Photography question (Sony 70-200 f2.8 or f4)?

[150class]

So this week while riding around taking photos with the finance I've become extremely interested in photography. I would like to start doing some wildlife photography and she said chipping in for the Sony 70-200 f2.8 or f4 (e mount) would be extremely beneficial for her side photography business and would be a perfect lens for me to use. (By the way she has a Sony A7 and a Sony A7r and doesn't want adapters so Sony lenses only). She really wants the f2.8 and I cant find one freaking anywhere but just learned the release was delayed from last June until the beginning of this month and everywhere instantly went on back order.

So my question becomes is the extra light the f2.8 allows in worth the 1,000$ more and the apparent waiting period compared to the readily available f4? What distance, with decent light, could I expect good photos out to for either lens? Is 100 yards doable?

Lastly, to maybe make the difference easily understandable for me is the difference between the 2 lenses like comparing the vortex viper HD vs the vortex razor HD or like a Swarovski slc vs Swarovski el? Same brand but one model is just superior to the other? If the comparison makes since.

Thanks guys

[150class]

bump

[crawdaddct]

I have a old A5, so not sure if yours is the same, but I utilize a lot of old Minolta lenses. Sony bought Minolta and utilized their system. I have found very expensive lenses for $10.00 on ebay, because people think they are only for old cameras. Its definitely worth seeing if her cameras will use the Minolta lenses.

As far as the F stop goes, when trying to get wildlife you definitely need it, especially if photographing in lower light. As far as will a 200 work, it depends on what you are doing. I prefer a fixed 300, when reaching out there. Wish I could afford a 400-500, but don't have that kind of money. The good thing is with the high pixil count of the A7, you can do a lot in the editing room, kinda like we use to do in the dark room back in the old days.

[150class]

I have a old A5, so not sure if yours is the same, but I utilize a lot of old Minolta lenses. Sony bought Minolta and utilized their system. I have found very expensive lenses for $10.00 on ebay, because people think they are only for old cameras. Its definitely worth seeing if her cameras will use the Minolta lenses.

As far as the F stop goes, when trying to get wildlife you definitely need it, especially if photographing in lower light. As far as will a 200 work, it depends on what you are doing. I prefer a fixed 300, when reaching out there. Wish I could afford a 400-500, but don't have that kind of money. The good thing is with the high pixil count of the A7, you can do a lot in the editing room, kinda like we use to do in the dark room back in the old days.

Depending on how much I get into it a 400-500 but that would be mucho savings and way down the road.

I'll have to check on the compatibility with Minolta lens as I don't know off the top of my head.

I found a side by side comparison of the 2 70-200 lens and it looks like the f2 defienently has more pop to the photo. I still need to learn a lot of the terminology of photography to understand things more efficiently

[150class]

Been doing a ton of research the last few days and grasped the basics.

That being said whats the best lens to do some outdoor photography and longer distances?

Stick with the 70-200 f2.8 when it comes out? Ive been looking at the Sigma 150-600 sport but its crazy bulky

Thanks guys

[Patton]

Following as I just got a new camera, a Pentax K3. Currently My lenses are a Pentax 50mm, Sigma 70-300mm, and Pentax 300mm f/4. I think my next purchases will be a 16-35mm lens of sorts. I haven't really got to play with it all as much as I'd like, but that 300mm really pulls things in. I don't even know the terminology enough yet to discuss photography...

[150class]

Following as I just got a new camera, a Pentax K3. Currently My lenses are a Pentax 50mm, Sigma 70-300mm, and Pentax 300mm f/4. I think my next purchases will be a 16-35mm lens of sorts. I haven't really got to play with it all as much as I'd like, but that 300mm really pulls things in. I don't even know the terminology enough yet to discuss photography...

I just got the basics of the basics down and it was pretty confusing with ISO, Aperture, and Shutter speed as far as increasing #'s are actually decreasing it and what not.... So I am in no shape to discuss it in very much depth either lol

[nairb2580]

I don't know a lot myself, just a little, but I do know that some of the guys on here really like the Tamron 150-600MM lens for Canon and Nikon. Cant say if Tamron makes one for Sony or not but for wildlife, that seems to be a go to for several folks. If you search it on here you can see some of the pics they get with it. Its on my "one day" list! Good luck!

[Shane]

I'm not familiar with the Sony lens lineup, so I don't know what all is available. If the 70-200mm lenses' only difference is f/stop, then picture quality should be very similar. The only difference will be in low-light performance and a little bit of noticable difference in bokeh (background blur with foreground subject in sharp focus) in some shots (more bokeh with f/2.8). Whether the extra shutter speed in low light is worth the extra money is up to you. For several years I shot my son's sports. I started with a 70-200mm f/4 lens, and then I traded for a f/2.8 to get faster shutter speed in low light. It was worth every penny for the tens of thousands of pictures I took at football, basketball, and baseball games. But if you aren't going to be taking a lot of shots where faster shutter speeds mattered, it might not be worth it. The f/4 lens I had produced very sharp images - just as good as the f/2.8, but just not as fast on the shutter speeds.

[Ronnie41]

Your best photographers use the fastest lens they can get, which means more dollars. You have to decide if you are ready for that kind of quality. It sounds like your
girl friend could be of considerable help in your decisions.

[150class]

I'm not familiar with the Sony lens lineup, so I don't know what all is available. If the 70-200mm lenses' only difference is f/stop, then picture quality should be very similar. The only difference will be in low-light performance and a little bit of noticable difference in bokeh (background blur with foreground subject in sharp focus) in some shots (more bokeh with f/2.8). Whether the extra shutter speed in low light is worth the extra money is up to you. For several years I shot my son's sports. I started with a 70-200mm f/4 lens, and then I traded for a f/2.8 to get faster shutter speed in low light. It was worth every penny for the tens of thousands of pictures I took at football, basketball, and baseball games. But if you aren't going to be taking a lot of shots where faster shutter speeds mattered, it might not be worth it. The f/4 lens I had produced very sharp images - just as good as the f/2.8, but just not as fast on the shutter speeds.

I'm mostly concerned for low light situations while in the blind at what not? Some action photos would be awesome if a fight were to break out and what not.

Your best photographers use the fastest lens they can get, which means more dollars. You have to decide if you are ready for that kind of quality. It sounds like your
girl friend could be of considerable help in your decisions.

She's 100% for the f2.8. They extra 1k and couple month back log is what has me wanting to go another route.

[Shane]

You might look at the Sigma 70-200 f/2.8. They make it in a Sony mount.

[150class]

You might look at the Sigma 70-200 f/2.8. They make it in a Sony mount.

Thanks for the recommendation.

Looks like it will fit Alpha mounts so I'll need to buy a LA-EA4 adapter (350$) for it to fit on the E mount of the A7 line up.

I'm starting to realize how much BS there is with the E mount system and Sony... literally nothing works for the lineup that isn't a direct sony product and there is not many e mount lens to start with.


That being said, are there any negative side effects of having to run a lens through a adapter? My finance doesn't seemed thrilled about it but I could be misinterpreting why.

Does the mount crop the imagine or do you lose shutter speed? As stated I'm defiantly a novice but she seems to be saying you lose quality or something along those lines when you start using a mount.

Thanks again for all your help sir.

[Casey]

One difference between f2.8 and f4 lenses is the f2.8 starts to hit it's stride in quality around f4. Most lenses do not perform their best wide open. So, the f2.8 doesn't do it's best at f2.8 and the f4 isn't at its best at f4. But, some of these differences may not be all that noticeable to most folks.

Michael runs the Sony line with Canon lenses and a metabones adapter. No loss in shutter speed or quality, from what I understand.

But, Sigma makes the 70-200 with a Sony mount, meaning no adapter.

https://www.amazon.com/Sigma-70-200mm-Aperture-Telephoto-Digital/dp/B003HC8VB8/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1477755923&sr=8-1&keywords=sigma+70-200+for+sony

[Shane]

I don't know much about the adapters. I think some of them allow the lens to talk to the camera and some don't. If the adapter doesn't have a lens in it, then it wouldn't cut any light. But by placing the lens a little further away from the sensor, they might need to put a lens in there to bring everything back into focus on the sensor. Any extra glass will cut light and cost some shutter speed (and potentially some clarity, depending on quality of the glass).

Sounds like she either needs to stick with lenses that fit her camera or sell the camera and buy a different one that has more lens options available. That's the main advantage with Canon and Nikon. There are gazillions of lens options for them.