For landscapes, 70-300 or 100-400?

Started 11 months ago | Questions
Strangelight Forum Member • Posts: 75
Re: For landscapes, 70-300 or 100-400?
1

I rented the 100-400 GM a couple of years ago for a trip and, as you say, carrying it plus another lens to cover other focal lengths on long walks is no picnic - especially if you're also bringing along a tripod for the benefit of the 100-400.

I'd like to have the GM (or a 100-400 more generally) in a 'money / weight no object' world, but I can't justify it given how little use I think it would see.

I do agree in principle with Foto4x4's comment about 70-300s sitting in a no-man's land: when I had one, I found it too short for anything but the largest and closest birds (huge Andean condors in the Colca Canyon in my case).  I also agree that at 3-400mm, atmospheric effects will wipe out a lot of differences in sharpness etc. between these lenses.  In my experience the idea of taking super-long landscapes like that has always been more appealing than the outcomes.

 Strangelight's gear list:Strangelight's gear list
Sony a7R III Sony FE 55mm F1.8 Zeiss Batis 85mm F1.8 Sony FE 24-105mm F4 Zeiss Loxia 21mm F2.8 +2 more
TristanW
TristanW Contributing Member • Posts: 786
Re: For landscapes, 70-300 or 100-400?

Just in terms of FL, and other lens to team up, i would vote 70300, including lightweight. Especially given R4 has enough pixels to crop.

for 100400GM, for landscape, maybe I need a 24105/2470 besides a ultra wide zoom. But for 70300G, it will be confortable to team up a 1635 for most scenarios.

For given lens, 100400GM has noticable sharper IQ, so now i have keep 100400GM. Passed 70300G to my oldman.

But if sony will update 70300G to mk2 with GM level IQ in the future, I will sell my 100400GM for that.

-- hide signature --

Tristan.W

 TristanW's gear list:TristanW's gear list
Sony a7 IV Sony FE 100-400mm F4.5-5.6 Sony FE 24mm F1.4 GM Sony FE 16-35mm F2.8 Sony FE 135mm F1.8 GM +3 more
Impulses Veteran Member • Posts: 8,458
Re: For landscapes, 70-300 or 100-400?

Rol Lei Nut wrote:

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.

Yeah, even in ideal conditions a collar makes for way nicer handling on a tripod, less instant sag when loosening the head, etc.

 Impulses's gear list:Impulses's gear list
Panasonic GX850 Sony a7R IV Panasonic Lumix G 42.5mm F1.7 Olympus M.Zuiko Digital ED 75mm F1.8 Sony FE 20mm F1.8G +29 more
OP vwcrusher Regular Member • Posts: 411
Re: For landscapes, 70-300 or 100-400?

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.

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.  : )

 vwcrusher's gear list:vwcrusher's gear list
Sony a7R II Samyang AF 75mm F1.8 FE Samyang AF 35mm F1.8 FE Tamron 28-200mm F2.8-5.6 Samyang AF 18mm F2.8 FE
Foto4x4 Veteran Member • Posts: 3,603
Re: For landscapes, 70-300 or 100-400?
1

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!

-- 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 FE 100-400mm F4.5-5.6 +9 more
OP vwcrusher Regular Member • Posts: 411
Re: For landscapes, 70-300 or 100-400?
1

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

 vwcrusher's gear list:vwcrusher's gear list
Sony a7R II Samyang AF 75mm F1.8 FE Samyang AF 35mm F1.8 FE Tamron 28-200mm F2.8-5.6 Samyang AF 18mm F2.8 FE
Rol Lei Nut Veteran Member • Posts: 5,697
Re: For landscapes, 70-300 or 100-400?
1

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.

BrentSchumer
BrentSchumer Senior Member • Posts: 4,216
Re: For landscapes, 70-300 or 100-400?
3

I would go with the Sigma to reduce my reliance on tripods and get extra reach and IQ.

 BrentSchumer's gear list:BrentSchumer's gear list
Sony RX100 VI Sony a7R III Sony FE 55mm F1.8 Tamron 20mm F2.8 Di III OSD Tamron 28-200mm F2.8-5.6 +1 more
johnpul New Member • Posts: 16
Re: For landscapes, 70-300 or 100-400?

BrentSchumer wrote:

I would go with the Sigma to reduce my reliance on tripods and get extra reach and IQ.

Exactly. What’s heavier?! The 70-300 and a tripod?  Or the 100-400 alone since it has stability built in?

Impulses Veteran Member • Posts: 8,458
Re: For landscapes, 70-300 or 100-400?

Rol Lei Nut 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.

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.

Yeah the 70-180 is the rare exception since it's giving up a little reach at the long end and it's an extending zoom rather than the usual internal 70-200, so the Tamron 70-180 ends up being virtually the same size as their 70-300 (same filter size too), although the weight disparity is still like 800g vs 550g.

 Impulses's gear list:Impulses's gear list
Panasonic GX850 Sony a7R IV Panasonic Lumix G 42.5mm F1.7 Olympus M.Zuiko Digital ED 75mm F1.8 Sony FE 20mm F1.8G +29 more
OP vwcrusher Regular Member • Posts: 411
Re: For landscapes, 70-300 or 100-400?

Well, at this point in time it seems the best compromise is the Sigma. Don't need the lens tomorrow; perhaps there is a better fit on the horizon.....

 vwcrusher's gear list:vwcrusher's gear list
Sony a7R II Samyang AF 75mm F1.8 FE Samyang AF 35mm F1.8 FE Tamron 28-200mm F2.8-5.6 Samyang AF 18mm F2.8 FE
Foto4x4 Veteran Member • Posts: 3,603
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 FE 100-400mm F4.5-5.6 +9 more
OP vwcrusher Regular Member • Posts: 411
Re: For landscapes, 70-300 or 100-400?

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 prime...at this point not sure which FL....

 vwcrusher's gear list:vwcrusher's gear list
Sony a7R II Samyang AF 75mm F1.8 FE Samyang AF 35mm F1.8 FE Tamron 28-200mm F2.8-5.6 Samyang AF 18mm F2.8 FE
Foto4x4 Veteran Member • Posts: 3,603
Re: For landscapes, 70-300 or 100-400?
1

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 prime...at this point not sure which FL....

Thanks...

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.

-- 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 FE 100-400mm F4.5-5.6 +9 more
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:

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 prime...at this point not sure which FL....

Thanks...

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... You find the Tamron as sharp as the 24-105?

Any other advice?

Thanks

 vwcrusher's gear list:vwcrusher's gear list
Sony a7R II Samyang AF 75mm F1.8 FE Samyang AF 35mm F1.8 FE Tamron 28-200mm F2.8-5.6 Samyang AF 18mm F2.8 FE
Foto4x4 Veteran Member • Posts: 3,603
Re: For landscapes, 70-300 or 100-400?

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 prime...at this point not sure which FL....

Thanks...

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?

Thanks

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.

-- 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 FE 100-400mm F4.5-5.6 +9 more
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 prime...at this point not sure which FL....

Thanks...

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?

Thanks

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 75mm F1.8 FE Samyang AF 35mm F1.8 FE Tamron 28-200mm F2.8-5.6 Samyang AF 18mm F2.8 FE
MikeTakesPix
MikeTakesPix Contributing Member • Posts: 607
Re: For landscapes, 70-300 or 100-400?
1

I shoot the Tam 28-200 and the Sigma 100-400 as my two zooms. The Sigma is a chonky piece of glass, but it’s brilliant. Much as I love my 28-200, don’t think the Tam 70-300 is going to reward you at 201-300mm without OIS.

I often steal my wife’s ‘ole A5100 and shoot it on that crop sensor as a poor man’s 200-600mm in the park. It’s amazing (and half the weight, size, and price of Sony’s 200-600). Also, it frankly looks hilarious to have a big zoom lens on a tiny little white A5100 😂

 MikeTakesPix's gear list:MikeTakesPix's gear list
Fujifilm X100F Sony a7C Tamron 28-200mm F2.8-5.6 Sony FE 35mm F2.8 Tamron 17-28mm F2.8 Di III RXD
travelinbri_74
travelinbri_74 Veteran Member • Posts: 4,519
Re: For landscapes, 70-300 or 100-400?

A smaller 70-300 GM with equal close focusing ability and IQ would be a nice partner to the 200-600 and UWA and/or standard 2.8.

haven’t seen many reviews yet of the Tammy70-300

-- hide signature --
 travelinbri_74's gear list:travelinbri_74's gear list
Ricoh GR III Sony a7R III Sony FE 16-35mm F2.8 Sony FE 24-105mm F4 Sony FE 20mm F1.8G +5 more
Foto4x4 Veteran Member • Posts: 3,603
Re: For landscapes, 70-300 or 100-400?

vwcrusher wrote:

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 prime...at this point not sure which FL....

Thanks...

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?

Thanks

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.

If it were me, I’d choose the Tamron 70-180. Even though you say you don’t need f2.8 that extra stop could be very useful in poor light. Especially handheld. At 180mm you can decently shoot at 1/100s with IBIS and possibly slower. It’s small and a little bit lighter the the 70-200/f4G and sharper too. To have a dedicated lens in that focal length I’d want it over the GM too. Don’t get overly hung up on OSS. Your A7RII has decent IBIS and I’m using my 28-200 without OSS with no issues at all. All that said I did like my 70-200G and it was a hard decision to sell it but I wanted a few dollars to go toward my new A7RIV so sold it happy to use my 28-200 or 100-400 if 200 wasn’t enough. Finally, that 70-180 is by all reports sharper than my 28-200 of course.

-- 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 FE 100-400mm F4.5-5.6 +9 more
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum MMy threads