.... seems to be bloody awesome.
The Fuji 100-400mm ...
Posted 07 August 2016 - 02:31 PM
Better than panasonic 100-400 ?
Well, I don't know this one so far. :-)
Posted 07 August 2016 - 04:42 PM
It would be interesting to see how it functions AF wise on the upcoming XT-2!
Posted 08 August 2016 - 01:09 PM
From what I've read this lens is better than the panasoic but not quite as good but in practice on par with the canon 100-400 ii (close). The biggest negative is size and price. Dont' actually own the lens (or any of these lenses - just based off of what I've read). Some of this is from the lenstip review among others. To be honest I can't see how the panasonic lens would work well at the long end given the max aperture.
Posted 08 August 2016 - 02:48 PM
I own it since it became available. I like the little features like the opening of the lenshood to be able to turn a polarizer - I just don't see me using a polarizer in this kind of lens
Since I don't own any Pro-body (X-T1 or 2, X-Pro or X-Pro2) I only can say that on an X-E2 action-shots are close to impossible, at least pretty difficult to get. The focus limiter is for a weird distance (instead of 5 m - ∞ I'd prefer 1.6 - 3 m and maybe also this original setting) and I constantly think, even with switched off OIS, the lens is consuming battery power while doing nothing due to it's electrical operated aperture. Which I don't like better than focus by wire. Nearly two full turns of the focus ring to come from 1.6 m - ∞? Come on...
I expect to experience it's full potential on a X-T2, so far I could not benefit much of it, but I suspect the limits in the comparatively cheap X-E2.
And the 1.4× teleconverter is nothing to rave about. Fuji offers it for little extra money as a package with 50-140/2.8, but it's definitely not worth the recommended price tag when sold alone.
About the tripod base we already discussed. Since it's not Arca-compatible plate, I had to mount one anyway which is now very stable. As far as I can say, the whole unit - lens, collar, extra plate - is more stable than some of Nikon's combinations with the RT-1 (accessory collar, sold for app. 200$)
Posted 09 August 2016 - 12:19 AM
Only one @ 400 mm and 2 @ 359.6 mm (was that some kind of magic approach to π ?). Somehow I use mostly (⅔ of all images) 400 mm with that lens.
But they show strengths and weaknesses. Like the background bokeh which gets very quickly nervous, if the background has some contrasty details like the water behind the two fishing guys. You tried to manual focus? Sometimes I do, when the main subject is too small and I'm too shaky to aim at, but it's nothing to win prizes with.
Posted 09 August 2016 - 05:14 AM
I was bored by the zoo and the city scenes are actually a better stress test anyway.
Animals etc tend to be in the center whereas you haven a surrounding environment in the city. The sample images from the Sony FE 70-300mm look better than the formal performance of the thing (not so hot borders).
Fuji's EXIF data isn't overly accurate - I suspect that those 2x 359.6mm are actually more like 390mm anyway. As you may know many Fujinon zooms require a bit of an extra kick to lock them at their extremes.
The bokeh test in the lab showed a few weaknesses but no drama. I've seen much worse in this class.
Interestingly the "raw" distortion is pincushion-type throughout the whole range (well, the tested spots in there).
Posted 09 August 2016 - 09:06 AM
The biggest negative is size and price.
Are not both of these less than the canon by a fair margin?
£1800 vs £1400 - 28% more
1640gms vs 1375 gms - 19% more
Posted 09 August 2016 - 09:33 AM
the current Nikon 80-400 VR is 2200.- francs, while the Fuji here goes for 1700.- 29%
weight difference 1570 gr. vs 1375 gr. 14% difference.
BUT that's a FF lens, like Klaus said. Much lower production quantities, electric diaphragm and focus by wire might also have an impact. Especially the latter is very not useful.
Posted 09 August 2016 - 09:56 AM
Interesting to compare weight vs sensor area covered
Canon 1640gms - 864mm2 - 1.9g/mm2
Fuji 1375gms - 370mm2 - 3.7g/mm2
Panasonic 985gms - 225mm2 - 4.4g/mm2
Also the body weight should be considered
All adds up.
so the fuji and mft lenses are close. I suppose we should also consider the effective focal lengths, here the canon looks less competitive.
Posted 09 August 2016 - 10:26 AM
The Canon camera will have a shape and grip more comfortable with the weight and length of the lens.
The Fuji has more tele reach than the Canon used on FF (not when used on APS-C), the Panasonic even more.
It only makes sense to compare the Canon on APS-C to the Fuji, in my opinion.
The Canon 6D "only" weighs 760 grams (with battery and card), by the way.
Posted 09 August 2016 - 10:45 AM
Depending where you are using this lens, an extra grip for X-T2 or even X-T1 gives more exposures, so at the end no weight advantage for Fuji. The batteries go down quickly once there's only 2 bars of indicator visible. And as mentioned, this lens sucks power once the camera is switched ON.
- Brightcolours likes this
Posted 09 August 2016 - 10:52 AM
It did occur to me that the extra grip would likely be used. Looking like the mft option is the way to go for people looking for a lightweight setup.
Posted 09 August 2016 - 12:08 PM
I had zero difficulties using the lens on the naked X-T1.
Posted 09 August 2016 - 02:28 PM
Good for you.
When I use "just" an X-E2 without grip, I need to be very "convincing" to move the zoom ring. Not to talk about manual focus with app. 700° from closest distance to ∞. I would appreciate if all that works a bit smoother and if there's a kind of intelligence behind the focus by wire which lets focussing speed increase when turning fast. To move the whole distance through, I have to grip and turn 7×, for me it just takes too long. But of course, AF set up to single and aim at something close to it, then override the AF is always a possibility.
0 user(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users