For landscapes, 70-300 or 100-400?

Started 9 months ago | Questions thread
Foto4x4 Veteran Member • Posts: 3,599
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.

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

Does this make sense; what am I missing? thanks

Yes it makes sense. Given those thoughts just think about the following...

With the Sigma, of course it’s cheaper but it is not as sharp as the Sony, plus I’ve read some have AF issues with it, it doesn’t come with a tripod mount but is available as an accessory, and there is no teleconverter available and by most reports Sony won’t license them to allow it. To me it is a compromise I wouldn’t take. With long lenses IQ is everything. It’s why I was disappointed with my 70-300G.

If you do go with the 24-105, 100-400 pairing, I’d probably think of other lenses than the 70-200 down the road. A 16-35 or 17-28 perhaps? A 35/f1.8? 85/f1.8? Lots of options.

-- hide signature --

Cheers, John
Quote: “A good photograph is knowing where to stand.” - Ansel Adams

 Foto4x4's gear list:Foto4x4's gear list
Sony RX100 VI Sony a7R III Sony a7R IV Sony 50mm F2.8 Macro Sony Vario-Tessar T* FE 16-35mm F4 ZA OSS +9 more
Post (hide subjects) Posted by
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow