I think there's still a gap in the X lens lineup...

[ark]

I’ve been dithering about whether to buy the new 100-400. I keep thinking it would be fantastic for nature photography, but on the other hand it would weigh as much as the rest of my X-T1 outfit put together, and if I am going to carry that much weight around, I might as well use my full-frame Nikon.

 

This evening it hit me: The big gap in Fuji’s lineup is that the 55-200mm lens doesn’t accept the teleconverters.

 

So…What I really wish they would make is a 55-200mm f/4 or even 100-200mm f/4. I think 200 f/2.8 would be too big, though it might be possible. The real point is that the lens must be able to work with the 1.4 and 2.0 teleconverters. That would give 280mm f/5.6 or 400mm f/8, either of which would be workable for a wide variety of contexts.

 

For that matter, 100-250mm f/4 would be nice too. The main point would be f/4 at the long end while remaining substantially smaller and lighter than the 100-400mm.

[mdm]

That's why there is a lot of talkings about 200f2.8 prime with teleconverters.

[Mike G]

I concur Fuji really need to produce a 200mm lens that is able to utilise teleconverters!

[Lumens]

I concur Fuji really need to produce a 200mm lens that is able to utilise teleconverters!

 

No they don't !! That'll just flare up my GAS one more time!!  Seeing as I just broke down on the 100-400; I can't afford that!  

[Vidalgo]

The big gap in Fuji’s lineup is that the 55-200mm lens doesn’t accept the teleconverters.

 

There are third-party teleconverters which can be screwed into the filter thread of lens. Raynox makes a lot of such.

Edited August 17, 2016 by Vidalgo

[johant]

There are third-party teleconverters which can be screwed into the filter thread of lens. Raynox makes a lot of such.

Aren't you talking about macro lenses there?

[Mike G]

Lumens, you really know that you can't resist the inevitable GAS.

[Vidalgo]

Aren't you talking about macro lenses there?

 

Not macro but telephoto, screwed add-ons for extending of focal length. By factors from x1.54 to x3. You can see it here:

http://www.raynox.co.jp/english/video/selection/selection.html#telephoto

They make it for camcorders, but of course is possible to use with stills camera. IQ is another story.

Note the such converter is really big and heavy, and total setup can be disaster.

[Lumens]

Lumens, you really know that you can't resist the inevitable GAS.

 

Tell me about it!  I just picked up the last lens I felt I really wanted, but now.......   That predicted 80 mm Macro that can incorporate the tele-converters REALLY looks interesting.  A 200 f2.8 could also prove quite interesting.  It never ends!  

[Styp]

In my opinion, Fuji made a mistake by not making the 90mm compatible to the TC.

The 90mm with a 2x TC is close to a 300mm FF 4.0, don't know why they decided against it, this combo would fill an important gap!

[plaidshirts]

Lumens, you really know that you can't resist the inevitable GAS.

 

Yeah, no....

I try to lessen the blow on the wallet by buying inexpensive vintage lenses instead.

Seems to be working.

For now.

Until 23/f2 comes out....

[frankinfuji]

Does anyone really need more than 200mm on a crop sensor body?  Can't you just move closer to the thing you are trying to photograph? 

[Mike G]

Try moving closer to an angry big cat or a hippo!

[johant]

Try moving closer to an angry big cat or a hippo!

The horizontal area you cover (at infinity) is 31m with a 200mm lens on an APS-C sensor. With a 300mm that is reduced to 20m. That's only 10m, or an angle difference of 2.25 degrees.

[mdm]

The horizontal area you cover (at infinity) is 31m with a 200mm lens on an APS-C sensor. With a 300mm that is reduced to 20m. That's only 10m, or an angle difference of 2.25 degrees.

 

Is it bad or...? Sorry, I can not convert horizontaly covered area into distance between the camera and the subject.

[Fred G. Unn]

That's why there is a lot of talkings about 200f2.8 prime with teleconverters.

Actually the rumor was for a 200 f/2 right?

http://www.fujirumors.com/rumor-fujifilm-working-on-a-xf200mm-f2-lens-source-right-in-the-past/

 

I would love to see that happen! A 200 f/2 with the X-T2 could be a great setup for sports, and longer primes are definitely an obvious gap in the lineup when compared to Canon and Nikon's offerings. 

[johant]

Is it bad or...? Sorry, I can not convert horizontaly covered area into distance between the camera and the subject.

 

No, in many cases you can simply crop.

 

The difference between 200mm and 300mm is comparable to the difference between 135mm and 200mm.

[mdm]

No, in many cases you can simply crop.

 

If we managed to get tack sharp image the cropping is ok, otherwise it might lead to blury results with the lost in fine detailes. So we need to be very accurate with moving wildlife.

[sir_c]

Imagine tiny birds at 400mm which you already have to crop. Using 200mm will cause too much resolution loss again when cropping those.

And in some cases indeed one cannot get closer due to safety issues or physical barriers.

[johant]

So you're all looking for exceptions to my "many cases" now?

 

My guess is that many telezooms are used for compressed landscapes and for zoo or bird show pictures. In such cases the difference between 200mm and 300mm usually is not dramatic.

 

If cropping would always be an option, I would have written "all cases"

Edited August 21, 2016 by johant

[mdm]

Compromises... I hate them... But yes, if to choose between crop, weight and price I'd take crop... or price (if not too high)...

[Jürgen Heger]

The horizontal area you cover (at infinity) is 31m with a 200mm lens on an APS-C sensor. With a 300mm that is reduced to 20m.

Johant, you are slipping.:-)

I am pretty sure that even my 500mm T2 has more than 31m horizontal view at infinte distance. I can easily take a picture of the moon and even get some environment in the picture and the diameter of moon is more than 31m, I believe and the distance is only a few hundred thousand km, by far not infinte.:-)

I guess your numbers refer to 1000m distance. They remind me to the view that specs of binoculars show for 1000m distance.

 

More related to the OP.

For long distance where you can not easily zoom with your feet to adjust the framing I prefer zoom lenses. So a fixed 200/2 would not be very intriguing for me. I would prefer a 100-200/2.8 which can be used with the converters.

Edited August 22, 2016 by Jürgen Heger

[johant]

Johant, you are slipping.:-)

I am pretty sure that even my 500mm T2 has more than 31m horizontal view at infinte distance. I can easily take a picture of the moon and even get some environment in the picture and the diameter of moon is more than 31m, I believe and the distance is only a few hundred thousand km, by far not infinte.:-)

 

Yes, of course, I should have specified that I meant the hyperfocal distance, and not "infinity" Which again doesn't say that much, because it is aperture value dependent (I used f/8) ...

 

 

But at 100m (wildlife distance?), the horizontal field of view becomes:

 

135.0    17m

200.0    12m

300.0    8m

500.0    5m

[Jon Porter]

Fuji really needs a 100-300mm that sells for under $1,000. As nice as the 100-400mm is, it's too bulky and expensive for the limited use a lot of us would give it.

[quincy]

50-140 + 2x TC.