Sony 70-200mm F4 Macro G OSS II Definitive Review: The F4 Zoom to Get!

I've owned this lens since its release roughly 18 months ago. I've had countless macro lenses going back to the Micro Nikkor f3.5 55mm and this 70-200 is most useful. Getting close enough for macro of wild flowers can be impossible with our usual macro lenses due to foliage (including briars and poison oak) and terrain obstacles. The ability position the camera and then zoom, to shoot 0.75 macro all the way out to 280mm with the TC 1.4, is phenomenally useful and also produces incredible bokeh. Couple this with in camera focus bracketing and wow! To further keep weight down I most often have it mounted on an a7CR. So it's my macro, my house pet and portrait lens, and my event lens. Vs. my excellent Sony 2.8/90 macro, the 70-200 is weather sealed and far more useful without any sacrifice of image quality.

Will it be a great option for landscape photography?

I just bought this lens. Already have the 20-70f4 and the 20 1.8 for night. Will eventually get a teleconverter too I think. Hopefully that will be the perfect set for me.

Thanks as always, for the excellent and thorough review, Dustin! Great to finally see test chart performances with the 1.4x teleconverter, which makes this lens so useful for someone like me, who mostly uses telephotos to get up-close images of mountains. By any chance, have you tested this lens (or indeed, others) with the 2x teleconverter? I know it will cut down the light, but wondering about image quality at an equivalent 400mm f/8.

@DustinAbbottTWI - Great review, as always. I have a Sony A7CR with the Tamron 28-75mm f/2.8 VC VXD G2 and am looking for a longer lens for state park travel photography (not for video). Image quality is really important to me, with size/weight also a consideration. What is your recommendation between this lens, the Tamron 70-180mm f/2.8 Di III VC VXD G2 or the Tamron 50-300mm f/4.5-6.3 Di III VC VXD for landscape/wildlife/family pictures?

❤❤❤❤

Thank you. Ended up purchasing this lens in June 2024 to add to my travel kit that has an A7CR and A7CII in it. It very well match to these bodies. On my larger full size full frame bodies I already own the Sony 70-200/2.8 GM II that I can now compare it too. I’m very impressed by the reduced size and weight which is why I jumped in. Take care.

Not sure how you managed to mount the lens on tripod in your intro. The lens foot will not accept a standard A/S plate and screw, plus, only one of the two holes in the foot is threaded. I think this is a manufacturing defect that no-one is talking about.

I got my copy two days ago and today I tried it with my 2x extender. Winter came back to South-Finland and we have now a lot snow and the birds have escaped somewhere but I managed get some pics of coal tits -with a7C ll the AF took instantly to birds eye. The first results look very promising with 2x ext. I am gonna use with both extenders for bird photography and the bare lens for butterfly photos. Thank you for an excellent review. Cheers

Great lens but that external zooming design is no go for me.

! Greetings from Greece! Quick question for you! I’m looking to buy zoom lens for my Sony a7II. Should I get the 70-200 f4 ii OR the 70-200 f2.8 first gen?? (Gen 2 is too expensive for me).

In terms of sharpness, how does it compare with a 90mm macro G lens ? Which one is the sharpest ? I don't shoot in low light situation.

Thanks! Amazed by the thoroughness of your review!

Thank you for your exhaustive review. This lens and the 20-70 seem like the perfect landscape kit.

This new f4 has a terribly loose focus ring and uneven resistance on the zoom. I recently uploaded a video on my channel that highlights the poor build quality. The original is still excellent IMHO.

I bought the 70-200mm GM II for 2300€ (barely more then this F4 gII macro). It was a little bit before this lens was released. Quite honestly the GM is mind blowing good and F2.8 is more usefull then i thought, it also kills the need for 85/135mm primes for me. It's internal zoom (i really like this). Also 1045 gram for F2.8, so low, 800 gram for F4 while nice is not amazing, F4's never were more then 1000 gram, usually already 800-850 gram. For macro i already own 90mm sony macro and 100-400mm.

Imo price is a bit to high even with the macro capability of the new f4 GII.

As for images needing almost no editing: the GM II has that also :) at 200mm F2.8 you have similar bokeh to 85mm F1.4 imo, really creamy.

Good morning Dustin, it has interesting features.. One question: at 200mm (in comparison with GM2) does it behave similarly or is there a big difference? (especially in terms of sharpness contrast.... if not, this has very interesting features.
Have you tried it with tc 1.4x?

Thank you for this fantastic review

Go ahead and purchase this Sony or wait for news on the Sigma 70-200 f2.8 ?

Is it better than tamron 70 180 f 2.8 g2 for landscape and portrait? Please give me answer.

Is it good setup if I use standard iPhone 15 with its 13mm, 26mm and 52mm for close photography and just get a single Sony 70-200 F4 macro with 2x tele converter for everything else? I thought to get Sony 20-70mm F4 before this because it is just a single lens and it cover ultra wide to short tele but realised it's not ultra wide enough and tele enough and not 1:1 macro (I not sure if crop can make it macro enough tho) and my smaller to carry and less intimidated and always be with you iPhone going to cover a lot of it. But what camera should I pair with the 70-200mm F4, it will be a waste and less usability experience to get A7CR than a full size A7RV isn't it? How about Sony RX100 and RX10, will they still make new one with Exmor T sensor technology? They looks like better phone camera across the zoom range than way better than phone camera aren't they? I also like Hasselblad color better and just get a single 28mm F4 (22mm FF eq.) can allow me to crop a lot like from 22-176mm, Leica Q3 is nice one package camera too, So are Leica D Lux 7 / Panasonic LX100II? I also thought to get Sony Xperia 1 V as pocketable camera and iPhone 15 as pocket computer because it's color is more real life than iphone but you end up carry 2 phones that aren't much better than each other much. What do you guys think? I shoot as hobbyist and sometime use for personal works like product shoot. I don't care much about bokeh too because I prefer to shoot photo and video with story and creativity and not blue everything else other than the subject. Should I just shot completely on standard iPhone 15 and use Moment macro, tele and anamorphic lens on the primary iPhone 15 lens? I feel like phone still is like having only one main camera and the others on it are just nice to have and convenient enough to use.

Hi, a bit late but perhaps someone can answer this question: I’m traveling a lot, and always think about whether I should invest in my gear more for light weight or more for lens quality. So in order to do some efficiency I’m looking for a new 70-200 that I can pair with a 2x teleconverter. However though this lens is perfect in terms of size and weight I’m worried about performance with the resulting f8 aperture. Can you give your opinion whether or not I should save up for a f2.8 GM II or still go with the f4. Had any experience (especially related to bokeh?) tyvm! PS: helpful links are appreciated as well. 😊

I would have preferred an aperture ring instead of a tripod collar on such a lightweight lens.

Great review. I’m wondering if this lens is sharper then Sony’s 70-200 F2.8 GM II lens

Impressive imagine if Sony made a 400mm f5.6 prime that also took the 1.4 tele it would make the perfect lightweight wildlife duo.

Thanks for the review. Lots of great image quality examples of macro shots. But how is the image quality for landscapes?

Great review as always, guess I know where the next pay is going haha.

Do you not think focus tracking is more dependant on the camera model versus the lense? Why say the lens is great at tracking bees, the camera is doing that no?

Thanks for the great review Dustin, would you say that this lens is as sharp as the canon RF70-200 f4 ?

If I don't have a 70-200, would you recommend this F4 or go with the bigger brother 2.8 II?

If you could help me here .. i own the 24-70 and tamron 35-150
I don’t shoot less than 35mm
I see tamron is having very good sharpness starting from 2.8
How do you compare this lens with tamron 35-150 .. pleaaaase

Great review as always and the pictures you captured with this lens are fantastic. I was wondering if you are planning a review on the new Sony a6700. I’m waiting for your review before I order it.

Great review Dustin, do you have any plans to test it with the x2 teleconverter, i am considering getting to 400mm reach and considering all the options. Cheers. Brian.

Would you prefer this or the 70-200 F2.8 GM II? Price is not a consideration

Fabulous review 👏 the big plus for me is the macro and overall flexibility I can get with this lens as I already own a 2 x teleconverter 😊 I was a bit worried that it’s an external zoom as my 24-105 Sony lens has pulled small particles of dust into it although it doesn’t appear to be affecting my photos for now 😅 so the additional sealing that this has will hopefully prevent this. Great info, thank you 🙏

Thank you for the review, it was done perfectly. This lens is kind of breaking me because of the Macro capability, size and weigth and the TC support. I own the Tamy 70-180mm f 2.8 and I find its close up useful and fun but the field curvature is making it very difficult to use at times. I wonder how well would this lens compare to thr Sony FE 90mm f 2.8 Macro, yes I know it shouldn't be compared because of the 1:1 ability BUT with the extra working range and 1.4x and 2x TC it ahould get close enough to prefer a zoom then the 90mm.

At this price and size, I wish they made the focal range 50-200 or 70-280, even at the expense of losing the teleconverter compatibility and some macro capabilities, and kept the aperture ring like on all new G lenses.

Great review! It's a nice lens, but in my opinion it should be considered too that the Tamron 70-180mm f2.8 is available at roughly half the price for those photographers that do not need macro capabilities.

In your written review you mention that the minimum focus distance at 200mm is 42cm. Is this correct? Because two different online calculators say that 200mm on FF with a 42cm focus distance results in 1:1 or 1:1.1 magnification. This would be considerably higher than Sony's stated 0.5x and would be quite a big deal to a lot of people.

Thank you Dustin. I am not a Sony shooter but some of these lens releases are making me drool!

Do you think you be covering the new RF 135mm F1.8? It seems like an incredible piece of glass, though the price seems to have (once again) jumped greatly.

@200 mm

Tony & Chelsea Northrup's test result for the center sharpness is very poor and soft.

On the other hand your test result @200 is so so sharp, I would say the center sharpness is almost equivalent to 70mm.

Great review!

On my 35-150, after 4 months, I already have dust inside.

Good one, your losing weigh looking good brother

The old 70-200mm f/2.8 GM sells at more than 500 bucks less. If one already owns a macro lens, wouldn't it make more sense to go for that? I feel the 70-200mm f/4 II is far overpriced.

It is one of the most versatile lenses given its macro capabilities at the entire range. This entails all kinds of composition possibilities as well as using mfd & compression to defocus. It is also marginally lighter than the 70-180 f2.8 tamron lens which only has macro features at the wide end. With their new ibis system (a7r5) one should get excellent combined stability. Given also the better light sensitivity of sony's newer technology the need for faster lenses is not there so much. This is where sony's lens design is becoming so much more versatile as these lenses are designed for their newer technology and based on a foundation of digital imaging. Canon & Nikon are still more rooted in the earlier 'analogue' framework. I find it more ergonomic to have a lens that recedes in size, particularly as it is so well sealed. As to macro on high res sensors one not only has cropping potential but macro is not only about eyes of insects - it is about the possibilities of perspective and composition. A lens like this means that one does not have to carry so many primes & when one works with such a versatile lens it also enables one ones creative versatile perspetivization & composing potential.

Someone is a perennial gardener.

What is your opinion on using this with a 1.4x Tele converter in comparison to the tamron 50-400 for example? I have recently been getting into more wildlife/birding. Do you think the 280mm would be enough reach?

Great and honest video as usual, tank you for this great informations. Something picked up my attention in the review. In macro, we often tend to shoot over f11 to gain depth of field. I often shoot at f16 with the 90mm. Did you notice this softening in macro would be a problem for someone mainly shooting macro with this lens? Thank you

Another fantastic review, Dustin! Thank you.

I tried to read the text review, but the link leads to nonsensical characters.