Sony 70-200 f/4 vs 70-350 ??????

[brent_e]

Hi folks,
been a while, sorry to come back after a long time away with a.....Sony question!

I'm looking to purchase one of these lenses (but am open to suggestions). I understand that they are quite different in many respects, but thought I'd ask the audience/experts to see if someone had good/bad experience with them.

Purpose would be....everything, honestly...which makes this hard. I want something light for travel to go with my a6000. I like the extra reach of the 350, but don't like the slow aperture. I like shooting some friends in outdoor situations either rock or ice climbing, and could see this lense being used there, too. Maybe birds a bit. 

I also own a nikon 70-200 2.8 and TC 17E, so have that.....but it so heavy and inconvenient in a lot of cases. 

any help is greatly appreciated!  hope this whole crew is doing well!

Brent

[Roland Vink]

I have no experience with Sony cameras but it is useful to compare specifications:

70-350/4.5 - 6.3
Format: DX
Min focus: 1.1-1.5m
Max mag: 0.23x
Filter: 67mm
Size: 77 x 142mm
Weight: 625g
Cost: $998  (B&H Photo)

70-200/4
Format: FX
Min focus: 1-1.5m (1.35 in MF)
Max mag: 0.13x
Filter: 72mm
Size: 80 x 175mm
Weight: 840g
Cost: $1498

70-300/4-5.6
Format: FX
Min focus: 0.9m
Max mag: 0.31x
Filter: 72mm
Size: 84 x 143.5mm
Weight: 854g
Cost: $1173

Compared with the 70-350, the 70-200 is bigger, heavier, 1.5x more expensive, does not focus as close, and has less reach. On the other hand it has a faster aperture (probably a stop faster at 200mm) and is almost certainly sharper. It covers FX format so would be useable if you get an FX Sony camera.

Also consider the 70-300. It is roughly the same size as the 70-350 and costs only a little more. The filter size and weight are the same as the 70-200. It is the closest focusing of all three so if you are into macro this is the best option. A quick look at some reviews suggests it is a bit sharper than the 70-350. The difference in reach is not significant and could easily be covered by cropping, especially if it is sharper. At comparable focal lengths it is about 1/3 stop faster than the 70-350. It covers FX format. This might be the best compromise?

[brent_e]

Thanks, Roland. 
the 70-300 may be a good tweener. I'll take a look at this.  might be better on the used market as it's older, as well.

Brent