SonyFE 70-200mm F4 G OSS Interchangeable Lens for Sony Alpha Cameras

This is the best lens in my arsenal of photo lens. for portrait photography. The images are so so sharp even when used in manual mode. Although this lens may look heavy; it did not tire my arms/hands during an all day wedding recently. Yes, it is at the upper price point for entry level pro photographers however; you will be glad you purchased this lens and if you are a wedding/event photographer or portrait photographer: you will quickly appreciate using this lens even at the end of its' range (200mm): the pictures are still great.

This lens was delivered prompt as stated. built solid and very sharp. I use the lens on my Sony a6300 because I wanted an upgrade from the 55-210mm. I never owned the aps-c zoom. I own the Sony 10-18mm, 18-105/4mm, and FE 28/2 prime. All these, as well using on my A6000. Mostly hiking and with tripod, at 63 with a fractured heal I didnt want the weight of a full pro like a Cannon D5/m3, etc. I like that the Sony 70-200/4 FE is 72mm because my polarizer and "grad " filter that fit my 18-105mm G lens is 72mm also. FF Cannon and NikonFF 70-200mm zooms, I believe are 77mm. This is the beauty of these Sony alpha e-mounts. They are much lighter. I talk with many people in the parks. They have their FF DSLRs, with a back pack of lenses. I say, here hold up this Lowe Pro shoulder bag with is a6000 / w 18-105 lens. They are always shocked at how light it is! This was Sony's plan, lightness, compactnes. Thank You Sony. Have not played with this new lens much yet. But I cant imagine being not pleased with this lens. The few images so far with it I am quite pleased with Read reviews like dpreview etc. I want to pack I lighter load at 11-12,000 feet. Let the younger generation pack the heavy "pro" gear. I can get better shots at my age and health because this gear will be up the trails with me, and my tripod. All these lenses here I am very pleased. JPEGs on my computer look TACK sharp. Soon to shoot RAW, as I am a newbie to digital. I am old school 35mm film in the 1970s and 80s. I cant imagime the RAW images after post with any of these new cameras. Lighter is better for me. Maybe Fujifilm xt2 aps-s is better, if you are an enthusiest as I, you will spend more an pack more wieght. My choise is these awesome Sonys.

Nature photography, birds, butterflies, etc., is my main application of the lens. This lens lets me get up fairly close and personal with my subject, and the great automatic features of the a7, its excellent definition, and the very effective image stabilization within the lens gives me great pictures wherein I can crop and blow up the critter I was shooting. I am physically handicapped so that my ability to maneuver into the best shooting position is limited-- the use of a tripod is almost impossible for me-- getting it and camera set up would almost invariably take more time than my subjects are willing to give me. In other words I do my shooting on the fly hand-holding the camera.I have a Nikkor 28-300mm zoom lens mounted on my Nikon D7000. I have taken many pictures I considered to be almost fantastic with that rig, but in the month that I have had the Sony a7 and this lens I am astonished by how much better my pictures are.The lens is not light. The a7 is, of course, much lighter than the Nikon D7000, but the Nikkor lens is lighter than this Sony lens. By comparison the two camera set-ups seem to be about the same weight.A couple of hints if you are interested in the kind of nature shooting I do: Use the "P" setting on the mode dial, and set the camera up for spot focusing. I have, in the past month, played around seeing how small a hole in obstructing objects [leaves, twigs, etc.] I can shoot through and get a sharp automatic focus of my subject, and narrowing the auto-focus to the smallest spot in the center has given me very gratifying results. I also appreciate how easy it was to remove the tripod mounting bracket on the lens-- this got it out of my way and removed that much weight, however negligible, from the lens.

Very solid, high-performance lens, very sharp, great stabilizer. Slightly heavier than I'd hoped considering it's for a mirrorless, but learning to live with that. Seems almost identically sharp to my Canon 70-200 f4, and slightly smaller. Good included tripod mount, though sometimes a little awkward clamping it back on the barrel--nothing serious and will probably get easier once I understand where the resistance is coming from. Very happy with this lens--this and the 24-70, used interchangeably on a full frame (A7) and an A6000, gives me 24-300mm in two lenses that are both pro quality (even the 28-70 is fine if you don't need the extra width). Add a 10-18mm (already had that one--or spend another thou on the great new 16-35mm) and also a fixed, fast 28/f2 (or a 35, or the spectacular 55), and you have a full setup in a fairly compact package. The future is here, and it don't need no stinkin' mirrors...although...I do also keep a Canon setup (6D and 70D), mainly for bird and wildlife images (400mm), macro (100/2.8 IS--made easy with fully articulating 70D LCD), and 16-35 f/4 for landscapes, to supplement the 10-18 and at times to use with adapter on the Sony FF. But I'll be selling several of my Canon lenses, including the 70-200, 300, and 35, as wonderful as they are, because the Sonys cover all that while keeping weight down and allowing for legacy-lens use, like the great Pentax 50/f1.4 I just found the other day for $4.99 at Goodwill...wait...is this too much? Sorry. I do that sometimes. My wife's eyes have been known to glaze over. She tells me, "You don't have to say everything you think." Probably true. But I hope this helped.