p.1 #2 · 70-200mm gm2 vs 100-400mm gm for landscape photography
It depends on the lenses you have with them. I think they're both excellent.
I had the same dilemma between 16-35, 50 and 70-200 kit or 14, 24-70 and 100-400 kit.
I went with the 70-200 as I travel a lot, it was a bit lighter, better for portraits, and better in low light, but I'm sure I would have been super happy with the other kit.
p.1 #3 · 70-200mm gm2 vs 100-400mm gm for landscape photography
pierrep69 wrote:
It depends on the lenses you have with them. I think they're both excellent.
I had the same dilemma between 16-35, 50 and 70-200 kit or 14, 24-70 and 100-400 kit.
I went with the 70-200 as I travel a lot, it was a bit lighter, better for portraits, and better in low light, but I'm sure I would have been super happy with the other kit.
IMO pierrep69 has the right idea here, you have to look at the rest of your kit, and not just a single lens.
Photographers have different ideas about landscape photography too, some will insist you need prime lenses and a donkey ala Ansel Adams to get maximum detail in each shot.
Other people favor covering as many focal lengths as possible with slow zooms, and that's where lenses like the 100-400 come in.
p.1 #4 · 70-200mm gm2 vs 100-400mm gm for landscape photography
I have 3 main zoom lenses for landscape that cover everything from 16-400 !6-35GM Tamron 35-150 and 100-400GM. But to answer the OP's question how about the Tamron 50-400 which would appear to be ideal for landscape and covers more focal range than the 2 you mention together
p.1 #5 · 70-200mm gm2 vs 100-400mm gm for landscape photography
GM 70-200/2.8 Mk2 is better (sharper,contrastier,lighter,faster,less CA and vignetting) overall,but if you need 300-400mm and better close up facility,i.e. more flexibility,GM 100-400 wins.
p.1 #6 · 70-200mm gm2 vs 100-400mm gm for landscape photography
Focal length is a personal preference. I myself don't find longer than 200mm that useful for lendscapes, actually even 135 is long enough for me. Also, I would buy 70-400 f4 if the main purpose for the lens is landscape photography. I would rather shave some weight than have fast lens.
Younjulius wrote:
For landscape photography, which of the two lenses will be more useful?
This is a lens comparison and a focal range question.
p.1 #7 · 70-200mm gm2 vs 100-400mm gm for landscape photography
Viramati wrote:
I have 3 main zoom lenses for landscape that cover everything from 16-400 !6-35GM Tamron 35-150 and 100-400GM. But to answer the OP's question how about the Tamron 50-400 which would appear to be ideal for landscape and covers more focal range than the 2 you mention together
Tamron 50-400 is a very capable lens in several ways; it should not be overlooked.
I like the 50 mm wide end of the Tamron lens for stitching 2-3 shots into wider photos/short panoramas.
Physically, Tamron 50-400 is surprisingly compact and not too heavy for its range.
I owned the 100-400 GM, sold it, and would not consider buying this lens again unless Sony makes an improved Mark II.
p.1 #8 · 70-200mm gm2 vs 100-400mm gm for landscape photography
The bottom line here is one’s own preference of how they shoot landscapes. For me, I hardly ever take any lens greater than 85mm when shooting landscapes…but that’s my preference.
Ask yourself how often you’d be shooting landscapes at greater than 200mm…then you have your answer. Don’t rely on other people’s shooting preferences, establish your own.
p.1 #9 · 70-200mm gm2 vs 100-400mm gm for landscape photography
The Sony 70-200/2.8GM2 is a fantastic tool for photographers. It’s the best at what it does. Buy it. Use it. It does not disappoint. Sharp, light, and compact. Good luck with your decision.
p.1 #10 · 70-200mm gm2 vs 100-400mm gm for landscape photography
The best focal range is going to be somewhat personal to you, but for me I find longer than 200mm can be useful for picking out details at distance and the 100-400 also has very useful semi-macro capabilities that make it a great nature lens when out on a hike. My 100-400 travels with me far more than my 70-200GMii, which I tend to use more for PJ-style assignments.
Apr 11, 2024 at 02:38 PM
berimbolo Offline • • • [X]
p.1 #11 · 70-200mm gm2 vs 100-400mm gm for landscape photography
Is the magnification b/w the 70-200 and 100-400 really that different? I thought it was 0.3x vs 0.35x. If you had a 2x TC to the 70-200, you get much higher magnification, and I think that lens takes the TC very well.
p.1 #13 · 70-200mm gm2 vs 100-400mm gm for landscape photography
Younjulius wrote:
I have never used 200-400mm before and not sure of what to expect. That’s the reason for the question for those used it for landscape photography.
I do a lot of landscape photography with telephotos. I rarely have felt the need for >200mm, but that isn't to say I never have.
I am actually in the market for a new landscape telephoto after my trusty CY100-300 developed the infamous rear-element haze issue. I will likely settle on a 70-200GM2 with 1.4 TC for those times I want a bit more reach. I am not a fan of the 100-400.
p.1 #14 · 70-200mm gm2 vs 100-400mm gm for landscape photography
To OP: just wondering why you didn't list the FE 70-200 F4 GII macro as possible contender for landscape? Seems like a very interesting alternative. Would like to hear your opinion.
I'm interested in a 70-200 for landscape as well and am trying to decide between 70-200 F4 GII and F2.8 GMII. I had the old F4 and sold it, the sharpness across the frame didn't satisfy me, the sides and corners were too soft for my liking even at F8.
p.1 #15 · 70-200mm gm2 vs 100-400mm gm for landscape photography
I'd go with the GMII if landscape is your priority. Bare lens, you get a much higher performer in the shared range with about the same amount of distortion and FC, but with significantly lower optical vignetting. Adding extenders to match the range just brings the performance in line with the 100-400. I like my 100-400. It's a great hiking lens, I can add extenders if the situation demands, and I don't mind the stopped down performance for landscapes, but I know, for that purpose, I could have it better or just as good with the GMII and extenders.
p.1 #16 · 70-200mm gm2 vs 100-400mm gm for landscape photography
Younjulius wrote:
I have never used 200-400mm before and not sure of what to expect. That’s the reason for the question for those used it for landscape photography.
I don't use that range often but these two are some of my favourite landscape images greater then >200mm and wouldn't be happy cropping in from a 70-200mm. These are some close ups of mountains along the Icefield Parkway between Jasper and Banff, Alberta.
I currently have the Tamron 70-180 (probably most used lens for me) but thinking about upgrading to the Sony 70-200 GM II with the 1.4xTC. This would also replace my Sigma 100-400 in my bag (lens has been 'fine'). I am also planning on getting the F2.8 Sony over the F4 because I would use it for more then just landscape.
p.1 #17 · 70-200mm gm2 vs 100-400mm gm for landscape photography
Atmospheric haze is an enemy for a lot of landscapes greater than 200mm, 300mm if you are lucky. So given this I would go for a 70-200 in this choice. The lens is faster too, making it more suitable for other tasks. If you need to go to >200 you can use a TC on the 70-200. If you are more a wildlife type, then the 100-400mm may work better for you. Personally I would go for the 70-200 f4 rather than the f2.8.
p.1 #18 · 70-200mm gm2 vs 100-400mm gm for landscape photography
Michel85 wrote:
To OP: just wondering why you didn't list the FE 70-200 F4 GII macro as possible contender for landscape? Seems like a very interesting alternative. Would like to hear your opinion.
.
p.1 #20 · 70-200mm gm2 vs 100-400mm gm for landscape photography
Landscapes are a good use case for a 70-300. I hope Sony updates theirs with smaller size and better image quality like they keep doing with their other lenses.
