p.1 #1 · For Travel: Sony E 70-350 f4.5-6.3 -or- FE 100-400 f4.5-5.6 + 1.4TC?
Mark Galer has praised the Sony aps-c E 70-350 f4.5-6.3 for travel and suggested its use on full frame instead of the FE 100-400 f4.5-5.6 for travel and other situations where lighter and smaller is important. On a full-frame sensor, the effective field of view for the 70-350 is 105-525mm. Here is a link to his discussing that lens and also the E 16-55 f2.8, which he also recommends for use on full-frame cameras:
&t=2s
I am curious what others think of this suggestion and whether anyone here has used the E 70-350 on full-frame, especially in a travel context, and what they have thought about the results and the experience of carrying and using this lens. Have you been happy with the results?
I am usually not much of a long telephoto shooter. But I am going to be cruising the Antarctic Peninsula for three days, when I would be shooting from the deck of a ship, and also visiting other places, like the Falkland Islands and Patagonia, where there will be penguins, other wildlife, and surely some landscape applications for a long lens. So, I am thinking of taking an E 70-350 rather than an FE 100-400 + 1.4TC. The difference in weight and size is very considerable. The question is whether the image quality is good enough. I will be using a camera with either 50 or 60 mpix.
The 100-400 weighs 3.1lbs. It is from 8.07 to 11.2 inches long (the latter when it is fully extended) and 3.7 inches in diameter. The 1.4X TC brings the total weight to 3.8 lbs and the total length to about 9.75--12.7 inches.
The 70-350 weighs 1.38 lbs. It is from 5.6 to 7.5 inches long (the latter when fully extended) and 3 inches in diameter.
Both lenses have image stabilization.
Thoughts and recommendations, whether you have actually used the lenses or not, are welcome.
p.1 #2 · For Travel: Sony E 70-350 f4.5-6.3 -or- FE 100-400 f4.5-5.6 + 1.4TC?
I'll suggest another option, which I have just adopted - the 70-200mm ƒ4 Macro G II and 1.4x. It gives you great quality full-frame coverage from 70-280mm and then switched to crop mode yields 420mm FOV.
I still have the 70-350mm, which is an excellent lens, but seeing how well the 70-200mm performs, I think it's probably headed for the B&S board. The 70-200mm combo is a little bit bigger, but for my purposes it's worth it to have full-frame coverage for most of the range, and it's a bit brighter too.
p.1 #3 · For Travel: Sony E 70-350 f4.5-6.3 -or- FE 100-400 f4.5-5.6 + 1.4TC?
MikeEvangelist wrote:
I'll suggest another option, which I have just adopted - the 70-200mm G II and 1.4x. It gives you great quality full-frame coverage from 70-280mm and then switched to crop mode yields 420mm FOV.
I still have the 70-350mm, which is an excellent lens, but seeing how well the 70-200mm performs, I think it's probably headed for the B&S board. The 70-200mm combo is a little bit bigger, but for my purposes it's worth it to have full-frame coverage for most of the range, and it's a bit brighter too.
That is an interesting alternative. I actually bought a very good copy of the 70-200 with a 1.4X TC specifically for this upcoming trip, but I then decided that 280mm wasn't going to cut it. At the time, I wasn't thinking of using aps-c framing, so I hadn't thought of your solution, which would get me out to an effective 420mm FOV. Not a bad idea.
The downside is that 420mm FOV is still less than a 525mm FOV. I don't have much information for judging whether that would matter on this trip. It would also save me the cost of a new lens, since I don't own either the 70-350 or the 100-400, but i do own the 70-200/2.8 II and the 1.4X TC.
I'd be very interested to know what you thought of the image quality and other characteristics (like the aperture range) of the 70-350. Did you find it good to use and to have pictures from, or was it frustrating or unsatisfactory to use for any reason?
p.1 #4 · For Travel: Sony E 70-350 f4.5-6.3 -or- FE 100-400 f4.5-5.6 + 1.4TC?
chiron wrote:
I'd be very interested to know what you thought of the image quality and other characteristics (like the aperture range) of the 70-350. Did you find it good to use and to have pictures from, or was it frustrating or unsatisfactory to use for any reason?
To be clear, I'm talking about the 70-200mm ƒ4 G II, not the ƒ2.8 GM II. I definitely wouldn't want the extra weight and size of the GM.
I've only had the 70-200mm a short time, so only have a few shots. (Got it in anticipation of a Yellowstone trip) But it seems to me that it will easily replace my main use of the 70-350, which was generally at the long end, while adding a lot of flexibility in the 70-135mm range. I have no complaints about the sharpness of the 70-350, even wide open, although the backgrounds are sometimes a little busy.
Here's a few random shots from each.
ILCE-7CRE 70-350mm F4.5-6.3 G OSS lens350mmf/6.31/250s2000 ISO0.0 EV
ILCE-7CRE 70-350mm F4.5-6.3 G OSS lens350mmf/6.31/1000s10000 ISO0.0 EV
ILCE-7CRE 70-350mm F4.5-6.3 G OSS lens269mmf/6.31/500s400 ISO0.0 EV
ILCE-7CRE 70-350mm F4.5-6.3 G OSS lens218mmf/7.11/400s250 ISO0.0 EV
ILCE-7CRFE 70-200mm F4 Macro G OSS II lens174mmf/4.01/400s100 ISO0.0 EV
ILCE-7CRFE 70-200mm F4 Macro G OSS II lens70mmf/6.31/1250s100 ISO-1.0 EV
ILCE-7CRE 70-350mm F4.5-6.3 G OSS lens225mmf/7.11/800s100 ISO0.0 EV
ILCE-7CRFE 70-200mm F4 Macro G OSS II + 1.4X Teleconverter lens280mmf/8.01/640s3200 ISO0.0 EV
p.1 #6 · For Travel: Sony E 70-350 f4.5-6.3 -or- FE 100-400 f4.5-5.6 + 1.4TC?
molson wrote:
I would rather use the 100-400GM. It's sharper, faster, and gives you a longer focal length.
Yes, all true, but it is a very large lens to lug around on a long trip and through rough walking and busy cities. It is not a photo trip per se, but a trip on which I want to take photos. The alternatives would be a lot smaller/lighter. But the 100-400 has advantages.
Another mark against it, though, is that i would only want it for this trip--I'd then sell it.
p.1 #7 · For Travel: Sony E 70-350 f4.5-6.3 -or- FE 100-400 f4.5-5.6 + 1.4TC?
MikeEvangelist wrote:
To be clear, I'm talking about the 70-200mm ƒ4 G II, not the ƒ2.8 GM II. I definitely wouldn't want the extra weight and size of the GM.
I've only had the 70-200mm a short time, so only have a few shots. (Got it in anticipation of a Yellowstone trip) But it seems to me that it will easily replace my main use of the 70-350, which was generally at the long end, while adding a lot of flexibility in the 70-135mm range. I have no complaints about the sharpness of the 70-350, even wide open, although the backgrounds are sometimes a little busy.
These are great, Mike! Thank you! They will be a real help in deciding whether to take an E 70-350 or an FE 70-200. More help than I could have asked for. I plan to study them for a while.
If I do go with the 70-200, I would have to "weigh" the differences between the f2.8 and the f4.0 and presumably sell the f2.8, which wouldn't be hard to do. And I keep reading great things about the f4.0 version and its macro capabilities.
In your photo of your travel gear, the 7-350 and 70-200/4.0 look very close in size.
p.1 #10 · For Travel: Sony E 70-350 f4.5-6.3 -or- FE 100-400 f4.5-5.6 + 1.4TC?
chiron wrote:
Do you travel with the 100-400 + TC? What is that like?
Yes. It's not really any different than the size and weight of one of the older 70-200/2.8s until you zoom out, so it isn't bad. It's certainly not hard to find bags/holsters that accommodate it.
p.1 #11 · For Travel: Sony E 70-350 f4.5-6.3 -or- FE 100-400 f4.5-5.6 + 1.4TC?
chiron wrote:
Yes, all true, but it is a very large lens to lug around on a long trip and through rough walking and busy cities. It is not a photo trip per se, but a trip on which I want to take photos. The alternatives would be a lot smaller/lighter. But the 100-400 has advantages.
The 100-400GM is my travel lens - for when I don't want to pack the 200-600G around.
p.1 #12 · For Travel: Sony E 70-350 f4.5-6.3 -or- FE 100-400 f4.5-5.6 + 1.4TC?
I have been using the E 70-350 lens on full frame (A7CR, A1) for some time now while hiking & travelling, when weight & bulk are an issue. This is because it is light and compact and delivers reasonably good image quality. I also use the lens with the 6700.
p.1 #14 · For Travel: Sony E 70-350 f4.5-6.3 -or- FE 100-400 f4.5-5.6 + 1.4TC?
Wett Coast wrote:
I have been using the E 70-350 lens on full frame (A7CR, A1) for some time now while hiking & travelling, when weight & bulk are an issue. This is because it is light and compact and delivers reasonably good image quality. I also use the lens with the 6700.
p.1 #15 · For Travel: Sony E 70-350 f4.5-6.3 -or- FE 100-400 f4.5-5.6 + 1.4TC?
I have the 70-350G and for me it replaced the Sigma 100-400, I shoot on the A7Rv. When shooting FF and manually cropping (to get more than aps-c coverage) and manually adjusting the distortion it is a very impressive lens. But that is a pain in the ass and I find I just shoot it in APS-C mode, not to mention you need to be careful of composition on FF. The performance on APS-C is a significant downgrade from what can in theory be squeezed out of the lens. But getting a small lens was a primary goal.
The focus accuracy and speed is very good and for an APS-C lens it is impressive. But 26MP is a far cry from 60MP and the images don't hold up like FF GM images. I would say it is better at the 70mm end than the 350mm end. The limited light input and limited resolution are the main issues. It is really a trade of size for quality. If it is the difference between having the lens with you or not then it makes sense. The 100-400 was bigger than I would often want to carry.
When Mark Galer made the video the 70-200/4 G II did not exist. I'm thinking that lens with the 1.4TC would be a similar sized, but superior lens on high resolution FF. That being said the 70-200/2.8 GM II with 1.4 TC will outclass all other options. Since you have the GM II and are planning on bringing it ,add the 1.4TC and maybe the 2TC and forget about the 70-200 G and 70-350G.
Often for tele lenses you are photon shot noise limited, so if the optics are sufficient the lens that collects more light will have the better image.
The below graph shows aperture vs FL for several lenses. At the right it considers cropping into the image to increase FL (on 60MP sensor) The first dot is an APS-C crop, the second dot is a crop to 4K.
The 70-200GM II w/ 1.4TC would outperform the 100-400GM from 100-280, at that point the GM II starts to lose resolution due to crop, but still gathers more light up to 400mm.
The 100-400 will significantly outperform the 70-350 by a 1-1.5 stops of light and 1 stop resolution up to 400mm, after that it still has more light and resolution up to 525mm, but the gap starts to narrow.
The 70-350G will outperform the 1" sensor on the RX10iv, becoming fairly equivalent at 600mm.
If you have the 70-200 GM II and 1.4 TC, I wouldn't even think about the 100-400GM or 70-350G.
p.1 #16 · For Travel: Sony E 70-350 f4.5-6.3 -or- FE 100-400 f4.5-5.6 + 1.4TC?
the image quality and size are really good on the 70-350g. the only really downside is the mediocre AF.
the 100-400 has perfect AF and image quality but it is heavy to lug around.
there is also a new kid on the block: the tamron 50-300. the range makes it more universal thanks to the 50mm and its about the same size as the sony 70-350g. still have to test the AF. but i like its image quality.
p.1 #17 · For Travel: Sony E 70-350 f4.5-6.3 -or- FE 100-400 f4.5-5.6 + 1.4TC?
I think it really comes down to how long you’ll be off the ship and carrying around the lens. I bought a 100-400 for a national park trip i did last year. I went to Yosemite, Sequoia, Yellowstone, and the Grand Tetons. I don’t think i spent more than an hour at a time walking around with the 100-400. So half the time, the lens was just in the rental car. So the same situation with the boat. It really depends on how much time you’ll be carrying the lens for. I did find the 100-400 rather heavy, but manageable in my situation.
My next vacay is to Japan, and there’s no way i’d ever carry a lens that heavy through the streets of tokyo. Imo, the 100-400 is too heavy to carry around all day.
I haven’t used the 70-350, but I’d imagine it would be ok to be carried around all day long. If you are planning to carry your camera a few hours at a time without a place to put to it down. I’d personally recommend getting a lighter setup. Even if the 100-400 is the best lens. Is it worth the pain, and discomfort? Remember, you’re on vacation to enjoy yourself. Even if the photos are a bit less sharp, or have more distortion, or less creamy bokeh. At least you weren’t in pain, trying to lug around camera gear.
p.1 #18 · For Travel: Sony E 70-350 f4.5-6.3 -or- FE 100-400 f4.5-5.6 + 1.4TC?
I am very happy with the 70-350 but obviously if bulk & size are not issues then I will go with the GM 100-400 or 200-600 G. Those lenses are a pain to drag around though; probably twice the weight.
I am going to put aside enough money to acquire the new 300 GM which would be at the limit of affordability for me.
p.1 #19 · For Travel: Sony E 70-350 f4.5-6.3 -or- FE 100-400 f4.5-5.6 + 1.4TC?
tschopp wrote:
I have the 70-350G and for me it replaced the Sigma 100-400, I shoot on the A7Rv. When shooting FF and manually cropping (to get more than aps-c coverage) and manually adjusting the distortion it is a very impressive lens. But that is a pain in the ass and I find I just shoot it in APS-C mode, not to mention you need to be careful of composition on FF. The performance on APS-C is a significant downgrade from what can in theory be squeezed out of the lens. But getting a small lens was a primary goal.
The focus accuracy and speed is very good and for an APS-C lens it is impressive. But 26MP is a far cry from 60MP and the images don't hold up like FF GM images. I would say it is better at the 70mm end than the 350mm end. The limited light input and limited resolution are the main issues. It is really a trade of size for quality. If it is the difference between having the lens with you or not then it makes sense. The 100-400 was bigger than I would often want to carry.
When Mark Galer made the video the 70-200/4 G II did not exist. I'm thinking that lens with the 1.4TC would be a similar sized, but superior lens on high resolution FF. That being said the 70-200/2.8 GM II with 1.4 TC will outclass all other options. Since you have the GM II and are planning on bringing it ,add the 1.4TC and maybe the 2TC and forget about the 70-200 G and 70-350G.
Often for tele lenses you are photon shot noise limited, so if the optics are sufficient the lens that collects more light will have the better image.
The below graph shows aperture vs FL for several lenses. At the right it considers cropping into the image to increase FL (on 60MP sensor) The first dot is an APS-C crop, the second dot is a crop to 4K.
The 70-200GM II w/ 1.4TC would outperform the 100-400GM from 100-280, at that point the GM II starts to lose resolution due to crop, but still gathers more light up to 400mm.
The 100-400 will significantly outperform the 70-350 by a 1-1.5 stops of light and 1 stop resolution up to 400mm, after that it still has more light and resolution up to 525mm, but the gap starts to narrow.
The 70-350G will outperform the 1" sensor on the RX10iv, becoming fairly equivalent at 600mm.
If you have the 70-200 GM II and 1.4 TC, I wouldn't even think about the 100-400GM or 70-350G....Show more →
There is a lot of very helpful information here, and a lot to think about. The graph is a very nice tool also! Thank you very much for all of this!
You do make a very good case for the 70-200/2.8 GMII + a 1.4X TC. I just got these two items a couple of weeks ago and have only used the lens by itself. So, I need to do some shooting with the 1.4X attached and then crop some to see how it looks. You also make a strong case about the light-gathering, which is important.
The practical problem I am trying to resolve is that for three days I will be shooting a very interesting landscape -- Antarctica -- from the deck of a ship. I know from past trips to Alaska that the ship I will be on is capable of getting very close to glaciers and the shore in good weather conditions. But I also don't know whether we will be required to maintain a greater distance when we are there. So, that brings the issue of telephoto reach to the fore.
In graphical terms, I am charting an intersection of four variables: reach; resolution; aperture; and size/weight. It makes sense to me to first eliminate the variable of size/weight by simply deciding that some zooms are too large to take -- the 200-600/5.6-6.3 would be too much for me to deal with, and it is possible that it would give me too much reach in that I would have to change lenses to go under 200mm. I also am not eager to carry the 100-400 GM.
The cases you and @MikeEvangelist have made for either of the 70-200 zooms are compelling, with weight and aperture as the main differentiator between those two lenses.
The question I have about either 70-200 really only comes down to a question of reach. Are they long enough, when one adds a 1.4X TC and then crops to an aps-c image circle? Doing both of those gets me to an effective FOV of 420mm. Will that be enough?
The 70-350 would get me an additional 105mm of reach, out to an effective FOV of 525mm, but with smaller apertures and less resolution for any shots under 200mm (over 200mm, I am thinking that the resolution is about the same for these three lenses).
I won't be using a tripod. Maybe a sandbag on the ship's railing, but there are engine vibrations to worry about. One good thing is that most of the shooting will be done during good, possibly bright, polar light.
p.1 #20 · For Travel: Sony E 70-350 f4.5-6.3 -or- FE 100-400 f4.5-5.6 + 1.4TC?
da_habakuk wrote:
the image quality and size are really good on the 70-350g. the only really downside is the mediocre AF.
the 100-400 has perfect AF and image quality but it is heavy to lug around.
there is also a new kid on the block: the tamron 50-300. the range makes it more universal thanks to the 50mm and its about the same size as the sony 70-350g. still have to test the AF. but i like its image quality.
