For landscapes, 70-300 or 100-400?

Started 9 months ago | Questions thread
Rol Lei Nut Veteran Member • Posts: 5,628
Re: For landscapes, 70-300 or 100-400?

vwcrusher wrote:

Foto4x4 wrote:

vwcrusher wrote:

Interesting perspectives, though some of which leave me in a bit of a quandary. One reason I purchased the 24-105 was to try and keep the lens count down; by mating it with a 70-200 seems counterproductive.

Not really... they complement each other quite well. By overlapping the 70-105, it means you may have fewer lens swaps. And the 70-200 has more reach. And in a pinch you can use it in crop mode for 300mm albeit with fewer pixels but still a decent resolution. The 24-105 only goes to 157mm angle of view in crop mode.

As I noted earlier, my goal is to pack 3 lenses: wide zoom, 24-105 and a tele zoom. If the Sony 100-400GM is that much superior perhaps that is the way to go.....yikes. : )

You may. It will give you more options if you go beyond landscapes. Not that the 200 is a slouch at wildlife but you will need to be much closer to your subject than the 100-400mm. Trade off though is cost, size and weight and non-constant aperture. Still the GM is a great lens. In fact I’ve sold my 70-200 since buying a 100-400. But then I’ve also substituted my 24-105 with a Tamron 28-200. So many options you can consider. A few years ago we Sony shooters were lamenting a lack of lens choice!

Thanks for the reply.

In thinking about the discussion last evening, it seems that there might be at least two lens configurations - one that can be packed for lots of walking, and another that is shall we say is more 'weight tolerant.' For my profile (location, weight, photographic environment) I would start with gear that could be a bit heavier...although not crazy. So the tradeoff might be: 24-105, a 100-400 (maybe Sigma or Sony), tripod.

In the future supplementing with a 70-200 or so for walking/less weight tolerance.

Most 70-200 lenses will be heavier than the Tamron 70-300. Practically all (not sure about the Tamron 70-180) will be longer, to the point that they don't fit in a smaller lens pouch or compartment anymore. Strangely, 70-300 lenses are usually shorter than 70-200s and therefore easier to carry.

Also, there will be a wide zoom in either kit.

Does this make sense; what am I missing? thanks

One thing I've learned is that the lens you have with you is infinitely better than the theoretically better lens (whose "betterness" might not even be noticeable in real life) which stays behind because it's too heavy and bulky.

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