Jump to content

New Fujifilm XF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6 R LM OIS WR Dilemma

Fred4hp

By Fred4hp
in Fuji X Lenses

 Share

Recommended Posts

Morgo Contributor

Morgo

Posted
Posted

My Canon kit is basically long glass these days, 70-200, 100-400, 200-400 1.4x, 600 with 1d4, 5d3 7d2 mostly wildlife and some sports.
 

I could adapt some of that long glass for my XT-1 but lose out on AF which makes it pretty much useless to me for what I like to shoot, so I'm planning on getting the Fuji 100-400.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Mike K Enthusiast

Mike K

Posted
Posted

For wildlife photography I've been using the following manual lenses, all of which I've modified from their native mounts to Sony α mount for use on the Sony A7r.:
1. Carl Zeiss 300mm f2.8 Tele Apo Tessar -previously Contax /Yashica mount.
2. Leica R 280mm APO Telyt f4.
3. Leica R 105-280mm APO f4.2 Vario Elmar.

In the process of moving across to Fuji, and just when I was telling myself I couldn't justify purchasing the Fuji 100-400mm, I decided to sell the 280mm Leica R APO Telyt f4 which is surplus to my needs and which is highly sought after. The 105-280mm Leica Vario Elmar is more versatile than the fixed 280mm and there's almost no difference in IQ.

This morning I ordered the Fuji 100-400mm from Amazon.de
Delivery is scheduled for Monday, I'll post some feedback next week....

Link to post
Share on other sites
Hauxon Newbie

Hauxon

Posted
Posted

I would say if you plan on keeping a Canon body for the long run and already have a good copy of the EF 100-400 (especially if it's version II) I see no point in buying the XF 100-400.  If you however plan on switching completely the XF 100-400 is a no brianer.  The lens is about the same size as the Canon lens but is about 200 grams lighter and that's probably due to using plastics in the body.  The Canon lens feels more solid in the hand and I was a bit worried about the Fuji lens being "cheap" ...but it feels great to use.  No complaints here.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 6 months later...
pez Contributor

pez

Posted
Posted (edited)

Hi Folks.  I had a Nikon D3 also the massive in size and price 200 to 400mm zoom.

 

Now I have the Fuji 100 to 400mm zoom, there is no doubt for me the Fuji is giving the best in focus every time shots.  The Fuji has only been used hand held!!!(XT1) Because I am old and a bit unsteady I only loose very few shots to camera shake. So far I have only used it on people performing and normal action, the next action will be a local cut and thrust football match plus the XT2.

 

Yesterday I looked back at my 55 to 200mm Fuji Zoom photos taken with the pre focus firmware updates, it is hardly surprising I was disappointed in the focus.  A few months ago I purchased the 50 to 140mm zoom, the results were breathtaking, the colour, the sharpness went to create almost 3D images, again all hand held use. My first choice of lens if the subject/distance allow.

 

Dilemma no problem its not just for sport/nature and it works well with the XT1.  There is still a lot of very useful life in the XT1 in producing class leading photos.

Edited by pez
Link to post
Share on other sites
steviewonder Contributor

steviewonder

Posted
Posted

Got my Fuji XT-2 last week and now have to decide about the 100-400 mm lens. I have the 55-200 mm lens and am going on a grizzly bear shoot next year. We'll be in zodiacs so no tripod shots. The 55-200 is obviously lighter to hand-hold but I'm concerned about reach and quality. I also have a Nikon D800 and an 80-400 mm lens but that combo weighs 1 1/2 pounds more than the XT-2 with the 100-400 mm lens. Any thoughts from users of these lenses? The bears are not quick moving but light may be low and the zodiac is not completely still while I'm shooting.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Sluw Community Regular

Sluw

Posted
Posted

Got my Fuji XT-2 last week and now have to decide about the 100-400 mm lens. I have the 55-200 mm lens and am going on a grizzly bear shoot next year. We'll be in zodiacs so no tripod shots. The 55-200 is obviously lighter to hand-hold but I'm concerned about reach and quality. I also have a Nikon D800 and an 80-400 mm lens but that combo weighs 1 1/2 pounds more than the XT-2 with the 100-400 mm lens. Any thoughts from users of these lenses? The bears are not quick moving but light may be low and the zodiac is not completely still while I'm shooting.

 

I wouldn't be worried about quality but when shooting animals in the wild the extra reach is often much needed. The X-T2 + 100-400 also is a nice weather and dust sealed combo with great IS.

Link to post
Share on other sites
steviewonder Contributor

steviewonder

Posted
Posted

Until September 30th Fuji has a sale where you can get the teleconverter (the 1.4 or the 2.0) for only $100 (Canadian) more when you buy the 100-400mm lens. That's a savings of $500. Went back to my dealer today, where I bought the 100-400mm lens yesterday, and gave them another $100 for the 1.4 converter.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share
Go to topic listing

  • Similar Content

  • Posts

    • PoorAlchemist
      LUT doesn't works on resolve

      By PoorAlchemist · Posted

      I found the reddit topic i refere to :  https://www.reddit.com/r/davinciresolve/comments/1pc3f1e/cant_apply_new_fujifilm_gfx_55_lut/ "Update for y'all, It's just like what @ExpBalSat said, it's because of the backslashes in the names break them. I changed the file name and it works now. "   For me it was the solution. Realy annoying if it doesn’t work for you 😕  
    • Don Barar
      LUT doesn't works on resolve

      By Don Barar · Posted

      Here is the solution to using the Eterna 55 file simulation LUTs in Davinci Resolve.   In general, do not use the FLog2C to film simulation LUTs as they are not supported by Davinci Resolve for two reasons: 1) Davinci Resolve does not support Fuji Gamut Color Space and 2) Davinci Resolve does not support FLog2C gamma.  Instead, use Flog2 which is supported by Davinci Resolve.  Here is an example.  Let's say that you want to use Classic Chrome simulation.  Do the following: Complete your color grade and use a CST to get to Rec 709. Add a node.  Use a CST to convert from Rec 709 to FLog2.  Output Color space is Rec 2020 and Outout Gamut is FLog2. Add a node.  Apply the FLog2 to Classic Chrome LUT Create a combination node from node in steps 2 and 3. Apply a Key to the combination node and adjust the Key Output Gain to get the amount of the combination node that you want applied. So that you do not have to do this over and over again, generate a LUT for the combination node.  Remember to turn off all other nodes before generating the LUT. Hope this helps others. Don  
    • crazyfields
      Please save me from insanity 23mm f2 vs F1.4r

      By crazyfields · Posted

      Thanks for the insights. I think it's really hard to make a decision without having the two side by side! 
    • George_P
      Please save me from insanity 23mm f2 vs F1.4r

      By George_P · Posted

      I don’t have the 23 f2 but I have read several times that it is considered a little soft at close distance, compared to the 23 f1.4 lenses. These will also focus at shorter distance from the subject, esp. the new one. So that might make a difference. The new 23 f1.4 LM WR  has better resolution, esp. in regard to the 40Mpix sensors, which you don’t have on the X-T2. What practical difference that makes for the value of the pictures one makes is disputable and subjective.  f1.4 will gather more light but with a smaller DOF, which may be desirable in some situations but not so in others, depends. If you like to shoot close ups, you will probably use higher f numbers to get a bigger DOF. Same for landscapes. If you are a bokeh fan, yes the f1.4 lens are better.  The older 23 f1.4 lens that you are considering is a very good and respected lens. The f1.4 vs f2 aperture per se is perhaps not so important. The 23 f2 is very small, light and practical and a great lens for travel and landscapes. So, go figure. I am afraid I just sent you further down the road to insanity !
    • crazyfields
      Please save me from insanity 23mm f2 vs F1.4r

      By crazyfields · Posted

      First post here but long time fuji shorter. I use the XT2 with the 23mm f2 / 35mm 1.4 / 16-80mm f4 I'm considering the 23mm f1.4 r (Non-WR) About me: - I shoot black and white only. - I like macro details to wide open landscapes and everything in-between. - I shoot mostly for art, intrigue and creativity of the image. My question - is the 23mm f1.4 going to offer me any meaningful difference over the f2 for the above scenarios Thanks and sorry for bringing it up again...
×
×
  • Create New...