Lens Dilema

[Reefman]

I'm expecting my new X-T4 to be delivered tomorrow, an upgrade for my X-T20 and am also taking the opportunity to review my lenses.  I'm getting the 16-55 to replace my 18-55 and am planning on adding the 80mm macro too.  

I already have the 55-200 telephoto zoom but want to extend the range though  I'm worried that the 100-400 telephoto is just going to be too big for the camera.   I don't think either the 1.4 or 2x converters work with my existing telephoto lens so was considering investing the the 50-140 with a 2 x converter as a compromise but am worried about that combination impacting on the premium performance from the 50-140.

Is the 100-400 really just too big for the size of the camera? If I go with the 100 -400 I wouldn't have coverage from 55 -100 but would have the 80mm macro to bridge the range.

Are there any converters that will work with my 80-200?

What can I expect from the 50-140 paired with the 2x converter? How would results compare with the 55-200?

All opinions welcomed

 

Edited July 1, 2020 by Reefman
Updated

[Reefman]

Anyone?

[jwascher]

I have the 100-400 that I use for sports, Lacrosse and Football on my X-T2. I do use a mono-pod since holding the combined weight for an entire game seems just too much. The 100-400 is great for this type of shooting, and with the enhanced focusing on the X-T4, should be a real killer combination. Not sure what you are shooting, so hard to say how that all fits. I do find that the 100-400 is too powerful sometimes as the action gets too close to where I am standing. You can set the auto-focus to only go 5m to infinity or the full range, but at a loss of focus speed. I usually have mine set for the over 5m minimum and most of the time that is fine.

Also, what do you plan to do with your finished shots? I post mine to a team share site on Shutterfly, so cropping the shots to just the area where the action is does not create a problem. if you are trying to print on large size paper and therefore need more of the megapixels, then the tele-converter may help, but with 25 megapixels, you can usually do a lot of cropping. 

[Reefman]

thanks for the reply. sorry i should have said my intended use will mostly be wildlife, birds in flight (hopefully) though possinly some outdoor sport too. 

The shots are just for personal use possible printing but nothing too large 

 

 

Edited July 1, 2020 by Reefman

[Robr]

Hey Reefman,

 I have the 50-140 & 2x and have used the combo to shoot birds coming to eat berries.

I've since removed the 2x for this situation for this reason:
I don't feel the sharpness is the same (when shooting birds I'm all about seeing the feather texture) and i think it's compromised with the 2x.

(I've added this bit to existing post for explanation: when I say sharpness I'm not blaming the 2x. I'm saying by adding the 2x I loose faster f-stops and/or shutter speed. That often leads to soft pictures because I'm shooting into shadows that I'm barely able to expose correctly without the 2x. Now back to original post)

That loss of a couple f-stops makes shooting more difficult for me. I say this because I'm shooting into trees where the available light is many stops lower then the overall scene.

So what I've done to compensate with the lack of zoom is to shoot in the highest res and crop.

I'm happy with the 50-140 but find the 2x (for me) Doesn't help.

As a suggestion, I'd rent the 2x (lensrentals is safe and has had deals like 7days for a 3day price) and test it that way. 
 

Edited July 1, 2020 by Robr
Clarity

[Reefman]

Thanks for the reply and suggestion of renting.

I guess another optiom for me is to keep my 55-200 for more general day to day use  and get the hefy 100-400 and limit its use to field trips, though I do like the 55-140 performance, hmmm

[Robr]

The thing that frustrates me with fuji is they have very few really fast lenses. If a lens isn't 2.8 I'm far less interested in it. But maybe I'm the oddball that's always shooting in difficult lightning situations.

The good thing about Fuji is their quality of glass. I have far more confidence in Fuji's copy to copy quality then other manufacturers. 

On lensrental.com: they have a great blog. It was an article I read in their blog that confirmed my feeling that the same lens can be manufactured with different results (quality) in the same lens copy to copy. Unlike other camera/lens reviews, they don't have the hidden agenda/interest/money paid. In todays internet an honest review is hard to find in my view.

I rented Fiji's red badge 8-16mm 2.8 for a trip to the Grand Canyon. I had the kit 18-55mm, 80mm micro and 50-140mm to go to but all I used was the 8-16. It is an amazing lens.

Rental cost was $160. With full insurance coverage for a week. 

I have no connection to lensrental but would definitely test any future lens with them before spending 1-2k. 

[Periwinkle]

I have the 55-230 which I use for the tx20. Is it worth getting the 100-400? I like to isolate items at a distance but it is heavy, as noted here, and obviously not that fast. Thoughts? Thanks.

[mawz]

I'll admit I'm a little amused by folks calling the relatively featherweight 100-400 a heavy lens. At 1375g it's actually the lightest 100-400 of its speed class, at 20g lighter than the Sony and over 250g lighter than the Canon.  These are also reasonably fast lenses for the long end of their range, the only zooms that are faster at 400mm are the monster 180/200-400 f4's and the insanely huge Sigma 200-500 f2.8

(the Panasonic and Sigma mirrorless 100-400's are lighter at ~1-1.1Kg, but are also slower at  the long end, being f4-6.3 for the PL and f5-6.3 for the Sigma)

I'd definitely consider the 100-400 the go-to lens for the Fuji shooter who needs a telephoto. And at 2Kg or less when paired with a X-T body, it's not particularly heavy for the reach.

[Reefman]

22 hours ago, Periwinkle said:

I have the 55-230 which I use for the tx20. Is it worth getting the 100-400? I like to isolate items at a distance but it is heavy, as noted here, and obviously not that fast. Thoughts? Thanks.

Thanks for reply but a max of 230mm isn't that much over my 55-200 I think I need to be at least 300mm for what my intended use, so the 100-400 or the 55-140 plus 2x tc seems the way to go.  Both are heavyish lenses but as I'm generally happy with my 55-200 I'm favouring the longer reach of the 400

[Reefman]

2 hours ago, mawz said:

I'll admit I'm a little amused by folks calling the relatively featherweight 100-400 a heavy lens. At 1375g it's actually the lightest 100-400 of its speed class, at 20g lighter than the Sony and over 250g lighter than the Canon.  These are also reasonably fast lenses for the long end of their range, the only zooms that are faster at 400mm are the monster 180/200-400 f4's and the insanely huge Sigma 200-500 f2.8

(the Panasonic and Sigma mirrorless 100-400's are lighter at ~1-1.1Kg, but are also slower at  the long end, being f4-6.3 for the PL and f5-6.3 for the Sigma)

I'd definitely consider the 100-400 the go-to lens for the Fuji shooter who needs a telephoto. And at 2Kg or less when paired with a X-T body, it's not particularly heavy for the reach.

Thank I appreciate your comments I'm now thinking that anything l l less than 400 (including the 140 plus x2) would be a compromise for my intended use. As you say the weight issue is relative.