Sony 70-200 f2.8 GM ii + 2x tc vs Sony 100-400 f4.5 GM lens for landscape
p.1 #1Sony 70-200 f2.8 GM ii + 2x tc vs Sony 100-400 f4.5 GM lens for landscape
I mainly shoot landscape and would like those who have used both these lenses for the same purpose to give me their feedback. I currently have the 70-200 GM ii and the tc and while I get decent images out of the combo I feel like the 100-400 might edge it out in terms of iq. I had the old 100-400 GM and was never impressed with the IQ and I had the 200-600 but wasn't happy with it either. I haven't tried the new 100-400 but I know I can afford it if I sell of both the tc and 70-200 GM ii. For those with insight please feel free to share. I would get the 300 GM but that's out of my budget currently until next year when I would be able to save up enough to afford it. Or should I hold off for the year and but the 300 GM just a question to throw out there.
I also included a shot with an example of the 70-200 GM with 2x tc zoomed all the way out at 200.
I also included a shot with an example of the 70-200 GM with 2x tc zoomed all the way out at 200.
Jul 19, 2026 at 08:15 PM
p.1 #2Sony 70-200 f2.8 GM ii + 2x tc vs Sony 100-400 f4.5 GM lens for landscape
I have both and I have a good 2X TC. If it's only landscape shots like the above I wouldn't bother getting the 100-400.
Jul 20, 2026 at 10:46 AM
p.1 #3Sony 70-200 f2.8 GM ii + 2x tc vs Sony 100-400 f4.5 GM lens for landscape
I have shot all the lenses you mentioned, with the exception of the new 100-400mm. I virtually never paired my x2 converter ( best IQ out of three copies) with any of those zooms and had results that I was completely happy with. I would save your money for the GM 300mm f2.8. It is smaller/lighter (travels well and less fatiguing) than the big zooms and has IQ that is outstanding with the x2 and stunning with the x1,4 (or bare).
Jul 20, 2026 at 12:04 PM
p.1 #4Sony 70-200 f2.8 GM ii + 2x tc vs Sony 100-400 f4.5 GM lens for landscape
Well, having owned the 300mm f2.8, it did not work for me. Fantastic lens and super sharp. However, if your conditions had significant variation in how close or far the subject is, and that varies fairly quickly, swapping out converters is a mess. In adverse weather it is worse. So, make sure that you are ok doing that quickly or either be cropping severely or too close to get the shot. If you are in more controlled conditions where you can have a consistent setup, then sure, the 300 is brilliant. For me I did not find that I had such situations that often, could not simply "move my feet", and was constantly fighting with converters. The 100-400 f4.5 works better for me.
The difference in weight of the 100-400 to the 300mm is actually pretty small. When you account for the weight of carrying converters the difference is a quarter pound. That 2x is half a pound. The difference in length is 2.5 inches, but again if you put converters on the 300 to get longer focal lengths, the difference shrinks. And, the 300mm is larger in diameter than the 100-400 f4.5, both with and without the hood.
All of that said, for landscape photography, I doubt I would be carrying either the 300mm f2.8 or the 100-400 f4.5.
The difference in weight of the 100-400 to the 300mm is actually pretty small. When you account for the weight of carrying converters the difference is a quarter pound. That 2x is half a pound. The difference in length is 2.5 inches, but again if you put converters on the 300 to get longer focal lengths, the difference shrinks. And, the 300mm is larger in diameter than the 100-400 f4.5, both with and without the hood.
All of that said, for landscape photography, I doubt I would be carrying either the 300mm f2.8 or the 100-400 f4.5.
Jul 21, 2026 at 09:44 AM
p.1 #5Sony 70-200 f2.8 GM ii + 2x tc vs Sony 100-400 f4.5 GM lens for landscape
I took the 70-200 GM II with the 2XTC to Patagonia in case of wildlife opportunities and it worked well for landscape as well....one at 400mm and one at 394mm....
ILCE-7RM5 FE 70-200mm F2.8 GM OSS II + 2X Teleconverter lens 400mm f/11.0 1/200s 100 ISO 0.0 EV
ILCE-1M2 FE 70-200mm F2.8 GM OSS II + 2X Teleconverter lens 394mm f/5.6 1/2500s 250 ISO 0.0 EV
Jul 21, 2026 at 11:01 AM
p.1 #6Sony 70-200 f2.8 GM ii + 2x tc vs Sony 100-400 f4.5 GM lens for landscape
I feel like a 70-200 f2.8 and 100-400mm f4.5 are fairly different lenses. On one hand, how much do you value the ability to go from 70-100mm, and how much do you value f2.8 from 70-200mm or even f4 from 100-280mm with a TC 1.4. On the other hand, how much do you value 280-400mm at f4.5 vs f5.6 or the ability to get to 560 f6.3 or 800mm f9. If you do any action photography, a 70-200 is about a 3x zoom, and the 100-400mm is a 4x zoom. If size and wight is important to you, the 100-400mm f4.5 is bigger and about twice the weight of the 70-200mm f2.8. If you use filters, the 100-400mm f4.5 uses drop in filters or 95mm filters, which are usually quite a bit more expensive than 77mm filters.
From a pure IQ perspective, wide open, the 100-400mm f4.5 probably has an edge (I have not seen any comparisons yet), but I doubt the IQ difference will be enough to outweigh the above considerations.
From a pure IQ perspective, wide open, the 100-400mm f4.5 probably has an edge (I have not seen any comparisons yet), but I doubt the IQ difference will be enough to outweigh the above considerations.
Jul 21, 2026 at 12:05 PM
p.1 #7Sony 70-200 f2.8 GM ii + 2x tc vs Sony 100-400 f4.5 GM lens for landscape
I tried the Sony 2x on the 70-200 II a few years ago and was not impressed. This is the Viltrox 2x on the same lens last week. 400mm F7.1 ISO 4000
Viltrox 50 crop by Mike Broomfield, on Flickr
The above image is small, here is a 3600 pixel wide version if it opens OK on Google Photo (click on the image once to go to near 4k size)
https://photos.app.goo.gl/exm8w7HxBHkRBzNh8
Viltrox 50 crop by Mike Broomfield, on FlickrThe above image is small, here is a 3600 pixel wide version if it opens OK on Google Photo (click on the image once to go to near 4k size)
https://photos.app.goo.gl/exm8w7HxBHkRBzNh8
Jul 21, 2026 at 04:37 PM
p.1 #8Sony 70-200 f2.8 GM ii + 2x tc vs Sony 100-400 f4.5 GM lens for landscape
300GM and the new 100-400 will be upgrades for sure. As to which is better there are a few threads on the forum which go into detail.
Interesting that you mention you were not happy with the 200-600, did you find it worse than your current 70-200GMii+2TC? This video by Olle Nillson compares the 300 with a 2xTC with the 200-600 and he finds that they are close in sharpness, so it could be worthwhile to take a look. The 300 is universally agreed to be the best lens to take both the 1.4 and 2 x teleconverters if that's important to you.
[url=[/url]
Interesting that you mention you were not happy with the 200-600, did you find it worse than your current 70-200GMii+2TC? This video by Olle Nillson compares the 300 with a 2xTC with the 200-600 and he finds that they are close in sharpness, so it could be worthwhile to take a look. The 300 is universally agreed to be the best lens to take both the 1.4 and 2 x teleconverters if that's important to you.
[url=[/url]
Jul 21, 2026 at 06:24 PM
|
p.1 #9Sony 70-200 f2.8 GM ii + 2x tc vs Sony 100-400 f4.5 GM lens for landscape
mcbroomf wrote:
I tried the Sony 2x on the 70-200 II a few years ago and was not impressed. This is the Viltrox 2x on the same lens last week. 400mm F7.1 ISO 4000
https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/55395670038_73baf026cb_b.jpgViltrox 50 crop by Mike Broomfield, on Flickr
The above image is small, here is a 3600 pixel wide version if it opens OK on Google Photo (click on the image once to go to near 4k size)
https://photos.app.goo.gl/exm8w7HxBHkRBzNh8
A very nice photo of the Polish three-masted frigate "Dar Młodzieży" on which future merchant navy officers train.
Sony GM 70-200/2.8 Mk2 + Sony 2xTC renders optimally stopped down 1-2 f stops (f8-f11 effectively),provided you got good 2xTC copy.
I always tend to use lenses without TCs or at least switch to APS-C mode if I must in order to keep up the best IQ possible.
It is very seldom that I add up 1,4x TC or 2xTC and it's usually for the sake of convenience i.e. when I want to spare on weight,size or both.
My own experience says: pro grade GM primes and f2.8 zooms pair with 1,4xTCs with relatively little IQ loss.Slower GM/G zooms,like 100-400/4.5-5.6 or 100-400/4.5 or 200-600/5.6-6.3 or 400-800/6.3-8.0 usually show more visible IQ deterioration.2xTC is a different story though.I pair it only with GM 300/2.8 and GM 100/2.8 Macro.No other zooms with,save maybe GM 70-200/2.8 Mk2,are suitable for pairing with 2xTC.Your mileage may vary obviously.
G class zooms show significant copy variations.It also refers to Sony 1,4X and 2x TCs.So comparing 2xTC+GM 300/2.8 versus G 200-600/5.6-6.3 alone may sometimes lead to contradictory results among various testers.
I tried the Sony 2x on the 70-200 II a few years ago and was not impressed. This is the Viltrox 2x on the same lens last week. 400mm F7.1 ISO 4000
https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/55395670038_73baf026cb_b.jpgViltrox 50 crop by Mike Broomfield, on Flickr
The above image is small, here is a 3600 pixel wide version if it opens OK on Google Photo (click on the image once to go to near 4k size)
https://photos.app.goo.gl/exm8w7HxBHkRBzNh8
A very nice photo of the Polish three-masted frigate "Dar Młodzieży" on which future merchant navy officers train.
Sony GM 70-200/2.8 Mk2 + Sony 2xTC renders optimally stopped down 1-2 f stops (f8-f11 effectively),provided you got good 2xTC copy.I always tend to use lenses without TCs or at least switch to APS-C mode if I must in order to keep up the best IQ possible.
It is very seldom that I add up 1,4x TC or 2xTC and it's usually for the sake of convenience i.e. when I want to spare on weight,size or both.
My own experience says: pro grade GM primes and f2.8 zooms pair with 1,4xTCs with relatively little IQ loss.Slower GM/G zooms,like 100-400/4.5-5.6 or 100-400/4.5 or 200-600/5.6-6.3 or 400-800/6.3-8.0 usually show more visible IQ deterioration.2xTC is a different story though.I pair it only with GM 300/2.8 and GM 100/2.8 Macro.No other zooms with,save maybe GM 70-200/2.8 Mk2,are suitable for pairing with 2xTC.Your mileage may vary obviously.
G class zooms show significant copy variations.It also refers to Sony 1,4X and 2x TCs.So comparing 2xTC+GM 300/2.8 versus G 200-600/5.6-6.3 alone may sometimes lead to contradictory results among various testers.
Jul 22, 2026 at 03:40 AM
p.1 #10Sony 70-200 f2.8 GM ii + 2x tc vs Sony 100-400 f4.5 GM lens for landscape
Peire wrote:
https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/55395670038_73baf026cb_b.jpgViltrox 50 crop by Mike Broomfield, on Flickr
The above image is small, here is a 3600 pixel wide version if it opens OK on Google Photo (click on the image once to go to near 4k size)
https://photos.app.goo.gl/exm8w7HxBHkRBzNh8A very nice photo of the Polish three-masted frigate "Dar Młodzieży" on which future merchant navy officers train. Sony GM 70-200/2.8 Mk2 + Sony 2xTC renders optimally stopped down 1-2 f stops (f8-f11 effectively),provided you got good 2xTC copy.
I always tend to use lenses without TCs or at least switch to APS-C mode if I must in order to keep up the best IQ possible.
It is very seldom that I add up 1,4x TC or 2xTC and it's usually for the sake of convenience i.e. when I want to spare on weight,size or both.
My own experience says: pro grade GM...Show more →
This is pretty much what I have read. I use the 1.4TC on my older version 100-400 and find it quite acceptable. The 2x Viltrox is new to me and I was using it as a test on the 70-200 (and it easily passed my criteria). So it will stay in my bag with the 70-200 to give me the reach of the native 100-400. I need to test it on the F4 Macro version of the 70-200 as well as the 100-400.
Thanks for the comments
mcbroomf wrote
I tried the Sony 2x on the 70-200 II a few years ago and was not impressed. This is the Viltrox 2x on the same lens last week. 400mm F7.1 ISO 4000https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/55395670038_73baf026cb_b.jpgViltrox 50 crop by Mike Broomfield, on Flickr
The above image is small, here is a 3600 pixel wide version if it opens OK on Google Photo (click on the image once to go to near 4k size)
https://photos.app.goo.gl/exm8w7HxBHkRBzNh8
Sony GM 70-200/2.8 Mk2 + Sony 2xTC renders optimally stopped down 1-2 f stops (f8-f11 effectively),provided you got good 2xTC copy.I always tend to use lenses without TCs or at least switch to APS-C mode if I must in order to keep up the best IQ possible.
It is very seldom that I add up 1,4x TC or 2xTC and it's usually for the sake of convenience i.e. when I want to spare on weight,size or both.
My own experience says: pro grade GM...Show more →
This is pretty much what I have read. I use the 1.4TC on my older version 100-400 and find it quite acceptable. The 2x Viltrox is new to me and I was using it as a test on the 70-200 (and it easily passed my criteria). So it will stay in my bag with the 70-200 to give me the reach of the native 100-400. I need to test it on the F4 Macro version of the 70-200 as well as the 100-400.
Thanks for the comments
Jul 22, 2026 at 04:31 AM
p.1 #11Sony 70-200 f2.8 GM ii + 2x tc vs Sony 100-400 f4.5 GM lens for landscape
If you are mostly interested in 400mm for landscape, then an absolutely superb system is the
Fujifilm GFX100S II + GF500mm f/5.6 that has the total weight of
883 g + 1,375 g =2,258 g (2.26 kg)
For comparison,
Sony A7R V + FE 300mm f/2.8 GM OSS is only slightly lighter at
723 g + 1,470 g = 2,193 g (2.19 kg).
(the weights for lenses exlude their legs and hoods).
The GF500MM F5.6 lens on a GFX body is equivalent to 396mm F4.4. It is 500mm F5.6 in the full-frame crop. Cropping this to the APS-C frame would give 750mm. This might be out of your price range, unfortunately, but I wanted to mention the GF500MM lens that really impressed me in how light it feels on the GFX body, as well as the superb image stabilization of the system and image quality. The lens by the way is unusual among the telephoto by being black, rather than white.
Fujifilm GFX100S II + GF500mm f/5.6 that has the total weight of
883 g + 1,375 g =2,258 g (2.26 kg)
For comparison,
Sony A7R V + FE 300mm f/2.8 GM OSS is only slightly lighter at
723 g + 1,470 g = 2,193 g (2.19 kg).
(the weights for lenses exlude their legs and hoods).
The GF500MM F5.6 lens on a GFX body is equivalent to 396mm F4.4. It is 500mm F5.6 in the full-frame crop. Cropping this to the APS-C frame would give 750mm. This might be out of your price range, unfortunately, but I wanted to mention the GF500MM lens that really impressed me in how light it feels on the GFX body, as well as the superb image stabilization of the system and image quality. The lens by the way is unusual among the telephoto by being black, rather than white.
Jul 22, 2026 at 05:30 AM
p.1 #12Sony 70-200 f2.8 GM ii + 2x tc vs Sony 100-400 f4.5 GM lens for landscape
ruthenium wrote:
If you are mostly interested in 400mm for landscape, then an absolutely superb system is the
Fujifilm GFX100S II + GF500mm f/5.6 that has the total weight of
883 g + 1,375 g =2,258 g (2.26 kg)
For comparison,
Sony A7R V + FE 300mm f/2.8 GM OSS is only slightly lighter at
723 g + 1,470 g = 2,193 g (2.19 kg).
(the weights for lenses exlude their legs and hoods).
The GF500MM F5.6 lens on a GFX body is equivalent to 396mm F4.4. It is 500mm F5.6 in the full-frame crop. Cropping this to the APS-C frame would give 750mm. This might be out...Show more →
I concur. I extensively tested and compared my GF 500mm on the GFX100SII to my GM300mm f2.8 with x1.4 and 2.0 converters on the A7R5. All tested on an MTF50 target at 60ft. GFX images were downconverter to 61mp for comparisons. I tested both on a tripod and handheld. I tested at ISO100 and ISO2000.
Some observations:
When handheld, the stabilization on the Fuji system was absolutely amazing and outperformed the Sony system (or any other system I have used). Distant objects just "froze" when I hit focus!
When images were equalized to 61mp and compared on a 5K, 27" monitor at 100/200/400%, the sharpness of the lenses was almost identical at ISO100. Both lenses are stellar.
When images at ISO2000 were compared, the Fuji images had noticeably more detail due to lower noise.
When I took the two systems out in the field, I was rather shocked to see how well the bird focus on the GFX worked on distant birds.
For BIF, the GFX system maintained focus and worked great with lateral motion, but poorly with front-to-back motion. Of course, the FPS was pretty low.
After reading a lot of negative comments on various forums about the GF500mm for wildlife, I was a bit taken-back by my great results. While this was a nice exercise, I will mostly be using my A1 II with its 30fps, pre-capture and great tracking. For more static shots, my preference is the GFX system.
GFX100SII, GF500mm, ISO400, f5.6, 1/2500, Cropped over 50%
If you are mostly interested in 400mm for landscape, then an absolutely superb system is the
Fujifilm GFX100S II + GF500mm f/5.6 that has the total weight of
883 g + 1,375 g =2,258 g (2.26 kg)
For comparison,
Sony A7R V + FE 300mm f/2.8 GM OSS is only slightly lighter at
723 g + 1,470 g = 2,193 g (2.19 kg).
(the weights for lenses exlude their legs and hoods).
The GF500MM F5.6 lens on a GFX body is equivalent to 396mm F4.4. It is 500mm F5.6 in the full-frame crop. Cropping this to the APS-C frame would give 750mm. This might be out...Show more →
I concur. I extensively tested and compared my GF 500mm on the GFX100SII to my GM300mm f2.8 with x1.4 and 2.0 converters on the A7R5. All tested on an MTF50 target at 60ft. GFX images were downconverter to 61mp for comparisons. I tested both on a tripod and handheld. I tested at ISO100 and ISO2000.
Some observations:
When handheld, the stabilization on the Fuji system was absolutely amazing and outperformed the Sony system (or any other system I have used). Distant objects just "froze" when I hit focus!
When images were equalized to 61mp and compared on a 5K, 27" monitor at 100/200/400%, the sharpness of the lenses was almost identical at ISO100. Both lenses are stellar.
When images at ISO2000 were compared, the Fuji images had noticeably more detail due to lower noise.
When I took the two systems out in the field, I was rather shocked to see how well the bird focus on the GFX worked on distant birds.
For BIF, the GFX system maintained focus and worked great with lateral motion, but poorly with front-to-back motion. Of course, the FPS was pretty low.
After reading a lot of negative comments on various forums about the GF500mm for wildlife, I was a bit taken-back by my great results. While this was a nice exercise, I will mostly be using my A1 II with its 30fps, pre-capture and great tracking. For more static shots, my preference is the GFX system.
GFX100SII, GF500mm, ISO400, f5.6, 1/2500, Cropped over 50%
Jul 22, 2026 at 06:53 AM
p.1 #13Sony 70-200 f2.8 GM ii + 2x tc vs Sony 100-400 f4.5 GM lens for landscape
InFocus2014 wrote:
Fujifilm GFX100S II + GF500mm f/5.6 that has the total weight of
883 g + 1,375 g =2,258 g (2.26 kg)
For comparison,
Sony A7R V + FE 300mm f/2.8 GM OSS is only slightly lighter at
723 g + 1,470 g = 2,193 g (2.19 kg).
(the weights for lenses exlude their legs and hoods).
The GF500MM F5.6 lens on a GFX body is equivalent to 396mm F4.4. It is 500mm F5.6 in the full-frame crop. Cropping this to the APS-C frame would give 750mm. This might be out of your price range, unfortunately, but I wanted to mention the GF500MM lens that really impressed me in how light it feels on the GFX body, as well as the superb image stabilization of the system and image quality. The lens by the way is unusual among the telephoto by being black, rather than white.I concur. I extensively tested and compared my GF 500mm on the GFX100SII to my GM300mm f2.8 with x1.4 and 2.0 converters on the A7R5. All tested on an MTF50 target at 60ft. GFX images were downconverter to 61mp for comparisons. I tested both on a tripod and handheld. I tested at ISO100 and ISO2000.
Some observations:
When handheld, the stabilization on the Fuji system was absolutely amazing and outperformed the Sony system (or any other system I have used). Distant objects just "froze" when I hit focus!
When images were equalized to 61mp and compared on a 5K, 27" monitor at 100/200/400%,...Show more →
Yes, GF 500/5.6 is a stellar lens with very effective IS and the whole GF system wins for static subjects,mostly other than wildlife (though I once managed to photograph bust of the walking crow with my GF 500/5.6 and GFX 100s Mk1).
ruthenium wrote
If you are mostly interested in 400mm for landscape, then an absolutely superb system is theFujifilm GFX100S II + GF500mm f/5.6 that has the total weight of
883 g + 1,375 g =2,258 g (2.26 kg)
For comparison,
Sony A7R V + FE 300mm f/2.8 GM OSS is only slightly lighter at
723 g + 1,470 g = 2,193 g (2.19 kg).
(the weights for lenses exlude their legs and hoods).
The GF500MM F5.6 lens on a GFX body is equivalent to 396mm F4.4. It is 500mm F5.6 in the full-frame crop. Cropping this to the APS-C frame would give 750mm. This might be out of your price range, unfortunately, but I wanted to mention the GF500MM lens that really impressed me in how light it feels on the GFX body, as well as the superb image stabilization of the system and image quality. The lens by the way is unusual among the telephoto by being black, rather than white.
Some observations:
When handheld, the stabilization on the Fuji system was absolutely amazing and outperformed the Sony system (or any other system I have used). Distant objects just "froze" when I hit focus!
When images were equalized to 61mp and compared on a 5K, 27" monitor at 100/200/400%,...Show more →
Yes, GF 500/5.6 is a stellar lens with very effective IS and the whole GF system wins for static subjects,mostly other than wildlife (though I once managed to photograph bust of the walking crow with my GF 500/5.6 and GFX 100s Mk1).
Jul 22, 2026 at 07:59 AM
p.1 #14Sony 70-200 f2.8 GM ii + 2x tc vs Sony 100-400 f4.5 GM lens for landscape
I don't have any other zoom lenses to compare to but I love this lens. Especially in an environment where you really don't want to change lenses out for fear of getting dust on your sensor. On this safari which started in the Serengeti and went to the Tarangire, it was perfect. There were a few occasions where I could have used a longer reach and several occasions where I pulled out the iPhone, but for a good 90 % of the trip the 70-200 mm was perfect.
Jul 22, 2026 at 04:31 PM
p.1 #15Sony 70-200 f2.8 GM ii + 2x tc vs Sony 100-400 f4.5 GM lens for landscape
It will come down to your satisfaction of the results using the 2x. IMO the IQ hit using a 2xTC is not acceptable. Of course using a higher resolution body allows for a decent amount of cropping which negates the need for any TC. 1.4TC's usually don't have near as much IQ hit and I've had some success with that combo. The real dilemma comes from what venue will be captured. Straight telephotos like the 300 2.8 are superb but you're locked into a single length and mother nature doesn't always present herself the same way. The 100-400 4.5 allows a fair amount of flexibility. BTW I have the lens and it's a gem IMO. Yes it can be hand held quite easily, but for any serious landscape work, it and others need to be on a sturdy tripod. For true landscape work (not wildlife) I've never found the need to bring along anything larger than the 70-200 2.8 but that's just me.
Jul 23, 2026 at 05:10 AM