For landscapes, 70-300 or 100-400?

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

Starting to think about next lens (see current gear below), and after reading a bunch on line, not sure which way to proceed. On the one hand it would be nice to have 70mm on the lens for utility, but it also might be good to have the extra reach for compression. FWIW, the lenses I am considering ATM are the Sigma 100-400 and perhaps the Tamron 70-300.

What do you guys think?

 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
ANSWER:
This question has not been answered yet.
Rol Lei Nut Veteran Member • Posts: 5,632
Re: For landscapes, 70-300 or 100-400?
3

vwcrusher wrote:

Starting to think about next lens (see current gear below), and after reading a bunch on line, not sure which way to proceed. On the one hand it would be nice to have 70mm on the lens for utility, but it also might be good to have the extra reach for compression. FWIW, the lenses I am considering ATM are the Sigma 100-400 and perhaps the Tamron 70-300.

I recently got both the Sigma 100-400 and the Tamron 70-300. They are substituting some significantly heavier lenses (Sony 70-300, not optically better, but with OS and Canon 100-400, better optically and for stabilization, but with significant weight and AF disadvantages).

For me, they have very different uses. The 70-300 is a "carry always" lens because of its size and weight.

The 100-400 lens is for when I expect to photograph wildlife. I don't consider it a "carry always" lens.

Having to choose only one, it would definitely be the 70-300.

That is my use, often out & about by foot & bicycle for long distances. If you go everywhere by car, then size & weight becomes much less relevant and the 100-400 has some advantages. The difference between 70 and 100mm as a short end is rarely a problem.

johnpul New Member • Posts: 16
Re: For landscapes, 70-300 or 100-400?
3

I was considering the same lenses.  From what I’ve seen the sigma is far superior In image quality and has built lens stabilization...    it will be my choice.

OP vwcrusher Regular Member • Posts: 411
Re: For landscapes, 70-300 or 100-400?

Thanks for the posts. For my anticipated use (landscapes) I will most probably be utilizing a tripod for either lens. In general optical clarity is more important to me than weight. I just wonder in most situations when a telephoto lens is desired, will I see any difference between these two. I should note that I tend to print fairly large (2x3ft).

You make an interesting case for both I admit....I decided on the 24-105 f4 because for what I photograph I really didn't need the extra speed f2.8 provides, plus I was not giving up any clarity. Even with the tripod, while walking I would only need the two lenses (24-105 and 70-300). Note: someday a wide zoom. This is especially true given the aggressive price of the Tamron.

Interesting...does this make any sense? What factor have I not anticipated?

Thanks

 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
Rol Lei Nut Veteran Member • Posts: 5,632
Re: For landscapes, 70-300 or 100-400?
3

vwcrusher wrote:

Thanks for the posts. For my anticipated use (landscapes) I will most probably be utilizing a tripod for either lens. In general optical clarity is more important to me than weight. I just wonder in most situations when a telephoto lens is desired, will I see any difference between these two. I should note that I tend to print fairly large (2x3ft).

You make an interesting case for both I admit....I decided on the 24-105 f4 because for what I photograph I really didn't need the extra speed f2.8 provides, plus I was not giving up any clarity. Even with the tripod, while walking I would only need the two lenses (24-105 and 70-300). Note: someday a wide zoom. This is especially true given the aggressive price of the Tamron.

Interesting...does this make any sense? What factor have I not anticipated?

Thanks

Tripod: the 70-300 has no tripod ring, nor any space to mount one. It's really a handheld lens which depends on the camera's IBIS for stabilization (its real drawback).

The 100-400 doesn't come with a tripod ring, but one can be bought (expensive original or not cheap aftermarket).

So for tripod use, I'd definitely say the 100-400, even if the 70-300 might be a little bit sharper in most situatons. Though with 2x3 foot prints you probably won't see any difference (both good lenses).

On a tripod, be sure to turn the 100-400's stabilization off, as it really seems to cause framing differences and probably sharpness loss, unlike many other OS lenses in practice.

OP vwcrusher Regular Member • Posts: 411
Re: For landscapes, 70-300 or 100-400?

Rol Lei Nut wrote:

vwcrusher wrote:

Thanks for the posts. For my anticipated use (landscapes) I will most probably be utilizing a tripod for either lens. In general optical clarity is more important to me than weight. I just wonder in most situations when a telephoto lens is desired, will I see any difference between these two. I should note that I tend to print fairly large (2x3ft).

You make an interesting case for both I admit....I decided on the 24-105 f4 because for what I photograph I really didn't need the extra speed f2.8 provides, plus I was not giving up any clarity. Even with the tripod, while walking I would only need the two lenses (24-105 and 70-300). Note: someday a wide zoom. This is especially true given the aggressive price of the Tamron.

Interesting...does this make any sense? What factor have I not anticipated?

Thanks

Tripod: the 70-300 has no tripod ring, nor any space to mount one. It's really a handheld lens which depends on the camera's IBIS for stabilization (its real drawback).

The 100-400 doesn't come with a tripod ring, but one can be bought (expensive original or not cheap aftermarket).

So for tripod use, I'd definitely say the 100-400, even if the 70-300 might be a little bit sharper in most situatons. Though with 2x3 foot prints you probably won't see any difference (both good lenses).

Thanks for the reply. So you have used both lenses and you feel the Tamron is sharper? At any particular range or across the board? My thinking is it is sharper I'd be willing to give up the extra reach.

 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
Rol Lei Nut Veteran Member • Posts: 5,632
Re: For landscapes, 70-300 or 100-400?

vwcrusher wrote:

Rol Lei Nut wrote:

vwcrusher wrote:

Thanks for the posts. For my anticipated use (landscapes) I will most probably be utilizing a tripod for either lens. In general optical clarity is more important to me than weight. I just wonder in most situations when a telephoto lens is desired, will I see any difference between these two. I should note that I tend to print fairly large (2x3ft).

You make an interesting case for both I admit....I decided on the 24-105 f4 because for what I photograph I really didn't need the extra speed f2.8 provides, plus I was not giving up any clarity. Even with the tripod, while walking I would only need the two lenses (24-105 and 70-300). Note: someday a wide zoom. This is especially true given the aggressive price of the Tamron.

Interesting...does this make any sense? What factor have I not anticipated?

Thanks

Tripod: the 70-300 has no tripod ring, nor any space to mount one. It's really a handheld lens which depends on the camera's IBIS for stabilization (its real drawback).

The 100-400 doesn't come with a tripod ring, but one can be bought (expensive original or not cheap aftermarket).

So for tripod use, I'd definitely say the 100-400, even if the 70-300 might be a little bit sharper in most situatons. Though with 2x3 foot prints you probably won't see any difference (both good lenses).

Thanks for the reply. So you have used both lenses and you feel the Tamron is sharper? At any particular range or across the board? My thinking is it is sharper I'd be willing to give up the extra reach.

I find that the Tamron is potentially a bit sharper at pixel peeking levels, though that's not likely to be visible at less than poster sizes (on 42mp).

On a tripod, the presence of a tripod ring will definitely favour the Sigma in all but the best light.

OP vwcrusher Regular Member • Posts: 411
Re: For landscapes, 70-300 or 100-400?

Rol Lei Nut wrote:

vwcrusher wrote:

Rol Lei Nut wrote:

vwcrusher wrote:

Thanks for the posts. For my anticipated use (landscapes) I will most probably be utilizing a tripod for either lens. In general optical clarity is more important to me than weight. I just wonder in most situations when a telephoto lens is desired, will I see any difference between these two. I should note that I tend to print fairly large (2x3ft).

You make an interesting case for both I admit....I decided on the 24-105 f4 because for what I photograph I really didn't need the extra speed f2.8 provides, plus I was not giving up any clarity. Even with the tripod, while walking I would only need the two lenses (24-105 and 70-300). Note: someday a wide zoom. This is especially true given the aggressive price of the Tamron.

Interesting...does this make any sense? What factor have I not anticipated?

Thanks

Tripod: the 70-300 has no tripod ring, nor any space to mount one. It's really a handheld lens which depends on the camera's IBIS for stabilization (its real drawback).

The 100-400 doesn't come with a tripod ring, but one can be bought (expensive original or not cheap aftermarket).

So for tripod use, I'd definitely say the 100-400, even if the 70-300 might be a little bit sharper in most situatons. Though with 2x3 foot prints you probably won't see any difference (both good lenses).

Thanks for the reply. So you have used both lenses and you feel the Tamron is sharper? At any particular range or across the board? My thinking is it is sharper I'd be willing to give up the extra reach.

I find that the Tamron is potentially a bit sharper at pixel peeking levels, though that's not likely to be visible at less than poster sizes (on 42mp).

On a tripod, the presence of a tripod ring will definitely favour the Sigma in all but the best light.

Interesting, so perhaps the Tamron is the walk around tele and the Sigma is for stationary use....I guess that was your strategy in obtaining both?

 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
Rol Lei Nut Veteran Member • Posts: 5,632
Re: For landscapes, 70-300 or 100-400?
1

vwcrusher wrote:

Rol Lei Nut wrote:

vwcrusher wrote:

Rol Lei Nut wrote:

vwcrusher wrote:

Thanks for the posts. For my anticipated use (landscapes) I will most probably be utilizing a tripod for either lens. In general optical clarity is more important to me than weight. I just wonder in most situations when a telephoto lens is desired, will I see any difference between these two. I should note that I tend to print fairly large (2x3ft).

You make an interesting case for both I admit....I decided on the 24-105 f4 because for what I photograph I really didn't need the extra speed f2.8 provides, plus I was not giving up any clarity. Even with the tripod, while walking I would only need the two lenses (24-105 and 70-300). Note: someday a wide zoom. This is especially true given the aggressive price of the Tamron.

Interesting...does this make any sense? What factor have I not anticipated?

Thanks

Tripod: the 70-300 has no tripod ring, nor any space to mount one. It's really a handheld lens which depends on the camera's IBIS for stabilization (its real drawback).

The 100-400 doesn't come with a tripod ring, but one can be bought (expensive original or not cheap aftermarket).

So for tripod use, I'd definitely say the 100-400, even if the 70-300 might be a little bit sharper in most situatons. Though with 2x3 foot prints you probably won't see any difference (both good lenses).

Thanks for the reply. So you have used both lenses and you feel the Tamron is sharper? At any particular range or across the board? My thinking is it is sharper I'd be willing to give up the extra reach.

I find that the Tamron is potentially a bit sharper at pixel peeking levels, though that's not likely to be visible at less than poster sizes (on 42mp).

On a tripod, the presence of a tripod ring will definitely favour the Sigma in all but the best light.

Interesting, so perhaps the Tamron is the walk around tele and the Sigma is for stationary use....I guess that was your strategy in obtaining both?

Pretty much.

The Tamron for general use and the Sigma for when I need 400mm and/or am using a tripod (mostly wildlife, since I rarely shoot landscapes at more than 300mm).

Again, both good lenses, any quality differences between them will be more due to how they're used.

Rob J
Rob J Contributing Member • Posts: 673
Re: For landscapes, 70-300 or 100-400?
1

I own both. I've had the Tamron 70-300 for several weeks. I just added the Sigma 100-400 thinking it would be nice to have an extra 100mmm of reach. I very much like the Tamron and it will have a permanent space reserved in my bag. I've only been out twice with the Sigma and haven't given it a fair trial to properly assess it.

The one factor that might make me NOT keep the Sigma is the weight. While it is not as heavy as it's Sony counterpart, it is still a hefty lens and somewhat tiring to carry for longer outings. The Tamron is featherlight in comparison.

Both are sharp lenses although as I have said, the Sigma has not had enough shooting time to fully assess it. So far, what images that I have shot seem really nice when the light is good. I think the Tamron would win in lower light situations however.

My thinking at present is that I will likely keep both but if I were to only keep one, it would be the Tamron 70-300mm.

I can't speak for use with a tripod because I seldom use a tripod. I shoot a lot of bird in flight stuff and a tripod just gets in the way. For landscapes though, a tripod would make sense. The ridiculous price for the optional tripod collar is outrageous and even aftermarket collars are pricey for what they are. I don't know why Sigma didn't just factor the collar into the price of the lens.

OP vwcrusher Regular Member • Posts: 411
Re: For landscapes, 70-300 or 100-400?

Rol Lei Nut wrote:

vwcrusher wrote:

Rol Lei Nut wrote:

vwcrusher wrote:

Rol Lei Nut wrote:

vwcrusher wrote:

Thanks for the posts. For my anticipated use (landscapes) I will most probably be utilizing a tripod for either lens. In general optical clarity is more important to me than weight. I just wonder in most situations when a telephoto lens is desired, will I see any difference between these two. I should note that I tend to print fairly large (2x3ft).

You make an interesting case for both I admit....I decided on the 24-105 f4 because for what I photograph I really didn't need the extra speed f2.8 provides, plus I was not giving up any clarity. Even with the tripod, while walking I would only need the two lenses (24-105 and 70-300). Note: someday a wide zoom. This is especially true given the aggressive price of the Tamron.

Interesting...does this make any sense? What factor have I not anticipated?

Thanks

Tripod: the 70-300 has no tripod ring, nor any space to mount one. It's really a handheld lens which depends on the camera's IBIS for stabilization (its real drawback).

The 100-400 doesn't come with a tripod ring, but one can be bought (expensive original or not cheap aftermarket).

So for tripod use, I'd definitely say the 100-400, even if the 70-300 might be a little bit sharper in most situatons. Though with 2x3 foot prints you probably won't see any difference (both good lenses).

Thanks for the reply. So you have used both lenses and you feel the Tamron is sharper? At any particular range or across the board? My thinking is it is sharper I'd be willing to give up the extra reach.

I find that the Tamron is potentially a bit sharper at pixel peeking levels, though that's not likely to be visible at less than poster sizes (on 42mp).

On a tripod, the presence of a tripod ring will definitely favour the Sigma in all but the best light.

Interesting, so perhaps the Tamron is the walk around tele and the Sigma is for stationary use....I guess that was your strategy in obtaining both?

Pretty much.

The Tamron for general use and the Sigma for when I need 400mm and/or am using a tripod (mostly wildlife, since I rarely shoot landscapes at more than 300mm).

Again, both good lenses, any quality differences between them will be more due to how they're used.

Great... So it seems that it I had to choose which one to buy first given I really don't do a lot of wildlife, it seems that the Tamron might be the one. If I then determine there is not enough reach and/or really need a tripod, then get the sigma... Yes?

 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
OP vwcrusher Regular Member • Posts: 411
Re: For landscapes, 70-300 or 100-400?

Rob J wrote:

I own both. I've had the Tamron 70-300 for several weeks. I just added the Sigma 100-400 thinking it would be nice to have an extra 100mmm of reach. I very much like the Tamron and it will have a permanent space reserved in my bag. I've only been out twice with the Sigma and haven't given it a fair trial to properly assess it.

The one factor that might make me NOT keep the Sigma is the weight. While it is not as heavy as it's Sony counterpart, it is still a hefty lens and somewhat tiring to carry for longer outings. The Tamron is featherlight in comparison.

Both are sharp lenses although as I have said, the Sigma has not had enough shooting time to fully assess it. So far, what images that I have shot seem really nice when the light is good. I think the Tamron would win in lower light situations however.

My thinking at present is that I will likely keep both but if I were to only keep one, it would be the Tamron 70-300mm.

I can't speak for use with a tripod because I seldom use a tripod. I shoot a lot of bird in flight stuff and a tripod just gets in the way. For landscapes though, a tripod would make sense. The ridiculous price for the optional tripod collar is outrageous and even aftermarket collars are pricey for what they are. I don't know why Sigma didn't just factor the collar into the price of the lens.

Thank you for the reply; interestingly, you pretty much reinforced what the other poster was suggesting.  : )

 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
Impulses Veteran Member • Posts: 8,311
Re: For landscapes, 70-300 or 100-400?

Rol Lei Nut wrote:

vwcrusher wrote:

Rol Lei Nut wrote:

vwcrusher wrote:

Thanks for the posts. For my anticipated use (landscapes) I will most probably be utilizing a tripod for either lens. In general optical clarity is more important to me than weight. I just wonder in most situations when a telephoto lens is desired, will I see any difference between these two. I should note that I tend to print fairly large (2x3ft).

You make an interesting case for both I admit....I decided on the 24-105 f4 because for what I photograph I really didn't need the extra speed f2.8 provides, plus I was not giving up any clarity. Even with the tripod, while walking I would only need the two lenses (24-105 and 70-300). Note: someday a wide zoom. This is especially true given the aggressive price of the Tamron.

Interesting...does this make any sense? What factor have I not anticipated?

Thanks

Tripod: the 70-300 has no tripod ring, nor any space to mount one. It's really a handheld lens which depends on the camera's IBIS for stabilization (its real drawback).

The 100-400 doesn't come with a tripod ring, but one can be bought (expensive original or not cheap aftermarket).

So for tripod use, I'd definitely say the 100-400, even if the 70-300 might be a little bit sharper in most situatons. Though with 2x3 foot prints you probably won't see any difference (both good lenses).

Thanks for the reply. So you have used both lenses and you feel the Tamron is sharper? At any particular range or across the board? My thinking is it is sharper I'd be willing to give up the extra reach.

I find that the Tamron is potentially a bit sharper at pixel peeking levels, though that's not likely to be visible at less than poster sizes (on 42mp).

On a tripod, the presence of a tripod ring will definitely favour the Sigma in all but the best light.

Huh, Marc from:

https://sonyalpha.blog/2019/11/10/which-lenses-to-maximise-the-potential-of-the-sony-a7riv/#jp-carousel-46848

Gave me the opposite impression, I was expecting the Sigma to be a bit sharper across the board, I don't treat his reviews as gospel mind you but I haven't seen many others comparing them yet (the Tamron is fairly recent after all)... If they're close enough that sample variation is just as likely as anything to determine the winner then I'd be a lot more interested in the Tamron.

How does Sony IBIS handle shooting handheld at 300mm? I'm interested in either for landscapes more than action as well, but it'd be something I travel with too... All my teles have had OIS in the past tho, kinda leery of relying on IBIS alone.

 Impulses's gear list:Impulses's gear list
Panasonic GX850 Sony a7R IV Olympus M.Zuiko Digital ED 75mm F1.8 Panasonic Lumix G 42.5mm F1.7 Sony FE 20mm F1.8G +29 more
johnpul New Member • Posts: 16
Re: For landscapes, 70-300 or 100-400?
1

Rol Lei Nut wrote:

vwcrusher wrote:

Thanks for the posts. For my anticipated use (landscapes) I will most probably be utilizing a tripod for either lens. In general optical clarity is more important to me than weight. I just wonder in most situations when a telephoto lens is desired, will I see any difference between these two. I should note that I tend to print fairly large (2x3ft).

You make an interesting case for both I admit....I decided on the 24-105 f4 because for what I photograph I really didn't need the extra speed f2.8 provides, plus I was not giving up any clarity. Even with the tripod, while walking I would only need the two lenses (24-105 and 70-300). Note: someday a wide zoom. This is especially true given the aggressive price of the Tamron.

Interesting...does this make any sense? What factor have I not anticipated?

Thanks

Tripod: the 70-300 has no tripod ring, nor any space to mount one. It's really a handheld lens which depends on the camera's IBIS for stabilization (its real drawback).

The 100-400 doesn't come with a tripod ring, but one can be bought (expensive original or not cheap aftermarket).

So for tripod use, I'd definitely say the 100-400, even if the 70-300 might be a little bit sharper in most situatons. Though with 2x3 foot prints you probably won't see any difference (both good lenses).

On a tripod, be sure to turn the 100-400's stabilization off, as it really seems to cause framing differences and probably sharpness loss, unlike many other OS lenses in practice.

I’d argue that the 70-300 is light enough that you don’t need a tripod ring for use on a tripod.  The camera’s mount alone would be fine.

Foto4x4 Veteran Member • Posts: 3,599
Re: For landscapes, 70-300 or 100-400?
2

I’ve scanned to other replies only so sorry if this has been mentioned, but I’m really inclined to recommend a 70-200G or the Tamron 70-180. This is because your stated main use is landscapes. 200mm is usually plenty or compression and drawing mid distance subjects closer. Anything more than a short distance from camera is likely to be subject to atmospheric interference depending on time of day and weather which will impact any lens you chose. Now if you were using for wildlife and birds, then longer would be required in which case the 70-300 lenses are in no-mans land IMHO. After only moderate success with the Sony 70-300G on an expedition in 2019, I sold it and bought the 100-400GM and it’s wonderful. Having a proper tripod mount is great and it works well with the teleconverters as well. Personally, I view 70-300s as an attempt as as a Jack of all trades but master of none TBH.

-- 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
steviewonder20
steviewonder20 Regular Member • Posts: 213
Re: For landscapes, 70-300 or 100-400?

Rol Lei Nut wrote:

vwcrusher wrote:

Thanks for the posts. For my anticipated use (landscapes) I will most probably be utilizing a tripod for either lens. In general optical clarity is more important to me than weight. I just wonder in most situations when a telephoto lens is desired, will I see any difference between these two. I should note that I tend to print fairly large (2x3ft).

You make an interesting case for both I admit....I decided on the 24-105 f4 because for what I photograph I really didn't need the extra speed f2.8 provides, plus I was not giving up any clarity. Even with the tripod, while walking I would only need the two lenses (24-105 and 70-300). Note: someday a wide zoom. This is especially true given the aggressive price of the Tamron.

Interesting...does this make any sense? What factor have I not anticipated?

Thanks

Tripod: the 70-300 has no tripod ring, nor any space to mount one. It's really a handheld lens which depends on the camera's IBIS for stabilization (its real drawback).

The 100-400 doesn't come with a tripod ring, but one can be bought (expensive original or not cheap aftermarket).

So for tripod use, I'd definitely say the 100-400, even if the 70-300 might be a little bit sharper in most situatons. Though with 2x3 foot prints you probably won't see any difference (both good lenses).

On a tripod, be sure to turn the 100-400's stabilization off, as it really seems to cause framing differences and probably sharpness loss, unlike many other OS lenses in practice.

https://www.sonyalpharumors.com/here-are-the-best-lenses-for-your-a7riv/

Sony 100-400 gm is much sharper than the 70-300mm lens.

-- hide signature --

www.instagram.com/stephenlustig1

 steviewonder20's gear list:steviewonder20's gear list
Sony a7R III Sony a9 II Sony E 35mm F1.8 OSS Sony 1.4x Teleconverter Sony Vario-Tessar T* FE 16-35mm F4 ZA OSS +6 more
Rob J
Rob J Contributing Member • Posts: 673
Re: For landscapes, 70-300 or 100-400?

I’d argue that the 70-300 is light enough that you don’t need a tripod ring for use on a tripod. The camera’s mount alone would be fine.

I would agree with that.

Rol Lei Nut Veteran Member • Posts: 5,632
Re: For landscapes, 70-300 or 100-400?
1

Impulses wrote:

Rol Lei Nut wrote:

vwcrusher wrote:

Rol Lei Nut wrote:

vwcrusher wrote:

Thanks for the posts. For my anticipated use (landscapes) I will most probably be utilizing a tripod for either lens. In general optical clarity is more important to me than weight. I just wonder in most situations when a telephoto lens is desired, will I see any difference between these two. I should note that I tend to print fairly large (2x3ft).

You make an interesting case for both I admit....I decided on the 24-105 f4 because for what I photograph I really didn't need the extra speed f2.8 provides, plus I was not giving up any clarity. Even with the tripod, while walking I would only need the two lenses (24-105 and 70-300). Note: someday a wide zoom. This is especially true given the aggressive price of the Tamron.

Interesting...does this make any sense? What factor have I not anticipated?

Thanks

Tripod: the 70-300 has no tripod ring, nor any space to mount one. It's really a handheld lens which depends on the camera's IBIS for stabilization (its real drawback).

The 100-400 doesn't come with a tripod ring, but one can be bought (expensive original or not cheap aftermarket).

So for tripod use, I'd definitely say the 100-400, even if the 70-300 might be a little bit sharper in most situatons. Though with 2x3 foot prints you probably won't see any difference (both good lenses).

Thanks for the reply. So you have used both lenses and you feel the Tamron is sharper? At any particular range or across the board? My thinking is it is sharper I'd be willing to give up the extra reach.

I find that the Tamron is potentially a bit sharper at pixel peeking levels, though that's not likely to be visible at less than poster sizes (on 42mp).

On a tripod, the presence of a tripod ring will definitely favour the Sigma in all but the best light.

Huh, Marc from:

https://sonyalpha.blog/2019/11/10/which-lenses-to-maximise-the-potential-of-the-sony-a7riv/#jp-carousel-46848

Gave me the opposite impression, I was expecting the Sigma to be a bit sharper across the board, I don't treat his reviews as gospel mind you but I haven't seen many others comparing them yet (the Tamron is fairly recent after all)... If they're close enough that sample variation is just as likely as anything to determine the winner then I'd be a lot more interested in the Tamron.

Sample variation and/or shooting on a tripod where the Tamron would be seriously disadvantaged by hanging off the camera body could explain the difference.

How does Sony IBIS handle shooting handheld at 300mm? I'm interested in either for landscapes more than action as well, but it'd be something I travel with too... All my teles have had OIS in the past tho, kinda leery of relying on IBIS alone.

I haven't had it that long, but my guess is about two stops. In these dark winter days, shooting at around 1/125 gives a slightly over 50% very sharp rate while not being especially careful. Of course that can vary greatly depending on technique, any bracing and so on. The Sony 70-300 the Tamron is replacing  does a bit better for stabilization, but generally gives flatter looking results.

According to some of the tests of the Sigma 100-400, its OS is less effective around 1/100-1/200 than with faster or even slower speeds. That seems to be possible, as I found it to behave in a very similar way to the Tamron.

Rol Lei Nut Veteran Member • Posts: 5,632
Re: For landscapes, 70-300 or 100-400?
1

johnpul wrote:

Rol Lei Nut wrote:

vwcrusher wrote:

Thanks for the posts. For my anticipated use (landscapes) I will most probably be utilizing a tripod for either lens. In general optical clarity is more important to me than weight. I just wonder in most situations when a telephoto lens is desired, will I see any difference between these two. I should note that I tend to print fairly large (2x3ft).

You make an interesting case for both I admit....I decided on the 24-105 f4 because for what I photograph I really didn't need the extra speed f2.8 provides, plus I was not giving up any clarity. Even with the tripod, while walking I would only need the two lenses (24-105 and 70-300). Note: someday a wide zoom. This is especially true given the aggressive price of the Tamron.

Interesting...does this make any sense? What factor have I not anticipated?

Thanks

Tripod: the 70-300 has no tripod ring, nor any space to mount one. It's really a handheld lens which depends on the camera's IBIS for stabilization (its real drawback).

The 100-400 doesn't come with a tripod ring, but one can be bought (expensive original or not cheap aftermarket).

So for tripod use, I'd definitely say the 100-400, even if the 70-300 might be a little bit sharper in most situatons. Though with 2x3 foot prints you probably won't see any difference (both good lenses).

On a tripod, be sure to turn the 100-400's stabilization off, as it really seems to cause framing differences and probably sharpness loss, unlike many other OS lenses in practice.

I’d argue that the 70-300 is light enough that you don’t need a tripod ring for use on a tripod. The camera’s mount alone would be fine.

Archimedes once said "Give me a long enough lever and I'll move the World."

At 300mm, the Tamron extends almost 21cm from the body, not counting its lens hood. With such leverage, the smallest vibrations will be amplified and an accidental knock could cause damage to the mounts.

I put such use in the "emergency use" category, which might work sometimes but isn't reliable and could be risky.

Rol Lei Nut Veteran Member • Posts: 5,632
Re: For landscapes, 70-300 or 100-400?

steviewonder20 wrote:

Rol Lei Nut wrote:

vwcrusher wrote:

Thanks for the posts. For my anticipated use (landscapes) I will most probably be utilizing a tripod for either lens. In general optical clarity is more important to me than weight. I just wonder in most situations when a telephoto lens is desired, will I see any difference between these two. I should note that I tend to print fairly large (2x3ft).

You make an interesting case for both I admit....I decided on the 24-105 f4 because for what I photograph I really didn't need the extra speed f2.8 provides, plus I was not giving up any clarity. Even with the tripod, while walking I would only need the two lenses (24-105 and 70-300). Note: someday a wide zoom. This is especially true given the aggressive price of the Tamron.

Interesting...does this make any sense? What factor have I not anticipated?

Thanks

Tripod: the 70-300 has no tripod ring, nor any space to mount one. It's really a handheld lens which depends on the camera's IBIS for stabilization (its real drawback).

The 100-400 doesn't come with a tripod ring, but one can be bought (expensive original or not cheap aftermarket).

So for tripod use, I'd definitely say the 100-400, even if the 70-300 might be a little bit sharper in most situatons. Though with 2x3 foot prints you probably won't see any difference (both good lenses).

On a tripod, be sure to turn the 100-400's stabilization off, as it really seems to cause framing differences and probably sharpness loss, unlike many other OS lenses in practice.

https://www.sonyalpharumors.com/here-are-the-best-lenses-for-your-a7riv/

Sony 100-400 gm is much sharper than the 70-300mm lens.

I think nobody is arguing that.

It's also more than twice as heavy as the Tamron 70-300. I couldn't find the weight of the Sony's shade, but the 100-400 could end up weighing a kilogram more in use. For people walking long distances, that isn't peanuts!

The 70-300 fits in a smallish pouch in a bag and is essentially an "always with" lens. Horses for courses...

Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum MMy threads