For landscapes, 70-300 or 100-400?

Started 9 months ago | Questions thread
OP vwcrusher Regular Member • Posts: 411
Re: For landscapes, 70-300 or 100-400?

Rol Lei Nut wrote:

vwcrusher wrote:

Thanks for the posts. For my anticipated use (landscapes) I will most probably be utilizing a tripod for either lens. In general optical clarity is more important to me than weight. I just wonder in most situations when a telephoto lens is desired, will I see any difference between these two. I should note that I tend to print fairly large (2x3ft).

You make an interesting case for both I admit....I decided on the 24-105 f4 because for what I photograph I really didn't need the extra speed f2.8 provides, plus I was not giving up any clarity. Even with the tripod, while walking I would only need the two lenses (24-105 and 70-300). Note: someday a wide zoom. This is especially true given the aggressive price of the Tamron.

Interesting...does this make any sense? What factor have I not anticipated?

Thanks

Tripod: the 70-300 has no tripod ring, nor any space to mount one. It's really a handheld lens which depends on the camera's IBIS for stabilization (its real drawback).

The 100-400 doesn't come with a tripod ring, but one can be bought (expensive original or not cheap aftermarket).

So for tripod use, I'd definitely say the 100-400, even if the 70-300 might be a little bit sharper in most situatons. Though with 2x3 foot prints you probably won't see any difference (both good lenses).

Thanks for the reply. So you have used both lenses and you feel the Tamron is sharper? At any particular range or across the board? My thinking is it is sharper I'd be willing to give up the extra reach.

 vwcrusher's gear list:vwcrusher's gear list
Sony a7R II Samyang AF 18mm F2.8 FE Samyang AF 75mm F1.8 FE Tamron 28-200mm F2.8-5.6 Samyang AF 35mm F1.8 FE
Post (hide subjects) Posted by
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow