• Log in with Facebook Log in with Twitter
Photo

so the phantom (XF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6) is finally here ...


  • Please log in to reply
17 replies to this topic

#1 Klaus

Klaus

    Chief Editor

  • Moderators
  • 5,299 posts
  • LocationSydney, Australia

Posted 15 January 2016 - 06:58 AM

http://www.fujifilm....56_r_lm_ois_wr/

 

1900US$ ... not as terrible as feared ...

1.4kg ... no surprise ...

 

I'm already praying to the goddess of QC. Fuji is currently my worst nightmare.


  • chlky0001 and Rover like this
Chief Editor
photozone.de

#2 dave's clichés

dave's clichés

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1,522 posts

Posted 15 January 2016 - 09:05 AM

 I'm wondering if it covers FF!



#3 Brightcolours

Brightcolours

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 4,564 posts
  • LocationThe Netherlands

Posted 15 January 2016 - 09:45 AM

pic_01.gif

lens-construction.png

Comparing the element sizes with the FF Canon EF 100-400mm f4.5-5.6 L IS USM II, my guess is that it will not cover FF. Seems like Fuji is not planning to go the Sony/Leica route yet. The Fuji X mount looks to be a bit narrower than the Sony E-mount to me too, so maybe FF is not even an option?


  • dave's clichés likes this

#4 Klaus

Klaus

    Chief Editor

  • Moderators
  • 5,299 posts
  • LocationSydney, Australia

Posted 15 January 2016 - 11:23 AM

No reason for nonsense anyway ...


Chief Editor
photozone.de

#5 dave's clichés

dave's clichés

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1,522 posts

Posted 15 January 2016 - 02:04 PM

Thanks for the info BC!..........

 

...............the insinuation was of course..................

 

...........were there any sneaky clues for an upcoming FF body....

 

       .....looking at this lens only unfounded rumours! 



#6 Rover

Rover

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1,432 posts
  • LocationRussia

Posted 16 January 2016 - 12:18 PM

 I'm wondering if it covers FF!

Even if it had, there's nothing FF you can mount this on (now or in the foreseeable future), so it's sort of academic.



#7 dave's clichés

dave's clichés

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1,522 posts

Posted 16 January 2016 - 04:26 PM

Even if it had, there's nothing FF you can mount this on (now or in the foreseeable future), so it's sort of academic.

It was all about the ever present ......".Fuji are working on a full frame".......optimists gossip column department........

 

    Rumours are academic by nature!


  • Brightcolours likes this

#8 chrismiller

chrismiller

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 205 posts
  • LocationCambridge, UK

Posted 01 February 2016 - 10:46 AM

Some sample pics here: http://www.dcfever.c...p?picture=14175

 

out of focus highlights look interesting... 



#9 JoJu

JoJu

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 2,278 posts
  • LocationSwitzerland

Posted 01 February 2016 - 11:23 AM

It was all about the ever present ......".Fuji are working on a full frame".......optimists gossip column department........

 

    Rumours are academic by nature!

 

I'm not getting it  :( Why would Fuji give up what they already excel in, for a FF sensor with new lenses in? All the lightweight, small size advantages to be given up for a thing others already are doing (Sony, Canon, Nikon, Pentax, Leica)

 

Why? FF is not the answer to the question about LIfe, Universe and Everything, That already is 42. :rolleyes:  I'll keep one FF Nikon and most wide angles, but for tele my investments are targeted to Fuji. I think I just sold the 150-600 and will get this 100-400. Occassionally I'll need a faster AF, but that we'll see after the next Friday, when my X-E2 gets the firmware making it a X-E2s.

 

Fuji representatives clearly stated APS-C is big enough and 24 MP are also enough. Their sensor is made by Sony and gets the X-Trans pattern instead a Bayern one, if I recall correct. The Fuji interface is superior in many aspects to the one form Nikon's consumer-grade bodies. Even at Nikon rumors forum there are people using FF Nikon and APS-C Fujifilm coexisiting.

 

 

 

haroldp Posts: 943Member
When the mission is critical, or the subjects are moving or far away, or I need high ISO I use Nikon FX.
For most other photography (grandkids, travel etc.), I use Fuji DX.
Why ?:
The control system equivalent of Nikon professional body (D810 etc) in a body smaller and lighter that d5nnn.
A series of lenses for DX format that are across the line as good as Leica's, Light, small, and not hideously expensive. Fuji's 18-55mm / 28 - 4 is every bit as good as Nikon's 17-55 / 2.8, it is 1/3 the size and weight, 1/3 the price, and image stabilized.

Fuji's 90mm/ 2 is the sharpest lens I own (including Leica 90/ 2 summicron).

Fuji's other fast primes (56 /1.2, 16 / 1.4, 24 / 1.4) are much better wide open than their Nikon equivalents, even shooting Nikon FX at comparing results at the same image size.

Mirrorless does have real optical design advantages for wides because of lens to focal plane clearance, but even Fuji's DX teles's are better.
Nikon's engineers are certainly as good as any in the world, I think the difference is that Fuji management takes this market seriously.
Most Fuji shooters including myself say that the reason for choosing Fuji over Sony, Samsung etc. is the lens line up.
I just pre-ordered a Fuji X-Pro2. I will not be buying a D500, I almost certainly will buy the next D810 replacement.
This forum is much more interesting than Fuji's.
Regards ... H

  • carpents likes this

#10 JoJu

JoJu

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 2,278 posts
  • LocationSwitzerland

Posted 14 March 2016 - 10:03 PM

My gosh, what a lens! I don't recall the last time a lens so easily surpassed all my expectations.  :blink: I can carry it including camera with two fingers, it's just perfectly balanced and it doesn't feel like having more than 2 kg (including body).

 

I just got it this evening, took it for a walk although it started to darken. The pictures here were made between 5.30 and 6.50 P.M. 

 

_DSC1097-M.jpg

 

Thanks a lot, Andy for the right bag for it - those slingshots are really cool to put the elbow on and get a more stable shot, although the lens has an extraordinary stabilizer, 1/15, 1/20, 1/60 at 200 mm or 400 mm, just doesn't matter - if the object is not moving, it's output is astounding.

 

_DSF1979-XL.jpg

1/15 @ 340 mm

 

And if the object's moving, the output is astounding as well  ^_^

 

I also don't recall the last time I found a new lens so cool: the hood is very cool, fast in it's place and a slider at the botton side to manipulate a polarizer. Very easy to handhold, with or without the removable tripod socket (all the pictures were made handheld). All rings are perfectly placed, focus or aperture ring, just great. I also got the converter (the picture of the stork was made with it. And cropped, so please don't use the usual superhigh PZ quality guidelines for it  :rolleyes:

 

The converter is so tiny, I'd say if swallowed just take a gulp of water to move it down.

 

Okay, most shots were without much action. The AF-C mode of the X-E2 is not what I'm used from the Nikons - especially not in those dark situations, but I was prepared for far far worse results. Of course I want to use it also in bright light. If the results in evening, grey and shitty light are already that good, I'm ready for something really excellent.

 

Now, about those 1.5× crop: I was curious and used a scale to weigh the FF backpack with 150-600 + 35/1.4 + 85/1.4, because in the smaller slingshot were the equivalents 100-400, 23/1.4 + 86/1.2 (just forget the debate about DoF, I'm not accepting that crap -what counts, is the light the lens delivers to the sensor). 5kg Fuji (incl. bag) against 11 kg Nikon (including bag and necessary light tripod). If I wanted to use the appropriate tripod with a Gimbal, just add 4 kg more.

 

Question remains: Can the Fuji deliver a satisfying IQ? At least as satisfying as the D750/150-600 Sigma Sports combination? I'm somewhat afraid it can. But I'm yet not ready with that comparison. Sure, the Contemporary version or the Tamron would alter some things, but when hiking, I really think I found a very good camera system to take it with me without backpain the other day.  ;)


  • carpents likes this

#11 carpents

carpents

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 44 posts

Posted 15 March 2016 - 01:52 AM

Even at Nikon rumors forum there are people using FF Nikon and APS-C Fujifilm coexisiting.

 

That would be me. How quickly it became 90% Fuji/10% Nikon. Size & weight make all the difference, when the IQ difference is minimal.



#12 Brightcolours

Brightcolours

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 4,564 posts
  • LocationThe Netherlands

Posted 15 March 2016 - 10:44 AM

That would be me. How quickly it became 90% Fuji/10% Nikon. Size & weight make all the difference, when the IQ difference is minimal.

Fuji only makes APS-C. I am pretty sure that when comparing to Nikon APS-C the weight difference is not overly dramatic?

 

JoJu, nice to read you are happy with that lens. 



#13 JoJu

JoJu

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 2,278 posts
  • LocationSwitzerland

Posted 15 March 2016 - 11:14 AM

There is no 100-400 from Nikon. The next would be 80-400 (1570 gr) or 200-500 (2300gr). The Fujinon only has 1375 gr., although "very much metal" feeling. I just don't recall my friend's new 80-400 as well balanced as the Fujinon, but I didn't try it recently. He got his when it just was released and exchanged the old version against it.

 

Of course, the Nikkors are FF and therefore have to be a bit heavier - and a lightweight body behind the lens also changes the feeling. But my impression (which goes even more for the 150-600 Sports) is, the Nikkors have a lot of weight at the front lens, and when zoomed out, the difference is noticeable.



#14 carpents

carpents

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 44 posts

Posted 15 March 2016 - 04:11 PM

Fuji only makes APS-C. I am pretty sure that when comparing to Nikon APS-C the weight difference is not overly dramatic?

 

JoJu, nice to read you are happy with that lens. 

 

BC, the size and weight differences are profound! Register distance is everything -- no matter how "small" the D90 is, the Fuji X-A1 is less than half the size.

 

http://camerasize.com/compare/#483,179

 

If you shoot primes (like me) then there are a lot of tiny options for the Fuji too. Their latest offerings have been too big IMO except for the 35/2.



#15 Brightcolours

Brightcolours

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 4,564 posts
  • LocationThe Netherlands

Posted 15 March 2016 - 09:07 PM

BC, the size and weight differences are profound! Register distance is everything -- no matter how "small" the D90 is, the Fuji X-A1 is less than half the size.

 

http://camerasize.com/compare/#483,179

 

If you shoot primes (like me) then there are a lot of tiny options for the Fuji too. Their latest offerings have been too big IMO except for the 35/2.

The D90 is not small, the D3300 is.

 

To make the assumption even more comical:

http://camerasize.com/compare/#520,448

 

Register distance is NOT everything, only with wide angle lenses.

 

Like I said, the weight difference is not overly dramatic. Sure, you can make combinations especially designed to make it look like the difference is huge. For instance, You can compare the FF Canon EF 35mm f1.4 L USM II to the Fuji X 35mm f1.4, and the difference indeed is huge.



#16 carpents

carpents

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 44 posts

Posted 15 March 2016 - 09:29 PM

The D90 is not small, the D3300 is.

 

To make the assumption even more comical:

http://camerasize.com/compare/#520,448

 

Register distance is NOT everything, only with wide angle lenses.

 

Like I said, the weight difference is not overly dramatic. Sure, you can make combinations especially designed to make it look like the difference is huge. For instance, You can compare the FF Canon EF 35mm f1.4 L USM II to the Fuji X 35mm f1.4, and the difference indeed is huge.

 

The register distance *is* the thing, BC! Look at the top view (or side view) of the cameras, or their weight.

 

Here is a comparison to the D3300 you mentioned:

http://camerasize.com/compare/#520,509

 

You're right, the D3300 is much smaller/lighter than the D90. It's also a consumer camera without some important controls from my perspective. (Might not be from yours, but certainly from mine.) For example, I need to be able to control aperture and exposure compensation directly, in Av mode. And still, the D3300 alone weighs more than my X-A1 + 18mm/2 lens.

 

Yes, I understand that if you're shooting a 300mm/2.8 lens, the difference in weight of these cameras is insignificant. But that's not what most people are shooting. (And I already acknowledged that this 100-400 is too big & heavy for me.) I have a D4 for that sort of shooting -- horses for courses, as they say.



#17 Brightcolours

Brightcolours

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 4,564 posts
  • LocationThe Netherlands

Posted 15 March 2016 - 10:17 PM

Yes, I know that you can get particularly small combinations to weigh particularly little. I have an even smaller and lighter Canon EOS M with 22mm f2 lens myself. Still, the difference in weight with a Canon EOS 100D with EF-S 24mm f2.8 STM is again not overly dramatic, even if the flange distance is very different.

 

I would not mind operating the aperture and exposure compensation with the same dial, but that indeed is personal. Also personal: I do not like these small mirrorless cameras, I just can't get used to live view only... I get along better with OVF's apparently.


  • carpents likes this

#18 JoJu

JoJu

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 2,278 posts
  • LocationSwitzerland

Posted 15 March 2016 - 11:43 PM

Tonight I updated the firmware of the Sigma 150-600 to the new version 1.03 and again, it got faster AF - no empty promises. Great. Really sporty and I know, the keeper rate is not too bad (and for sure much better than with the Fuji combination) when AF-C and 3D tracking kick in. But still, I can carry the 100-400 + X-E2 with one finger without getting tired. The FF-version of this range less so.

 

It's funny, I already "buried" the Sigma lens into it's box because it looked as if someone want to buy it. Then this guy asked for another price reduction and I thought "no, for what? I adjusted it and it's more precise now than out of the box, so why throw money at him?" I'm looking forward which lens will be more out of the bag in the future.


  • Rover likes this




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users



© by photozone.de