For landscapes, 70-300 or 100-400?

Started 9 months ago | Questions thread
Rol Lei Nut Veteran Member • Posts: 5,632
Re: For landscapes, 70-300 or 100-400?

vwcrusher wrote:

Starting to think about next lens (see current gear below), and after reading a bunch on line, not sure which way to proceed. On the one hand it would be nice to have 70mm on the lens for utility, but it also might be good to have the extra reach for compression. FWIW, the lenses I am considering ATM are the Sigma 100-400 and perhaps the Tamron 70-300.

I recently got both the Sigma 100-400 and the Tamron 70-300. They are substituting some significantly heavier lenses (Sony 70-300, not optically better, but with OS and Canon 100-400, better optically and for stabilization, but with significant weight and AF disadvantages).

For me, they have very different uses. The 70-300 is a "carry always" lens because of its size and weight.

The 100-400 lens is for when I expect to photograph wildlife. I don't consider it a "carry always" lens.

Having to choose only one, it would definitely be the 70-300.

That is my use, often out & about by foot & bicycle for long distances. If you go everywhere by car, then size & weight becomes much less relevant and the 100-400 has some advantages. The difference between 70 and 100mm as a short end is rarely a problem.

Post (hide subjects) Posted by
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow