Telephoto for Landscapes A7rIV

Started 3 months ago | Discussions
mreynolds767
mreynolds767 Veteran Member • Posts: 3,399
Telephoto for Landscapes A7rIV

Hoping for some advise.

I own and have used the Sony FE 70-300 for a few years; been very pleased with it.

I must have a sharp copy as I have taken some very nice images with it but always felt it would be nice to have an extra 100 mm or more of reach and at least based on the ratings I have seen probably the worst performer of the lens I own on the A7rIV

Since I am usually a wide angle landscape shooter I don't have as much experience as many on this forum on the long end of things.

I really don't care about wide open performance or the aperture as I am most likely going to be at F8 or so and using it on a tripod for things like the Moon, Distant Lighthouses, Mountains, fields of flowers, etc...   Some larger wildlife is possible.

Me using the lens for portraits, birds in flight, sports,  is possible but not likely enough for me to buy any of these lens for that purpose so not wishing to pay extra for better performance in those areas.

Weight and size is a factor but not a huge consideration.

Cost is a consideration.

Performance on the A7rIV 61 MP sensor is also a concern.

I use my 70-300 in the 120-300 range I would say.  Have better lens at 75/85, etc... so would need to be over 100 before I ever reach for it.

Options:  Sigma 100-400 ; like the fact I would gain 100 mm of reach and the size seems OK.   Are the optics any better though?  ; would cost me a couple hundred+ to sell the 70-300 used to get one even though new the 70-300 cost more than the Sigma does.  Believe it is recommend to also buy a tripod foot on this one.  Overall though it is the lowest cost possible upgrade.

Sony 100-400 GM ; would expect best IQ for this and tempted by it.  Size and weight is a bit of a turnoff and don't love the White ; but really cost is likely biggest reason I have not pulled the trigger on this.  The ability to down the road add a Sony TC is also a nice feature of this lens.

Sony 200-600 ; If I am going to spend so much on a tele lens maybe I should go for the ultimate reach advantage?   Can get one of these for less than the Sony 100-400 ; Is above 400 overkill for landscapes?  and have heard bad things about it and the A7rIV but that might just be AF issues for things like BIF?

Rumors of a coming Tamron 150-500?  Or anything else I should hold out for?

-- hide signature --
 mreynolds767's gear list:mreynolds767's gear list
Sony a7R II
Sony FE 70-300mm F4.5-5.6 G OSS
If you believe there are incorrect tags, please send us this post using our feedback form.
Trollmannx Veteran Member • Posts: 7,083
Re: Telephoto for Landscapes A7rIV
3

Did go for the 100-400 GM. Got mine one week before the 200-600 G was launched. Would still go for the 100-400 and the 1.4x converter if buying again.

Weight and bulk makes the 200-600 G unfit for me, very fast auto focus and super sharp optics makes the 100-400 a winner to me. Worth every shilling.

Have the Sigma 1.4/40 and 1.4/105 for astro work, but would never cosider getting a Sigma 100-400 because not quite the same optics and definitely much slower auto focus.

Guess others will embrace the Sigma lens, mainly based on lower cost. Value for money has different meaning to us all.

Do not like white lenses but the 100-400 GM still cut it.

poipoipoi_2016 Contributing Member • Posts: 887
Re: Telephoto for Landscapes A7rIV

So I rented a 100-400 and an A7R IV for Manhattanhenge and I would definitely raise the caution flag about the size and weight. Great lens, can't hold it steady with my weak little arms.

For what you're describing, I think the weaknesses of the Sigma make it the best option here. It's light(er), has reasonable if not perfect AF and you're mostly doing mountains, and is best focused at infinity using 400mm according to every review and forum post I've read.  So, once again, mountains.

At this point, I'm personally waiting on the new Sigma 70-200 to see which of the Tamron, the Sigma 70-200 and Sigma 100-400 I'm getting.

Because I shoot mountains, not moving objects.

/The weird option is that I've seen a bunch of people buying 135GM's.  More for moving objects (135mm at f/1.8 vs. 400mm at f/6.3 ISO's on zoom optics ends up being fairly similar resolution) than mountains with a tripod, but figured I'd throw it out there.

 poipoipoi_2016's gear list:poipoipoi_2016's gear list
Sony RX100 V Sony a7R III Sony FE 16-35mm F2.8 Sony FE 24-105mm F4 Sony FE 24mm F1.4 GM +3 more
Magnar W
Magnar W Veteran Member • Posts: 5,254
GM 100-400 mm is very useful!

mreynolds767 wrote:

Sony 100-400 GM ; would expect best IQ for this and tempted by it. Size and weight is a bit of a turnoff and don't love the White ;

This is probably the lens I use most, and I can carry the camera with this combo in my hand all day long. Sharpness is excellent wide open, and autofocus is very fast and reliable thanks to two focus motors. I can't think of any lens that can replace this one for me. Maybe a 400 mm f:4 prime or something like that, but then I would miss the flexibility of the zoom.

but really cost is likely biggest reason I have not pulled the trigger on this.

Still well worth the money, I would say! Well built, and excellent glass.

The ability to down the road add a Sony TC is also a nice feature of this lens.

For extra reach I sometimes use the 1.4x teleconverter. Great sharpness.

 Magnar W's gear list:Magnar W's gear list
Sony a7 Sony a7R III Sony FE 90mm F2.8 macro Zeiss Loxia 21mm F2.8 Zeiss Loxia 35 +2 more
rjensen11
rjensen11 Regular Member • Posts: 424
Re: GM 100-400 mm is very useful!

Agreed. If you like watching videos you should check out Mads Peter Iversen's YT channel. He has a video on using the 100-400 for landscapes.

I have my tripod and backpack with me when doing landscapes, so the size isn't an issue for me. However, if you're hiking and taking shots along the way you may feel differently (maybe the 24-105 would be better in that situation).

 rjensen11's gear list:rjensen11's gear list
Olympus E-M1 II Panasonic Leica D Summilux Asph 25mm F1.4 Olympus M.Zuiko Digital 45mm F1.8 Olympus M.Zuiko Digital ED 75mm F1.8 Olympus 40-150mm F2.8 Pro +3 more
SafariBob
SafariBob Senior Member • Posts: 1,979
Re: Telephoto for Landscapes A7rIV
1

mreynolds767 wrote:

Hoping for some advise.

I own and have used the Sony FE 70-300 for a few years; been very pleased with it.

I must have a sharp copy as I have taken some very nice images with it but always felt it would be nice to have an extra 100 mm or more of reach and at least based on the ratings I have seen probably the worst performer of the lens I own on the A7rIV

Since I am usually a wide angle landscape shooter I don't have as much experience as many on this forum on the long end of things.

I really don't care about wide open performance or the aperture as I am most likely going to be at F8 or so and using it on a tripod for things like the Moon, Distant Lighthouses, Mountains, fields of flowers, etc... Some larger wildlife is possible.

Me using the lens for portraits, birds in flight, sports, is possible but not likely enough for me to buy any of these lens for that purpose so not wishing to pay extra for better performance in those areas.

Weight and size is a factor but not a huge consideration.

Cost is a consideration.

Performance on the A7rIV 61 MP sensor is also a concern.

I use my 70-300 in the 120-300 range I would say. Have better lens at 75/85, etc... so would need to be over 100 before I ever reach for it.

Options: Sigma 100-400 ; like the fact I would gain 100 mm of reach and the size seems OK. Are the optics any better though? ; would cost me a couple hundred+ to sell the 70-300 used to get one even though new the 70-300 cost more than the Sigma does. Believe it is recommend to also buy a tripod foot on this one. Overall though it is the lowest cost possible upgrade.

Sony 100-400 GM ; would expect best IQ for this and tempted by it. Size and weight is a bit of a turnoff and don't love the White ; but really cost is likely biggest reason I have not pulled the trigger on this. The ability to down the road add a Sony TC is also a nice feature of this lens.

Sony 200-600 ; If I am going to spend so much on a tele lens maybe I should go for the ultimate reach advantage? Can get one of these for less than the Sony 100-400 ; Is above 400 overkill for landscapes? and have heard bad things about it and the A7rIV but that might just be AF issues for things like BIF?

Rumors of a coming Tamron 150-500? Or anything else I should hold out for?

Nice gallery, I would go for the sigma 100-400 and add a 200-600 down the line for wildlife if you want. Would also consider using the 28-200, thinking it could be a great options for landscape usage

 SafariBob's gear list:SafariBob's gear list
Sony RX1 Sony a7R II Canon EF 400mm f/2.8L IS USM Sony 70-400mm F4-5.6 G SSM Sony FE 35mm F2.8 +1 more
peter826 Contributing Member • Posts: 649
Re: Telephoto for Landscapes A7rIV
1

I like to shoot long telephoto landscapes.  I use the 70-300 quite a bit, but it's too short for much of what I want.

If cost is an issue, a less expensive alternative if you don't plan to use it too much would be a SIgma 150-600 and an MC-11.  I use this combo quite a bit for landscapes, it work fine though the AF would never been good enough for birds or animals.

I hope Sigma releases a 150-600 in Sony E mount at some point.  The Sony 200-600 is the only native option, it needs some competition.

 peter826's gear list:peter826's gear list
Sigma DP2 Merrill Sony RX1 Sony RX100 VI Sony a7R Sony a6000 +8 more
Karl Scharf
Karl Scharf Veteran Member • Posts: 4,315
Re: Telephoto for Landscapes A7rIV
1

I highly recommend the Sigma 100-400mm Contemporary lens. It is inexpensive, reasonably small and light, optically stabilized and capable of producing great images with legendary bokeh.

-- hide signature --

...."Sony, your crap is so good"....love this quote!

 Karl Scharf's gear list:Karl Scharf's gear list
Sony a7 III Samyang 12mm F2.8 Fisheye Tamron 17-28mm F2.8 Di III RXD Tamron 28-200mm F2.8-5.6 Sigma 100-400mm F5-6.3 DG DN OS +19 more
richj20 Veteran Member • Posts: 8,281
Re: Telephoto for Landscapes A7rIV

mreynolds767 wrote:

Is above 400 overkill for landscapes?

I have used my MFT  wildlife lens for landscapes - Panasonic 100-400mm (2x crop = 200-800mm) on trips to the Sequoia National Forest.

On occasions, following storms which create a torrent of water over one of the falls, I wanted closeups.

800mm

A view of the falls from the road.

One of the spectacular granite domes has coloring on the rock face, and on one occasion, the sunlight made the colors stand out, so I wanted a closeup.

800mm

A view from the road.

The long focal length has been handy for certain landscape opportunities.

- Richard

 richj20's gear list:richj20's gear list
Panasonic Lumix DMC-GX8 Panasonic Leica 100-400mm F4.0-6.3 ASPH Sony a7R II
travelinbri_74
travelinbri_74 Veteran Member • Posts: 4,081
Re: Telephoto for Landscapes A7rIV
1

SafariBob wrote:

mreynolds767 wrote:

Hoping for some advise.

I own and have used the Sony FE 70-300 for a few years; been very pleased with it.

I must have a sharp copy as I have taken some very nice images with it but always felt it would be nice to have an extra 100 mm or more of reach and at least based on the ratings I have seen probably the worst performer of the lens I own on the A7rIV

Since I am usually a wide angle landscape shooter I don't have as much experience as many on this forum on the long end of things.

I really don't care about wide open performance or the aperture as I am most likely going to be at F8 or so and using it on a tripod for things like the Moon, Distant Lighthouses, Mountains, fields of flowers, etc... Some larger wildlife is possible.

Me using the lens for portraits, birds in flight, sports, is possible but not likely enough for me to buy any of these lens for that purpose so not wishing to pay extra for better performance in those areas.

Weight and size is a factor but not a huge consideration.

Cost is a consideration.

Performance on the A7rIV 61 MP sensor is also a concern.

I use my 70-300 in the 120-300 range I would say. Have better lens at 75/85, etc... so would need to be over 100 before I ever reach for it.

Options: Sigma 100-400 ; like the fact I would gain 100 mm of reach and the size seems OK. Are the optics any better though? ; would cost me a couple hundred+ to sell the 70-300 used to get one even though new the 70-300 cost more than the Sigma does. Believe it is recommend to also buy a tripod foot on this one. Overall though it is the lowest cost possible upgrade.

Sony 100-400 GM ; would expect best IQ for this and tempted by it. Size and weight is a bit of a turnoff and don't love the White ; but really cost is likely biggest reason I have not pulled the trigger on this. The ability to down the road add a Sony TC is also a nice feature of this lens.

Sony 200-600 ; If I am going to spend so much on a tele lens maybe I should go for the ultimate reach advantage? Can get one of these for less than the Sony 100-400 ; Is above 400 overkill for landscapes? and have heard bad things about it and the A7rIV but that might just be AF issues for things like BIF?

Rumors of a coming Tamron 150-500? Or anything else I should hold out for?

Nice gallery, I would go for the sigma 100-400 and add a 200-600 down the line for wildlife if you want. Would also consider using the 28-200, thinking it could be a great options for landscape usage

I have and quite enjoy the Sigma 100-400. No complaints about image quality, but I may sell it and pick up the Sony 100-400 at some point in the future for the slightly more assured autofocus and the close focusing capability. I guess know your needs, if it is purely for landscape, the Sigma should be perfect.

-- hide signature --
 travelinbri_74's gear list:travelinbri_74's gear list
Ricoh GR III Sony a7R III Sony FE 90mm F2.8 macro Sony FE 16-35mm F2.8 Sony FE 24-105mm F4 +9 more
pixelho Regular Member • Posts: 246
Re: GM 100-400 mm is very useful!

Magnar W wrote:

mreynolds767 wrote:

Sony 100-400 GM ; would expect best IQ for this and tempted by it. Size and weight is a bit of a turnoff and don't love the White ;

This is probably the lens I use most, and I can carry the camera with this combo in my hand all day long. Sharpness is excellent wide open, and autofocus is very fast and reliable thanks to two focus motors. I can't think of any lens that can replace this one for me. Maybe a 400 mm f:4 prime or something like that, but then I would miss the flexibility of the zoom.

but really cost is likely biggest reason I have not pulled the trigger on this.

Still well worth the money, I would say! Well built, and excellent glass.

The ability to down the road add a Sony TC is also a nice feature of this lens.

For extra reach I sometimes use the 1.4x teleconverter. Great sharpness.

+1 for Magnar’s comments on the 100 - 400. I have the 70 - 300, too, and after making the jump to the 100 - 400, the 300 stays home quite a bit. Like Magnar, it is on my camera a lot with it’s versatility and excellent IQ. It really changed my thinking about many landscape and other opportunities. I’ve carried it for hours including shortish hikes and also had it in my backpack for longer treks when I thought I might want to isolate instead going wide without regret. For walk around shooting, I like it paired with the PD Slide strap. You won’t regret the native glass if you’re seeing compositions but not able to get there with the 300. As a bonus, it’s a fun “macro at a distance” lens as well. I’m stumped why they went with the white - kind of reminds of how most computers were beige at one time - but I got over that quickly after shooting with it. Maybe there is a source for good quality black wraps for it?

 pixelho's gear list:pixelho's gear list
Sony RX100 III Sony a7R II Sony a7R IV
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum MMy threads