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?

Rob J wrote:

I own both. I've had the Tamron 70-300 for several weeks. I just added the Sigma 100-400 thinking it would be nice to have an extra 100mmm of reach. I very much like the Tamron and it will have a permanent space reserved in my bag. I've only been out twice with the Sigma and haven't given it a fair trial to properly assess it.

The one factor that might make me NOT keep the Sigma is the weight. While it is not as heavy as it's Sony counterpart, it is still a hefty lens and somewhat tiring to carry for longer outings. The Tamron is featherlight in comparison.

Both are sharp lenses although as I have said, the Sigma has not had enough shooting time to fully assess it. So far, what images that I have shot seem really nice when the light is good. I think the Tamron would win in lower light situations however.

My thinking at present is that I will likely keep both but if I were to only keep one, it would be the Tamron 70-300mm.

I can't speak for use with a tripod because I seldom use a tripod. I shoot a lot of bird in flight stuff and a tripod just gets in the way. For landscapes though, a tripod would make sense. The ridiculous price for the optional tripod collar is outrageous and even aftermarket collars are pricey for what they are. I don't know why Sigma didn't just factor the collar into the price of the lens.

Thank you for the reply; interestingly, you pretty much reinforced what the other poster was suggesting.  : )

 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