Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
The Fuji 100-400mm ...
.... seems to be bloody awesome.

Better than panasonic 100-400 ?

Quote:Better than panasonic 100-400 ?

Well, I don't know this one so far. :-)
It would be interesting to see how it functions AF wise on the upcoming XT-2!

Dave's clichés
on a par with the canon 100-400 ii?

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.

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  Rolleyes


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$)

All shot in rather mediocre conditions:
^_^ Only one @ 400 mm and 2 @ 359.6 mm (was that some kind of magic approach to Ï€ ?). Somehow I use mostly (â…” 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.

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).


Forum Jump:

Users browsing this thread:
1 Guest(s)