File:Some New Pretties to Play With (46443330662).jpg

Over Christmas, I was lent the Sony 70-200 f/2.8 GM lens (plus 2x teleconverter) from my uncle to keep until March, to see if it were something I'd specifically want to buy.

After shooting with it for a week, I have to be honest... I don't think it's worth the $2,600. At least for what I shoot. I mean it's a fine lens and everything, and I'd love to own it, but not at that comically ridiculous price. For what I'm using it for, f/2.8 is almost TOO shallow a depth of field when zoomed in, and I frequently find myself stopping down, so why pay so much for it, when I could get the f4 variant for less than half the price brand new, (or significantly less, used?) The only reason I can think of is, perhaps, low-light capabilities. But, I'm usually shooting with a faster 50mm or 28mm prime up close in low-light anyway -- I don't need a zoom in the dark very often, unless I'm doing a compressed cityscape shot, in which case I'm doing long exposure and am stopped down to at least f/10 or f/11 anyway, so a "fast" lens is relatively pointless.

Overall, I see no real-world need to take either the f/2.8 or the f/4 over my 70-300G 4.5-5.6, aside from things pixel peepers will notice, or that tiny vain voice in me that wants a white "pro" lens, that nobody around me will even care about anyway. Honestly I think I've been much happier with the results of 70-300 vs. the GM, again, at least for what I shoot.

Perhaps my money will be better spent filling needs in other places, such as the Tamron 28-75 f/2.8, or the Sony 24-105 f/4, or hell even the 24mm GM.