gdanmitchell wrote:
Disclaimer: I do not own and have not used the Fujifilm 70-300mm lens. I hear that it performs quite well, but that is all second-hand information.
What I do know is that, in general, the less-expensive Fujifilm lenses (that we might think of as “non-professional” lenses, to use the common though unfortunate shorthand) are often quiet good, at least optically. I did have the 55-200mm lens (similar design to the 70-300), and while it had/has its shortcomings, the image quality is quite good. The same is true of the so-called kit lens, at least the 18-55mm versions, of which I have used two versions.
One thing we need to be careful about in these forums is people turning small differences into major differences, often by using dismissive adjectives to characterize the lens they think of as being second-best. For them it isn’t enough to say, “Lens X can be a bit sharper than Lens Y” — they have resort to hyperbole implying that Lens Y is terrible, awful, no good.
One thing I think folks do need to consider about the less expensive lenses, especially the variable aperture zooms, is that their rather small maximum apertures at the long end don’t leave us with a lot of aperture options if we are trying to avoid diffraction blur. ...Show more →
People resorting to hyperbole on the internet? I can't believe anyone would do that. Next you will be suggesting people are dispensing free advice on gear they have never used.
Seriously though, the Fuji 70-300mm is in a different league to the consumer grade 70-300 lenses of the past. It is also a lot better than the 55-200, particularly beyond 150mm.
SGinNorcal wrote:
I think the X-T5 is great for landscape, that's my primary use for it.
Me too. The X-T5 hangs on a Capture Clip on my backpack for hiking, or on a solid tripod for dawn/dusk photography. Landscape is now my primary interest since I retired, and the X-T5 along with the 16-55/2.8 mark II, the 70-300/5.6, and the Sigma 10-18/2.8. I get excellent results processing in Lightroom, and make prints at really any size that look terrific. I suspect that good light and solid technique are more important than the camera brand.
I do own a GFX 100 and 100s, and they are great cameras. In side by side comparisons with the X-T5, same subject, same lighting, the files from the 100 do show more detail, and have a little more dynamic range. But so far, not enough to overcome the significant advantages in size and weight of the X system.
kenbennett wrote:
Me too. The X-T5 hangs on a Capture Clip on my backpack for hiking, or on a solid tripod for dawn/dusk photography. Landscape is now my primary interest since I retired, and the X-T5 along with the 16-55/2.8 mark II, the 70-300/5.6, and the Sigma 10-18/2.8. I get excellent results processing in Lightroom, and make prints at really any size that look terrific. I suspect that good light and solid technique are more important than the camera brand.
I do own a GFX 100 and 100s, and they are great cameras. In side by side comparisons with the X-T5, same subject, same lighting, the files from the 100 do show more detail, and have a little more dynamic range. But so far, not enough to overcome the significant advantages in size and weight of the X system. ...Show more →
It actually surprised me how tiny the difference was when I upscaled a carefully captured xh2 file to match an equally carefully captured identical GFX100s file. Aside from aspect ratio, there was little between them even comparing at 200%. Yes there was a little bit more structure to the detail in the gfx file, but I couldn’t detect it at print resolution. Ditto DR. I ended up selling the gfx kit in the interest of simplification. And frankly haven’t missed it.
Jack Flesher wrote:
It actually surprised me how tiny the difference was when I upscaled a carefully captured xh2 file to match an equally carefully captured identical GFX100s file. Aside from aspect ratio, there was little between them even comparing at 200%. Yes there was a little bit more structure to the detail in the gfx file, but I couldn’t detect it at print resolution. Ditto DR. I ended up selling the gfx kit in the interest of simplification. And frankly haven’t missed it.
I’ve had no experience with any GFX cameras and lenses but up until now shoot with the Sony A7RV 61 Mpixel camera and GM lenses and plan to compare that to the X-H2 and X-T5 and I’m expecting to see similar results for landscape. For action and subjects that truly need higher speed autofocus I’m assuming other Sony full frame bodies will be how I move forward with Sony but hoping for landscape I’ll be able to move to the lighter Fujifilm lenses and smaller APS-C bodies but we will see.
Colors of course will be different as well so will see how that goes.
Jack Flesher wrote:
It actually surprised me how tiny the difference was when I upscaled a carefully captured xh2 file to match an equally carefully captured identical GFX100s file. Aside from aspect ratio, there was little between them even comparing at 200%. Yes there was a little bit more structure to the detail in the gfx file, but I couldn’t detect it at print resolution. Ditto DR. I ended up selling the gfx kit in the interest of simplification. And frankly haven’t missed it.
For the most part, I feel the same. My X-T5 kit has been my favorite hiking setup by a big margin. I agree on aspect ratio and do occasionally miss the shallow depth of field possible on my 100S. But the biggest difference for me is the 100S/Gf20-35 combo that creates a more 3d impact to wide angle photos. If I could shrink that combo to X-T5 size, I would take it in a heartbeat. I mean we can never be completely satisfied, what would we use for an excuse?
SGinNorcal wrote:
For the most part, I feel the same. My X-T5 kit has been my favorite hiking setup by a big margin. I agree on aspect ratio and do occasionally miss the shallow depth of field possible on my 100S. But the biggest difference for me is the 100S/Gf20-35 combo that creates a more 3d impact to wide angle photos. If I could shrink that combo to X-T5 size, I would take it in a heartbeat. I mean we can never be completely satisfied, what would we use for an excuse?
I know you don’t want to hear this, but the Fuji 8-16 renders that same GF 20-35 look on the X platform.
You raised another salient point, and that was DoF. Interestingly, one if the reasons I let go of the GFX as my goto landscape kit was the shallower DoF. The difference in total usable DoF before diffraction kicked in was significantly greater on the XH2, to the point it rendered the GFX visibly worse for many of my typical landscape compositions, at least where I didn’t want DoF blur showing. I then went back to my FF Z7 and Z9 landscape images and saw similar, though to a smaller degree. What I learned *for my uses* was that if I want shallow DoF, then fast glass on a contemporary CaNiSo makes as much sense as the GFX, and then I gain the added benefit of state of the art AF.
For me, there’s just not enough juice to be squeezed out of the GFX system for my current needs. If OTOH I needed supreme color accuracy and 16-bit for critical art repro, commercial or fashion rendering, then the GFX or Phase One would be my goto platform. But I no longer do that, so no real need or desire to deal with the shortcomings of cost, weight, size and other limitations.
Geoff D F wrote:
Next you will be suggesting people are dispensing free advice on gear they have never used.
I’m pretty clear about what gear I do have do not hae experience with and about the nature and depth of that experience, as I was in this post.
My point wasn’t to assert that I have experience proving that the 70-300 is great or not but to assert that a presumption that Fujifilm’s less expensive lenses in general are not good performers is open to question — based on my experience with several of them, two of which I mentioned in the post.
Jack Flesher wrote:
I know you don’t want to hear this, but the Fuji 8-16 renders that same GF 20-35 look on the X platform.
I’m not going to assert that the APS-C XT5 is equal to the GFX 100 bodies, but I’m positive that the differences in output are far smaller than some would have us believe, and that the quality of images from the smaller cameras can be excellent while offering the real-world advantages of smaller size, lighter weight, larger selection of lenses, and lower cost.
There’s a place for miniMF systems among folks doing high level photography and making quite large prints that push at the edges of what is possible with smaller formats. But few are doing such things. For most photographers who aren’t regularly reproducing their photographs are quite large sizes (and taking great care to maximize the quality of the images in the field and in post), the potential IQ pluses of the larger system can easily be outweighed by some of the advantages of the smaller systems.
I think we’re all guilty at times of convincing ourselves that only the most expensive thing can produce results good enough for us. Sometimes that is true, but most of the time it isn’t.
It has been a while since I’ve told this story, so I’ll cue it up again.
For years we were part of a small print review group that included some well-regarded and published and widely exhibited photographers. Every month or so we convened at one of our homes to share recent prints and share feedback with one another… and, of course, to socialize.
This was a highly critical (in the good sense) group, all of whom owned and used large format printers to produce work for exhibits and sale. Members brought prints created on gear ranging from APS-C digital bodies through FF and miniMF bodies, up to Phase One back systems and even some scanned LF film work.
At one meeting a participant put a 13 x 19 print up for consideration and said, “there’s something different about this print, but I’m not going to tell you what. What do you notice?” The group inspected from a distance and close up, and comments focused on aesthetic decisions and reactions, but there was no consensus about what was different about it.
The person had shot it on an iPhone…
To head off the inevitable outraged comment along the lines of, “You are claiming that an iPhone is as good as my GFX!?,” no, I’m not. But I am pointing out that the magnitude of the differences and their effect on final images is often much, much smaller than we might imagine. There are clearly differences between that iPhone image and the GFX, but if a 13 x 19 print from an iPhone convinces a group of experienced photographers and printers, then maybe a 20 x 30 print form APS-C will look pretty darned good, too… not to mention a .jpg or .png share online.
I think a more significant reality is the changing world...
Digital is growing, with high-def displays replacing paper and ink for a lot of what people view. For the most part, video is growing more popular daily while still imagery wanes, mainly due to ease and convenience of creation and editing digitally. And current digital video can only be seen on a digital display of some form -- but then so can stills, and I suspect this is where the digital art world's "viewing medium" is headed...
Will paper and ink printing survive? Sure, but more for cards and wrapping paper and as a niche artistic medium much like silver, wet-plate or platinum photography is now; and any actual art paper will probably be used more for paint or pen than digitally printed artwork.
20 years ago after getting my first digital, 4mp DSLR, I predicted a similar death for silver film, stating Kodak would finally stop producing it's last remaining film, Tri-X, in 2022. Clearly I was wrong, but not by much -- you can still get Tri-X
Jack Flesher wrote:
I know you don’t want to hear this, but the Fuji 8-16 renders that same GF 20-35 look on the X platform.
You raised another salient point, and that was DoF. Interestingly, one if the reasons I let go of the GFX as my goto landscape kit was the shallower DoF. The difference in total usable DoF before diffraction kicked in was significantly greater on the XH2, to the point it rendered the GFX visibly worse for many of my typical landscape compositions, at least where I didn’t want DoF blur showing. I then went back to my FF Z7 and Z9 landscape images and saw similar, though to a smaller degree. What I learned *for my uses* was that if I want shallow DoF, then fast glass on a contemporary CaNiSo makes as much sense as the GFX, and then I gain the added benefit of state of the art AF.
For me, there’s just not enough juice to be squeezed out of the GFX system for my current needs. If OTOH I needed supreme color accuracy and 16-bit for critical art repro, commercial or fashion rendering, then the GFX or Phase One would be my goto platform. But I no longer do that, so no real need or desire to deal with the shortcomings of cost, weight, size and other limitations. ...Show more →
I don't mind hearing it at all. Crazy that the 8-16 weighs in fatter than the 20-35. But at some point, I need to try that lens.
Regarding DOF, I get what you are saying. But I feel like its easier to expand your narrow Gfx DOF than to shrink your deep APSC one via various methods. But I wasn't just referring to DOF. With the best Gfx lenses, the detail at infinity has a more 3D feel. Its the detail of a ridge/mountain behind your primary subject matter. Its difficult to describe and I'm sure some will say its my imagination or that this is difficult to prove and show in images. And that's fine, but I feel that I see it on my favorite photos. I absolutely understand if some don't feel like maintaining the Gfx system just for these details. I may arrive at that point myself. Just not yet.
SGinNorcal wrote:
I don't mind hearing it at all. Crazy that the 8-16 weighs in fatter than the 20-35. But at some point, I need to try that lens.
Regarding DOF, I get what you are saying. But I feel like its easier to expand your narrow Gfx DOF than to shrink your deep APSC one via various methods. But I wasn't just referring to DOF. With the best Gfx lenses, the detail at infinity has a more 3D feel. Its the detail of a ridge/mountain behind your primary subject matter. Its difficult to describe and I'm sure some will say its my imagination or that this is difficult to prove and show in images. And that's fine, but I feel that I see it on my favorite photos. I absolutely understand if some don't feel like maintaining the Gfx system just for these details. I may arrive at that point myself. Just not yet....Show more →
You are correct in that you can't shrink APS-c DoF to match MF DoF. (And even the best digital DoF blur remains phony-looking in comparison.) But conversely, you cannot expand MF DoF to match APS-c DoF while remaining under the diffraction limitations for each system, unless you impart lens<>film-plane tilts which only alters DoF in certain portions of your frame... As always, no free lunch when up against the laws of physics. So our individual choices become limited or expanded based on our own goals and associated gear chosen to work with.
PS: The 8-16 is a 12-24 in FF terms, while the 20-35 is a 16-28 in FF terms. which brings up yet another reason I let go of the GFX The 20-35 was an outstanding optic, no question. But there are occasions where 16 net isn't wide enough for me, so it chalked up another tic in the XH2 column. And honestly, there aren't very many really good 12mm net focal rectilinear options in FF... But the 8-16 is downright glorious on the XH2 into the corners. It does show a fair bit of falloff, but that's an optical wart I'll gladly accept since it's easily correctable in post, and I often add some back anyway! It's big and heavy by APS-c standards, but given what it can do and how good it is, it's worth it's weight in the bag for me 100%
Jack Flesher wrote:
I have the Fuji X 70-300, and it is actually (surprisingly) quite good throughout the entire zoom range. This surprised me because I also assumed what you said about it going "meh" after 200 -- but not the case, at least with my copy.
I haven't used it a lot TBH, but it is basically just like this throughout the entire range -- though this shot is only at around 150mm, it is from a good couple miles away (70-300 on XH2):
Fred seemed to like it as well see @Steve Spencer quote. It is apparently quite good even at 300mm.
Also 1:3 macro vs 1:5 on the 55-200, so you can get as close as my 1:2 macro lenses on film, as far as filling the frame, but should be much longer fl! Ive done this on 55-250 Canon a ton
AmbientMike wrote:
Fred seemed to like it as well see @Steve Spencer@ quote. It is apparently quite good even at 300mm.
Also 1:3 macro vs 1:5 on the 55-200, so you can get as close as my 1:2 macro lenses on film, as far as filling the frame, but should be much longer fl! Ive done this on 55-250 Canon a ton
Good point. I actually put extension tubes or a 2-element diopter ion it for my macro needs. It gets down to nearly 1:1 with that set up and the quality remains excellent, not to mention with very convenient working distances and framing flexibility. I sold my dedicated 80 macro after getting this.
My journey with it is possibly interesting to some. I actually bought Fred's copy after he reviewed it. At the time I owned the 55-200 and 100-400, and between them I had about as good of 70-300 performance with a little more range from the combo, so I kept the combo. But after being disappointed in a 200mm shot from the 55-200 not being all that great on a trip I wasn't carrying the 100-400, I decided to repurchase the 70-300 and give it a longer test run. After doing that, I sold the 55-200 and 100-400 and honestly have never missed either. I then added the 150-600 which is also stellar, but in the end didn't find myself using it much for my style of imaging as the much smaller 70-300 suited so well, so I ended up selling it too. When I decide I need a bit more reach than the 70-300 provides, I will add the 1.4x...
Jack Flesher wrote:
Good point. I actually put extension tubes or a 2-element diopter ion it for my macro needs. It gets down to nearly 1:1 with that set up and the quality remains excellent, not to mention with very convenient working distances and framing flexibility. I sold my dedicated 80 macro after getting this.
My journey with it is possibly interesting to some. I actually bought Fred's copy after he reviewed it. At the time I owned the 55-200 and 100-400, and between them I had about as good of 70-300 performance with a little more range from the combo, so I kept the combo. But after being disappointed in a 200mm shot from the 55-200 not being all that great on a trip I wasn't carrying the 100-400, I decided to repurchase the 70-300 and give it a longer test run. After doing that, I sold the 55-200 and 100-400 and honestly have never missed either. I then added the 150-600 which is also stellar, but in the end didn't find myself using it much for my style of imaging as the much smaller 70-300 suited so well, so I ended up selling it too. When I decide I need a bit more reach than the 70-300 provides, I will add the 1.4x...
One advantage of the diopter is that it doesn't take any extension so no light loss like the 2 stops going to 1:1 using tubes or macro lens. And you also have a zoom, advantageous for other uses like landscape. Of course you have to put it on and pull it off to change magnification, kind of a pain, but has some big advantages
100-400's tend to be heavier, not sure id carry one for landscape
AmbientMike wrote:
One advantage of the diopter is that it doesn't take any extension so no light loss like the 2 stops going to 1:1 using tubes or macro lens. And you also have a zoom, advantageous for other uses like landscape. Of course you have to put it on and pull it off to change magnification, kind of a pain, but has some big advantages
100-400's tend to be heavier, not sure id carry one for landscape
The diopter is basically screwing a filter on and off; the tubes a lens swap. Neither is much of a hassle. Yes, the 100-400 for me was a stay in the car until needed lens.
Jack Flesher wrote:
You are correct in that you can't shrink APS-c DoF to match MF DoF. (And even the best digital DoF blur remains phony-looking in comparison.) But conversely, you cannot expand MF DoF to match APS-c DoF while remaining under the diffraction limitations for each system, unless you impart lens<>film-plane tilts which only alters DoF in certain portions of your frame... As always, no free lunch when up against the laws of physics. So our individual choices become limited or expanded based on our own goals and associated gear chosen to work with.
PS: The 8-16 is a 12-24 in FF terms, while the 20-35 is a 16-28 in FF terms. which brings up yet another reason I let go of the GFX The 20-35 was an outstanding optic, no question. But there are occasions where 16 net isn't wide enough for me, so it chalked up another tic in the XH2 column. And honestly, there aren't very many really good 12mm net focal rectilinear options in FF... But the 8-16 is downright glorious on the XH2 into the corners. It does show a fair bit of falloff, but that's an optical wart I'll gladly accept since it's easily correctable in post, and I often add some back anyway! It's big and heavy by APS-c standards, but given what it can do and how good it is, it's worth it's weight in the bag for me 100%...Show more →
I wasn't suggesting I can cheat physics, I went to engineering school, What I was getting at is that I can alter composition somewhat or crop out that blurry rock or focus stack with the Gfx. It seems like more ways around a narrow DOF that work pretty well vs. one that is too long. I've never tried digital options. Again, coming at this as someone who embraces Fuji X for its many good traits. I just can't bring myself give up on Gfx. Certain images I've taken feel like they couldn't be matched with an X file. I freely admit that as my skills improve, that gap might narrow even further.
Its pretty rare that the 20-35 hasn't been wide enough for me and stitch couldn't solve the problem. But for X, it is easier and cheaper to have funky, specialty lenses like the 8mm for sure.
Jack Flesher wrote:
Good point. I actually put extension tubes or a 2-element diopter ion it for my macro needs. It gets down to nearly 1:1 with that set up and the quality remains excellent, not to mention with very convenient working distances and framing flexibility. I sold my dedicated 80 macro after getting this.
When I decide I need a bit more reach than the 70-300 provides, I will add the 1.4x...
The 1.4x was really why I posted the image earlier. I think the reduction in quality is small and it is useful on occasion for me for minimal weight.
SGinNorcal wrote:
The 1.4x was really why I posted the image earlier. I think the reduction in quality is small and it is useful on occasion for me for minimal weight.
That picture you posted has re-piqued my interest in getting the converter
Jack Flesher wrote:
I think a more significant reality is the changing world...
Digital is growing, with high-def displays replacing paper and ink for a lot of what people view. For the most part, video is growing more popular daily while still imagery wanes, mainly due to ease and convenience of creation and editing digitally. And current digital video can only be seen on a digital display of some form -- but then so can stills, and I suspect this is where the digital art world's "viewing medium" is headed...
Will paper and ink printing survive? Sure, but more for cards and wrapping paper and as a niche artistic medium much like silver, wet-plate or platinum photography is now; and any actual art paper will probably be used more for paint or pen than digitally printed artwork.
20 years ago after getting my first digital, 4mp DSLR, I predicted a similar death for silver film, stating Kodak would finally stop producing it's last remaining film, Tri-X, in 2022. Clearly I was wrong, but not by much -- you can still get Tri-X ...Show more →
To an extent I agree with you Jack. Fewer and fewer photographers are going to produce much work in print, whether in books/magazines or in the form of (for lack of a better term) "fine art" prints.
I don't think that screens are likely to broadly replace physical prints of photographs for fine art display purposes anytime soon, though that is a complex matter, too.
.
The 20-35 was an outstanding optic, no question. But there are occasions where 16 net isn't wide enough for me, so it chalked up another tic in the XH2 column. And honestly, there aren't very many really good 12mm net focal rectilinear options in FF... But the 8-16 is downright glorious on the XH2 into the corners. It does show a fair bit of falloff, but that's an optical wart I'll gladly accept since it's easily correctable in post, and I often add some back anyway! It's big and heavy by APS-c standards, but given what it can do and how good it is, it's worth it's weight in the bag for me 100%
What I was getting at is that I can alter composition somewhat or crop out that blurry rock or focus stack with the Gfx. It seems like more ways around a narrow DOF that work pretty well vs. one that is too long. I've never tried digital options. Again, coming at this as someone who embraces Fuji X for its many good traits. I just can't bring myself give up on Gfx. Certain images I've taken feel like they couldn't be matched with an X file. I freely admit that as my skills improve, that gap might narrow even further.