Rblnr

Thanks on the pics. I was/am happy on the combo. This was a family vacation so I had little time to formally test or even shoot really, but here are some impressions: Focus speed is much better vs the XT-1 and feels about on par with my Nikon D800. Where the XT-1 did not track well and hunted, the XT-2 now 'works' re tracking. I got much.better results using zone vs the wide tracking setting, but really didn't have time to test the many options. The stabilization on the 100-400 is VERY good. Shot at some fairly slow shutter speeds vs the focal length and was sharp almost every time. The lens also has some nice ergonomic touches such as the cutout on the bottom of the hood to rotate a polarizer. The 50-140 is incredibly sharp and is my favorite Fuji zoom. The focus is much more positive with it on the. XT-2 vs the XT-1. As reported everywhere else and so I won't get into detail here is that the XT-2 is a better camera than the XT-1 in every way. What I think might get lost in the discussion of focus speed, MPs and so forth is that between ergonomic improvements, most notably the focus joystick, and the decreased lag time in all operations, the 2 is just a much better, more direct tool to use. I'm a film director/dp by trade and probably appreciated this as much as anything. These cam/lens combos felt like an organic extension of me

Hi all -- A few pics from the Galapagos using an XT-2 and the 100-400 and 50-140mm zooms. I'll soon be posting a related article about the XT-2 and Fuji generally and will add that link when it's up.

Have had a chance now to digest the diagram and as per the other poster. Great and educational post on your part. For me equivalency comparisons means angle of view. So 200/300 - APS-C/FF etc. With high ISO performance continually improving, crop sensor too, I'm a little less concerned with having the fastest speed, particularly at telephoto lengths where DOF is shallow in any case. So I'd choose a lighter f/4 tele over a heavier f/2 -- this is why I have a crop sensor system. Normal/wide is where DOF and perhaps choosing FF for a particular task comes into play. As an aside, love the 56/1.2. Anyway and again, good info on optical design and why it's not as clear cut as I'd like it to be to get what I want. And appreciate the endorsement and detail on the 100-400 as well. It will likely be in my kit by end of next month.

Please believe me, don't want to annoy you either! -- but don't entirely agree w/a couple of your premises. BUT yeah -- we want the same thing and before some upcoming trips I will likely buy the 100-400. My hope was to pair a 2x converter w/a 200mm in lieu of the big zoom but that is not to be for time being anyway. For an increasingly comprehensive system it's the obvious hole in their lineup, but having been thru m4/3, am committed to Fuji as my compact ILC at this point so the waiting is on. Perhaps a third party will come to the rescue but not holding my breath.

Really appreciate the comprehensive info. Will have to study the graphical stuff mote thoroughly when I'm not half asleep. i think a model for me would be the Olympus 300/4 at 1.4kg. I don't need f/2 in a telephoto of that reach; it's an outdoor lens in most use cases and modern ISO performance gets you the stop or two back easily. DOF at 4 w/say a 200mm APS-C is shallow enough for most use cases as well. Understood that m4/3 is not APS-C, but I think Oly straddled utility and the smaller lighter ethos of crop sensors very well and in a way that points a valid direction for Fuji to go with a telephoto prime.

You're more on top of this than me so correct me if I'm wrong: the Canon and Nikon (of which I,m also an owner btw) are full frame, so weight equivalency won't be quite accurate. And as an aside really, I'd be fine w/2.8 or even 4 (300mm) to keep size/weight down. In any case, X is weak on the long end which is frustrating for me anyway and is the main missing link to a complete solution.

Ahh, didn't know. Prob is choices are the very decent but not great 55-200 or the massive 100-400. I feel like we have plenty of primes in the wide-normal range but nothing above that. Was hoping to use 2x converter with a 200 for good quality, relatively light reach when needed.

Is the 200mm prime dead? Looks like it's off the roadmap. This is a bummer -- there's a real hole in the lens lineup.