For landscapes, 70-300 or 100-400?

Started 11 months ago | Questions thread
Rol Lei Nut Veteran Member • Posts: 5,695
Re: For landscapes, 70-300 or 100-400?

Impulses wrote:

Rol Lei Nut wrote:

vwcrusher wrote:

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?


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.

I find that the Tamron is potentially a bit sharper at pixel peeking levels, though that's not likely to be visible at less than poster sizes (on 42mp).

On a tripod, the presence of a tripod ring will definitely favour the Sigma in all but the best light.

Huh, Marc from:

Gave me the opposite impression, I was expecting the Sigma to be a bit sharper across the board, I don't treat his reviews as gospel mind you but I haven't seen many others comparing them yet (the Tamron is fairly recent after all)... If they're close enough that sample variation is just as likely as anything to determine the winner then I'd be a lot more interested in the Tamron.

Sample variation and/or shooting on a tripod where the Tamron would be seriously disadvantaged by hanging off the camera body could explain the difference.

How does Sony IBIS handle shooting handheld at 300mm? I'm interested in either for landscapes more than action as well, but it'd be something I travel with too... All my teles have had OIS in the past tho, kinda leery of relying on IBIS alone.

I haven't had it that long, but my guess is about two stops. In these dark winter days, shooting at around 1/125 gives a slightly over 50% very sharp rate while not being especially careful. Of course that can vary greatly depending on technique, any bracing and so on. The Sony 70-300 the Tamron is replacing  does a bit better for stabilization, but generally gives flatter looking results.

According to some of the tests of the Sigma 100-400, its OS is less effective around 1/100-1/200 than with faster or even slower speeds. That seems to be possible, as I found it to behave in a very similar way to the Tamron.

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