Re: For Travel: Sony E 70-350 f4.5-6.3 -or- FE 100-400 f4.5-5.6 + 1.4TC?
chiron wrote: Craig Gillette wrote:
I chose to go with the 70-350 for its size for "travel.". I have both aps-c and the A7Riv, and the 200-600 but there are times, even casual drives, or for a just in case lens when not setting out specifically for longer focal length subject matter, that I want something along longer than the 18-135 or 28-200. .
---------------------------------------------
Viramati wrote:
I'm currently on holiday in the Dolomites where we have been going for many years and used to hike with the 16-35GM and 100-400GM on 2 bodies but now on approaching 70 I find the weight to much and have opted for a combo of the the 20-70 G and Tamron 50-300 which makes for a much lighter setup and ideal when out on in the mountains. I'm very happy with the performance of the 50-300 and the 100-400GM has stayed home though I also have my 50/1.4GM, Batis 25 and Sony 40G with me
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?
Well for casual hiking and landscape photography I can't see any real difference in printing up to A1+ (largest my printer will go) and that is what I use these lenses for. If I was doing more serious landscape work I would definitely reach for my 16-35GM mk1 as I have an excellent copy that i is pin sharp right into the corners (tried 3 mk2 versions of it and had to send them all back for IQ) issues. I haven't had the Tamron long enough to really put it through it's passes and lightroom doesn't have a profile for it yet but from what I see stopped down to f it performs very well in real world scenarios. Being a lighter setup I am also more likely to take it out with me and I use them on an A1 and A7r5. If you want to shoot action then the Tamron obviously suffers from having the 4.5-6.3 aperture
Re: For Travel: Sony E 70-350 f4.5-6.3 -or- FE 100-400 f4.5-5.6 + 1.4TC?
chiron wrote: Craig Gillette wrote:
I chose to go with the 70-350 for its size for "travel.". I have both aps-c and the A7Riv, and the 200-600 but there are times, even casual drives, or for a just in case lens when not setting out specifically for longer focal length subject matter, that I want something along longer than the 18-135 or 28-200. .
---------------------------------------------
Viramati wrote:
I'm currently on holiday in the Dolomites where we have been going for many years and used to hike with the 16-35GM and 100-400GM on 2 bodies but now on approaching 70 I find the weight to much and have opted for a combo of the the 20-70 G and Tamron 50-300 which makes for a much lighter setup and ideal when out on in the mountains. I'm very happy with the performance of the 50-300 and the 100-400GM has stayed home though I also have my 50/1.4GM, Batis 25 and Sony 40G with me
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?
Well for casual hiking and landscape photography I can't see any real difference in printing up to A1+ (largest my printer will go) and that is what I use these lenses for. If I was doing more serious landscape work I would definitely reach for my 16-35GM mk1 as I have an excellent copy that i is pin sharp right into the corners (tried 3 mk2 versions of it and had to send them all back for IQ) issues. I haven't had the Tamron long enough to really put it through it's passes and lightroom doesn't have a profile for it yet but from what I see stopped down to f it performs very well in real world scenarios. Being a lighter setup I am also more likely to take it out with me and I use them on an A1 and A7r5
Sep 08, 2024 at 09:40 AM
Previous versions of Viramati's message #16636527 « For Travel: Sony E 70-350 f4.5-6.3 -or- FE 100-400 f4.5-5.6 + 1.4TC? »
