it be £1300 better essentially).

Thanks

[David Kilpatrick]

Hi and welcome! The simple fact is that neither the 70-200mm with 2X or the 70-400mm G, or the use of the internal digital converter function at 2X, will prove sharp enough if used wide open if you want a full 24 megapixel image off the A77. You are almost obliged to stop down to a working aperture of f/11 to get optimum results at 400mm - if you are lucky and conditions are right, f/8 can deliver. Presumably you are looking for f/5.6 to be OK. The closest you can get is to use 24 megapixels, shoot on the 70-200mm at 200mm, and crop the image to a mere 6 megapixels while working at f/5.6 - that will give you very good performance for a six megapixel image, which may be good enough for your intended size of use.

David

[stu7397]

Hi David,

Thanks for the reply, I have seen lots of images on the net and heard many different opinions about the sharpness (no doubt opinions which carry more weight than mine), however in all fairness I am yet to see the effective difference in sharpness between many of these images.

I can only assume that photographers are talking about blowing up their pictures to the sizes of billboards where the sharpness will be an issue, or that they have an expert eye - but it is not something that I have noticed in my amateur applications in all honesty.

I have had a go with a 70-200 and it looks OK to me with a Teleconverter, but I fancy having a go at some nature photography where the extra reach would be beneficial. Many people sing the praises of the 70-400, but I am not too keen on spending £1300 only to find out that there is no difference, or that the difference is so small that it is not worth paying £1300 for.

[tetragra]

Sony 70-400 GSM Soccer shot DSLR-A700 70-400mm F4.0-5.6 G SSM 160.0 mm (in 35mm: 240.0 mm)
1/1600 sec; f/8; ISO 640 Aperture priority; Pattern metering The A77 would do better, because of the faster burst rate for sports. Soccer and swimming. Re post of at larger size

[stu7397]

Hi Tetragra,

What sort of distance was this taken at approximately?

Thanks

[mikeriach]

When travelling light (if that is possible with G lenses) I leave the 70-400 at home and just do a big crop as David suggests. Provided I don't need the whole image I have found it to be perfectly acceptable.

If I expected to have to crop from a 400mm image then using the 70-200 alone is really only suitable for web sized images.
I have used a 1.4X (for emergencies) but my feeling is that the 70-400G would be better. At larger apertures, the converter image is OK but not excellent, you need to stop down quite a bit.
I rarely shoot wide open with either lens but at f8 the 70-400G is pretty good, watch out for heat haze which often ruins shots.

I never use the built in teleconverter in the A77 (can't use it in RAW anyway).

Mike

[tetragra]

The soccer shot was taken at about 30 yards. The auto focus goes wild at indoor swim meets, because of the
humidity. The shot below was taken outdoors at a 25 yard pool. The 70-400 is a great all round lens. I got mine at $1600.00 US, now its $2000.00.

[tetragra]

Last post for A-700 70-400mm F4.0-5.6 G SSM
This one at the same game was at 400mm 1/1000 sec; f/8; ISO 640.
All files were raw and processed in Lightroom 3 and 4.1.
Lightroom 4 is much better the adjustments are + or - from 0.
I also use Capture One and DXO 7. The colorchecker passport is a must for color.

[miltos]

The answer of David mentions the a77 (which I have). How would this answer look like for the a99 (which I also have)? I am still wondering which one of the two lenses to buy. And, of course, I am also wondering weather I should wait for the new lenses. Is there also a new 70-200G coming out or only the 70-400G?

[miltos]

The answer of David mentions the a77 (which I have). How would this answer look like for the a99 (which I also have)? I am still wondering which one of the two lenses to buy. And, of course, I am also wondering weather I should wait for the new lenses. Is there also a new 70-200G coming out or only the 70-400G?

[tetragra]

I have the 70-400 GSM with an A-700 and A-900. The new G2 70-400 is $2198. The old G is now 1798. the Nano coating is nice but is it worth the difference. The a99 should work even better.

[Mark K]

My 70-400G is very sharp, miles ahead of my Nikon 80-400VR and better than my sharp Canon 100-400L
Here is one using 1.4x, aperture wide open at 400mm

[tetragra]

The Sony 1.4x only works in manual Focus correct. I may get one for my 70-400 G.
I didn't know if it would work well.

[Mark K]

Mine is a Sigma....and works using manual focus and the sharpness is still there.