Fujinon XF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6 vs XF 70-300mm f/4.0-5.6 Telephoto Zoom Lens Comparison
Vložit
- čas přidán 9. 07. 2024
- When I created my first impression video of the Fujinon XF 70-300mm f/4.0-5.6 R LM OIS WR lens, I received lots of questions regarding how it compared to the Fujinon XF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6 R LM OIS WR. At the time, I did not have access to the 100-400, so I was unable to answer those questions. Until now.
The fine folks at Fujifilm USA loaned me an XF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6 R LM OIS lens to use for about thirty days. This is not a sponsored review, and Fujifilm has not had any input or seen this review until publication. Additionally, the XF 70-300mm was purchased by myself.
00:00 Intro
00:55 How I Got the Fujinon XF 100-400mm
01:31 My Photography Preferences
02:58 Size Comparison - XF 100-400mm & XF 70-300mm
03:32 Comparisons with Other Fujinon Zoom Lenses
05:17 Practical Implications of the Size of the XF 100-400mm
06:44 General Performance Characteristics of Both Lenses
07:35 BONUS TIP for Shard Handheld Photos With Long Telephoto Lenses!
08:31 XF 100-400mm Image Samples
12:19 XF 70-300mm Image Samples
14:00 About Minimum Focusing Distance...
15:56 XF 2X TC Image Samples
18:02 Which is THE ONE???
20:04 Outro
************************************
I appreciate your support of this channel by liking, subscribing, commenting and sharing. You can also support this channel by becoming a channel member here - / @msladekphoto - Thank you!
************************************
Hi! In addition to crafting CZcams videos about creating more interesting photos, I teach photography at Highline College in Seattle, Washington. I got my first camera in 1979, soooo, I’ve been on the journey to more interesting photos for over 40 years (yikes!)
I enjoy helping people (re)discover their creativity and expression through photography.
***** PHOTOGRAPHY GEAR *****
Fujifilm X-T4 - bhpho.to/3fD7tmp
Fujifilm X-T3 - bhpho.to/3fy6JPu
Fujinon XF 18-135mm f/3.5-5.6 - bhpho.to/3fy6JPu
Fujinon XF 16-80mm f/4.0 - bhpho.to/3lvQk1I
Fujinon XF 16-55mm f/2.8 - bhpho.to/3fTWhlB
Fujinon XF 10-24mm f/4.0 - bhpho.to/2Vso7hE
Fujinon XF 50-140mm f/2.8 - bhpho.to/3xsGuA7
Fujinon XF 70-300mm f/4.0-5.6 - bhpho.to/3AcCRzS
Viltrox 23mm f/1.4 - bhpho.to/2VlyeF6
Fujinon XF 35mm f/1.4 - bhpho.to/3jpplSU
Fujinon XF 50mm f/2.0 - bhpho.to/3jsmWXp
Fujinon XF 2TC (2x teleconverter) - bhpho.to/3fxnudh
Fujinon VG-XT3 (battery grip) - bhpho.to/3AfrOG5
Vello Extension Tubes (10mm + 16mm) - bhpho.to/3irgBMP
***** VIDEO GEAR *****
Fujifilm X-T3 - bhpho.to/3fy6JPu
Fujinon XF 16-55mm f/2.8 - bhpho.to/3fTWhlB
Ecamm Live - www.ecamm.com/mac/ecammlive/?...
Artlist Music - artlist.io/Michael-310729
Godox VL150 LED Light - bhpho.to/3js1rGd
Aputure Lightdome Mini II - bhpho.to/3CoLBVm
Aputure Amaran HR672S LED Panel - bhpho.to/3CiplfY
Aputure MC RGBWW LED Light - bhpho.to/3AeoNpB
Nanlite Pavotube 6C LED Tube Light - bhpho.to/37lpscz
Rode VideoMicro - bhpho.to/37kmiFU
Rode Lavalier Go - bhpho.to/3Ce8WJo
Rode Wireless Go - bhpho.to/37pWV5m
Focusrite Scarlett 2i2 - bhpho.to/3jqO0Xc
Rode PSA 1 Boom Arm - bhpho.to/3jvkK1d
Rode PodMic - bhpho.to/3fAyiaN
Elgato Camlink 4K - bhpho.to/3s0wA7I
The above product links are affiliate links and earn me a small commission when you purchase a product, all at no extra cost to you.
***** ONE-ON-ONE ONLINE PHOTOGRAPHY TRAINING *****
I offer One-On-One Online Photography Training that’s all about helping frustrated photographers learn all they need to create the photos they want. Learn more here - msladekphoto.com/one-on-one-p...
***** STAY CONNECTED *****
Instagram - / msladekphoto
Web - msladekphoto.com
***** SUPPORT *****
Become a Channel Member - ttps:// / @msladekphoto
Ecamm Live Software -www.ecamm.com/mac/ecammlive/?... (affiliate link)
I get all my music for CZcams at: Artlist - artlist.io/Michael-310729 (affiliate link) - Věda a technologie
For me, the 70-300 was a no-brainer because I bought my Fuji to have a smaller, lighter camera system for travel. The 70-300 is the lens that I’ll actually carry with me. That said, I’m glad the image results from it are so good.
My only real complaint is that while it does generally focus pretty quickly, when it does decide to hunt it hunts a lot. The focus limiter is helpful if you’re shooting objects at a distance, but especially with the close-focusing ability of the lens, it needs more options to be able to limit to shorter distances too.
Hi Matt! Yes, the 70-300 was a no-brainer for me too, when announced. It does so much for it's size, weight and price. I experienced the same focusing "Stuck" issues (also with the 100-400) and would often have to focus on something at a different distance to get it unstuck. Love the lens, tho!
The new update fix that. Newest firmware is from desember 2023 🎉 just 2 months ago.
What a superb review. So complete and detailed. Wife and I totally enjoyed and will benefit as we are about to decide on purchasing one of these two great Fuji lenses. Thank you and keep up the great work.
Hi Samuel! Many, many thanks for these kind words. I am so glad you and your wife enjoyed the video and wish you the best as you choose the lens that most fits your needs. One thought - you could get two 70-300’s for the price of the 100-400 and then you could each have one and not have to take turns 😉Cheers!
Perfect! Great info. Thank you
Ho Tara! Thanks so much for watching and glad you found the video helpful. Cheers!
What a terrific review. Thanks for sharing it! I got the 70-300 several months ago and sold my 100-400 within a month. I always second guess myself but this helped to put my mind at ease. At 72 with arthritis in my hands (and body) most of my wildlife photography is out my back door. (Our deer come to our windows for corn so they make it easy).
Hi Cheryl! I am so glad you enjoyed the video. Yay for backyard wildlife! Yay for creating photos at 72 - I'm not far behind, and will be even more glad for lighter gear. Here's to many happy days with your camera and backyard friends!
This was so cheerful. All the best to both of you.
Many thanks for the review, considering buying the 70-300mm. Special thanks for showing the EXIF data from the photo.
Hi Erik! Thanks so much for watching and I'm glad you found the video helpful. I'm a huge fan of the 70-300 and have it in my camera bag 95% of the time. Best wishes!
Great review with nice photomaterial to illustrate. I bought the 100-400 for safari before the 70-300 was released. Then I got the 70-300 for hiking when it vas released together with the 1.4 tc. My personal favourite of these two lenses is the 70-300, I mostly bring it alongside my GFX system for landscape and wildlife photography. Lightweight, good image quality, close focus distance…did I say it is light and easy to carry. My two favourite lenses om x systen is the 70-300 and the 16 1.4, I use those on an xt3.
Hi Fredrik! I agree, the 70-300 is pretty spectacular. Have fun on your photo adventures!
Great review thanks. I have the 100-400, bought in a moment of haste :) it's a stallard lens even with the 1.4x converter. However I never use it due to it weight and size so considering part exchanging for the the 70-300. This video has helped with my head/heart decision.
Hi! There were several times when the 100-400 was on sale that I almost purchased it. But, it was still lots of money, and I wasn’t sure how much I would use it. The 70-300 was such an easy decision for size, weight and value. Glad this video helped and best wishes with your decision! Many thanks for taking the time to share this comment.
Great review Michael. This lens might be my next purchase. 🙂👍
Hello! So glad the video was helpful. Best wishes with your lens purchase and future photo adventures! Many thanks for watching and sharing this comment.
Excellent real world review. I totally relate to your ‘opportunistic photographer’ perspective.
Hi Stuart! Many thanks for watching and sharing these kind words. Finding the unexpected when out and about is one of my favorite things in photography. Cheers!
Excellent review, thank you so much. In the foreseeable future, I will add a couple of lenses to my current (only and probably main in the future) XF 16-55. My first aim is a very fast and wide prime, and the main contender for this is the brand new Viltrox 13 mm f1.4 - for low-light video and astro (of the Milky Way). I will then need something with reach to film animals further away and for deep space astro (galaxies and nebulae) and I think this could be it.
Hi! Many thanks for your kind words. Either the 100-400 or 70-300 would be a great lens for wildlife farther away photos. I hope you really enjoy the Viltrox 13mm f/1.4... it's on my list of lens I'm really interested in. I really like their 23mm f/1.4, and have watched a couple of preview videos on the 13mm. Cheers!
Great video. Like the 2X teleconverter use on both lenses.
Hi! So glad you liked the video. Many thanks for sharing your comment! Cheers!
I am researching now which one to get, your review is very helpful in that regard, I am gravitating towards 70-300.
Hi! I still think the 70-300 is such a great combination of image quality, size, weight and value that is pretty hard to beat. I hope you enjoy your photos with whatever lens you decide!
good review both lenses are beautiful
Thanks so much! I am so glad we have so many great lens options.
Thank you so much. You save my money 😁
Hi! You’re welcome. Enjoy your new lens!
Thank You!
You're welcome!
You did a great job of explaining. I am getting a 6 month old 70-300 for a bit less money as a new one but with a 3 month old 2x TC thrown in. Feels like a great deal to me and I might just bite the bullet instead of waiting for the 150-600 which might turn out to be as expensive as the 100-400.
Hi Aniket! I'm glad you found the video helpful. A slightly used 70-300 with 2xtc included sounds like a great deal. I hope you enjoy using the lens and create lots of special photos. Cheers!
The problem with using teleconvers on a lens that has a 5.6 aperture is less of light, I was shooting wildlife with the 100-400mm at 5.6 ISO 5000 One stop negative exposure
comp my shutter speed was less than 1/200 0f a second, it was 6:15 am and I was shooting into a wooded creek area so the lighting was not great. with the 100-400mm ibis and XH2 ibis I was able to get a clean photo of a blue heron and latter a young deer alongside the creek. I don't use this lens as a travel lens unless I travel by car, my travel camera setup for plane travel is a micro 4/3 body with prime and zoom lenses.
I’m going to buy the 70-300mm as I go out not knowing what I want to photograph, the 100-400mm would be fantastic if I move solely to wildlife , sports etc … well done Fuji and yourself for these 2 epic lenses..
Hi! I hope you enjoy the 70-300mm as much as I have and have a great time creating photos. Cheers!
My backyard hummingbirds like to "buzz" my face before hovering 3 feet in front of me...PERFECT for my 70-300 min. focus distance. I can also quickly zoom in to the top of the palm trees to get the woodpeckers looking down on me. I have had this lens since May and LOVE it...VERY sharp and beautiful images. My X-T3 still struggles with quick focus acquire with a busy background though. oh well.
That is sooooo cool! The 70-300 is such a great lens for that type of photography. I hear you about the focusing at times with X-T3 - I hope the next generation from Fuji has improved auto focus to match Sony and Canon.
Thanks Michael. Well done, I’m thinking about deciding on keeping either the 55-200 or the 100-400, both of which I have, and just going with the 70-300. Any additional thoughts on that choice? Thanks. Geoff
Hi! This is such a great question... First thing - how often do you create photos art 400mm? If not very often, then that's one vote for move to 70-300. Second - the 100-400 has slightly (very slight to my eyes) better image quality. How important is that to you? If not very, then another vote for 70-300. Personally, I'd sell the 100-400 (it just doesn't fit what I do MOST of the time and is so heavy/huge) and use the proceeds to pay for the 70-300. I have no personal experience with 55-200, but lots of folks love it. Maybe keep as a backup? It's so great that we have these options where it's a choice between really good and just a little bit better. Best wishes!!!
In case no one has mentioned it yet, the image stabilization can be turned off in the camera menus for lenses like the 70-300. I’ve made a shortcut in “my menu” too it. I think X-T3 and newer cameras will let you make a shortcut on a button for it ok. I do miss the physical button though.
Thanks for that note! I had forgotten about that.
Thanks for the comparison. I recently bought an XT-4 with the 18-80mm (and a zeiss touit 32mm). It's my first detachable lens camera and I'm enjoying it very much. I want more reach than the 80mm offers (not a complaint at all - that lens is great for what it is) and both of the lenses in this video caught my eye. My previous camera is a way-better-than-it-has-any-right-to-be Samsung WB850F point-and-shoot and I find myself missing all the zoom it had. Might just pick up a 70-300 very soon. I kind of wish it had a little wider aperture but for the price and with WR and stabilization, it seems a very fair compromise.
Hi and welcome to the Fujifilm family! I agree that it would be nice for the 70-300 to have a little wider aperture, I know that would add a lot to the cost. My suggestion is to not be afraid of turning your iso up (Fujifilm iso tends to be more “organic” looking - almost like film grain) and enjoy the extra reach. Also, since the 70-300 focuses relatively close, you can get lovely closeup photos at 300mm with good background separation even at f/5.6. Cheers!
@@MSladekPhoto thanks for the tip, I'll give it a shot.
Thanks :) Subbed.
You’re welcome! Many thanks for the sub and for taking the time to share your comment. Cheers!
Good job! I rented the 100-400 before buying the 70-300. I’m like you, it’s a better value for minimal trade-off. One thing you may have missed, is there absolutely is an autofocus difference. The 70-300 is incapable of focusing while zooming, whereas the 100-400 is capable. May not be a big deal to most, but to some it could even be a dealbreaker. All in all, 70-300 is the clear choice for me, too.
Hi Ryan! Many thanks for taking the time to share this comment. Very interesting about the 70-300 not being able to autofocus while zooming - I had never tried that! Good to know.
Wow, nice strange point.
I just got the 70-300 as an upgrade from the 55-200 and noticed that right away. With the 55-200 that doesn't happen, and I've had the 18-55 in the past and it's also not a problem with that lens. I have seen in video reviews that the 16-80 does that as well so I wonder if it's only with the newer lenses. It's definitely been a bummer for me and I'm considering returning the lens and keeping the older 55-200 which is still a great lens, but I still have some more time to give it a proper test. I've been surprised not to see more complaints about this.
@@danmontesinos2094 if it did, it would cost 2-3x more. I don’t find it to be a big deal at all…
@@rkatsanes I'm sure it would, but what I mean is that compared to the 55-200 doesn't perform as well while zooming. That older lens cons only around $350-$450 and it doesn't become a blur mess while zooming in the way the 70-300 does. It may not maintain focus, but you can actually see your environment while getting to the zoom range you need.
Great reviews. IO do have both, I prefer the 70-300 for travel and when I dont want to carry my main camera bag. Also its better to use without a tripod. When I go out with the goal of doing landscape where I take the Tripod the 100-400 is a much better option. It allows me to change from vertical to landscape without touching the tripod, it has the extra 100 reach that may not be a big difference but it does help, and has does a better job with blurry background / bokeh. Saying that, I do agree that the 70-300 is a great lens for the price. Another scenario where I prefer to take the 70-300 instead of the 100-400 is when I want to bring the 80mm macro. The 80mm macro plus the 70-300 is a about the same as taking the 100-400. Still I use the 100-400 enough to keep it on my kit. If I had to keep only one I would be a very tuff choice, but would probably be the 70-300
Hi! Many thanks for sharing your perspective on these lenses. I’m so glad we have so many options for great lenses. Best wishes on your photo adventures!
I would love a comparison between the Fujifilm 50-150 f/2.8 with the 2x teleconverter to the 70-300 f/4-5.6
Hi Morgan! I have not done a side-by-side comparison yet, but I do know that I really like the performance of the 2XTC on the 50-140. I'll have to add this to the list of future video ideas! Thanks for taking the time to share your comment.
@@MSladekPhoto yes please make the comparison! just curious about the IQ on the 50-140 using 2X TC at f/5.6 compare to 70-300mm :)
Hi!! I recently purchased the 70-300mm! Do you have any comments about image quality of the 2x TC vs cropping and enhancing the image? I'm interested on taking pictures of the moon during moonrise with the city scape, but am concerned about the image quality, and heard that the chromatic aberrations, softnesa and other issues are more noticable.
Hi Alberto! That is a really great question. I have not made that comparison to see quality difference. I really like that idea, and will have to give it a try when my wife gets back with the lens from her mini trip with a friend.
Thanks! Just one thing, I guess most the audience is from North America, however it would be nice to have the grams and meter quantities as well.
Hi Obryan! Many thanks for this suggestion. I tried adding metric as well, but graphic was getting to cluttered, so went with just ounces and feet. I figured asking Siri or Google to convert is pretty easy, and that’s what I do with videos just using metric measurements. I’ll make sure to find a way to include both next time. Cheers!
@@MSladekPhoto As a European living in a metric country, don't bother, it's fine the way it is. It's easy enough to get a feeling for inches and pounds no matter where you live. Both systems of measurement are perfectly fine. Don't listen to the metric fanboys (or imperial fanboys for that matter).
@@salvatoreshiggerino6810 Many thanks! I just usually ask Siri for help converting when needed 😎 Cheers!
agree, thank You
Obryan,do the conversion yourself.Look it up on your phone, laptop,or find a grown up to help.
Hey Michael, I came to this video after watching your review on the 18-135, both videos are awesome!
I have a similar approach to photography as you ("lazy opportunist") and am searching for a second lens (currently have the 16-55).
For casual, personal photography, primarily walking around places and shooting what I see, what are your thoughts on the 18-135 vs the 70-300?
In the 18-135 video, you mentioned that you use it a lot for personal photos - how often do you use the 70-300 in comparison?
Ideally I'd like to carry one lens, so I'm drawn to the 18-135, but am wondering if it makes more sense to go with the 70-300 in order to pair with the 16-55.
Any thoughts you could provide would be greatly appreciated, thank you!
Hi! This is a great question. I really like the 70-300, and it’s in my bag all the time. Currently, my lenses in personal photography mode ( the lighter bag) are: 10-24 f/4, 16-80 f/4 and 70-300 f/4-5.6. I leave the 16-55 on my X-T3 I use for talking to camera video stuff, and will take it professional photo gigs along with the 50-140 (the heavy bag.) The Tamron 18-300 is an interesting lens to consider to just carry one lens. Review are somewhat mixed, and I’ve not had a chance to use one yet… So many great options! Nice problem to have. Cheers!
@@MSladekPhoto Thank you for the detailed response, I appreciate it!
@@realbayzn You’re welcome!
Just to complicate things: What are your thoughts on using the 1.4x teleconverter? Is the 70-300mm plus converter as good as the 100-400 without?
Hi! I do not have the 1.4X TC, but in my use of the 2XTC on 70-300, I have been not super happy with the results as far as sharpness and detail. Could be user error (life is very different at 600mm!!!) and/or need to turn off OIS in camera. I have not had time to experiment further... I really want to try out the 150-600mm (hint, hint Fuji!) and think that might be a really great way to go for longer reach. I've seen lots and lots of amazing wildlife and bird photos with the 150-600 on Facebook. Hope that helps!
I'm looking to purchase the 70x300 for a X-s10 for a Safari in 2024. Would you recommend this lens for that camera?
Hello! Yes, I think the 70-300 would work very nicely on the X-S10 for your safari photos. It's not a very large and heave lens for how much telephoto reach it gives you. I hope you enjoy!
Would it be proper to use either of those telephoto lenses on my rangefinder type cameras? XPro 2 or XE1.
Hi James! You can certainly connect either of these to a rangefinder style camera, but the 100-400 is very large and heavy, so might not be very comfortable for prolonged use. The 70-300 is much lighter and smaller, and would likely be a better combination. Hope that helps!
I have the XF 70-300 and a 1.4x teleconverter which gives me quite a bit of reach. However, I think the image quality suffers somewhat when you approach maximum zoom with the teleconverter.
Hi Bill! I have the 2x teleconverter, and maybe it's me, but I've never been happy with the result at 600mm. I've used the 2X with the 50-140mm (so, 280mm) and have liked those results. Could be that I don't have the techniques down yet for photos at 600mm. LOL. Best wishes in your photo adventures!
i think the better competitor for the XF 70 - 300 would be the Sigma 100 - 400.
All though its not in the same class regards of size and weight, its only 300 eur more expensive and weights less than 1200 grams.
any thoughts?
Hi! Good thought... I have not used the Sigma 100-400, so can't comment on how it compares in any way to the 70-300. I like the 70-300 soooo much, for its size, weight and image quality, that I don't really feel the need to look anywhere else. Plus, I have enough lenses, already ;) Cheers!!!
Could that bokeh / swirly worms background be due to processing in lightroom? I've heard a lot of complaining from fuji shooters that lightroom doesn't play well with RAF files, specially in regards to worming. Lot of them suggest capture one. It's an old an unresolved issue I believe.
It could also be the heat wave that another commenter suggested. It could be both.
Could be… but I don’t see the same swirly bokeh look with different lenses also processed in Lightroom. A mystery!
Those worms in the background are because Lightroom doesn't play nice with Fuji raw files. I suspect the discrepancy in focal length (ie when it said 400mm was 386mm)... try using Capture one...
Hi! Thanks for your thoughts. I don’t think the worms in bokeh are due to LR - they don’t happen with other lenses. Also, no interest in trying capture one, but thanks for the suggestion.
I have both and will keep both. All depends how im going to move at the shoot. Scott
Hello, Scott! thanks for watching and sharing your comment. That's so cool you have both lenses. It's really great you have these options available to you. Have fun with your photos!
@@MSladekPhoto Test you cameras at High ISO's I find 1000ISO I find the newer XT3-4-5 XH2 has no trouble saving you bacon !
hi you have lens review of 200mm f2 vs 100-400mm ?
Hi! No, I have not compared the 200 f/2 to the 100-400. I do not have access to the 200, and it's not a lens that I would consider for my photography. Best wishes!
Man, I thought I was the only one that liked to take pictures of flowers with a huge zoom lens!
Hi! Telephoto flower photos are the best 📷
How do these lenses do in low light? Thank you.
Hi Kim! Thanks for your question. Both lenses focus pretty well in low light, as long as the scene as subjects with edge contrast from surroundings. Neither lens is large aperture, at f/5.6 at longest telephoto end, so your not going to get a lot flight from these lenses by themselves, and will have to get the light from longer duration shutter speeds and/or increased ISO. Hope that helps!
Paradni, dekuju!
Nema na čemu!
@@MSladekPhoto 👋 🇨🇿♥️
nice comparison, thank You. i would go with 70-300 for same reasons - minimum focusing distance, weight/size and price. need to retire my 50-230 :)
Hi! It's such a fun lens. It's probably not a good fit for everyone, but so glad I have it. Cheers!
Thoughts of the 70-300 compared to the 50-140? If you combine each with a 50mm f/2 and a 2x TC respectively and get similar focal length coverage, but the latter at greater cost and weight.
Hi! That's a great question... My experience with both lenses is that the 50-140 has better image quality (without 2x), but if you need focal length greater than 140mm, the 70-300 is the way to go. The 70-300 is lighter and lots less expensive that 50-140 with 2x, and I think it has a slight image quality advantage over the 50-140 with 2x. Hope that helps!
@@MSladekPhoto Awesome, just what I needed! I guess it all depends on what I actually want to be doing between 70 and 140 mm, and whether it's worth sacrificing image quality over when shooting above 140 mm. I'm leaning towards the 70-300 now, and if I find myself really needing faster mild telephotos I see that I can get a couple of primes later and be no worse off on price and better off on weight.
That sounds like a good plan. I always remind myself, "There's no 100% perfect solution. Work with what you have..." Cheers!
Thanks for your video. I own a 55-200mm now. Instead of upgrading it to 70-300mm, do you think it is wise to have a 100-400mm? In this case, I will have both 55-200mm and 100-400mm. What is your advice?
Hi! That’s a tough choice. My preference, based on the type of photos I like, is to go with the 70-300. It’s such a great value and so much smaller and lighter. I have the 18-135, and use it quite often with the 70-300. The 100-400. Is a great lens, if weight and price not an an issue, go for it!
@@MSladekPhoto you ever thought about getting the 16-80? I love the 18-135 for 1 lens business travel. But just got the 16-80, 200 off it is fantastic with the 70-300. To me better AF and image quality.
@@mixeddrinks8100 Hi! You must be a mind reader - just picked a 16-80 up on sale, as well. I do plan to make that my walk around kit - the 16-80 + 70-300. I'll have a review in a couple of weeks. Agreed about image quality and focus speed (used it at a wedding today.)
I have both lens and my observations match yours. The 70-300 is the best deal on a lens I have found. I shoot birds and wildlife predominantly and have started using the 70-300 with extenders to take advantage of the lightweight. I also had better image quality with the 2X extender on the 70-300 than the 100-400.
Hi Val! Another thumbs up for the 70-300 - it's such a great value lens. Best wishes on all your photo adventures!
I very much doubt your getting better images with a teleconverter, let alone against the 100-400 glass beast
Good review. However... although you did mention it's always a matter of preferences and opinion you always looked for the strengths of the 70-300 over the 100-400. Now, both of them a (fairly) long telephoto lenses so wildlife photography must be the main (obviously not the only) reason why people would consider them. It happens all too often that I wish the 100-400 was a stop faster or the reach was a bit longer. The 70-300 is slower and the reach is shorter. I bet many people buying the 70-300 for wildlife photography will be getting the 100-400 paying twice.
Hi! Thank you for taking the time to share your comment. I agree that my opinion in the video is biased towards the 70-300, but I also think I made that clear in that I OWN the 70-300, and borrowed the 100-400 and gladly returned it. It's just not a good fit for I need most of the time. For wildlife photographers, who spend lots of time needing that extra 100mm (the 100-400 and 70-300 are both f/5.6 at the long end, so the 70-300 is not slower) the 100-400 is the best lens for them. By far. Again, many thanks for sharing your thoughts! Cheers :)
@@MSladekPhoto Thanks for your reply. Just one thing... the 70-300 is slower than 100-400. The 70-300 is 5.6 at 300mm while the 100-400 is 5.2 at 300mm and it is actually very important. The 100-400 operates at f/5.6 at 400mm and that is just... just ok in many wildlife scenarios. A little bit less light and it falls short. So, adding a x1.4 tc to the 70-300 just makes it slower. Still ok (ish) especially for ducks in the park or a hawk on leash but it'd be hard work out in the wild.
OK. I'm back watching your helpful video ;) After months of foot dragging, I found that I could not find a 70-300mm in stock anywhere. Darn the chip and transport issues! So, I ordered a used 100-400mm which I hope will work well with my 50-150mm. Truth be known I thought the price of the 70-300mm was very good compared to the 100-400mm. So, I've reversed my original intent to purchase the cheaper 70-300mm. My 50-140mm is a Red Badge. So, I hope the costlier (saved money on used) 100-400mm was a good decision. I'll soon find out. PS. I'm "that guy" too taking pictures of plants and insects with a zoom ;) I hope the deer, and the moon appreciate my expenditure. I know the spouse will not ;)
Hi Bill! Congrats on the 100-400! As you know, it IS a great lens. I hope you, the plants, insects, deer and moon have a great time creating photos together. Cheers!
I have the 70-300mm coming in the mail today to hopefully replace my 100-400mm + 50-230mm (I already have the 150-600mm for birds)
Hi Jason! I hope you enjoy the 70-300 - it’s one of my favorites. What are your thought on the 150-600?
Thank you. I’ve been looking at these exact two lenses and wondering if the extra 100mm reach and image quality was worth roughly 2 1/2 times the price. For me as a nonprofessional hobbyist the answers no. Thanks again.
Hi! You’re welcome. So glad the video was helpful. I hope you’re able to find a 70-300 and love creating photos with it. Cheers!
I had the choice of a new 70-300mm or a used 100-400mm and chose the 70-300mm because I thought that the 100-400mm would be too heavy for me.
I hope you enjoy the 70-300! It’s so easy to take (just about) everywhere because it doesn’t weigh a ton. Cheers!
I need that extra 100m of the 100-400 for me its worth carrying the beast around , i means that why im in this hobby otherwise id just fet my phone out. P.s if youre not wildlife not too sure why you need a big zoom just stick with the 18-135 if u want an all round shooter
Hi! Thanks for watching and sharing your comment. Glad the 100-400 works for you - that’s awesome! I love the 70-300 for so many of my use cases: street photography, garden/nature photography, and landscape. I really enjoy the close up look you can get with this lens. But, that’s not for everyone. Glad we have so many options!
Sold my 100-400 not long ago, too heavy. I remember when it was new I used to carry it with me hiking (yes, for real) and it didn't bother me too much since I was so excited for it, a different story after two years...
The moment I bought the 16-80 I fell for the convenience of small-zoom form factor, after that I remember I was always ready for excuses to leave the 100-400 at home, too heavy and too big!
To be fair though it's an incredible piece of glass, I took great photos with it, heck! I even tried some astro-stuff with it! Ah!
Hi! I agree completely - great lens, but, due to physics, too big and heavy for "casual" use. And, no matter how great the image quality, it does no good when sitting at home while using another lens. Glad you're enjoying the 16-80. I'm having lots of fun with that too, and think I have a nice 3-piece kit in the 10-24, 16-80 and 70-300 to cover almost all the angles ;) Happy holidays, and many thanks for sharing your comment.
@@MSladekPhoto My pleasure Michael! I fully agree with you, I'd like to get both the 70-300 and the 10-24 and call it a day, I'm just waiting for the announced 18-120 which might change the rules.
I loved the comparison of 100-400 and XF 70-300 lens. Can you please tell me if I buy the 70-300 lens with a teleconverter, can it reach the same distance as 100-400 mm? I tried to buy 70-300 mm for my fuji X-S10 and they are not available.
Hi! I’m so glad you found the comparison helpful. With the 1.4x teleconverter, you get a maximum of 420mm on the 70-300 and with the 2x teleconverter you can a max of 600mm. Hope that helps, and hope you can find one!
@@MSladekPhoto thank you for the reply. This is one of the lenses available at this time. Will this work for Fuji X-S10 "Sony FE 70-300mm SEL70300G F4.5-5.6 G OSS Lens"
@@nh6405 no, Sony lens won’t work on Fuji cameras
@@MSladekPhoto thank you. would you be able to do a video on Fuji X-S10 macro settings? I have a Touit 2.8/50m lens and still struggling with settings. Thank you
@@nh6405 Hi again. I don’t have an X-S10, so can’t do the video you requested, but generally for macro, when handheld, I t work to keep my shutter speed above 1/125 second to minimize camera motion (even with IBIS and OIS) and I usually use continuous focus and continuous low drive mode. I find if I take 3-5 photos, one will usually be sharp :) When on a tripod, shutter speed is less important, and I use single focus and single photo drive mode. Two things to remember with macro: 1) it’s important to know the minimum focusing distance of your lens; 2) your depth of field will be really shallow, so focus is critical, and I suggest using aperture of f/8 or f/11. Hope that helps!
I would like to have both, for different reason. The 300 for travel. The 100-400 for wildlife.
That would make a great combination!
Thanks for the video! Are those "worms" artifacts on the background bokeh? 70-300 seems pretty good
Hi! It's likely! Both of the these lenses have background out of focus blur that has as sense of motion to it, which may not be to everyone's preference. I REALLY like the 70-300. Such great image quality in a relatively small size for a good value price. Cheers!
@@MSladekPhoto I'm sorry this is not swirling bokeh, this is doubling and underlining. So disturbing in so many images I've seen. The 100-400 doesn't suffer from that.
@@HossDiaph Hi! I've seen similar bokeh look in the 100-400 that I used...
@@MSladekPhoto I’ve looked at a lot of comparisons. It has nothing to do. Even in your example, the 70-300 was giving some kind of warm effect. With simple background, no problem, but for foliage or any pattern, it’s one of the worst I’ve seen.
@@HossDiaph It sure sounds like the XF 70-300mm is not for you. I will continue to enjoy using mine, and wish you the best on your photo journey.
The 70-300 makes me want to sold of my trusty 55-200.
Hi Putra! Ive not used the 55-200, but only heard good things about it. I'm a big, big fan (obviously) of the 70-300. Best wishes on your decision and photos adventures!
Why is it that ever single pic with 100-400mm was shot at exactly 386mm? Seems like your exif data was possibly wrong.
Hi! That’s a great question! I have no clue about the answer, but it may indeed be incorrect exit data from the lens. Or could be mechanical with lens not actually zooming to 400mm…
@@MSladekPhoto man that would be crazy if it puts 386mm in exif when extended to 400mm on lens barrel.
@@EDHBlvd That’s exactly what happened.
For these photos of flowers, why not use something like the Laowa 65mm macro? Excellent lens, small and light weight, goes as close as you want it to and still goes to infinity!
Great complement to my lens collection. :)
The 70-300mm is for me great when I want a telelens that just has more reach but I want to travel light and not carry a 100-400mm monster lens with me. :)
Hi Tim! Thanks for the insight on the Laowa 65mm Macro. I don't have that lens, and am pretty much an autofocus guy, so likely that lens is not best fit for me. Here's to lots more exploring and photos with the 70-300!
@@MSladekPhoto I used to be an autofocus guy too and initially hesitated getting one of the Laowa manual focus only lenses but it was not hard for me getting used to it and it works great for me!
BTW I have the 70-300mm too and that's a great little lens as well. Very versatile.
@@MSladekPhoto PS: If you ever decide that you do want to get a "true" macro lens, then I'd highly recommend getting the Laowa instead of the Fuji 80mm macro because not only is it half the price, it is also half the weight, twice the magnification, and when shooting macro, I find that autofocus doesn't work well anyway so I will anyway shoot manual focus mostly!
(I've got both lenses and almost always prefer the Laowa, and nearly every time I do choose for the Fuji 80mm I'm disappointed afterwards with the number of shots actually sharp and in focus. With manual focus you are much more in control).
@@TimvanderLeeuw Hmmmm, I like the half price idea a lot ;) Does the Laowa have geared focus or is it focus by wire like Fuji (that I REALLY don't like)? Thanks for the suggestion!
@@MSladekPhoto It is real true manual focus. The Laowa lenses don't have any electronic coupling with the camera, so the camera doesn't record aperture either!
And that means the manual focus is real, true geared manual focus. Not focus by wire, which indeed is very annoying (on any camera system that uses it, not just Fuji).
I had the 100-400 paired with a xh2 and I was really disappointed, so much so I sent the lens back. I’m really hoping it was just a bad copy. The photos were hazy/out of focus at long distances not sharp at all. Has anyone else had this problem? By the way the subjects were stationary so shouldn’t be a focus system issue. I really want to try another one but as we know it’s not cheap to try lenses. I’m relatively new to Fuji and really want to buy into the system. I love the camera body and functions. Camera’s I own or have owned Nikon D3 Nikon D5 Nikon d5600 Canon 1Dx Canon R5 Fuji xh2 Sony a7ii Sony a7iii Sony a6600 so I do have some experience 😂 Another by the way mine did the same thing EXIF I think claimed 389 at 400mm most the time but sometimes would show the 400mm and I made sure I was at max zoom to verify.
Hi! Thanks for sharing your thoughts and experiences with the 100-400. Sorry you did not get the results you wanted from the lens. Have you considered the 150-600mm? I have not used it, except for some brief hands on time in camera store, but the results I've seen online and from what I've read about it, it's a great lens with more reach than the 100-400. Combined with the 70-300, and you have quite a bit of focal length options. Best wishes as you decide what to do next!
thanks for the review and info! very helpful :) - one constructive suggestion- stop with the uh...uhm... uh... in between everything you say- it is truly exhausting and distracting... as someone who has had to do a lot of presentations - I know how difficult that can be. but it would be a huge improvement to your video- thanks again!
Hi! Thanks for the kind words and feedback. I’m very much a work in progress. I think I’ve made some progress on the way I present in the year + since I recorded this video. Best wishes!
@@MSladekPhoto Right on buddy!
That photo at 13´...try to develop the raw file in DXO or Capture One and see if the background doesn't get less "swormy"...nice video!
Hi Andre! Thanks for the kind words and suggestions. I'll stick with Lightroom for now, but never say never ;)
@@MSladekPhoto sure, It’s just an experiment in an image that may well be suited for it…sometimes brings surprises…
It’s like are you a truck driver or a or Toyota daily driver. Thank you
Hi Christopher! Thank you for taking the time to share your comment. Glad you enjoyed the video!
The 100-400 is soft after 350mm, and with that 2x just becomes mush. Barely usable with the 1.4, as it is.
Thanks so much for watching and sharing your experience with the 100-400. Best wishes!
@@MSladekPhoto that sounded more disparaging than i intended it to haha, great lens, just a shame it's soft at the long end!
@@_trismegistus No worries! I get it. Comments sections can be…. Challenging. Lol. Take care!
1080 only? 🤔
Hi Alex! Yep, 1080p for the win. All videos I'm posting to the channel in 2023 and beyond are in 4K, and I invite you to watch them all ;)
@@MSladekPhoto thank you!
I'm really enjoying the video, and I'm agreeing with most of your points, however I think it is unfair to blame the shortcomings of your ball head on this lens. I'm pretty certain a beefier bald head would solve the drift problem, and 3lbs should not overburden one's tripod or head. Fyi, there are secondary supports one can purchase (aftermarket) for the front end of the 100 - 400mm Fuji lens.
Now... On with the video!
Also, from my experience using the 100 to 400 effectively is all about technique. You absolutely must support the end of the lens by placing your hand under the hood and your elbows against your torso, exhale and then take your shot. Trying to support the lens from the focus ring leaves too much wobbling around on the front end.
Hi! Many thanks for your comments and thoughts. Regarding ball head drift, the point I was not clear on was that an investment in the 100-400 will potentially also require an additional investment in a beefier bullhead versus the 70-100. To be clear, I was not blaming the ball head ;)
I completely agree about the importance of camera holding technique in using longer focal length lenses. Unfortunately, the lens I borrowed from Fujifilm did not include a lens hood...
Thanks so much for sharing your thoughts!!!
Nice comparison Michael. I am new to the Fujifilm system & only have 1 lens, the 18-55mm f2.8-4 so as I am looking fo a telephoto the 70-300mm would suit me perfectly on my X-S10 but we are still waiting for stock to arrive in the UK! I must admit I am not a huge fan of the fussy background bokeh on both these lenses, that might get annoying. With regards to the 100-400 lens showing 386mm even when shooting at 400mm, it is called 'focus breathing'. Funnily enough I have just watched a video where Duade Paton explains this phenomenon very clearly and shows examples from his lenses. Have a look: czcams.com/video/qDXsG9FhKCo/video.html
Hi Steve! Given your concerns about the bokeh, might be interesting to rent the 70-300 for a week to see for yourself how it renders with your photos. I’m not sure if the difficulty in finding the lens is due to the global chip shortage, the popularity of the lens, or a bit of both. Either way, welcome to the Fujifilm family and best wishes on your photography adventures!
@@MSladekPhoto Thanks Michael, appreciated. I guess we can blame the delay on Covid-19 or Brexit! Either way, it's frustrating. I do know Fujifilm was offering free try-before-you-buy hire here in the UK so I'll check it out thanks.
13:24 I think thats heat in bokeh.. Heat waves..
Hi! Interesting, I had not thought of that. Could be heat waves, but it was not that warm that day... Something to think about! Thanks :)
@@MSladekPhoto Hi. Thanks for the reply and great video. I just guessed that it could be heat waves. You know better because you were there. 😉
the 70-300 bokeh is just horrendous!
I agree that it may not be to everyone's taste, but I kind of like that it has personality ;)
I’m not arguing that the bokeh is worse on the 70-300 compared to the 100-400 in this comparison, but do keep in mind that the background makes a big difference in how smooth bokeh is. It’s not only up to the lens to get it looking smooth. I’ve had the 56mm APD lens for years and even that struggles with some backgrounds. I have the 70-300 now and have gotten some smooth backgrounds from it.
@@just_eirik Hi! Yes, the background type, distance, etc… is a huge part of bokeh rendering. I may have oversimplified ;) Thanks for clarifying!
@@just_eirik yes, but there are trends. And that harsh bokeh with difficult backgrounds translates to a busy one, with line doubling even in more forgiving situations. Can the bokeh be smooth in some situations with the 70-300? Absolutely, what counts is when we need the lens to obliterate a more complex surrounding.
@@MSladekPhoto line doubling, bad swirling, onion rings, these don’t imply character. They give a certain pattern that attracts the eye instead of the main subject.
Oh dear,so many people here complaining that the 100 to 400 is too heavy.
If you cant carry a mirrorless camera and a couple of lenses in your rucksack then it is pretty pathetic.Get a grip.
Hi Marc! Welcome to the internet, where people may and will have different opinions than you, and are allowed to share them. Also, the 100-400 does not fit in my rucksack, so I literally can not get a grip. Also, also, for me, the extra weight and cost versus my happiness with the capabilities of the 70-300, makes the 100-400 not the lens for me. One man’s opinion… Cheers!
Get on with it, talk about padding it out. This content should have taken half the time.
Hi Steve! Thanks for your feedback. By taking the time to engage with this video, you have increased the chances that others will see the "padded out" content. Did you notice, your critique also has a bit of padding? You could have just written, "Video was too long." Ironic... Best wishes as you hunt for appropriate length free CZcams content.
@@MSladekPhoto ouch📸
😎 📷
Dreadful film! Er, aar, er arrr. Use a script mate. Couldn’t finish it and I wanted too.
Hi Roger! Thanks for taking the time to share your comment and increase the engagement metrics on my channel. I wish you the best in finding a channel more to your preference. Cheers!
Here's a link to "the script" if you'd like to see what I said instead of listening to the way I speak. petapixel.com/2021/07/07/fujinon-xf-100-400mm-versus-xf-70-300mm-telephoto-lens-comparison/
Again, best wishes!
So another apples to oranges lens comparison, why would I say that, simple, they are both Fujifilm zoom lenses, they probably share the same type of controls such as ibis and focus limiter and a few other aspects, the main difference is weight, size/ length and most importantly focal length. I have the Fujifilm XT3, XT5 and XH 2, The 100-400 lives on my XH 2, the size of the body and grip is perfect for long or heavy glass, the 100100-400mm can be used on a XT body but it's size tends to overwhelm the body unless you have a battery grip. I have used 70-300mm glass on other bodies but for wildlife photography I find it a bit too short. I live not far from a park that I walk our dog in and most of the time I bring my XH 2 with the 100-400mm to photograph the local wild life. This morning we were at the park at 6:15am and at the far end of the park is a wooded area that has a creek running through it, today I had to shoot at 5000 ISO to get a photo of a blue heron hunting for breakfast, I got a few shots before he flew off. Even though the camera has IBIS along with the 100-400mm lens the shutter speed was not high enough once the bird took flight, my aperture was set at 5.6 . When I was driving out of the park I kept my eyes open for any other photo opportunity, just at the end of the road I spotted a young fawn with it's spots walking along the creek and was able to get a few nice photos before going into the woods, the 70_ 300 would have been a little short to get the photos that I was able to get, so if you're looking to photograph wildlife the 100-400mm is a better option.
Hi! Thanks for watching and sharing your thoughts and experiences with these two lenses. It is indeed apples to oranges comparison. But, these were the two lenses I was trying to decide between, so figured others might be in a similar situation. I'm glad we have so many lens options for the X-System now, and my current wish list lens is the XF 150-600mm. Have fun out there!