For landscapes, 70-300 or 100-400?

Started 9 months ago | Questions thread
Strangelight Forum Member • Posts: 75
Re: For landscapes, 70-300 or 100-400?
1

I rented the 100-400 GM a couple of years ago for a trip and, as you say, carrying it plus another lens to cover other focal lengths on long walks is no picnic - especially if you're also bringing along a tripod for the benefit of the 100-400.

I'd like to have the GM (or a 100-400 more generally) in a 'money / weight no object' world, but I can't justify it given how little use I think it would see.

I do agree in principle with Foto4x4's comment about 70-300s sitting in a no-man's land: when I had one, I found it too short for anything but the largest and closest birds (huge Andean condors in the Colca Canyon in my case).  I also agree that at 3-400mm, atmospheric effects will wipe out a lot of differences in sharpness etc. between these lenses.  In my experience the idea of taking super-long landscapes like that has always been more appealing than the outcomes.

 Strangelight's gear list:Strangelight's gear list
Sony a7R III Sony FE 55mm F1.8 Zeiss Batis 85mm F1.8 Zeiss Loxia 21mm F2.8 Zeiss Loxia 50 +2 more
Post (hide subjects) Posted by
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow