p.5 #1 · 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 (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....Show more →
Your kit reduces the weight of your camera in hand, but the weight of the kit in your bag is actually somewhat heavier
I would expect this kit to be better 35-70mm:
FE 16-25mm F2.8 G = 409g
FE 24-50mm F2.8 G = 440g
FE 70-200mm f/4 Macro G = 794g
FE 1.4x TC = 167 g
Total 1810g
I would expect this kit to be somewhat sharper under 35mm and above 70mm.
16-35 GM ii = 547g
70-200mm f/2.8 GM OSS II = 1045g
77mm close up filter = 50g
Total 1642g
This is why I did not add the TC to the second kit:
The 70-200GMii is considerably sharper at 200mm than the Gii, to the point where I suspect the GMii will out resolve the Gii + 1.4x TC on a high res sensor. Part of this is tied to physics, on paper a perfect 200/2.8 can resolve finer detail at a distance than a 280/5.6 by 42%. You can play with this formula where θ is the angle corresponding to the finest detail you can see, the smaller the angle the better.
θ = (1.22 * lambda) / (focal-length / f-stop)
This is a paper calculation of the upper limit, in the real world lenses only hit a certain % of this upper limit which is why we need real world testing
p.5 #2 · For Travel: Sony E 70-350 f4.5-6.3 -or- FE 100-400 f4.5-5.6 + 1.4TC?
MikeEvangelist wrote:
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.
So, Mike, I have just gotten the 70-200 f4 GII. I was almost shocked by how light and small it is. It is obviously larger than the 16-25/2.8 and the 25-50/2.8, but it is so light and small that it feels like it is in the same general size and weight category of those lenses. I have started testing and taking sample shots with the lens, and I am almost blown away by its clarity, colors, and contrast and by its size and weight. It is quite a lens.
So, now I have a dilemma. In getting ready for my trip to Antarctica, I had bought a used copy of the 70-200/2.8 GMII that is well-centered, very sharp, and in condition 10. I had also gotten a used 1.4X TC from the same seller, and I had been thinking that this was the lens and TC that I would take to shoot the Antarctic Peninsula from the ship for three days. But I also thought the f2.8 GMII version was a pretty big and heavy lens, especially to take on the various trips off the ship in the Falklands and on the South American mainland and cities, which is why I had also been considering the aps-c Sony E 70-350mm lens.
Now that I have tried the f4 GII version, my dilemma is which of the two 70-200 lenses to keep for the trip to the Falklands, Antarctica, and Patagonia. I must say that I am leaning toward the f4 GII. It is really a very impressive lens and very easy to pack or carry. I'm sure the 2.8 GMII would have advantages. I suspect that it would be a notch sharper with the the 1.4X TC on and it would give me an extra stop of light. But it is a significantly bigger and heavier lens and the image quality of the f4 GII is terrific.
I can return the f4 GII and I can certainly sell the f2.8 GMII without losing money. I just have to decide which to keep.
p.5 #3 · For Travel: Sony E 70-350 f4.5-6.3 -or- FE 100-400 f4.5-5.6 + 1.4TC?
chiron wrote:
Now that I have tried the f4 GII version, my dilemma is which of the two 70-200 lenses to keep for the trip to the Falklands, Antarctica, and Patagonia. I must say that I am leaning toward the f4 GII. It is really a very impressive lens and very easy to pack or carry. I'm sure the 2.8 GMII would have advantages. I suspect that it would be a notch sharper with the the 1.4X TC on and it would give me an extra stop of light. But it is a significantly bigger and heavier lens and the image quality of the f4 GII is terrific.
I can return the f4 GII and I can certainly sell the f2.8 GMII without losing money. I just have to decide which to keep....Show more →
Tough call, for sure. For me, the size/weight advantage of the ƒ4 would be the deciding factor, since the image quality is great with either option. (and a little more money left in your pocket)
p.5 #4 · For Travel: Sony E 70-350 f4.5-6.3 -or- FE 100-400 f4.5-5.6 + 1.4TC?
chiron wrote:
I have started testing and taking sample shots with the lens, and I am almost blown away by its clarity, colors, and contrast and by its size and weight. It is quite a lens.
Still haven't gotten out much with the lens, but here's one from the Omaha Zoo last week. Certainly at least as good as the 70-350mm would have done. (12mpx crop)
ILCE-7CRFE 70-200mm F4 Macro G OSS II + 1.4X Teleconverter lens280mmf/5.61/250s125 ISO0.0 EV
p.5 #5 · For Travel: Sony E 70-350 f4.5-6.3 -or- FE 100-400 f4.5-5.6 + 1.4TC?
interesting. I was actually thinking of the 70-350 for my a6700. mostly shooting motorsports i had also wondered how the 70-200 would do for me. debated the 18-300 tamron as well.
