p.2 #1 · For Travel: Sony E 70-350 f4.5-6.3 -or- FE 100-400 f4.5-5.6 + 1.4TC?
If I am carrying a full-frame, I would never be quick to put a crop lens on it. Once you factor in the effective maximum aperture as well as focal length, often you can find comparable or better full-frame options.
For example, in the OP it is noted that the aps-c E 70-350 f4.5-6.3 will give an effective field of view of 105-525mm on a full-frame sensor (which, of course, is also the effective field of view if used on an APS-C camera). However, it is also worth noting the aperture will be the equivalent of f/6.75-9.45.
For comparison, I believe the Tamron 50-300mm f/4.5-6.3 is only about 40g heavier and 8mm longer than the E 70-350, and the Tamron would give you 50-300mm f/4.5-6.3 with your full-frame sensor, and the option to crop from there. And if you crop to APS-C size (either by shooting in APS-C crop or cropping in post-processing), you would have the equivalent of 75-450mm f/6.75-9.45. So, if you are willing to switch from full frame to APS-C crop, effectively you would end up with 50-450mm f/4.5-9.45 (versus the E 70-350 giving you effectively 105-525mm f/6.75-9.45). My choice would be the Tamron over the E 70-350. YMMV of course.
p.2 #2 · For Travel: Sony E 70-350 f4.5-6.3 -or- FE 100-400 f4.5-5.6 + 1.4TC?
phuviano wrote:
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. ...Show more →
The carry issues you outline are exactly what I am thinking. While three days are cruising Antarctica on the boat, there are lot of other stops which are cities or areas in Patagonia. I don't think I would want the 100-400 in those latter situations, which are about the same as Japan. BTW, we went to Japan last November. Wonderful trip. Have fun!
p.2 #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 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.
Mike, will have to take a look at this as well. I have all the same gear on my smaller travel kit but do also still own an A6700 as well which I got befor buying the A7CR.
As I get a chance to compare the impact of LED lighting on the A6700 full mechanical shutter vs the EFCS of the A7CR it will determine if I keep the A6700. Right now I’m in no rush. If I’m not traveling by plane the Two full frame bodies and the three G zooms of 16-25, 24-50, and 70-200/4 G with 1.4X TC is what I have in my Shimoda 25L Urban Explorer. What bag are you using?
p.2 #5 · For Travel: Sony E 70-350 f4.5-6.3 -or- FE 100-400 f4.5-5.6 + 1.4TC?
chiron wrote:
The carry issues you outline are exactly what I am thinking. While three days are cruising Antarctica on the boat, there are lot of other stops which are cities or areas in Patagonia. I don't think I would want the 100-400 in those latter situations, which are about the same as Japan. BTW, we went to Japan last November. Wonderful trip. Have fun!
Let us know what you decide. With my 70-200mm f/2.8 GM II, 70-200mm f/4 MACRO G II, and 70-350mm f/4.5-6.3 G and teleconverter I tend to leave the 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6 at home based on it weight unless I’m traveling by car and don’t plan to hike with my bag. Really need to sort this all out. FYI I also own the 200-600mm f/5.6-6.3 G but that’s not part of my discussion except it prevents me using the 100-400 as well.
p.2 #6 · For Travel: Sony E 70-350 f4.5-6.3 -or- FE 100-400 f4.5-5.6 + 1.4TC?
swldstn wrote:
What bag are you using?
Most of the time I'm using a small, very minimalistic Tenba bag, the BYOB 10 Camera Insert. It holds the A7CR, three lenses, and the 1.4x TC perfectly (with any of the three lenses mounted to the body). For times when I want to bring both bodies, I switch up to a bit larger bag, the Think Tank Retrospective 7 V2.0.
p.2 #7 · For Travel: Sony E 70-350 f4.5-6.3 -or- FE 100-400 f4.5-5.6 + 1.4TC?
Here's another vote for the 70-200 f/4 G Macro II with a 1.4x or 2.0x TC to extend your reach. I've been very happy with a Sony 20-70 f/4 G, the aforementioned 70-200 f/4 G Macro II with TC, and a 24 or 35mm prime for travel. Small, light, and with excellent IQ are qualities of this combination. Another telephoto possibility, if you're looking for more reach, more range, and smaller size (compared to Sony), would be the Tamron 50-400mm lens.
The exif data for the deer photo below taken with the FE 70-200mm F4 Macro G OSS II + 1.4X Teleconverter do not show the fact that I took this in aps-c mode, equating to a 420mm focal length.
ILCE-1FE 70-200mm F4 Macro G OSS II + 1.4X Teleconverter lens280mmf/5.61/1600s12800 ISO-0.3 EV
p.2 #9 · For Travel: Sony E 70-350 f4.5-6.3 -or- FE 100-400 f4.5-5.6 + 1.4TC?
JD07 wrote:
If I am carrying a full-frame, I would never be quick to put a crop lens on it. Once you factor in the effective maximum aperture as well as focal length, often you can find comparable or better full-frame options.
For example, in the OP it is noted that the aps-c E 70-350 f4.5-6.3 will give an effective field of view of 105-525mm on a full-frame sensor (which, of course, is also the effective field of view if used on an APS-C camera). However, it is also worth noting the aperture will be the equivalent of f/6.75-9.45.
For comparison, I believe the Tamron 50-300mm f/4.5-6.3 is only about 40g heavier and 8mm longer than the E 70-350, and the Tamron would give you 50-300mm f/4.5-6.3 with your full-frame sensor, and the option to crop from there. And if you crop to APS-C size (either by shooting in APS-C crop or cropping in post-processing), you would have the equivalent of 75-450mm f/6.75-9.45. So, if you are willing to switch from full frame to APS-C crop, effectively you would end up with 50-450mm f/4.5-9.45 (versus the E 70-350 giving you effectively 105-525mm f/6.75-9.45). My choice would be the Tamron over the E 70-350. YMMV of course....Show more →
I am not sure that I understand clearly the issue of aperture on a crop camera and what people say about this. I am more concerned with the issue of light reaching the pixel sites than I am with dof.
My own understanding, which may be wrong, is that the total light over the entire sensor is greater for a full-frame lens, with its larger image circle, because the total area of the sensor receiving light from the lens is the entire area of the sensor; and that the total light over the whole sensor from an aps-c lens is less because the lens, with its smaller image circle, is illuminating only part of the sensor. And that the difference is proportional to the crop.
However, in my understanding, the amount of light reaching each pixel site within the respective image circle of each lens is exactly the same, resulting in each lens needing the same exposure settings for a correct exposure.
p.2 #10 · For Travel: Sony E 70-350 f4.5-6.3 -or- FE 100-400 f4.5-5.6 + 1.4TC?
If I understand your priorities correctly, these are as follows:
1. Relatively low weight
2. Reach to 300mm and possibly longer, optionally with a TC
3. Good image stabilization for shooting from a boat/ cruise ship
In an attempt to put myself in your shoes, I can sort through the gear I own, that possibly fits your needs:
1) A1 + Sony 200-600mm
2) A1 + Tamron 50-400mm
3) A1 + Sony 70-200mm GMII + 1.4x and/or 2x TC
4) OM-1 II + Olympus 40-150mm F2.8 (full frame equivalent: 80-300mm) + 1.4x and/or 2.0x TC
(I owned and used for several years the Sony 100-400mm GM lens but sold it after acquiring the 200-600mm zoom as the later was sharper at 400 mm; I didn't like the poor micro contrast of my copy of the 100-400mm lens at 400 mm).
To make the long story short, my choice for travel and long trips that include hiking would be OM-1 II + Olympus 40-150mm F2.8.
Some of the reasons for my preferred option:
-The weight of this complete camera system (body + lens) is 1510 g or close to 3.3 lb (without the lens foot that I don't use). This is the lightest of my options.
-It gives me the reach to 300mm, optionally to 420 or 600 mm with the 1.4x and 2.0x TCs. The image quality is excellent at the long end, and there is only a negligible deterioration of the IQ with the TCs. Note that the lens is an internal zoom; it does not extend on zooming in. Something else, the lens magnification is 0.42 (FF equivalent) at the MFD of 0.7 m - this allows doing semi-macro, or macro when a 2.0x TC is attached.
-OM-1 II has image stabilization rated up to 8.5 EV steps (with the normal focal lengths, 24 - 50 mm, I can shoot with shutter speeds as long as 2 s, hand-held). This can help when shooting from a moving platform. The entire camera system is IP53 certified; it is weather, dust and splash proof - one can use it in light rain.
My own use of the Olympus 40-150mm F2.8 lens is for people (street) photography.
For examples, see https://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/1860481/0#16562260
Shooting at the FF equivalent 300mm is a convenient way of taking pictures of people in the streets, from reasonably comfortable long distances. I also use the Olympus 300mm F4 prime (600mm full-frame equivalent) for this type of photography. Since adding the 300mm lens last June, I have not used the Sony 200-600.
Naturally, I still very much like my Sony A1, and on a recent camping trip I mostly used my OM-1 II with the 300mm F4 along with the A1 with the 16-35mm F2.8 G zoom for landscapes. Full-frame cameras are excellent in the wide-to-normal range. However, for travel and especially for hiking or extended city walks, when a relatively light camera system is needed, then cropped-sensor cameras offer very attractive options for telephoto photography.
p.2 #11 · For Travel: Sony E 70-350 f4.5-6.3 -or- FE 100-400 f4.5-5.6 + 1.4TC?
Sony G 70-350 is a very good lens,but it limits you to APS-C only.If GM 100-400/4.5-5.6 is too heavy for the job I tend to replace it with Sigma 100-400/4.5-6.3 DG DN which is significantly lighter and comparable IQ-wise.You can also easily get 600mm eq by switching to APS-C with no need for TCs.
p.2 #13 · For Travel: Sony E 70-350 f4.5-6.3 -or- FE 100-400 f4.5-5.6 + 1.4TC?
chiron wrote:
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.
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. ...Show more →
Maybe I can help your thinking on the four variables. Instead of reach, resolution, and aperture, think about IQ(FL): Image quality as a function of focal length. So when you compare two lenses the goal is to know what lens has better IQ and over what range, where does the transition occur? Then you can look at size weight and apply a yes / no to the lens. Like you the 200-600 is a hard no for me.
If you are light limited, then on my graphs the lower lens will have better IQ. If you are shooting full mid day sun, then you need to still think about resolution as you will have enough light to get shutter speed above minimums at base ISO.
For my tele I have two options the 135GM and the 70-350G. Out to 300+mm it is no question I will grab the 135GM and crop, the results are dramatically better as implied by the graph. I find I don't really shoot much in the 350-525mm range and if I do it is often not full daylight and in those cases I find the images wanting. In full sun the resolution of the 70-350 shines and is not overcome by the lack of aperture. One thing that surprised me was how much I like cropping in 60MP. I have switched to mostly primes and crop as needed. I view my images on a 4k monitor, so cropping down to that is fine for me. How you will view determines how much you can crop.
You were asking about A7Rv vs A1, So I'm guessing you don't currently have a high MP camera?
In the graph of the 70-200/4 G II vs 70-350G, the 70-200 will clearly outperform as it has an aperture and resolution advantage all the way out to 420. Around maybe 480 the performance will cross and the 70-350 will have a resolution and aperture advantage, but not much. In the 135-330 range the 135GM has a huge aperture advantage that translates into shutter speed and ISO advantage that overwhelms any resolution advantage the 70-350 has past 200mm.
As far as size/weight physics there is no free lunch, the IQ you get often follows the size/weight you pay for. It is about the right tradeoff for you. You mention not understanding the implication of aperture when cropped. Just like you multiple aperture by crop for equivalent DOF, the same thing happens to noise in the photo. Yes on a pixel basis it doesn't matter, but you don't have a equivalent number of pixels after you crop. This is why the graph uses equivalent aperture. It also helps to explain why the 600/4 lens in the rx10 iv does not produce the same results as the 600/4 GM.
p.2 #14 · For Travel: Sony E 70-350 f4.5-6.3 -or- FE 100-400 f4.5-5.6 + 1.4TC?
One of the things being left out of this discussion, you can shoot the 70-350 in full frame mode.
Yes, you'll have to crop later in post, but it will buy you a few pixels rather than using crop mode.
p.2 #15 · For Travel: Sony E 70-350 f4.5-6.3 -or- FE 100-400 f4.5-5.6 + 1.4TC?
I like the colors and look most from 100-400 GM (among all zooms), but it's a very heavy lens for me.
I find using 70-350 most fun.
Tamron 50-400 is most versatile but for some reason I don't like colours out of it.
When I travel I just take my Samyang 135mm, it's 200mm in APSC crop. But being a prime lens, I can crop wayy further on A7RV and image prints still turn out great on A3+ 13x19" size. It is sharper than all the zooms mentioned including GM II.
p.2 #16 · For Travel: Sony E 70-350 f4.5-6.3 -or- FE 100-400 f4.5-5.6 + 1.4TC?
davev wrote:
One of the things being left out of this discussion, you can shoot the 70-350 in full frame mode.
Yes, you'll have to crop later in post, but it will buy you a few pixels rather than using crop mode.
At 70mm, a post crop can get you a 50mp photo.
At 200mm, a post crop is about 46mp.
And even at full zoom (350mm) you could have 36mp to play with.
Just something else to think about.
On top of this, one can change the aspect ratio also to 4:3 and 1:1 (depending on focal length) to get some in camera crop. You will still need to crop a bit in post but you start from a much cleaner slate.
p.2 #17 · For Travel: Sony E 70-350 f4.5-6.3 -or- FE 100-400 f4.5-5.6 + 1.4TC?
chiron wrote:
I am not sure that I understand clearly the issue of aperture on a crop camera and what people say about this. I am more concerned with the issue of light reaching the pixel sites than I am with dof.
My own understanding, which may be wrong, is that the total light over the entire sensor is greater for a full-frame lens, with its larger image circle, because the total area of the sensor receiving light from the lens is the entire area of the sensor; and that the total light over the whole sensor from an aps-c lens is less because the lens, with its smaller image circle, is illuminating only part of the sensor. And that the difference is proportional to the crop.
However, in my understanding, the amount of light reaching each pixel site within the respective image circle of each lens is exactly the same, resulting in each lens needing the same exposure settings for a correct exposure.
If you are using the same lens and aperture setting, you are correct that the light intensity (light per unit area) is the same whether you are using a full-frame sensor or APS-C sensor. And if the sensors use the same technology, things like noise at the pixel level will be the same. However, you are also correct in saying that the larger sensor gathers more light in total. And it is the total light which is relevant to things like noise at the image level.
Perhaps the simplest way to think about it though is this. I am sure you will have experienced looking at an image on a small screen (eg the back of your camera or a phone) and thinking it looked nice and sharp, but then seeing the image on a larger screen and seeing it is not sharp at all. Obviously, it was only when the image was enlarged that your eyes detected the lack of sharpness. In the case of an APS-C image versus a full-frame image, the APS-C image as taken is smaller, so it has to be enlarged more than the full-frame image to reach the same output size (your computer screen, a print of a particular size, or whatever). The extra enlargement required magnifies things like noise in the image, making it more apparent at the image level.
So far as depth of field goes (which I realise you said is not a priority for you), if you use the same focal length and aperture, shooting with an APS-C sensor (including a full-frame sensor operating in APS-C crop mode) means you have to be further away from your subject compared with using the same focal length on a full-frame sensor to get a similar image. So, the lens/aperture doesn't change physically, but the distance to subject is greater. And depth of field increases (so you get less blurring of the out of focus area) as distance to subject increases, so the APS-C image has greater depth of field.
To be clear, I am not trying to suggest that APS-C images are no good and no one should ever be happy with them. That is absolutely not the case. My point is just that if I am carrying a full-frame camera, I am not going to be quick to put an APS-C lens on it.
p.2 #19 · For Travel: Sony E 70-350 f4.5-6.3 -or- FE 100-400 f4.5-5.6 + 1.4TC?
MikeEvangelist wrote:
Since I have both, I'll see if I can make a few test shots tomorrow.
If you need a model, I'll be at Longfellow Park between 9-11 tomorrow morning. (for hummingbirds)
I'll have the 70-350 on my a1 trying it out.
I just got the lens yesterday so I'm in a honeymoon stage with it.
It's a long story on why I bought it, if I see you tomorrow, I'll explain.
