Jump to content

Recommended Posts

I currently have the 100-400, and it is quite ok, except that it is a bit soft at the 400mm end.

I have been thinking about upgrading to the 150-600, unfortunately, I'd have to get rid of my 100-400 first. The 150-600 is said to be good, however the f/7.1 is a bit worrying.

Other options could be the tamron 150-500 or sigma/tamron 150-600 versions (I have the fringer adapter, so I could get one in EF mount).

There is really no way to rent these lenses over her for testing. In terms of reach the 400mm is enough

 

The primary intended use is going to be birds and planes, currently on an X-T4. Since the 100-400 is on the X-T5 compatibility list (while 16/1.4 isnt), my concern is that it is as sharp as it gets at those mms, and any benefit the 150-600 has in sharpness would be wiped out because of slower shutter speeds with moving objects.

I used to have an ancient Sigma 400/5.6 lens and while it was hard to get the AF to focus when and where I wanted it to, the images were nicer looking.

Has anybody tried several of these options and what are the real-world findings/impressions?

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Supposedly Sigma plans to make their 100-400mm f/5-6.3 DG DN OS Contemporary lens availablle in X-mount soon.  According to various reviews (eg, Dustin Abbott), the Sony E-mount version of that lens is optimized for the long end and out-performs the Canon RF lens at 400mm.

I have used the XF100-400, the Sigma 150-600C (EF+Fringer) and XF150-600 on the X-T4 and boht of the 150-600 lenses far outperform the XF100-400 at 400mm.  The Sigmas was excellent, but too heavy for me to hand-hold and sometimes struggled with autofocus. The XF150-600 is superb all around and doesn't lose much to faster lenses because it is as sharp wide open as stopped down across its entire range.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 2 months later...

I have the Fuji 100-400 also, but I also have the Fuji 2X tele-extender. I actually mostly use the zoom with the 2X on it. I highly recommend it. There's also the 1.4X, but if you can have the 2, well....

If I had known the 150-600 was coming, I probably would have done that, and wish I had it instead of the 100-400. Nothing wrong with the 100-400, but I'm using it to get the reach, and don't often use its low end anyway.

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
  • Similar Content

  • Posts

    • 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. 
    • Thank you. I will research it.
    • 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.
    • 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.
    • 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...