p.4 #2 · For Travel: Sony E 70-350 f4.5-6.3 -or- FE 100-400 f4.5-5.6 + 1.4TC?
FJR1 wrote:
Your call, but just stay away from paralysis by analysis. I'm in the camp that a small light kit with decent IQ is the way to go for travel. "Your mileage may vary." The photo below, taken with the smallish/lightish Sony 70-200mm f/4 G II Macro was taken hand-held, from over half a football field away, in aps-c mode, cropped heavily, and without a TC. I'm still pretty happy with the result. Good luck with your decision!
That is an impressive shot, especially under those constraints!
p.4 #3 · For Travel: Sony E 70-350 f4.5-6.3 -or- FE 100-400 f4.5-5.6 + 1.4TC?
I have the 100-400 GM and the 1.4TC which I use on my larger Sony bodies when the purpose of the outing is photography. For travel when photography is more secondary to other activities, e.g., fishing or family trips, I carry my A7CR and the 70-350 G because it is a lighter and smaller rig. On those outings, it's not as much a question of which rig is better but rather which one am I willing and able to carry while engaged in other activities. On my recent fishing trip to Alaska, the A7CR/70-350G rig proved itself once again. I got photos that I otherwise would not have gotten simply because I had that rig with me all the time. I was very satisfied with the results. Paraphrasing the old adage, "the best camera (or lens) is the one you (actually) have with you." Steve
ILCE-7CRE 70-350mm F4.5-6.3 G OSS lens262mmf/9.01/320s100 ISO0.0 EV
ILCE-7CRE 70-350mm F4.5-6.3 G OSS lens151mmf/8.01/125s125 ISO0.0 EV
p.4 #4 · For Travel: Sony E 70-350 f4.5-6.3 -or- FE 100-400 f4.5-5.6 + 1.4TC?
ratherfish wrote:
I have the 100-400 GM and the 1.4TC which I use on my larger Sony bodies when the purpose of the outing is photography. For travel when photography is more secondary to other activities, e.g., fishing or family trips, I carry my A7CR and the 70-350 G because it is a lighter and smaller rig. On those outings, it's not as much a question of which rig is better but rather which one am I willing and able to carry while engaged in other activities. On my recent fishing trip to Alaska, the A7CR/70-350G rig proved itself once again. I got photos that I otherwise would not have gotten simply because I had that rig with me all the time. I was very satisfied with the results. Paraphrasing the old adage, "the best camera (or lens) is the one you (actually) have with you." Steve ...Show more →
Those are beautiful images, aesthetically and technically. hard to ask for anything more.
I would like to see more of your 70-350 shots and some of your 100-400 shots against them.
Also, I'd love to know what your post-processing was on these mountain scenes. Really beautiful! Even the clouds alone.
p.4 #6 · For Travel: Sony E 70-350 f4.5-6.3 -or- FE 100-400 f4.5-5.6 + 1.4TC?
MikeEvangelist wrote:
First, a disclaimer: I'm not really a lens tester and I'm sure there are better ways to do it.
But I gave it a try. I shot the 70-350mm vs the 70-200mm ƒ4 G II (with and without the 1.4x extender). I only shot at 200mm and 280mm, with both lenses at 6.3 and some with the 70-200 wide open. All were shot on a7CR bodies, in crop mode.
After looking at the images for a bit, I conclude:
• Both are excellent lenses. I don't think I'll miss the 70-350mm if I sell it, as the 70-200mm combo does a fine job of replacing its reach and has some other advantages .
• using the 70-200mm with the 1.4x, compared to the 70-350mm, I think you'd be hard-pressed to tell one from another.
• Not surprisingly, without the 1.4x, the 70-200mm is sharper than the 70-350mm in the overlapping focal lengths.
Here's the setup I used, along with side-by-side 100% compares in Lightroom....Show more →
Mike,
I appreciate the testing, looks like an interesting rig for doing it. Also nice to see the 70-200 handles a 1.4TC on a high resolution body. In my graphs at 420mm, The prediction would be the lenses should have similar IQ within a 1/3 stop or so, probably too small for me to spot.
Would you be up to getting some shots that might highlight the differences more? You could shoot in manual, auto ISO on the 70-200 w/ TC at 200mm (on the lens) aperture to f/4 and the shutter speed to whatever is needed to get 1600 ISO, and FF mode. If it is too bright to get to ISO 1600, then shoot max SS (1/4000). For the 70-350 at 187mm (on the lens) manual, auto ISO, same shutter speed as the 70-200, wide open, and APS-C mode. These should have similar framing that will be 280mm equivalent and the same shutter speed (same hand hold ability off tripod). The 70-200 will capture more light and more resolution. Could show the 70-200 as a larger image 100% crop, but same framing. The idea of the fast shutter speed is it shows the reality of the difference in limited light conditions, when the reality is often SS must be maintained or motion blur starts to set in. This should have a 1.5 stop light advantage for the 70-200 and a 1 stop resolution advantage. But if you are interested in capturing 280mm and the light is poor it shows the real world difference in the lens setup.
p.4 #7 · For Travel: Sony E 70-350 f4.5-6.3 -or- FE 100-400 f4.5-5.6 + 1.4TC?
chiron wrote:
I agree! As you say, the aperture does not actually change. I guess you could say something like "you are losing the effect of aperture." Even that is not correct though, as it depends on which particular effect you are talking about. Perhaps saying something like "you are losing the effect of aperture as relevant in the context of equivalence between shots taken with cameras with different sensor sizes" would be getting closer, although it would be quite a mouthful! However, I like your idea of losing image size. That would be simple and clear, I think.
Anyway, I can only put "you are losing aperture" down to one of those situations in which photographers do not say what they really mean, such as when someone says their aperture for a shot was (say) 2.8 or f/2.8 (which, of course, means the relative aperture or f-stop was set to f/2.8; the actual aperture being the focal length of the lens divided by 2.8), or says they should have used a faster shutter speed (meaning they should have used a shorter shutter open time; generally speaking the speed at which the shutter opens or closes will not change, and the difference is in the length of time the shutter is open and the sensor is exposed - which, presumably, is why Canon cameras use Tv (time value) as the abbreviation for shutter priority mode)....Show more →
You're actually losing angle of view. Using lenses to get the same MMe is where smaller sensors end up giving you a greater DoF.
p.4 #8 · For Travel: Sony E 70-350 f4.5-6.3 -or- FE 100-400 f4.5-5.6 + 1.4TC?
tschopp wrote:
Would you be up to getting some shots that might highlight the differences more?
Sorry, won't be able to shoot any more comparisons, as my 70-350mm is heading to its new owner in the morning. Maybe someone else here who has both lenses can give it a go.
p.4 #9 · For Travel: Sony E 70-350 f4.5-6.3 -or- FE 100-400 f4.5-5.6 + 1.4TC?
MikeEvangelist wrote:
..I think you'd be hard-pressed to tell one from another..
Hi Mike,
I’ve downloaded and looked in detail - a very close call in cropped mode. Colors are close. They are both Gs anyway.
One exception I see is that bokeh seems to be smoother with the 70-200 GII ?? (See Swing shots __-12.jpg versus __-10.jpg - tree leaves and left tree trunk)
Given that the 70-200/4GII w 1.4x TC weighs 1.5x / costs 2.5x more than the plain vanilla 70-350G, think I’ll stick to my 70-350G. Less worrisome if stolen or damaged during travels. My only minor qualm is the distracting vignette during compositions zoom-in while using FF mode.
Thanks so much for doing the test shots!
You’ve helped me save some $$, for now..
p.4 #10 · For Travel: Sony E 70-350 f4.5-6.3 -or- FE 100-400 f4.5-5.6 + 1.4TC?
From what I see here though the 70-350G seems to be an excellent lens I think if your using a full frame body the Tamron 50-300 is a better choice as you have the advantage of of the higher pixel count up to 300mm and then you can use aps-c mode or crop to get up to 450mm equivalent while having 50mm at the wider end.
p.4 #11 · For Travel: Sony E 70-350 f4.5-6.3 -or- FE 100-400 f4.5-5.6 + 1.4TC?
MikeEvangelist wrote:
Sorry, won't be able to shoot any more comparisons, as my 70-350mm is heading to its new owner in the morning. Maybe someone else here who has both lenses can give it a go.
Mike,
How do you read the similarities and differences you found between the lenses? And what considerations led you to sell the 70-350 and keep the 70-200/4?
Sep 09, 2024 at 05:36 AM
Steve Spencer Offline • • • • • • • Upload & Sell: On
p.4 #12 · For Travel: Sony E 70-350 f4.5-6.3 -or- FE 100-400 f4.5-5.6 + 1.4TC?
Viramati wrote:
From what I see here though the 70-350G seems to be an excellent lens I think if your using a full frame body the Tamron 50-300 is a better choice as you have the advantage of of the higher pixel count up to 300mm and then you can use aps-c mode or crop to get up to 450mm equivalent while having 50mm at the wider end.
That is a clear advantage of the Tamron lens, but it is also a little bigger and doesn't have quite as much reach which might matter to some. And with regard to AF performance we can count on Sony to limit the fps on the Tamron, but not on the Sony lens which is another manufactured advantage for the Sony lens. Prices are going to be fairly close, but before I would say the Tamron is a better choice I personally would like to see a lot more comparison of their performance and rendering and different people with different needs could easily find one better than the other. I don't think there is a clear better choice.
p.4 #13 · For Travel: Sony E 70-350 f4.5-6.3 -or- FE 100-400 f4.5-5.6 + 1.4TC?
chiron wrote:
How do you read the similarities and differences you found between the lenses? And what considerations led you to sell the 70-350 and keep the 70-200/4?
I came at this from a slightly different vantage point: a desire to minimize the size/weight/complexity of my gear while maintaining enough flexibility to meet whatever opportunities might arise. I'd already settled on my 'main' kit, which is an a7CR with the 16-25mm & 24-50mm G zooms. Very compact, lightweight and supremely capable.
Sometimes, depending on plans/circumstances, I would supplement that kit with -one- other lens...the 90mm Sigma, the 135mm Batis, or the 70-350mm Sony. As I began to see many glowing reports of the newly downsized 70-200mm G II, I started to wonder if it might not be able to replace all three of those lenses (for the ways I actually use them). Looking at my shots where I used the 90mm or 135mm, I decided that the 70-200mm could substitute without much sacrifice. But it wasn't so sure about the 70-350mm. I used it almost exclusively at or near the long end, trying to capture birds, wildlife and other distant/small objects.
Deciding if I could let the 70-200mm + 1.4x replace the 70-350mm came down to a few basic questions:
• could I live with slightly less reach (420mm vs 525mm)?
• would the image quality with the 1.4x be at least as good as the 70-350mm at the long end?
• does the macro capability (and a bit more light gathering) of the 70-200mm compensate for any other real/perceived disadvantages?
The answer to all of these turned out to be 'yes'.
Of course, the 70-200mm/1.4x combo cost a lot more than the 70-350mm. But since I was swapping that combo for three lenses (90, 135 & 70-350) the net cost was just about zero.
Back when I was still shooting for money, I would travel with two A7RVs, the 14mm GM, 24-70 Sigma, 70-200mm GM and the 200-600mm G. My shoulders hurt just thinking about it. For me, this new 'mini' kit is the perfect evolution of capabilities and size.
p.4 #14 · For Travel: Sony E 70-350 f4.5-6.3 -or- FE 100-400 f4.5-5.6 + 1.4TC?
MikeEvangelist wrote:
I came at this from a slightly different vantage point: a desire to minimize the size/weight/complexity of my gear while maintaining enough flexibility to meet whatever opportunities might arise. I'd already settled on my 'main' kit, which is an a7CR with the 16-25mm & 24-50mm G zooms. Very compact, lightweight and supremely capable.
Sometimes, depending on plans/circumstances, I would supplement that kit with -one- other lens...the 90mm Sigma, the 135mm Batis, or the 70-350mm Sony. As I began to see many glowing reports of the newly downsized 70-200mm G II, I started to wonder if it might not be able to replace all three of those lenses (for the ways I actually use them). Looking at my shots where I used the 90mm or 135mm, I decided that the 70-200mm could substitute without much sacrifice. But it wasn't so sure about the 70-350mm. I used it almost exclusively at or near the long end, trying to capture birds, wildlife and other distant/small objects.
Deciding if I could let the 70-200mm + 1.4x replace the 70-350mm came down to a few basic questions:
• could I live with slightly less reach (420mm vs 525mm)?
• would the image quality with the 1.4x be at least as good as the 70-350mm at the long end?
• does the macro capability of the 70-200mm compensate for any other real/perceived disadvantages?
The answer to all of these turned out to be 'yes'.
Of course, the 70-200mm/1.4x combo cost a lot more than the 70-350mm. But since I was swapping that combo for three lenses (90, 135 & 70-350) the net cost was just about zero.
Back when I was still shooting for money, I would travel with two A7RVs, the 14mm GM, 24-70 Sigma, 70-200mm GM and the 200-600mm G. My shoulders hurt just thinking about it. For me, this new 'mini' kit is the perfect evolution of capabilities and size....Show more →
Very interesting and convincing explanation.
Also, a beautiful product shot of your gear! l love the shadows and the clarity. How did you light and hoot this?
p.4 #15 · For Travel: Sony E 70-350 f4.5-6.3 -or- FE 100-400 f4.5-5.6 + 1.4TC?
chiron wrote:
Also, a beautiful product shot of your gear! l love the shadows and the clarity. How did you light and hoot this?
A very simple setup. I've got a 200 watt Godox LED light with 30-inch beauty dish mounted on the ceiling above my desk. I throw the gear on a piece of white backdrop and shoot (with an a7Cr and an old Sony 50mm macro).
p.4 #16 · For Travel: Sony E 70-350 f4.5-6.3 -or- FE 100-400 f4.5-5.6 + 1.4TC?
MikeEvangelist wrote:
Sorry, won't be able to shoot any more comparisons, as my 70-350mm is heading to its new owner in the morning. Maybe someone else here who has both lenses can give it a go.
Did the testing help you decide the 70-350G was redundant? Or had you come to this conclusion a while ago? Anyways congrats on the quick sale.
p.4 #17 · For Travel: Sony E 70-350 f4.5-6.3 -or- FE 100-400 f4.5-5.6 + 1.4TC?
tschopp wrote:
Did the testing help you decide the 70-350G was redundant? Or had you come to this conclusion a while ago?
The testing confirmed that I could get the reach I wanted with no quality hit by using the 70-200 & 1.4x. Combined with the other attributes of that combo, the decision came easily.
Do you notice differences in image quality when you use the lighter gear? If so, what differences do you see? And how are you displaying or viewing the images?
Almost all of my viewing and sharing is "on screen" in some way. Much of which involves "exporting" at 3840x2160 and then uploading to Facebook to share. Not a demanding approach. I don't know that I could tell the differences between recent camera/lenses used for the most part. Having visited a range of nearby places fairly often, I can tell some of my much older shots versus newer, times I've been more directed versus casual, etc. If I look to my early D200 and NEX6 and 16-50 shots, I can see differences. Part of that is lenses and original lower res to start with when it came to crop opportunities. I also notice the improvements in "processing" so Adobe, Topaz and DxO should get credit, too.
