Sony SAL70200G 70-200mm f/2.8 SSM Lens for Sony Alpha Digital SLR Camera (OLD MODEL)

Great Lens
Overall this lens is a solid performer, and worth the money in my opinion although it is not perfect. Here are some of the main attributes of the lens:Mechanical/body: Very high quality metal with some plastics used, very smooth zoom and focus control with auto clutch. This lens is smoother than any of the Zeiss lenses in this regard, and has 3 focus hold buttons instead of the usual one. One really nice things about this lens is that the zoom is all internal so it does not extend to ridiculous lengths like most telephoto zooms; of course being an expensive lens it also doesn’t rotate the front threads while focusing which messes up filter settings. I do hate the texture sony uses on the zoom/focus grip since it collects dirt really easy then looks ugly, even though it functions well enough as a gripping surface. The white paint used on this lens looks really nice, and better than the uglier off white of the canon L lenses, but it also makes stand out as an expensive lens which increases its chances of getting stolen. My biggest gripe however is with the lens hood: unlike the CZ lenses that have a nice metal petal shaped hood with plastic attachment ring, this hood is very cheap, flimsy plastic all around. It is felt lines though and has a nice slot to adjust a filter, but overall it is cheap in comparison the the build quality of other pro level lenses.Optical Quality: Overall this lens is very sharp above f2.8, where wide open it is a little softer but still produces good images. Unfortunately this reduced resolution can’t be fixed in programs such as lightroom like its other faults can, such as mild distortion and vignetting. This lens also has a slight chromatic aberration issue, especially in the corners which doesn’t improve by stopping down. Overall this is not a very big issue though since it is easily corrected by software and it is not bad relative to other lenses like the sony 75-300 beercan lenses. I have read reviews on the internet claiming this lens has subpar bokeh quality, but that isn’t my experience since it seems to produce very nice, creamy out of focus areas. Ghosting and flare control seem about the same as other sony lenses which is not that great, oh well I guess you pay for all those lens elements. I haven’t tested this lens for coma.Overall this is a great lens, but only if you need the fast focusing and extra stops provided by constant f2.8 aperture. If not, you would be much better off with either the 70-300G, which is 2 stops slower, but more compact, cheaper and has more reach. In this price range you can also buy the 70-400 which is an awesome lens as well, although 2 stops slower it is slightly cheaper and has double the focal length (but also has that atrocious silver finish and extends a lot during zoom).

Solid Pro Quality Lens
Here’s another item that while it is better than its competitors is it worth the extra cost?Sigma no longer makes the 70-200mm f2.8 without stabilization, and there version with lens stabilzation is $1400, and I don’t belive that has any value for us Sony users. I do not have any empircal evidence that lens stabilzation adds nothing when you have body stabilzation since I was unable to find anything written on this, and from a technical viewpoint it wouldn’t make sense that they could work together in reduce vibration even further from in-body stabilzation.So the Sigma with stabilzation cost twice as much as the old version, $1400 and has driven the old models in the used market to over $1000.The Tamron is still very affordable at less than $800, but suffers from very slow focusing speeds. The optics test-out on par with the Sony lens and are superior to the Sigma. The Sigma’s are fast, but suffer in optical peformance.So one can easily argue that to get a 70-200mm f2.8 without any significant limitations one must go with the $2000 Sony lens, and several reviewers have posted comments to that extent. As with other pro quality equipment, its not of value to you if you are not going to be utilizing those features. So if you are really just going to be shooting portraits (or anything where autofocus is not critical), then the Tamron is an excellent choice. The Sigma is not an option new because I don’t think it makes sense to purchase features that you cannot use. Look for the old Sigma in the used market, should be able to get a used model on Ebay for less than $900.The Sony does have some features the others do not. There’s an extra button that can double as a focus button or a DOF preview (if camera supports). I have an a580 and its supported and the DOF preview is quite slick; gives you a preview of what the background will look like at the current selected settings. Saves taking a setup shot and checking the screen.Focusing is faster than the others, but is slow at low light (like most). Images are crisp and colors are excellent. Focus on the edges may not be as good as the Sigma or Tamron. All-around the lens has no signifcant weaknesses, and that’s saying something. For us Sony owners you will not be able to bring a better tool, no question. Weight, could be an issue for many of you. All reviews of telephoto lenses say the lens is heavy, but this lens is a beast! It weighs more than my old 100-300 mm sigma lens, with 100 mm lens focal length. Obviously, its built like a tank as well, so take that for what its worth.Question is it worth the extra $$’s??? I’m tempted to say “No” for most people, except me:) I only carry a few lenses and I want each of them to be the best I can carry in each class because I only have a few lenses. I used to carrry a Sigma 100-300 f4.0, and I found the lens to be less perferred for shooting video, I wanted something faster and shorter. If you do mostly outdoor then I think there are much more versatile lenses out there, like the Sony 70-400mm, where the extra speed is really of little consequence. I do a lot indoors without flash and this lens does rock for those applications, and now that I have this fast beast I can put converters on it and it will perform well, so it is very versatile in that regard.It is the best 70-200mm f2.8 lens for a Sony DSLR camera, no question. The question is, is the extra cash worth it, and in all the cases where I’ve spent more money instead of being frugal, this is the hardest one to justify because the delta is just so enormous. If the lens were $500 cheaper, I’d easily recommend, but at the steep cost to ownership where this lens currently resides……******* Review Updated*******************************7/1/12I was afforded the opportunity to use a Sigma 70-200mm F2.8 lens for a few weeks from a friend of mine, so I was able to make direct comparisons. Please look at the photos that I attached of each shot, trying to duplicate the same shots.The biggest thing I noticed is that the focusing system of the Sony is far superior. I took some action shots and the Sony lens could rip off twice the number of pictures it seemed when asking it to re-focus between each shot. Also, notice the shots I took that tested it’s focusing ability and the Sony just flat shinned. One image I took of a box with lettering and the background exposed and the Sigma could not lock, where the Sony immediately locked. The image of aloe vera lotion however was the most interesting shot; the image was a difficult shot to be able to focus on because the lotion bottle is clear and lotion is translucent as well, and then the back ground was very bright. Very difficult focusing task, and the Sony Shinned. The Sigma did lock, but you see for yourself that the image quality was poor on the bottle itself. I think the colors on the Sigma are good (if you like them warmer), and the bokah was slightly better where the Sony was a touch more harsh. However, the colors could be post processed into the image, so that’s a non-factor, and the bokah of the Sigma was just a touch better on the Sigma.The feel of the Sigma lens was impressive. The all black look, and solid feel was just as good as the Sony. The Sony lens looks like a Pro lens because of the “white” factor, but if I didn’t know better I would say the Sigma looked better.So from a performance perspective my testing clearly showed that the Sony is certainly better than the Sigma in nearly every way, and in some cases significantly better. I was told and read the Sigma would perform up with the Sigma from a speed and focusing ability, and clearly it could not. I’ll update this review if I ever get a chance to compare the Tamron head-to-head, but from this review I cannot even recommend the Sigma lens at all. The Sigma I tested did not have the stabilization, and if they have not dramatically improved performance the $1400 for the new lens is a bust for sure! The only question remains is can the Tamron optically perform up with the Sony like people say it can for 1/3 the price, that’s the only reason I leave my review at 4 stars because let’s face it, my Sony copy destroyed the Sigma copy I tested.