p.2 #1 · How often are you using >200mm for landscapes?
Yes I should clarify I'm not intending to bring out the 180-600 as a "landscape" lens, it is more of a wildlife lens for me - Though if I am not going far it is at least carry-able for not too long of distances. I guess my main dilemma is for me, I shot >200mm in nature/landscapes while going on dedicated photo trips to places like Iceland, Death Valley etc which I don't foresee doing as much of in the next few years due to life circumstances.
p.2 #2 · How often are you using >200mm for landscapes?
One must also consider the nature of the landscape or wildlife outing. Often, it could be not all that far from one's car, where the 180-600 becomes a rather insignificant addition of weight.
However, if you're hiking miles into an area, size and weight becomes far more important than 40 extra mm of reach vs a 1.4x on the 100-400.
Aug 09, 2023 at 09:55 AM
AmbientMike Offline • • • • • • [X]
p.2 #3 · How often are you using >200mm for landscapes?
The thing is, lenses tend to get heavy past 200mm. I'd hate to carry a 3lb lens to use on landscapes, so I'm not sure if I'd go past 200mm on FF. Up to 200mm covers most of it, though not all & I'd rather have longer.
I used to use 75-300 Tamron on aps, those types of lenses really good up to 200mm. Some might be good out to 300mm though and lighter than 100 400
p.2 #4 · How often are you using >200mm for landscapes?
If you intend to shoot wildlife, a 180-600 seems very useful. For landscape I would prefer the 100-400mm due to nano and ARNEO coatings (increasing contrast, reducinng flare and ghosting) as well as the more suitable focal range and smaller size and lighter weight. The 180-600 is larger and heavier and if it needs to be paired with 70-200/2.8 for shorter focal lengths in landscape work then the total size, weight and bag size increases.
I guess the key is to decide one's priorities. There are always compromises to be made in any practical setup.
Another thing apart from the coatings I wonder is the 180-600's tripod mount. The ring seems quite narrow relative to the focal length. Time will tell how well it will work for slow shutter speeds on tripod. I am more confident that the 100-400 will do a good job for landscapes.
I don't see any reason why one might not choose between 70-200/2.8 and 100-400 depending on the needs of the shoot. Apart from cost, of course.
BPsmith511 wrote:
Yes I should clarify I'm not intending to bring out the 180-600 as a "landscape" lens, it is more of a wildlife lens for me - Though if I am not going far it is at least carry-able for not too long of distances. I guess my main dilemma is for me, I shot >200mm in nature/landscapes while going on dedicated photo trips to places like Iceland, Death Valley etc which I don't foresee doing as much of in the next few years due to life circumstances.
Aug 09, 2023 at 01:34 PM
Steve Spencer Offline • • • • • • • Upload & Sell: On
p.2 #5 · How often are you using >200mm for landscapes?
I basically never shoot landscapes over 200mm. Maybe that is partly because I live in the flat midwest, and hate to take long heavy lenses on vacation (and I would consider the 100-400S to big for me to be willing to take on vacation). Maybe that is partly because it doesn't suit my style of landscape photography. Whatever the reason looking at my images over the last 15 years I have less than 10 landscape images longer than 200mm and I don't particularly like any of them.
