As is often the case with alternative lenses, this one is going to be about expectations, and if your expectations are reasonable, I think you’ll be pleased with this one. If you’re expecting it to...
As is often the case with alternative lenses, this one is going to be about expectations, and if your expectations are reasonable, I think you’ll be pleased with this one. If you’re expecting it to be indistinguishable from the Sony 70-200mm f/2.8, then you aren’t going to be so pleased. With this lens, you get 85% of the performance for less than half the price, which is a good deal for most people, but not OK for those who want the ultimate quality.
My summary (as I like to do) first: This is a good quality lens that will give better images in tougher conditions than a consumer grade zoom. It’s sharp in the center even when wide open, autofocuses quickly enough to be used for sports photography (a big advantage over the Tamron 70-200mm f/2.8 we used to carry) and fairly accurately as well.
It has some weaknesses, mostly at the extremes. It has a lot of focus shift when shooting close up, so either shoot it wide open or stopped down to f/5.6 if you want accurate focus on objects within 10 yards or less. At the 200mm end it’s a bit softer than at 150mm, exhibits some pincushion distortion and has some chromatic aberration — not bad, but apparent if you like to pixel peep. For most people, this isn’t going to be a big issue, but it might be for some of you. Overall, I’m quite pleased with this lens, but I strongly recommend that you read the in-depth reviews found in the Links section before deciding that this is the lens for you.
If you’re having difficulties choosing a lens, this article might help you.