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

    • thelostkiwi
      Looking for Full Frame lenses to adapt to GFX

      By thelostkiwi · Posted

      I also use a Nikon to GFX Fringer and it works very well.  24mm f/1.8 vignettes so best used on 35mm mode.  50mm f/1.8 covers the entire frame very well with no issues and is a superb little lens. 105mm Sigma vignettes slightly but is perfectly usable. 300 f/4 likewise the 105.  I have a 70-200 f/20+.8 incoming to test so will report back but I'm expecting a little vignetting.  Even in 35mm mode the image is still 60MP and if you're prepared to manually crop and correct you can get 80-90 MP images.  I also have a C/Y to GFX adapter.  The 24mm Sigma Superwide vignettes strongly. Ditto 28-80 Zeiss Sonnar. 80-200 f/4 Sonnar is perfectly usable. All work fine as 35mm mode lenses.  I also have an M42 adapter which I tried with the Carl Zeiss Jena 135mm f/3.5 with good results. 
    • Trevor R
      Image correction with GF20-35

      By Trevor R · Posted

      Thank you. I will research it.
    • jerryy
      Image correction with GF20-35

      By jerryy · Posted

      Ahh, the infamous brick wall photos… 😀 According to internet lore, if the dng converter does not properly apply the corrections, you can have it apply custom profiles that should work for you. How to do that is waaaaaay outside of this comment’s scope, but there are plenty of sites listed in the search engines that step you through the processes. Best wishes.
    • Trevor R
      Image correction with GF20-35

      By Trevor R · Posted

      Jerry Thank you very much. That is extremely helpful. It seems that the camera and the lens have the latest firmware update, so it appears that the corrections should be applied automatically. The lens arrived this afternoon and I took some quick test shots, in which the correct lens information appeared in the EXIF files, so that sounds good. I used Adobe DNG converter to convert the Raw (RAF) files, and then opened the DNG files and saved them in PSD format. However, with a beautiful, clear, cloudless blue sky, there were no lines near the edges to check if distortion had been corrected. Another day I plan to photograph a brick wall. Thank you for your help.
    • jerryy
      Image correction with GF20-35

      By jerryy · Posted

      Typically you need to make sure the lens is compatible with the camera, i.e. check the lens compatibility charts for your camera, then make sure the respective firmwares are updated so older issues are resolved. After that, each lens has a manufacturer’s profile which will be embedded into the raw file meta data for the images captured using that lens. From there, it is up to the raw conversion software to apply the lens correction to the image. Different converters do that differently, some automatically, some only if a setting is turned on. For in-camera jpegs, the on-board converter does the corrections automatically, assuming the camera recognizes the lens, it applies a generic profile otherwise. I do not know if that can be turned off or not.
×
×
  • Create New...