What's everybody's opinion on this lens? I'm kind of constantly going back and forth between this lens and the Nikon 400 4.5, but I already have the 500PF and I feel the XF lens would pair very well with my 200F2 plus 1.4 TC...also thinking about the GF500 since I don't have much reach with the GFX system, but I also feel like it'd be my worst wildlife setup or at least the slowest one.
Have you heard about the new xf400/4.5 coming in a month? 500 on APSC seems challenging to use. I have the 150-600 and set it at 500, it can be too much. The 400 seems like at a better match to what have and 4.5.
Regarding "also thinking about the GF500 since I don't have much reach with the GFX system, but I also feel like it'd be my worst wildlife setup or at least the slowest one" - the "slowest" part is correct for tracking subjects moving towards or away from the lens. The lens itself has fast linear motors and it does focus quickly and reliably on my GFX100S II in the AF-C mode. Perched birds, animals, and humans are relatively easy subjects for focusing with the GF500 on the GFX100S II unless there's this major fast movement to, or away from the photographer. This is helped to some extent by longer distances when the DoF is a bit wider than when shooting at close distances. The optical quality of the GF lens coupled with the ability to crop a 102MP image by a factor of up to 2× make the lens unexpectedly useful (when it is not asked to do something that the slow sensor read time wouldn't allow to do). The autofocus on bodies other than the latest GFX100S II and GFX100 II might be not as good as on these two.
I only use native XF lenses on my two X-T5s. On a recent birding trip to Ecuador, I brought the 200mm, 500mm, and 150-600mm. The most used were the 200mm with dedicated 1.4x and the 500mm. I had some excellent captures with this set-up and the separation was superb.
Focusing in some instances left much to be desired especially when the focusing somehow "de-couples" itself. However, under brush and low light conditions it was a challenge to find focus. I know part of it is user error and still have a ways to go for birding.
Not sure if the XF400 suits my needs but if I do pull the trigger on that, the XF 150-600mm will have to go.
Yeah I'm going to try to take the 100II back to the park with the 250F4 to see what it can do regarding bursts and action and get a sense of it that way. I've only used the camera for this once and frankly was in the wrong AF mode half the time (AF-S) and haven't been back with it sense. I'm not trying to do BIF so it's really not that important for me. ruthenium wrote:
Regarding "also thinking about the GF500 since I don't have much reach with the GFX system, but I also feel like it'd be my worst wildlife setup or at least the slowest one" - the "slowest" part is correct for tracking subjects moving towards or away from the lens. The lens itself has fast linear motors and it does focus quickly and reliably on my GFX100S II in the AF-C mode. Perched birds, animals, and humans are relatively easy subjects for focusing with the GF500 on the GFX100S II unless there's this major fast movement to, or away from the photographer. This is helped to some extent by longer distances when the DoF is a bit wider than when shooting at close distances. The optical quality of the GF lens coupled with the ability to crop a 102MP image by a factor of up to 2× make the lens unexpectedly useful (when it is not asked to do something that the slow sensor read time wouldn't allow to do). The autofocus on bodies other than the latest GFX100S II and GFX100 II might be not as good as on these two....Show more →
Yes I'm well aware of this and it's supposed to be announced next month with the new 50-140 2.8 lens. I'll see what everything looks like from there, though I do try to look at stuff that's out and readily available today and not what's coming out later and will be a pain in the butt to even get because of availability issues and low stock. SGinNorcal wrote:
Have you heard about the new xf400/4.5 coming in a month? 500 on APSC seems challenging to use. I have the 150-600 and set it at 500, it can be too much. The 400 seems like at a better match to what have and 4.5.
I love the 200F2, just really want something longer than that. voltaire wrote:
I only use native XF lenses on my two X-T5s. On a recent birding trip to Ecuador, I brought the 200mm, 500mm, and 150-600mm. The most used were the 200mm with dedicated 1.4x and the 500mm. I had some excellent captures with this set-up and the separation was superb.
Focusing in some instances left much to be desired especially when the focusing somehow "de-couples" itself. However, under brush and low light conditions it was a challenge to find focus. I know part of it is user error and still have a ways to go for birding.
Not sure if the XF400 suits my needs but if I do pull the trigger on that, the XF 150-600mm will have to go.
I can also confirm that focusing on the 500 XF is a challenge. Autofocus frequently misses the subject entirely, especially for anything moving. I've also noticed that when I use burst mode and AF, I am just getting a series of blurry photos. I started getting better results with manual focus / setting pre planned focus points to jump to, both of which can be challenging in practice. I am waiting to see more on the 400 coming out but may consider switching. BUT, image quality on the 500 is super crisp on the XT5, and so so satisfying when you get a shot. So you may have to ask yourself what you really plan to shoot with the lens and maybe rent it first?
