bvphotos wrote:
I was tempted for a moment too. But 400 is simply not enough for birding. I'd need at least 500 & f4. I'll stay with Canon for that.
All depends what your needs are. There is a saying that for birds you never have enough FL. However, you may want to look at a 100-400 review here.
I have the 500 f/4 and the 100-400 and both TC's. But its a very rare day if I ever take out my 2x TC so that's throw that out for sake of argument.
In 35mm equivalents, with the 1D Mk4 I have with the:
100-400L = 130-520 mm equivalant FL
500 L f/4 = 700mm or 910 mm equivalent FL
SubTotal weight = 6877g (not including tripod and wimberly)
With the X-T1, 100-400 and 1.4x TC you have a 152 - 853mm equivalent focal length weighing 1945g! Both solutions provide me with a 4896x3264 RAW file, which are at least on par with each other. And although I shutter to think this - tripod may be optional!
With the huge Fuji sale going on at B&H I went ahead and ordered the Fuji system.
dbehrens wrote:
Thanks. I've never shot Fuji but your answer was what I was expecting. This 100-400 lens that has me thinking now may be the time to cash in my Canon wildlife kit and go Fuji. The weight savings is HUGE and coincidentally the X-T1 would shoot identical resolution to my Canon 1D Mk IV, albeit a slightly smaller but newer sensor. Sounds like a worthwhile tradeoff!
Maybe. But as an enthusiastic Fujifilm x-trans camera user for over three years and a Canon photographer, too, allow me to urge some caution about "cashing in" one system for the other.
The Fujifilm 100-400mm lens sounds like a winner. As expected by those of us who know about Fujifilm, it sounds like it is well designed and optically first rate. But for wildlife photography, especially if the wildlife is moving a lot, I still much prefer my Canon DSLR system, with its very fast AF and its optical viewfinder.
I know that more recent Fujifilm mirrorless systems have continued the process of improving autofocus and display performance on mirrorless cameras, but they still don't equal DSLRs in either of those two areas. While there are things I love about the EVF (the display overlays, the ability to produce a bright viewfinder image in very low light, etc.), there are other things about these systems that still don't equal optical viewfinders.
Now you can certainly photograph wildlife with a mirrorless Fujifilm system. We have photographic proof earlier in this thread. But if that is a big thing for you, the best options for that are still generally DSLRs. That may change eventually, but we aren't there yet.
I love my Fujifilm system and I'm about to upgrade it to the X-Pro2. My Fujifilm system is my primary setup for street photography (especially night street photography) and travel photography. But not for wildlife. Perhaps you want to try what I do — keep the DSLR system for your wildlife work and augment that with a mirrorless system for photography in which you can afford to sacrifice a little bit of speed in order to get small and light gear.
So far I am very happy with the 100-400mm, only had it to play around for a day, hopefully this weekend will give it a good workout. This is a rental, I will get it probably bundled with the 1.4x, amazing lens, big for Fuji but no where near the size of the Canon 500mm.
gdanmitchell wrote:
Maybe. But as an enthusiastic Fujifilm x-trans camera user for over three years and a Canon photographer, too, allow me to urge some caution about "cashing in" one system for the other.
The Fujifilm 100-400mm lens sounds like a winner. As expected by those of us who know about Fujifilm, it sounds like it is well designed and optically first rate. But for wildlife photography, especially if the wildlife is moving a lot, I still much prefer my Canon DSLR system, with its very fast AF and its optical viewfinder.
I know that more recent Fujifilm mirrorless systems have continued the process of improving autofocus and display performance on mirrorless cameras, but they still don't equal DSLRs in either of those two areas. While there are things I love about the EVF (the display overlays, the ability to produce a bright viewfinder image in very low light, etc.), there are other things about these systems that still don't equal optical viewfinders.
Now you can certainly photograph wildlife with a mirrorless Fujifilm system. We have photographic proof earlier in this thread. But if that is a big thing for you, the best options for that are still generally DSLRs. That may change eventually, but we aren't there yet.
I love my Fujifilm system and I'm about to upgrade it to the X-Pro2. It is my primary camera for street photography (especially night street photography) and travel photography. But not wildlife. Perhaps you want to try what I do — keep the DSLR system for your wildlife work and augment that with a mirrorless system for photography in which you can afford to sacrifice a little bit of speed in order to get small and light gear.
In general I agree with your thoughts - and your suggested approach is what I've done for the last couple of years. I gave up on Canon for land/cityscape, went with Sony A7r's, which was a better than anticipated step forward. I have kept Canon for wildlife, which as we know has a great reputation with their super telephotos. What I do know is that I'm very tired of hauling my 500 f/4 plus related gear through airports and sweating the possibility that a particular airline will not allow this as carry on luggage - not to mention the hassle of just hauling the heavy gear!
Everything is give and take and I will definitely put the Fuji to test before making a final decision. The X-T1 had bad initial reviews on AF performance but it sounds like the version 4+ firmware has totally redefined its AF performance and accuracy. Who knows what the anticipated X-T2 will bring? But it will be improvement. I'm also liking what I am seeing coming out of the 100-400.
So far the 100-400 looks like a winner, very nice lens. I think the real test is to see how it holds up on mid-far distance birds / fine detail and cropping.
I've seen lots of shots that look great so far, but these seem to be close-range shots. Many lenses stand up to that type of scrutiny, even the Panasonic 100-300 (which is an awesome lens at short range but falls apart quickly at long range).
In general I agree with your thoughts - and your suggested approach is what I've done for the last couple of years. I gave up on Canon for land/cityscape, went with Sony A7r's, which was a better than anticipated step forward. I have kept Canon for wildlife, which as we know has a great reputation with their super telephotos. What I do know is that I'm very tired of hauling my 500 f/4 plus related gear through airports and sweating the possibility that a particular airline will not allow this as carry on luggage - not to mention the hassle of just hauling the heavy gear!
Everything is give and take and I will definitely put the Fuji to test before making a final decision. The X-T1 had bad initial reviews on AF performance but it sounds like the version 4+ firmware has totally redefined its AF performance and accuracy. Who knows what the anticipated X-T2 will bring? But it will be improvement. I'm also liking what I am seeing coming out of the 100-400.
It's a little OT here, but it seems to me that what you are looking for could be the E-M1 or GH4 and the PL 100-400. They deliver stronger AF than the already very good X-T1 and more reach at 400mm than APS-C. Plus you have the option of a 300/4 IS + 1.4x TC if you want a fast/long prime. Might be worth a rental (ditto on the X-T1+100-400, don't dismiss it until you've given it a spin. Rentals are a great way to test out gear if you have the option).
Note than in terms of single-shot AF, Panasonic is probably the class of the world. For tracking Mirrorlesss still lags DSLR's, but the current high-end is getting very close to the best of comparably-priced DSLR bodies (I'd put my E-M1 up against any current $1k body except the D7200 today).
mawz wrote:
It's a little OT here, but it seems to me that what you are looking for could be the E-M1 or GH4 and the PL 100-400. They deliver stronger AF than the already very good X-T1 and more reach at 400mm than APS-C. Plus you have the option of a 300/4 IS + 1.4x TC if you want a fast/long prime. Might be worth a rental (ditto on the X-T1+100-400, don't dismiss it until you've given it a spin. Rentals are a great way to test out gear if you have the option).
Note than in terms of single-shot AF, Panasonic is probably the class of the world. For tracking Mirrorlesss still lags DSLR's, but the current high-end is getting very close to the best of comparably-priced DSLR bodies (I'd put my E-M1 up against any current $1k body except the D7200 today)....Show more →
---------------------------------------------
It was the latest m4/3 announcements that started this for me. After a lot of research and weighing of options I concluded that I was just too hesitant to go that small of a sensor. However, I'm sure its a great option for a lot of folks - especially if your forte is video.
Jman13 wrote:
Zoo trip with the 100-400mm:
Jman13 - Nice samples. Looking forward to your review.
I'm going to wait for some reviews on the low light performance of the PL 100-400, but for now I am skeptical. As an owner of the Oly 75-300 f4.6-6.7 I regard it as a bright daylight lens only. Not only does the ISO rise quickly once the light level drops to any degree, the AF also struggles more. While the marketing hype argues the PL 100-400 is only half a stop slower than typical 100-400 zooms, the f4-5.6 zooms are not exactly fast to begin with.
I'm tempted by this Fuji but I'm also hoping Sony release an FE 70-400 f4-5.6 G before too long.
Big Cheese wrote:
I'm going to wait for some reviews on the low light performance of the PL 100-400, but for now I am skeptical. As an owner of the Oly 75-300 f4.6-6.7 I regard it as a bright daylight lens only. Not only does the ISO rise quickly once the light level drops to any degree, the AF also struggles more. While the marketing hype argues the PL 100-400 is only half a stop slower than typical 100-400 zooms, the f4-5.6 zooms are not exactly fast to begin with.
I'm tempted by this Fuji but I'm also hoping Sony release an FE 70-400 f4-5.6 G before too long....Show more →
Forgetting for a second my hesitancy to go m4/3, the big question on the PL 100-400 is how will a factory copy perform? Nothing is out there - not even a factory made prototype. Only 2 handmade prototypes have been shared. I sincerely hope it all goes well because with dual IS and a hopefully GH5 with IBIS would be a killer combo - especially for video. The Oly 300 f/4 will be a killer lens but then you need at least the 40-150 before you have a wildlife kit and at that stage you already have 5K invested - and that's with only 1 body!
Since I'm already invested in the Sony system I was hoping as well to see a 70-400, since I love the Sony sensors. But a (most likely 3K) 70-200 f/2.8 with 2x TC was not going to do it and I'm not interested in an adapted A mount 70-400 G without image stabilization. I was also getting frustrated at not seeing any lens roadmap with a telephoto - so I decided to try Fuji.
In any event I share your reluctance to use an adapted 70-400 G. I'm guessing an Fe version will be the next lens Sony release but that must be at least six months away and more likely a year or more.
So, tested continuous AF today. It did OK. with this long focal length and the relatively close proximity of the subjects, it did fairly well. I don't think Fuji's quite up to replacing a DSLR for sports work yet, but all things considered it did fairly well. I had my son run at me as fast as he could. This wasn't exactly speedy, but it was also slightly erratic, so a good challenge. A few captures:
And then I wanted to see how it would do as far as bokeh in an outdoor portrait. Distance wise, shooting at 520mm equivalent, as in the shot below, is a bit odd, as you're so far from the subject, but it makes for a different sort of look. Bokeh looks really nice here, IMO.
And finally, clear night tonight (first time in a while), so thought I'd shoot the moon. This is a 100% crop, as 600mm equivalent still nowhere near fills the frame, but it's certainly sharp. This was handheld. http://www.jordansteele.com/2016/moon.jpg
I've had the 100-400 and TC for over a week. It's very good. I'm still working with it to learn it but I know it's not going back.
It weighs 6 oz less than my 70-200 VR II and is a quarter inch less in length. I get some wobble but it's on everyone of my cameras, Fuji or not. I've sold my other longer tele lens and plan to only entertain using this one. I will also say the TC and the 50-140 is fantastic. But that's another post.
