Sony FE PZ 28-135mm f/4 - OR - Sony FE 70-200 f/2.8 G Master????

[Jonas]

I recently bought a Sony A7RII, and temporarily just an FE 28 f/2. I was planning on buying the Sony FE 70-200 f/2.8 G Master when it becomes available in May. This was all a big monetary splurge for me, getting newly serious about fine art still photography, including landscapes.

I volunteered on this basis to do a fund raising gig for a non-profit group that supports over 1000 homeless kids who attend Santa Fe, NM Public Schools. I initially volunteered to take fine art still portraits of some smaller number of the kids willing to come out of the closet as being homeless. A gallery event and book would theoretically follow for the stills. This is exciting important help for awareness and fundraising for this group. It will be a bunch of work, but I'm ready. The already planned purchase of the G Master lens was going to be a key.

Then, waking at 3AM this morning, I realized that the time I will have with those kids will also be a profound opportunity to interview on video, and possibly go out of my studio to places like the arroyos where some of the teen boys sleep before going to school. That's even more work, but what an opportunity for a documentary!

That makes me re-think my lens choice: Sony FE PZ 28-135mm f/4 - OR - Sony FE 70-200 f/2.8 G Master? I probably only can afford one or the other. I can still return my just purchased FE 2.8 f/2, and only live for the next year or two with the PZ 28-135.

Here are my questions:

Michael Reichmann, in his review, says "The PZ 28–135mm lens is not just for video; it is eminently usable for shooting stills." BUT, how would it compare to the FE 70-200 f/2.8 G Master for stills? I expect ultra high DXOmark sharpness and transmission ratings for the G-Master lens. But, DXOmark never tested the PZ. I'd guess that the PZ would test out about like the FE 70-200 f/4, but that's just a guess. That guess makes the G-Master the winner for stills, but I'd always wonder by how much. Plus, I was looking forward to the greater reach of the 70-200, plus 2x TC.

The FE 70-200 f/2.8 G Master Sony promo claims it will handle focus breathing well. However, I was not able to find any mention of whether it will be parfocal for video. Does anyone know or can anyone make an educated projection? By the way, I'll probably mostly use video AF on either lens, and I have a feeling that with two AF motors, the G-Master might be a touch better with video AF than the PZ. But, I guess parfocal capability would be a big question.

I have limited funds. I can generally get one or the other. My heart is mostly with still photography now. However, video on the above described project is something that I feel obliged to not miss out on. What thought do you all have about how I should make this choice?

[ErikKaffehr]

Hi,

Difficult choices…

I think you should consider your needs, do you need a standards zoom or a tele zoom? Both lenses are pretty expensive.

If you plan on shooting mostly video, I would think the 28-135/4 is a nice lens.

Personally, I am a landscape shooter and want to use Canon mount lenses for some specific needs (*). So far I have the Canon 16-35/4, which seems to be just great and the Canon 24/3.5 TSE LII. The latter one being a bit 'meh' in my case.

Right now I use the Sony 24-70/2.8ZA with an adapter, it is OK 24-50 mm but a bit to weak in the long end. Looking for an alternative, preferably 24-105/4.

Added to that I have a Sony 90/2.8 G, which may be my best lens. The long end is covered by the 70-400/4-5.6G.

I consider adding a Sigma 70/2.8 Macro as my 24-70/2.8 is very weak at 70 mm. So the line up is now:

• Sigma 12-4/4.5-5.6 - almost usable
• Samyang 14/2.8, horrible distortion but very sharp. Not tested on the A7rII yet.
• Canon 16-35/4, very happy with this lens
• Canon 24/3.5 TSE LII, I expected a lot more but shifts very useful.
• Sony 24-70/2.8 ZA. Not as good as the Canon 16-35/4, weak at 70 mm.
• Sony 90/2.8 G, mostly very sharp. May have issues that need to be checked out.

[li]Sony 70-400/4-5.6G, pretty good mostly.
[/li][/list]

So I am looking for a really good 24-105/4. Sigma Art may be an option. Needs to be good at 70 mm.

Best rgards
Erik

I recently bought a Sony A7RII, and temporarily just an FE 28 f/2. I was planning on buying the Sony FE 70-200 f/2.8 G Master when it becomes available in May. This was all a big monetary splurge for me, getting newly serious about fine art still photography, including landscapes.

I volunteered on this basis to do a fund raising gig for a non-profit group that supports over 1000 homeless kids who attend Santa Fe, NM Public Schools. I initially volunteered to take fine art still portraits of some smaller number of the kids willing to come out of the closet as being homeless. A gallery event and book would theoretically follow for the stills. This is exciting important help for awareness and fundraising for this group. It will be a bunch of work, but I'm ready. The already planned purchase of the G Master lens was going to be a key.

Then, waking at 3AM this morning, I realized that the time I will have with those kids will also be a profound opportunity to interview on video, and possibly go out of my studio to places like the arroyos where some of the teen boys sleep before going to school. That's even more work, but what an opportunity for a documentary!

That makes me re-think my lens choice: Sony FE PZ 28-135mm f/4 - OR - Sony FE 70-200 f/2.8 G Master? I probably only can afford one or the other. I can still return my just purchased FE 2.8 f/2, and only live for the next year or two with the PZ 28-135.

Here are my questions:

Michael Reichmann, in his review, says "The PZ 28–135mm lens is not just for video; it is eminently usable for shooting stills." BUT, how would it compare to the FE 70-200 f/2.8 G Master for stills? I expect ultra high DXOmark sharpness and transmission ratings for the G-Master lens. But, DXOmark never tested the PZ. I'd guess that the PZ would test out about like the FE 70-200 f/4, but that's just a guess. That guess makes the G-Master the winner for stills, but I'd always wonder by how much. Plus, I was looking forward to the greater reach of the 70-200, plus 2x TC.

The FE 70-200 f/2.8 G Master Sony promo claims it will handle focus breathing well. However, I was not able to find any mention of whether it will be parfocal for video. Does anyone know or can anyone make an educated projection? By the way, I'll probably mostly use video AF on either lens, and I have a feeling that with two AF motors, the G-Master might be a touch better with video AF than the PZ. But, I guess parfocal capability would be a big question.

I have limited funds. I can generally get one or the other. My heart is mostly with still photography now. However, video on the above described project is something that I feel obliged to not miss out on. What thought do you all have about how I should make this choice?

[E.J. Peiker]

Based on your question I summize that 70-200 is an acceptable focal length range since you are considering the G-master and f/4 is an acceptabble maximum aperture since you are considering the 28-135 f/4 so you could save a bunch of money and get the excellent 70-200 f/4G FE lens?

[JaapD]

If I would have a Sony A7RII I would owe it to myself to use the best glass available. When thinking about zoom lenses the GM series would be my only choice, otherwise having a 42 Mpix camera would be a complete waste.

[Hywel]

You are mistaken, the GM series may be great when they get released but it is not a complete waste having the other Sony lenses on the A7RII.

The Sony 70-200 f/4 lens is a strong performer with decent resolution throughout its focal length range and from f/4 up to about f/11 where diffraction starts to kick in. It's a little soft at the corners at 200 mm and f/4, but sharpens up nicely by f/5.6.

http://www.dxomark.com/Lenses/Sony/Sony-FE-70-200mm-F4-G-OSS-mounted-on-Sony-A7R---Measurements__917

As E.J. said if you do not have a strong need for an f/2.8 lens, why not save money and weight and get the f/4 , keep the 28mm f/2 and add the 55mm f/1.8 lens, which is an absolute cracker? They also have the benefits of being available now, rather than shipping with what's likely to be a back order queue.

Cheers, Hywel

[Paulo Bizarro]

What sort of background and camera to subject distances are we talking about? Will you pose and interview the kids in the same location, with the same background and same conditions? It that is the case, the FE 55 f1.8 lens would be great. If you plan to take the stills in a wider variety of places, then a 24-70 f4 zoom would make more sense. If you still think about a 70-200 zoom, the f4 one is more than adequate.

For video, I would just take one of the recent crop of 1inch sensor compact cameras that can shoot 4k. Much less intimidating than a larger rig.