Sony 70-200 2.8 or 100-400 4.5 5.6? Last year I bought the a7r4 with the 24-70 2.8 and now I am contemplating acquiring a zoom lens. Soon I will be taking a trip to Cali and would like...

faustincpa

Last year I bought the a7r4 with the 24-70 2.8 and now I am contemplating acquiring a zoom lens. Soon I will be taking a trip to Cali and would like some input regarding the 70-200, which I really like, or the 100-400. I do mostly landscape/portrait. Any advise will be greatly appreciated. Thanks.

Mac Loc: Pittsburgh, Philadelphia now Hernando Co. Fl.

faustincpa wrote:

Last year I bought the a7r4 with the 24-70 2.8 and now I am contemplating acquiring a zoom lens. Soon I will be taking a trip to Cali and would like some input regarding the 70-200, which I really like, or the 100-400. I do mostly landscape/portrait. Any advise will be greatly appreciated. Thanks.

The 24-70mm f/2.8 is a zoom lens and is good for both landscapes and portraits.

Orphoto Loc: Oregon

The fast answer, like usual, is that it just depends on your shooting style and expected subjects. California is a diverse place with a full menu of choices. The single biggest draw for longer lenses is wildlife. If you are shooting a wide range of material, then 70-200 will be very useful. If nervous about the long end you could always through in a 1.4 teleconverter. On the other hand, if you go the longer route, the gap between 70 and 100 in not a really big deal.

UTMike Loc: South Jordan, UT

I have the 100 - 400 with the Sony a7r3 and I really like it and the 1.4 tc extends its reach with sharp results. But, I take a lot of landscapes and I only use the 100 - 400 for landscapes when hiking in the mountains. Otherwise, I use the 24 -70 with excellent results. If you are not going for wildlife, the extra expense and weight of the 100 - 400 may not be worth it.

billnikon Loc: Pennsylvania/Ohio/Florida/Maui/Oregon/Vermont

faustincpa wrote:

Last year I bought the a7r4 with the 24-70 2.8 and now I am contemplating acquiring a zoom lens. Soon I will be taking a trip to Cali and would like some input regarding the 70-200, which I really like, or the 100-400. I do mostly landscape/portrait. Any advise will be greatly appreciated. Thanks.

If you do mainly landscape and portrait then the only lens for you is the 70-200.

ronichas Loc: Long Island

I have the Sony 70-200 F4 and the Sony 100-400 with the 1.4 tc. I love both lenses and have used them both depending on what I am doing and where I am going.

I have the Sony A7111 and the Sony A9. I love both cameras.

mizzee Loc: Boston,Ma

You may not need either one. When my husband and I did our national parks tour, I used my 16-85 95% of the time. If you do want the extra reach, I’d go with the 70-200 and a teleconverter. The weight of the longer lens and its bulk could make it a PITA.

wireloose

You might want to consider the Tamron 70-180 as well. Excellent reviews, the Sony 2.8 likely a bit better electronically but twice the weight and price. For landscape and portrait the 100-400 isnt likely to come out of your bag a lot.

faustincpa

I want to thank you all for your suggestions. Since I was leaning toward the 70-200, thanks for reinforcing it.

DennisC. Loc: Antelope, CA

I chose the Sony 100-400 over the 70-200 and I did, it is super sharp, handles like a 70-200 and focuses down to 39 inches at 400mm. Plus their are many reports that the Sony 70-200 f2.8 has focus issues and is due for an update.

faustincpa

Thanks for your info, I was not aware that the 70-200 had some focus issues. I have to do some investigating and thinking. It is such a beautiful lens! Thanks again.

lreisner Loc: Union,NJ

As noted, you might want to consider the Tamron 2.8 70-180. I just bought the lens and really like it. If you do not mind the weight, then go for the Sony. You will save a ton of money as well. Remember to get extra reach you can also drop down to 35mm mode. The only thing I miss on the Tamron lens is the on off switch for auto focus. I just turn it off in the camera. I doubt that you could tell the difference picture quality wise, short of extreme pixel peeping and then possibly not. Tamron has a six year warranty on their lens. As I first noted, weight was the tie breaker, less than a pound and still well built.

ORpilot Loc: Prineville, Or

I also do landscapes. I have the a7Riv and a7iii. I mostly use the 24-70 2.8 Zeiss. Next would be my 70-300G. I also have the 200-600G mostly for birds and wildlife. I don't think that I would opt for the 100-400 vs the 70-200. As another UHH mentioned the 16-35mGM or the 12-24GM.

Architect1776 Loc: In my mind

faustincpa wrote:

Last year I bought the a7r4 with the 24-70 2.8 and now I am contemplating acquiring a zoom lens. Soon I will be taking a trip to Cali and would like some input regarding the 70-200, which I really like, or the 100-400. I do mostly landscape/portrait. Any advise will be greatly appreciated. Thanks.

I have the 100-400mm lens.
Reason, it is far more versatile than a limited 70-200mm unless you are doing low light indoor sports.
I could have gotten either and that extra 200mm gets far more use than the 1st 200mm. 70 to 100mm is virtually imperceptible and your 24-70mm already gives you the 70mm so it is not needed to be duplicated.

SkyKing Loc: Thompson Ridge, NY

faustincpa wrote:

Last year I bought the a7r4 with the 24-70 2.8 and now I am contemplating acquiring a zoom lens. Soon I will be taking a trip to Cali and would like some input regarding the 70-200, which I really like, or the 100-400. I do mostly landscape/portrait. Any advise will be greatly appreciated. Thanks.

...the 70-200 and after that the 200-600 and you have your trinity...?