For landscapes, 70-300 or 100-400?

Started 8 months ago | Questions thread
johnpul New Member • Posts: 16
Re: For landscapes, 70-300 or 100-400?
1

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).

On a tripod, be sure to turn the 100-400's stabilization off, as it really seems to cause framing differences and probably sharpness loss, unlike many other OS lenses in practice.

I’d argue that the 70-300 is light enough that you don’t need a tripod ring for use on a tripod.  The camera’s mount alone would be fine.

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