Difference between G lens and Carl Zeiss Lens

[lokipower]

Hello folks,

I recently purchased a Sony 70-200 2.8 G for my Alpha 700. This was the mother of all impulse purchases, (don't ask). While it is still in the return period, I wanted to get some advice. Are the G Lenses similar in quality to the Carl Zeiss lenses? If I am going to spend this kind of money, I wanted to know if this is a good lens,. I have read the reviews, I would just like to know how it compares, since no review really talks about that. Are CZ lenses the best for Sony? Thanks

 

[luminosity]

Don't know about Sony (which also includes Minolta's maxxum lenses), but in Nikon terms, G just means that it doesn't have an aperture ring (and is therefore useless on a manual-focus camera).

 

[lokipower]

Don't know about Sony (which also includes Minolta's maxxum lenses), but in Nikon terms, G just means that it doesn't have an aperture ring (and is therefore useless on a manual-focus camera).

I believe this is the case for this lens as well, but at $1700 I am wondering if the glass is of good quality, or is it just because it is a 2.8. I am trying to improve my lenses, and if this does not improve the quality of glass, I think I would rather opt for something that IS of higher quality. So far, I do see an improvement in shots taken, (I will get to test at the Chick-Fil-A bowl New Year's Eve).

 

[taylorwilsdon]

Its a very well liked lens. Zeiss does not make a 70-200mm lens for Sony, so the point is totally moot - you either need this focal length or you don't.

This is MUCH higher quality glass than a kit lens.

 

[lokipower]

Its a very well liked lens. Zeiss does not make a 70-200mm lens for Sony, so the point is totally moot - you either need this focal length or you don't.

This is MUCH higher quality glass than a kit lens.

Thanks for the simple response, I like those. I have children, and they move...ALOT... I have a lot of blurred shots of them, due to low lighting, hence the need for the faster lens. You answered what I wanted to know, Glass is better, but not CZ quality. I will decide if it is $1700 better, but my guess is it is the best I can do on the Alpha mount given the limited selection of lenses at the moment. The other lenses in this range are slower or of lesser quality.

Thanks for your replies... I hate over evaluating these things, but I guess it is in my nature.

 

[andiwm2003]

dyxum.ccom has all the lens infos and user reviews.

the 70-200G is one of the best lenses out there. G lenses in general are very good. if i could justify the expense i would buy a 70-200 g lens and a 2x tele converter.

only two draw backs on a lens like this: it's quite heavvy so you won't use it all the time. and a 1700 bucks lens means you won't want to take to the beach or iking or leave it in the car because it's a lot of money if it gets scratched or stolen or dropped.

btw: sony releases a 70-400 for 1500 bucks in january. that is quite small and supposedly very good. not as fast though.

 

[lokipower]

"btw: sony releases a 70-400 for 1500 bucks in january. that is quite small and supposedly very good. not as fast though."

See, this is what aggravates me... Now I have one more thing to think about... I was not aware of this lens. Nice. I am certain I know the answer, but because I need the faster lens, would you opt for a longer focal length at the expense of 1 stop of light?

I agree about the weight, but to me, its actually kind of light, considering I came from a Sigma 50-500mm lens that I just sold to buy the 70-200. Now that was a heavy son of a gun, so this is much lighter. I will take it with me to the game Wednesday night to see how well it handles.

 

[luminosity]

Anything with that kind of broad range can't be very fast as well, unless it's truly enormous and also extremely expensive.

 

[lokipower]

Anything with that kind of broad range can't be very fast as well, unless it's truly enormous and also extremely expensive.

Good point....