wilburpan

I don’t do much wildlife shooting, but a friend of mine does, and he regularly uses a 600mm lens with his FF DSLR for taking bird photos. So that should give you an idea of how much reach you might want. The only way with Fuji X-series lenses is the 100-400mm lens (600mm FF equivalent at the long end). The 50-140mm with a 2x teleconverter will get you to 400mm FF equivalent at the long end. That’s still pretty good, as that’s what my friend used to use (70-200mm zoom with a 2x teleconverter) for wildlife shots before he got his 600mm lens. For me, the key is what “occasional wildlife and bird photography” really means to you. If you are going to be taking more photos within the 50-140mm range, get that lens and the 2x teleconverter. If you think you’re going to get more deeply into wildlife photography, get the 100-400mm. Renting a zoom/telephoto package is a great idea, since there’s nothing like messing around with a lens for a few days to tell you if that’s what you want. ​And if you’re worried about the teleconverter degrading the image, don’t be. For the Fuji lenses, that doesn’t seem to be a huge issue. I rented the 50-140mm and a 1.4x teleconverter for an Alaska cruise I took this summer, just in case I saw some whales, and there wasn’t any degradation that I could see from using the teleconverter. My only regret was that I didn’t rent the 2x teleconverter instead. Also, see here: http://macleancomms.blogspot.com/2016/05/review-new-fujinon-2x-converter.html http://macleancomms.blogspot.com/2016/09/fujinon-2x-converter-revisited-in-mexico.html and here:

Answering my own question: I rented the 50-140mm and a 1.4x teleconverter for the trip. I did not anticipate how much I would enjoy using the 50-140mm. I used it for a lot more than wildlife shots. And even though I have an X-Pro 1, it focused quickly enough for my needs. The teleconverter was a nice surprise. Images taken using that were perfectly sharp as well, despite my worries that adding this component would degrade the image. Apparently adding a teleconverter does not mean an automatic decrease in image quality. See here: My only regret is that I didn’t go with the 2x teleconverter. If I had to do this over again, I would have used the 2x teleconverter. I tried the 100-400mm before going on the trip, and I would rather have the 50-140mm and a teleconverter. I didn’t see any breaching whales, but saw a lot of them swimming around.

@deva, it sounds like you know your way around photographing animals in the wild. Have you photographed whales? The reason I ask is that this afternoon I got to play around with a friend’s full frame DSLR. I was able to see what a 300mm and 600mm lens can do. At this point in time, I think 300mm may give me enough reach for a whale, which does put the 50-140 and a teleconverter into play. My friend loves his 600mm, but his interest is bird photography. A whale is a much bigger target animal.

This summer we’ll be going on an Alaskan cruise. I want to get a telephoto lens in case we see whales, and I need some guidance as to which lens to get. The way I see it, my options are: XF 55-200/3.5-4.8 Pros: Smallest, lightest, and cheapest. Cons: The other lenses have slightly better image quality. XF 55-140/2.8 (+/- 1.4x teleconverter) Pros: Image quality, wide aperture. Also, outside of this trip, this is the focal length range I’m most likely to use. Cons: May not be long enough. XF 100-400/4.5-5.6 Pro: Longest reach, image quality. Cons: Size. And size. Outside of this trip, I don’t do that much nature/animal photography that requires a long lens. I’m leaning towards the 55-140/teleconverter option for this reason. However, this gets me around 300mm (35mm equivalent focal length) with the teleconverter, and I don’t know if this is a long enough lens for pictures of whales, bears, moose, and other big animals. If you were going on this sort of trip, what lens would you bring?