I bought a Fuji X-T30 back in 2019 as an "upgrade" from the Canon 60D because I wanted something smaller that I could shoot my kids sports with (they were much slower at the time.) At the time the mirrorless landscape was much different and the Fuji seemed like a good option. In retrospect, for my use cases I probably should have gone with Sony at the time (Canon and NIkon mirrorless option were too new back then.)
Nowadays I'm still shooting my kids, but now they are older and faster and I'm finding the Fuji 55-200mm isn't cutting it when they are in covered/indoor arenas when I'm usually maxed out at f/4.8 . I also like to shoot aircraft as I'm in the flight path of Moffett air base and there is always interesting aircraft i can catch on approach.
I'm disapointed there are still not many great telephoto options for the x-mount. However, I do like the controls and don't really want to learn a new system at this point. So I'm looking at the 100-400mm and the 50-140mm lenses and wondering if I could get by with just the 50-140mm plus the 1.4x and/or 2.0x teleconverters. Should I even entertain the 100-400mm? Alternatively, I still have my Canon 60D and could go for something like the 70-200mm f/2.8, but that setup is quite large/heavy. I was also never happy with the autofocus on moving subjects with that body.
What's wrong with your 55-250? It gives you a 375mm FF equivalent reach, which you can double by cropping in post to 750mm. With today's NR in Lightroom and other editing software, high ISO is not an issue.
I have the 90mm f/2 to supplement the 55-200 when lighting low. The 90 issosharp you can easily crop down to the FoV of the 140 end of the 50-140, and even beyond and you have an extractor over the zoom as well as better sharpness.
The Fuji 100-400 isn't going to help with the tiny aperture of your 55-250... and it clocks in at almost 1400 grams, so, not light.
The 50-140 you might want to stretch with a tele, but the lens alone is almost 1000 grams, and the tele will cut back on the 2.8 benefit... I have one, very nice, but it's very heavy and in need of a diet.
Just to correct one thing in my original post, I have the Fuji 55-200m f/3.5-4.8. I also do own a canon 55-250mm from way back in the day of my first DSLR -- the T1i!
Nielk Mike wrote:
What's wrong with your 55-250? It gives you a 375mm FF equivalent reach, which you can double by cropping in post to 750mm. With today's NR in Lightroom and other editing software, high ISO is not an issue.
The reach is actually fine. Some of my shots are at ISO 3200 with 1/400 shutter speed. They are a bit more noisy than I would like. I'm also interested in larger aperture to get better subject isolation.
---------------------------------------------
AZ Photo wrote:
What about the Canon EF 200/2.8 and adapter?
You could use that on both the Canon and FujiFilm - its fast and relatively lightweight.
I've never experimented with adapters. I was under the impression that there are compromises made when using an adapter to the point where you are shooting full manual. Autofocus/metering/autoaperture does not work or does not work as well. I'm shooting horse sports, so the subjects are moving quickly and lighting can change based on the direction.
---------------------------------------------
gyoung143 wrote:
O have the 90mm f/2 to supplement the 55-200 when lighting low. The 90 issosharp you can easily crop down to the FoV of the 140 end of the 50-140, and even beyond and you have an extractor over the zoom as well as better sharpness.
Gerry
Thanks for the suggestion. Going back and looking at my shots, most are in the 55-110mm range, so this could be a possibility if I could sit back far enough and still get a good angle.
---------------------------------------------
RWNPhoto wrote:
The Fuji 100-400 isn't going to help with the tiny aperture of your 55-250... and it clocks in at almost 1400 grams, so, not light.
The 50-140 you might want to stretch with a tele, but the lens alone is almost 1000 grams, and the tele will cut back on the 2.8 benefit... I have one, very nice, but it's very heavy and in need of a diet.
I was mostly looking at the 100-400mm for outdoor shots of aircraft and the like. This is more of a secondary pursuit for me. I thought maybe I could also use it for the outdoor arena horse events, but it would be too long for those use cases. Was thinking I could just use the 50-140mm with the 2x and get a bit more reach than what i have now with the 55-200mm compare to getting the 100-400mm.
coffeelogic wrote:
I've never experimented with adapters. I was under the impression that there are compromises made when using an adapter to the point where you are shooting full manual. Autofocus/metering/autoaperture does not work or does not work as well. I'm shooting horse sports, so the subjects are moving quickly and lighting can change based on the direction.
No - I have the Fringer EF-FX pro and you get full automation with a Fuji camera.
Focus tracking and auto exposure work well with the Canon 200mm lens.
Fuji X with Canon EF lenses works well with the Fringer in my experience, even with a Canon 1.4 extender. I'm thinking Fuji is likely to come out with a Mark II XF50-140 like they did with the 16-55. If it goes on a similar diet, sign me up.
coffeelogic wrote:
I bought a Fuji X-T30 back in 2019 as an "upgrade" from the Canon 60D because I wanted something smaller that I could shoot my kids sports with (they were much slower at the time.) At the time the mirrorless landscape was much different and the Fuji seemed like a good option. In retrospect, for my use cases I probably should have gone with Sony at the time (Canon and NIkon mirrorless option were too new back then.)
Nowadays I'm still shooting my kids, but now they are older and faster and I'm finding the Fuji 55-200mm isn't cutting it when they are in covered/indoor arenas when I'm usually maxed out at f/4.8 . I also like to shoot aircraft as I'm in the flight path of Moffett air base and there is always interesting aircraft i can catch on approach.
I'm disapointed there are still not many great telephoto options for the x-mount. However, I do like the controls and don't really want to learn a new system at this point. So I'm looking at the 100-400mm and the 50-140mm lenses and wondering if I could get by with just the 50-140mm plus the 1.4x and/or 2.0x teleconverters. Should I even entertain the 100-400mm? Alternatively, I still have my Canon 60D and could go for something like the 70-200mm f/2.8, but that setup is quite large/heavy. I was also never happy with the autofocus on moving subjects with that body. ...Show more →
Moffett, eh? We’re Bay Area neighbors. :-)
I have the 50-140 and the 100-400.
The 50-140 is a really excellent lens and it works very well with the f.4x TC. I have not used it with the 2x, but if you are going to be shooting at that focal length a lot I’d proably just go for a longer lens. (For one thing, your f/2.8 maximum aperture ends up being f/5.6 at 300mm with the 2x TC, and ther are other way to get there.)
I looked at both the 150-600 and the 100-400 and ended up with the 100-400. 400mm is actually providing a pretty small angle of view on the APS-C camera, and you can extend that with the 1.4x TC again, which I do.
I’d say that the 100-400 has (like any lens) both pluses and minuses. On the plus side:
1. It can be quite sharp in the right conditions. I recently shot mine on the XT5 from the tripod with some landscape subjects and the detail was excellent, and well beyond what you probably need with photos of your kids. (I’m talking about resoltuion sufficient to make quite large prints.)
2. AF speed is pretty decent, especially if you know how to choose the various AF options on Fujifilm cameras and you have some experience with the vagaries of AF on cameras in general.
3. The telescoping design means that the lens packs smaller, which is not an insignificant plus for most of us. (Note that the 150-600 does not use this design, so it is quite large.)
On the minus side:
1. It is not a light or small lens, of course. Using such a large lens is not for everyone.
2. I’d rate its AF as less reliably accurate than that of some other Fujifilm lenses (some of which AF very well) with moving subjects — deeding on the subject, the type of motion, and the distance. I’ve been using it to photograph birds in flight — becasue I wanted the narrower angle of view of APS-C at times — and it works for that, though other non-Fujifilm options work better. You can work with moving subjects, but here your technique becomes very important along with understanding the various options that affect AF.
I think that the 150-600might be overkill for your purposes.
Another option that many speak highly of (but which I have not used) is the variable aperture 70-300mm lens. I’d look into that, too. It is less expensive, likely long enough, smaller and lighter.
One more thing: in many situations where we relied on larger aperture telephotos in the past, the fact that current cameras and software work so well with smaller aperture lenses at higher ISOs can make them a very viable option.
Thanks everyone for the recommendations. Thinking about this more and looking at the focal lengths I've shot at in the past, I'm leaning towards the 50-140mm for my sports and/or perhaps even a 90mm, though that may be tricky as sometime controlling my distance is not easy. I also did the math on the 2x tc and agree that's not a good solution. Though I like the idea of using the fringer adapter, I don't have any canon telephoto lenses (other than the EF-S 55-250mm kit lens) so it doesn't quite make as much sense other than being able to share lenses. The 100-400mm will remain a nice to have, but not necessary for me at the moment (and the one I was looking at was sold from underneath me!)
Note that Patrick at Fuji Rumors is suggesting the the 50-140 mkII is coming in September with the release of the X-T6. Might be worth seeing what that is about before jumping.
