For landscapes, 70-300 or 100-400?

Started 9 months ago | Questions thread
OP vwcrusher Regular Member • Posts: 411
Re: For landscapes, 70-300 or 100-400?

Foto4x4 wrote:

vwcrusher wrote:

Foto4x4 wrote:

vwcrusher wrote:

Foto4x4 wrote:

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.

Thanks for the reply; yes, many options, which is why I am trying to tap the knowledge base here....

I do hear your logic behind the Sony 100-400; I just need to justify it in terms of how often it will be used. In addition will I actually see the difference between it and the Sigma if printed 2x3 ft? The rationale behind obtaining the 24-105 first is that from all the research it seemed that for most folks doing landscapes, it stayed on the camera the most, not to mention its performance.

Regarding other lenses the two wide zooms you noted are on the list as well as a fast this point not sure which FL....


I doubt there would be much difference on those prints you mentioned unless you crop and even then, how close do people stand when reviewing a print? Cost vs benefit is often adjudicated by available resources as well as justification. Just get the best you can afford/justify.

WRT primes. The first prime I would ever recommend is a fast 35. For me the Sony or Samyang 35/f1.8s represent outstanding value. 35 is just so flexible. I can walk all day with one and rarely lament if it was the only lens I had with me. Certainly nicer strung on your neck for a full day over my 24-105 but then that lens and now my 28-200 is just so darn useful.

Yeah, from what I've read the sigma is very sharp and added to that great value. We'll see.

I owned a 28-200 and unfortunately it was not sharp at all, so I returned it and bought the 24-105... Of well.

Any other advice?


Not at this point. Pity about your 28-200. I remember reading that now. The first firmware did have some AF inconsistency and I thought the DPReview copy Chris Nichols had was not the best either. Seems the updates and later copies are way better. Like I said, I don’t shoot my 24-105 anymore as a result.

Good luck with your deliberations.

Thanks again...actually one last question: I just reread your comment above... if you had to recommend a 70-200, which would it be? ..mindful of the fact that I really don't need f2.8.

 vwcrusher's gear list:vwcrusher's gear list
Sony a7R II Samyang AF 18mm F2.8 FE Samyang AF 75mm F1.8 FE Tamron 28-200mm F2.8-5.6 Samyang AF 35mm F1.8 FE
Post (hide subjects) Posted by
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow