Preferred Landscape Focal Length 70-200 vs 100-400

I have an opportunity to trade in my Sony 70-200 F4 for a Sigma 100-400 F5.6. I should note that my mid range zoom is the Sony 24-105 F4. In doing this I loose a little bit of lens speed and gain a little bit of weight 300ish grams.

I like my 70-200 but have felt the need for additional reach at times. I know a lot of this anwer comes down to style and types of landscapes that you shoot, but thought I would throw out this question to such an esteemed group to get your input. TIA

Hi Pat! Good questions. I’ve been considering a 100-400 as well, so I’m interested in what folks say too.

Can I start by asking what you shoot? I imagine the type of shooting might impact what the best course of action would be.

As it stands, you have 35 mm of overlap between you mr midrange and tele lenses. To me, the long tele makes more sense even if it’s slower by a stop. If you’re doing landscapes, I suspect you’ll be on a tripod much of the time, and the f/5.6 won’t be a big deal.

Not sure what the weight issues are for you, but for me my 70-200 f/4 is my go to lens. I do have a 100-400 f/4-5.6 (both lenses are Canon L lenses) but it is pretty heavy and I often don’t bring it along when I plan on spending more than just a few minutes walking around in a location unless I am somewhere where I know there are distanced things I want to photograph like the cliffs in Yosemite or Zion. I checked in LR and the majority of my photos are taken with a 70-200 lens, way fewer photos with my 100-400.

Hi Adam

Thanks for your response and thoughts. This lens would be used for landscapes shot mostly from a tripod. So yes I am not really all that concerned about the speed loss. The only action shooting that I might do with this lens is shots of my dogs running and I am fine with moving the ISO up to achieve a good shutter speed for this use.

Tony …thanks for your input as well. The Sigma that I am considering is about 200G more than my 70-200. So while I would love it to weigh even less, I am thinking it wouldn’t be all that much additional weight in my backpack.

Hi Pat,

I’m a proud owner of a Sony 100-400mm 4.5/5.6 GM and I thoroughly recommend this lens. It’s so sharp!

I find the extra focal length is great for capturing atmospherics on distant mountains or for sand dunes. If you shoot people or actions sports the bokeh is great with the extra focal length.

However this lens is heavy, not ideal for backpacking.

Pat,

I got my 70-300 a couple of years ago (thank you, @David_Kingham and @Jennifer_Renwick) because I also wanted greater reach and the ability to isolate distant compositions and it has become my favorite lens. I use it much more than any other lens in my bag.

The speed is similar to the one you are considering and that’s no problem for me.

Nor do I have weight issues as it’s a relatively lightweight lens.

You’ve read above how sharp it is so that’s a big positive factor.

You already know what a longer lens can do and now you want the extra reach. I say go for it because it will deliver and take your photography where you want it to go.

I love having the creative choices of being able to shoot up to 400mm. When I was younger I owned the Canon 100-400mm and a Canon 70-200mm f 2.8. I could not carry both at the same time, so I needed to choose based on the trip. But as I got older, like @Tony_Siciliano I traded in my 100-400mm and switched to the very sharp Canon 70-200mm f4 which was significantly lighter (and much cheaper). This lens is so sharp it even does well taking a 1.4X teleconverter when I need 300mm.

Periodically I get the itch to reacquire the 100-400 or a 70-300, but hesitate based on weight/cost. And several times I have done the exercise in my Lightroom catalog where I review focal lengths during the years where I owned both the 70-200mm and the 100-400mm. Of the shots above 70mm, about 85% were from 70 to 200mm, and most of the rest were under 300mm. Going through this exercise is enough to make me put my credit card away.

OP here…well I decided to move to the 100-400. The only real downside to going this route is that it is about 250 gram heavier than my previous 70-200F4. I love my 24-105 a focal length range that really covers a great percentage of my shooting and in many instances I just carry this lens. However when I tended to need more reach it was frequent enough that the 70-200 just didn’t give that to me.

So I don’t it will be an always in my bag lens. But at least for now I do feel I have a lens that will give me the reach when needed. Time will tell.

I use Sony 70-400mm f/4-5.6 G2 and love it. Have you considered just buying a Sony TC 1.4 or 2.0? With 1.4 you lose only 1 stop and 2.0 2 stops but I assume you use the 70-200mm in good light if you’re taking wildlife and landscapes. I have a walk around lens too it is a 18-200mm Tamron that is very light weight as well as the old but gold Minolta beer can lens.