Jump to content

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


ark

Recommended Posts

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.

Link to post
Share on other sites

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 by Vidalgo
Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Link to post
Share on other sites

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!  :)

Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Link to post
Share on other sites

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. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Link to post
Share on other sites

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 by johant
Link to post
Share on other sites

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 by Jürgen Heger
Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Similar Content

  • Posts

    • The Tentacle Sync Timecode tool is the one I tried. I couldn't get it to work. But that is probably my fault, not the software. I seemed to get a file, but I couldn't turn it into anything meaningful. 
    • I am glad to read you are able to get this up and running. Pretty much as long as you connect the camera and turn it on and wait a few moments for the computer to register the connection, you can then use Image Capture (which actually is a very decent program with a lot of options for transferring images from cameras to the computer) or Lightroom or other programs to move the images to your library. There are some drawbacks; connecting to the computer while it is in sleep mode will waste your time, the connection will not get recognized— you will have to unplug the camera, wake the computer and start over. Trying to connect while the screen saver is running may work, it may not, often not. If the computer goes into screen saver mode while the camera is connected and sitting idle, it usually stays connected when coming back out of screen saver, but if the computer mputer goes into sleep mode, the connection gets dropped and you have to unplug it and start over. I suggested having the camera turned off while connecting, this is to lower the possibility of static electricity discharges frying either the camera or the computer or both. A lot of times you can connect while the camera is turned on, but not always, sometimes you have to unplug, turn it off, reconnect and turn it back on. A lot of this comes from Apple’s approaches towards keeping USB devices from hijacking your computer, some is just hubris and some is from the vagaries of chance. p.s. Your laptop should be able to connect to the camera.
    • Hi Chas, I am just fallen into the rabbit hole of investigating how to upgrade my X-T4's video sound... Loving the idea of time code sync, I am now quite concerned that the X-T4 doesn't support it, although I have already seen different statements on the net, like here:  https://youtu.be/xja27RmvbhE?si=hIch3Tu_MH_pWSBH&t=571 I have to admit, this guy's "explanation" gets quite confusing in his further discourse ...:) BUT, as you wrote that you use Tentacle Sync for Windows!, did you also try with their windows-only software "Time Code Tool" which you find here?: https://tentaclesync.com/timecode-tool   Would love to here if you found a workaround with the XT4 Best, Simon
    • It occurred sometime when I focus. It is not silent 
    • This is the video for the focusing sound. Anyone can help?🙏🏻🙏🏻🙏🏻thanks a lot IMG_3226.mov
×
×
  • Create New...