freaklikeme
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
|
 p.1 #6 · 100-200mm f/4, anyone? | |
My imagined kit would cover 16 to 200 (potentially with gaps). The type of travel kit I'm looking at is stuff I cover with a 6700 now, but I picked up a 7cII in a trade when I dropped my dedicated video kit and I am liking it more than I thought I would. I really like the Tamron 35-100/2.8, which is my tele-zoom for APSC, but it turns out I'm very impressed with it on a FF. I took it and 7cII on our long weekend to see my guy's family in Belfast and could've done the whole trip with just that lens.
So I asked myself what would kit best with it for a longer, more involved family vacation in which there's more potential for me to shoot subjects other than the family. A modest UW zoom, like the Sigma 10-18/2.8 I have for the 6700 would do, and there's a plethora of choices there. I don't want a power zoom at all, and I'd like to keep it under a grand per lens in the kit, so I'm looking at the Tamron 16-30 or 17-28, Sigma 16-28, or a Sony 16-25, any of which would do. I've got the Sigma right now, so I'll use it for illustrative purposes here, but it's subject to change.
At the long end, the choices narrow considerably. The Tamron 70-180/2.8's performance at the long end isn't great or that long, the Sigma 70-200/2.8's a bit of a tank and about as good as the original GM but the AF isn't as good, and, were I starting from scratch, the only Sony I could afford would be a used 70-200/4. There, though, I could break my own rule, since I already have the GII in my wildlife kit (bug hunter) and use that. Here's that kit...
 Screenshot 2026-09-16 at 2.47.15 PM by Bradley Clemens, on Flickr
Not bad. I've traveled with bigger, heavier kits and less coverage. If I ever talk my guy into traveling with me and a macro longer than 50mm, I wouldn't have a huge problem with it. Still, when I look at the size of my GII and the size of the 100-200/4.5, I can't help but think a modern take on it would look more like this...
 Screenshot 2026-09-16 at 2.54.36 PM by Bradley Clemens, on Flickr
...if not smaller. That, to me, would be a head-turning difference. I also think it could also be a lens of interest to 24-105/4 devotees, especially if Sony revisits that lens with an upgrade.
Anyway, this isn't a problem I'm trying to solve. I've found MF to be easier on the cII than I expected, so I could just stay with whichever UW sticks and the Tamron and augment them with a 28/2 or the little 7A 35/1.4 for character, and I've got plenty of teles between 135 and 200 to choose from if a tele is really necessary. I mostly wanted to know if anyone else saw the value in the lens type.
|
