Fujifilm 100-400mm - A Practical Landscape Photography Review
Vložit
- čas přidán 24. 07. 2024
- I'm a huge fan of using telephoto lenses for my landscape photography, and I've been curious about the XF100-400mm for a long time, so I took it with me on a recent trip to Iceland, along with the 2x teleconverter, to see what it was like to use in the field.
Chapters
0:00 Intro
1:10 Size & Weight
1:49 Build
4:33 Focal Range & Use
8:31 Stabilisation
9:34 Image Quality
15:20 Conclusion
If you’d like to join me for a landscape photography workshop in Italy, Norway or Iceland next year I’ll be leading groups there in 2022. Check my website for more information www.andymumford.com/workshops/
If you're interested in purchasing any of the gear I use in this video, and you enjoy my videos, please support my work by clicking on the affiliate links below.
Thanks so much.
Camera & Lens:
Fuji X-T4 amzn.to/3hwoRsn
Fuji X-S10 amzn.to/3qCQzry
Fuji XF10-24mm amzn.to/3ug8AOs
Fuji XF55-200mm amzn.to/2YMVtE0
Fuji XF70-300mm amzn.to/312JKnP
Fuji XF100-400mm amzn.to/3nuzW2B
Drone:
DJI Air 2S amzn.to/2XfSJDW
Backpack & Tripod:
Gitzo Traveller Series 1 Tripod amzn.to/2CWyjnx
F Stop Kashmir Backpack amzn.to/3ATP5hQ
Camera insert for backpack moment.8ocm68.net/1Eggx
Filters:
PolarPro Quartzline ND16 (4 stop) amzn.to/2yxkZWs
PolarPro Quartzline ND1000 (10 stop) amzn.to/2YLwaFy
PolarPro Quartzline Polarizer amzn.to/2WkGV01
Website: www.andymumford.com
Instagram: / andymumfordphotography
Facebook: / andymumfordphotography
Music licensed via Epidemic Sound
Andy, thanks so much for keeping me grounded with my kit. I can't tell you how often I come back to your channel when I even have a thought about switching anything in my kit or even changing systems. I always can reach back to you and know that what I have is "good enough!"
Thanks so much for the comment Bill, really glad you find the videos useful.
I have this same feeling when I watch this channel!
Great review of the 100-400..... love your videos
Thanks so much, really glad you found it useful
Appreciate the objectivity and honesty very much. Thnx Andy.
Thanks so much, really glad you found it useful
Thanks for a great review and ditto images!
Thanks for watching, and for the comment
All the photos you captured are masterpieces.
Haha, thank you 🙏
Those shots in your conclusion, superb.
Thanks so much, glad you enjoyed them
Excellent review, thank you.
Thanks so much for the comment, glad you enjoyed it
Wise and really inspiring !
Thanks a lot !
Thanks so much, glad you enjoyed it
Great and informative video! ❤️
Thanks so much, glad you found it useful
Your videos are ALWAYS so practical and useful - thanks, as always, for sharing.
Thanks so much for the comment, really glad you found the reviews useful
Good review. Thanks 👍
Thanks so much, glad it was useful
Excellent work, as usual, and great photos!
I think your discussion are always spot on and never foregone! You deserve more subscrivers!
Thanks so much for the comment, really glad you find the reviews useful
Rented this lens for a trip to Alaska last year, absolutely loved it for the wildlife at Denali National Park, but I wasn't having to do any long hikes with it, it's definitely a beast.
Yup, beast is the word
Glad I watched. I really like my 70-300. It’s good enough for you it’s more than good enough for me. Cheers!
Thanks so much, really glad you found the video useful
Thanks for the review, Andy. I have started to think I will have my hiking lenses, and then my non-hiking lenses.
Yeah, this is heavy to carry, and compared with the 70-300 you don’t really benefit much from having it with you
Great review! I own this lens and use it primarily for bird photography and I have been quite happy with the results. I want to make it a priority to try and use it more for landscape. I rarely shoot landscapes at telephoto lengths but I really want to do more of that.
I went from the Nikon 200-500 to this Fujifilm 100-400 when I made the switch; the weight and size is a non-issue from me considering the size and weight of the Nikkor.
It is a great lens…I suppose it depends on what else you carry with you. I always have two bodies and a drone, so the weight adds up
Great review, as always. Andy, you’re the best landscape shooter out there! To me, the 100-400 is more of a wildlife lens; for landscape, I’ll stick to my trusted 55-200. The reach between 55 and 100 to me is super useful.
I agree with you about the reach between 55-100, it's absolutely essential to me. The 55-200 is an absolutely beautiful lens
Andy, thanks for sharing your experience. In the comparison pics, several of the 100-400 pics were brighter, eg the windshields were much lighter, than the other lens. Surprising if the aperture settings were the same. Every lens is so different. Thanks again for sharing.
Thanks for the comment, glad you found it useful. The brighter windscreen could simply be more light reflecting. There was a gap of about a minute between using the different lenses, and in that time the clouds had moved and let more light into the scene a little
My next lens for bird photography :). I have the 55 - 200mm for landscape. Great video, thanks! :)
Thanks so much, enjoy the lens
Thanks Andy for your candid thoughts on this lens. I always enjoy your reviews and have used the 55-200 for years, mostly for nature photography. I'm currently on a trip in the Canadian Rockies and have with me a 8mm Rokinon fisheye, a TT artisans 50mm, and Fuji's 16mm, the 18-135 and the 100-400. The latter is definitely a beast, but when it comes to wildlife I absolutely love it... On this trip I've been shooting bison, elk, grizzly bears and mountain goats, to name just a few. As you say, it's really well built and quite sharp. I find that if I'm hiking for up to 3 hours, the 18-135 and the 100-400 give me pretty good coverage and the 16mm doesn't add that much weight if I choose to bring it along.
Thanks so much for the comment Mike. I guess you'll be looking at the 18-20mm as a possibilty to replace the 18-135mm with that set up
Hi Andy😊 thanx for the rewiev. I have this lens myself. Use it for wildlife and zooming in on details in landscape. But your right its a heavy lens. An option would be 50-150 paired with the 1.4 converter. They fit perfect together and produce sharp images😊 best wishes from Norway😊
Thanks for the comment. You’re right, it pairs well with the 50-140mm, but that’s two heavy lenses, which for long hikes is quite a lot. I guess it all depends on what else you’re carrying….I have a second body, a wide or a mid range zoom, plus a drone, so there’s a lot of weight there. If you have no drone and just the one body then its more maneagable
i Andy, great review! Have been working on sports and the lens is very versatile, As you mentioned is a high quality lens. Cheers
Thanks so much for the comment, glad you enjoyed the video
Thank You Andy for the input! Obrigado e um Abraço!
One workaround to help prevent lens droop is to use a nodal rail to balance the lens. Or you could use a geared head.
Those are both good suggestions, but geared heads are heavy and I prefer to go light. A nodal rail is a good idea. I have one, but rarely take it with me, so maybe I’ll drop it in my bag for the next trip
I love my 100-400, its probably my most used lens because I love wildlife, however I also own the 55-200 and if I was traveling or carrying all day the 100-400 would stay home
yeah, its a great lens but a little too heavy for back packing
Great video 👌 which mode do you use for image stabilisation in the camera, image stabilisation mode 1 or 2 ? When using longer zoom lenses?
I love the 55-140mm which is razorsharp. And it nicely compliments with the 100-400mm which I also have with the 1.4 extension
That's a great combination. Heavy though
Excellent review with great shots. I have moved to Fuji from Canon to the X-T4, the main reason is the lighter weight of the camera and lenses and for the flip screen so that I can get low shots without having to get down on my knees on my aging legs. I have recently parted company with my beloved Canon 100-400mm lens which was brilliant but a brute to carry around. I have the Fuji 70-300mm lens so I think am sure that will be quite sufficient for my needs. Thanks again for your professional insight to this and other Fuji lenses.
Thanks for the comment. The 70-300 is a great lens, and on balance I think it’s the one I would choose
I haven’t used a teleconverter on mine, but I have been hiking all over with this lens because I am getting way sharper results than the 55-200 (which I still do have). It is heavy, but I still love framing landscape details with it….for me, its been worth hiking with it (and not small hikes).
Glad you're enjoying the lens
Ney Andy video? Oh, I am going to enjoy this one! COFFEE BREAK! I demand it!
haha, thanks so much. There’s actually going to be a lot of videos coming over the next couple of months…I’ve already got around 4 recorded, I just need to find time to edit them together.
@@AndyMumford Thank you so much. There's always something reassuring in your videos and the way you narrate your experiences, and I really learn a lot.
However, in this case I have the feeling you've been more encumbered by the sheer SIZE of this lens and you've been quite out of place. Me myself I don't know what or how I could use that kind of glass!
Waiting for the next reviews. Thank you so much :)
Man, you need to start that kind of video from your works - they are great!
Thank you 🙏
Thank you for another spot on review and again, excellent pictures. As you I prefer very much the smaller size of the 55-200mm telephoto lens. The smaller and lighter package brought me from Nikon full frame to Fuji and so I try to avoid the bigger lenses such as the 50-140mm and the 100-400mm. Even if they might be a little bit better concerning image quality.
But I ended up buying the 70-300mm + 1.4x teleconverter. I will try this combination for my trip to the Faroe Islands at the beginning of October. To cover the gap between the 10-24mm and the 70-300mm I will include my tiny 50mm 1:2 lens. So I hope that this will work well.
Greetings and keep up your excellent work. It is alway a pleasure viewing you videos.
Bernd
Thanks so much for the comment Bernd, glad you enjoyed the video. I think the 70-300mm is a brilliant option, and the fact that it works with the teleconverter is just an added bonus
At least 70-300 + 1.4tc is almost mandatory if you are going to shoot the puffins in the Faroe Islands (I'm not sure if in October they are still at the Mykines island).
I only had the 55-200 and it was sooo short to take the shots... I had to heavily crop them afterwards. For everything else it was rare to need more than the 200mm.
Enjoy the Faroe Islands!
@@gperpetuo thank you very much. I think it will be a little late for puffins at Mykines. Normally they leave at the start of September.
I can’t see taking this lens as a regular part of my camera bag. It seems more suited to being taken along for a specific purpose. A couple of years ago (at age 75) I hiked all over the Faroe Islands with the X-H1 and the 10-24, 16-55 and the 50-140. I found that gave me all the focal range I needed and didn’t find it to be uncomfortably heavy.
I think it has a very specific use case, mostly wildlife and sports. For landscape, particularly if you hike, I’m not sure what it offers that the much lighter 70-300 doesn’t
Would love to see a review of the 16-80. I have the 16-80 and the 10-24 and feel like my kit is a bit confused. As amazing as the 10-24 is I find that I rarely take advantage of it since the 16-80 covers most of that range. Considering getting the 55-200 but like you said in this video it also has a heap of crossover with the 16-80.
Fantastic video as always.
I want to do a review of the 16-80 as its a lens I’m interested in, so there definitely will be one. At the moment I’m in the Dolomites with the 16-55mm, and a few participants have the 16-80, so I’ll try to do some comparison shots
@@AndyMumford Thanks so much for the response. Looking forward to your next video.
Thanks for talking about the added weight on hikes Andy. I've been eyeing this for a while now, but, the weight puts me off every time. I already have the 10-24, 16-55 and the 50-140, so that already makes the bag weigh half a moon. I sometimes wish I had something longer than 140 in some situations, especially around mountains, but the 70-300 seems too short of a range to add to my existing lenses if I'm going to add one more lens to the bag.
Yeah, it’s a heavy lens. I’m hiking in the mountain now and really glad to now be carrying it
@@AndyMumford Great review, Andy. I had this lens and loved it for wildlife despite the size. Like you , Ritesh, I also had the 10-24, the 16-55 and the 50-140; plus the Laowa 9mm for astro. I can confirm that the weight of all that plus the 100-400 was just too much. I eventually sold all my Fuji gear (apart from a second-hand X-T3 and the 50-140 which I can't bring myself to part with) and went 2nd hand Sony: 16-55 and 70-350 (both stellar) with an A6600 (not great ergonomically but great AF and good IQ) and bought the Tamron 11-20/2,8 - which is also stellar as it enables me to shoot stars (pun intended...) and landscapes.The Sony/Tamron kit comes in at just under 2 kg with a reach from 11-350mm with just the 15mm gap from 55-70. I'm happy with that. Thanks again for your insights.
Really enjoy your videos Andy, you explain everything so we’ll and your photography is superb.
I’m moving from Nikon full frame to Fuji xt4, I noticed you use Premier Pro for your post production and being a Lightroom user I’ve heard that this is not so good with Fuji. I’m a bit reluctant to change from Lightroom but can you tell me if this would be a problem or is there any plug-ins that would solve this or should I bite the bullet and switch?
Hope you can help with this and thanks again for your videos.
Hi Mark, well I actually use Lightroom for around 90% of my images and I'm perfectly happy with it. I do occasionally use Capture One, and it is fantastic for colour work...images do tend to look better straight out of the camera, but with Lightroom you can get them to look almost the same.
I actually did make a video about getting used to Capture One if you're a Lightroom user. It's not all that much of a learning curve czcams.com/video/-qDrcbdibSc/video.html
Wonderful review, thanks for sharing. Would you be able to explain how the "zoom lock switch" works, is it a screw out or pull out knob, and is it to stop the lens from extending or is it to allow the lens to rotate for a vertical photos when using the tripod mount, thank you
Thanks for the comment. The zoom lock is to to stop zoom creep, which is the barrel creeping out or back on it's own. It's just a switch that locks the barrel in place
Just a small (and humble) tip... This lens performs much better with the 1.4x teleconverter. With the 2xx it goes far too soft in my point of view. For long hikes, I would definitely be switching to a 70-300 (+1.4x) and perhaps, perhaps a sturdier ball-head.
I’ve heard the 1x4TC is much better. I originally asked Fuji for it, but they didn’t have it and so I borrowed the 2x instead
I haven’t used a teleconverter on mine, but I have been hiking all over with this lens because I am getting way sharper results than the 55-200 (which I still do have). It is heavy, but I still love framing landscape details with it….for me, its been worth hiking with it (and not small hikes).
Amazing video!
Did you use any CPL filters when shooting with it? Do you think it makes a difference when shooting trough atmosphere for such long focal lengths?
Thanks so much, really glad it was useful. I do use CPL filters with long lenses. They’re great for cutting through haze
Dear Andy, I hope you are well and safely home from your recent trip to Iceland?
I too am just back from an amazing holiday (on the Isle of Skye) and wanted to share with you some of my (lens) experiences, hope that's OK?
Lugging lots of kit around whilst hiking (and on a holiday) is never a good thing so it forces some decision making before you set off. Most days I took my XT3 with the 70-300 and a 1.4TC in case I needed a bit more 'reach'.
This combo served me well when there were waterfalls on the far side of valleys for example or gushing water with attractive rock formations or misty mountain tops etc. However, on the rare occasions when the sun shone and the water in the lochs was mirror still, I missed the 55-200 which would have helped to include more of the stunning reflections and, I felt, give a greater sense of scale. I was able to get some lovely sharp photos though, mostly of herons sitting on buoys out on the water, usually about mid way across the loch.
I also carried the 27mm pancake lens, which actually (surprisingly) got me the best photo of an approaching sea eagle.
However I often wished I'd taken along my 23mm of 10-24 to simply get more into a shot when great views presented themselves (The Quiraing or Fairy Glenn for example).
I did take the 100-400 out on a boat trip and got some great close up shots of the seals (it does take amazing pictures that's for sure) but it was pretty hopeless for flying birds and even the ones (sea eagles) that we saw perched in a tree were still too far away even if I added the 1.4 TC. The skipper of our boat would not go in too close as this might scare the birds away (and he would lose his income).
As you say in your video the 100-400 has great 'specific uses' and takes great pictures but, like you, I think it is too heavy for casual hikes / postcard photos.
I have concluded (my theory is...) that the best wildlife photos are obtained when the wildlife is persuaded to come and sit (eat) near a hide as close to you as is possible to you and on these occasions one won't need the reach of a 100-400. I intend to try out my theory by going on a course run by Gary Jones (the Osprey photographer) and see how I get on using a selection of lenses such as the 55-200 and the 70-300 with / without the TC. I'll take the 100-400 though, just in case...
All the best, and sorry if this was a bit long...
Peter
Hi Peter, thanks for the comment. I totlally agree, the 100-400 really is a very specific use lens, and I've heard it focuses a little slow for it to be a good wildlife lens. I really think the 70-300mm has made it redundant in a lot of ways
I have the same one, more for birds. I've tried both converters and found the 2.0X very soft, the 1.4X is ok.
Yeah, I have to say i wasn’t impressed by the 2x TC
Hi Andy thanks for reviewing this Lens! Have you heard about the Tamron 18 to 300mm lens for Fuji X mounts? I’m looking to get one because of it’s wide focal range! And it retails here in Australia for $1000 which is affordable for me.
Thanks for the comment, glad you enjoyed the video. I’ve heard of the Tamron, and it’s an interesting focal length, but there’s always a pay off with a zoom that big and I’ll be surprised if it performs as well as something like the 16-80 or 70-300. But of course it,ll weight a lot less
@@AndyMumford thank you Andy I can always trust your good judgment on gear 👍🏽
Very useful review with great shots to show the potential of the lens; thanks! Kind of relieved to hear that your sturdy Gitzo ball head shows the same downward creep with a long lens attached to the camera as my "cheap" 3 Legged Thing ball head. ;-) Fortunately, that creep stops at some point so that it can be compensated for. Still pretty annoying.
Yes, it’s a thing with almost every ball head. I’ve just changed this ballhead (Gitzo) for a Really Right Stuff ballhead, and even though its better, it still happens
For the reach it might pair well with the 50-140mm, but that means carrying two heavy, big lenses.
I guess for travelling light, the 16-80mm + 70-300mm is a much better combination!
Plus the 10-24 of course. 🙂
@@stephenschmid492 yeah of course! But the topic was the long end, not the short end, of the focal range. 😁
Yeah, the 50-140 is logical in terms of focal length, but as you say, that’s two of Fuji’s heaviest zooms. I think the 16-80 and 70-300 are a brilliant combination, and at some point next year I’ll probably take this two on a trip together
@@AndyMumford I slimmed down to 16-80/70-300 only issue is both too slow for night shots walking around city or indoor etc. tempted to just buy some cheap f1.4 lens. Currently have the 23f2 as my night lens. I think 18-300 of the Tamron coming out would be interesting with the 10-24.
16-80 and 70-300 plus 1.4x teleconverter is enough for most ocasions, and great convenience (for me).
I think thats an excellent combination
I use this lens for wildlife and it's great. Only wish it was brighter and with constant aperture. That being said I can't imagine carrying it up the hill.
Haha, yeah, it’s a big heavy lens
Thank you for the practical review of the lens. Had switched to Fuji when I got the XE2 kit and a XF55200 back in 2013 Dec.
When Fuji published their lens road map with XF100-400 had been drooling over it since I was missing the longer focal length of my erstwhile SONY (70-300G) for especially birding. Took the plunge in 2018 and got a XF100-400. Yes, it is a hulk of a lens. To lessen the burden and fund a new lens had to part with XF55-200. A bit of a regret though.
The focal length gap illustration is something I liked. However, no one considers the crop factor for APSC!! So isn't the gap from 82.5mm to 150mm or a huge 67.5mm in FF terms?
Thanks for the comment, glad you enjoyed the video. The focal range gap between the 16-55 and 100-400 in full frame terms would be equivalent to 82mm to 150mm
I'll be pairing my 18/135 with the 70/300 which is probably enough to travel with; a 12mm prime completes my travel kit.
That sounds like a good set up
Thank you for reviewing this lens. I had been looking for a zoom telephoto to complement my 16-80. I don’t have an issue with the weight as I also shoot medium format film cameras. This lens along with my other Fuji gear and accessories still weighs much less than I typically carry for film work. The 400mm is a bit of an overkill for me I n terms of reach, but at this time neither Fujifilm USA nor any of the sellers I typically use (like B&H) had the 70-300mm lens in stock. Also I really wanted to try a Fujifilm red badge lens and this lens is currently reduced by $400. I have been trying out this lens for a few days and I’m sure I have been expecting too much. I’m used to zooming in with Lightroom and seeing what I feel is excellent detail with my 16-80 lens. I’m sure I was quite naive because upon zooming in on a 400mm image shot at around 350 yards, I somehow thought I would see significant detail on the trunk of a 4 inch diameter tree. I was disappointed at first until I thought about the distance involved and relative small diameter of the tree. I’m just not at all used to a telephoto with this kind of reach. I used tripod and shot at f11 on a sunny day with some quite harsh shadows. Anyway I am continuing to test the lens and probably should become more familiar with manual focusing using the focus peak feature. I suspect if I use manual focus I might find my images have better detail. Thank you for your videos as I find them very instructive and inspiring.
Thanks for the comment
@@AndyMumford Andy I’m struggling a bit with the sharpness I would like at anything around the 300-400mm focal lengths with this lens. I have seen some information regarding turning off IBS with longer lenses if using a tripod, suggesting that the IBS can introduce enough vibration to soften focus. I’d really be interested in your advice. Thank you!
im considering switching my entire kit to xf fuji from sony and here is some of my thoughts. (my current kit is an xpro3 for 35mm, and an a7r3 with 14mm, 24mm, 90mm macro, 135mm, and 150-600mm, and I mostly use 14mm, 135mm or 150-600mm)
when you discuss what you would bring with you, since this lens is about equivalent to FF 150-600, i would bring a xf23mmf1.4 and xf90mmf2 and the upcoming xf8mmf3.5 would be a fantastic trio in an XF kit imo. 35mm FF equivalent for enjoying walkaround/landscape/street, with 90mm as 135mm FF equivalent for tighter walkaround/landscape + portraits, 8mm as 12mm FF equivalent for a much wider angle when xf23mm doesn't cut it, and the 100-400 as the FF150-600 equivalent for super tight frames like mountain peaks, birds, jets, etc.
Interesting lens selection. I'm curious about the upcoming 8mm as well, but annoyed it's just f3.5, which make it not much use for astro or aurora
Great review. Sounds like you would better off with the XF 50-140 f2.8. That covers your sweet spot...and pair it with the XF 16-55 f2.8 for wide shots.
Tha 50-140mm is a great lens, but I prefer the 55-200. For landscapes at f8 the difference in sharpness is pretty much negligible, and it's a lot lighter and smaller to carry. I actually compared them side by side in a video a few years ago.
For sure, if I were shooting portraits or action, where the faster focus of the 50-140m, as well as the faster aperture were important then I'd prefer it, but for landscapes in the middle of the aperture range the difference isn't enough to justify the significant extra weight and bulk for me.
Hi Andy. In the side-by-side comparison was the image on the left shot with a polarizer on the lens as well? It seems that the car windows in the left image have a lot less reflections than in the right (like around 10:40 in the clip). Unless my eyes are deceiving me...
Hi Andrei. I’d not actually noticed that about the reflextions, but you’re right. I wasn’t using a polarizer, what it could be is the light getting stronger as the sun moved from behind a cloud. The shadows on the street are also a little bit darker
I'm looking forward to your 16-80 F4 review because I've heard a lot of mixed reviews about it. I currently have the 18-55 R LM OIS F2.8-F4 and the 70-300 F4-F5.6 R LM OIS WR. It gives the best Price/Quality/Weight/Max Zoom compromise I think I can find but it does have the 55-70 gap you've mentioned. I've almost conceded that the 16-80 and the 18-55 won't do what the other does better and both would be better than one at the expense of weight and price. Maybe the recently announced 150-600 would make a good 18-55, 50-200, 150-600 combo depending on price/weight/quality etc. Or the recently announced 18-120, 150-600.
That 16-80 review is taking a long time coming because Fuji Portugal never have it when I need it. I’m actually in the Dolomites at the moment with the 16-55, which I’ll review. There are a few participants here with the 16-80, and I’m planning on doing some comparison shots with it. But there will be a full review at some point as I’m really curious about that lens
@@AndyMumford The 16-55 vs your participants' 16-80 sounds like a great idea!
Also, thanks for replying. 99.99% of CZcamsrs don't take the time to reply.
Starting to find these for almost half the retail price used. Someone local is selling one for $900 USD, and debating on it since I got my X-H2 with a 16-80 kit.
It's a great lens
Thanks Andy, great review! Which teleconverter would you recommend to combine with the 70-300 for moonrises/moonsets scenes? The extra reach of the 2x seems promising to get big moons in the frame, but the loss of light compared with the 1.4x in that low light situations makes the decision difficult.
I wasn’t at all impressed with the 2x, and I’ve heard the 1.4x is much better. I think the extra reach isn’t so important when it’s quite soft. I’d say you’d be fine with the 1.4x
@@AndyMumford great, thanks so much!
@@santiagommc second that on the 2x being extremely soft. I was disappointed and sold it
@@agvogel thank you! Great to have this feedback of actual users
It does have zoom creep with lens hood on and gets soft above 200mm,I use it for BIF, Focus is slow and searches a lot. I've used Canons 100-400mm V2, Nikon 200-500mm, Olympus 300mm F4, Canon 300mm F2.8 . Fujifilm 100-400mm is bottom of the list for image results.
May i ask what AFC settings you use? Singlepoint or zone? 1-5 or custom? Center auto or front?
I have the 18-55 and the 10-24 but struggling to choose between the 70-300 and 100-400 any suggestions
I’d go for the 70-300mm…I think it’s better and more flexible than the 100-400, especially because it gives to a small gap after 55mm to your telephoto
Any thoughts on the upcoming Tamron 18-300?
Interesting focal length, but usually with something with that range there’s a compromise in quality. I’ll wait till I see it
Would have been good to have shots of 55-200 and 100-400 at the long end so we could see a direct comparison on focal length
Hi Andy :) I notice you using the XS-10 with this lens in Iceland, any issues with that camera in cold, wet, locations ?
I've been using it almost in year in some pretty harsh conditions in Iceland and the Dolomites and not had any issues with the weather sealing. I'll be taking it on three trips in sub zero winter conditions in the new year and I'm not worried about its capabilities. You can check the review I did of it here czcams.com/video/oJ6Vu64qzCM/video.html
@@AndyMumford many thanks good to know
I love my 55-200 but I just broke it, this looks like an awesome piece of kit, but I will probably get another 55-200 or 70-300, thanks for a great review Andy.
Both of those lenses are awesome
Wow! I just ordered a used one hoping it would exceed my 50-140mm with 2.0X/1.4X teleconverters. Would the 100-400 be useful for amateur astronomy photography? I thought the 70-300mm might have been another choice. But, I can't find one, and I like the build quality of the Red Badge lenses.
It's a lovely lens, but for astro I'm not sure it's going to get enough light into it. I guess it's about the same as the 50-140mm with the T/Cs, as they cut a few stops of light, but it's still going to be quite dark.
@@AndyMumford Thanks for the reply. I'll give it a shot, pun intended ;) I have a few days to return it. Let's hope the night sky cooperates. I do have to crop quite a bit using the 50-140mm with the 2X teleconverter. I'm hoping less cropping with the 100-400mm works. But moon shots of course will not be my only use. As an amateur I only have to please myself ;)
The great news from your reviews is not about the lens but the comfortability pairing with X-S10 , I already sold my X-T20 and I've been thinking to get the used X-S10 and selling my X-T2, trimming the size and weight in the bag cause the 16-55 & 50-140 eat all the space in the bag 😀, based on your experience is the non weather shield camera though enough for regular landscape? I had been 1 year with X-T20 in dusty, humid and light rain environment without any issues, do you think the X-S10 on par with X-T20 toughness?
Yeah, I think the X-S10 is comparable with the X-T20 in terms of robustness and weather resistance. I’ve used it outdoors for over a week in Iceland in some challenging weather, as well as waterfall spray, and now it’s been with me for two weeks in the Dolomites where there’s been a lot of moisture. I don’t really worry about it and plan to have it as my second camera going forward. Of course in persistent rain it’s better to use a rain cover. It also handles better with zooms than the XT30 because of that deep grip (although it’s nowhere near as pretty :-))
@@AndyMumford Glad to hear the good news based on your experience in the field, the deep grip is another advantages for a bigger lens such as the 16-55/50-140.
Man every time I watch your videos I’m like “I really gotta get a 55-200” haha. Nice review.
It’s a great lens. Go for it
Thanks!
Thanks for watching
Finally!
Haha, sorry it took so long.
I owed two of them, purchased brand new from Fuji authorized dealer, they both creped, if they were not locked when, I walked with them on my shoulder.
Interesting. I’ve only had the experience with this one, and as I said, it’s an old model that Fuji Portugal have had for years, and the zoom was super tight
@@AndyMumford You probably didn't carry it long enough in upside down position, like I do.
I think it's time to make a aerialphotography video!
Maybe. I'm shooting more and more aerial stuff
The only photography-related question on my mind for the past month is: “Will Andy Mumford use the Tamron 18-300mm and replace other lenses with it, or will it not be of equivalent quality to Fuji?”
Thanks for the comment. I'm not sure whether I'll review it or not....I don't have confidence in the lens having that much quality, it's rare for a lens with such a range from wide to telephoto to not make significant compromises so I can't see myself buying the lens. If I get to borrow it though, I'll make a review of it.
Those are my exact thoughts, too. I’ve seen some very favorable takes on the lens but I keep thinking “OK, 18-300 is super cool-like epically convenient-but unless it’s 2-3x the size of the 55-200 or 70-300, which it’s not, it can’t POSSIBLY produce image quality as fine as they do.” I hope you do get a chance to try it, though, because I probably trust nobody’s opinion as much as yours.
thanks for this review Andy
I think this lens is supposed to sit next to the 50-140 f2.8, and if I shot more stills with my X-T4 I'd get that.
as it is I'm happy with the 100-200 on my GFX :-)
Maybe, but that’s two of Fuji’s heaviest lenses to carry. It’s not ideal for landscapers who hike
Not that it's not great for landscapes, but it's probably more targeted at wildlife shooters (who also hike). For things like birds in flight the construction and high weight is a necessary compromise to get best possible AF and optical performance at the long end. And it's not that bad for people who really want a 400mm F2.8 or 600mm F4 to carry around if the budget had allowed it.
What about the 150-600?
I'll have a review up in the next month or so
👏👏👏🤘😘
🙏🙂
This is definitely not lens for me - I use Fuji because of the size of the system and that lens is massive 😅 Currently I am using xf18-55 as main midrange zoom and xc50-230 as my telephoto. I decided to upgrade the latter after recent trip because it is a bit too soft for my in the long end. I would like to go with cf70-300 but it is currently hard to get in my area
I agree, it kind of defeats the object of why I use Fuji lenses
Dear Andy, I am fortunate enough ( I know...) to own the 55-200, the 70-300 and the 100-400 and recently have had great fun using the 70-300 with a 1.4 TC and an 11mm Extension tube combo on my XT3
The 70-300 is both lighter and more versatile because with the TC and EX attached I can get in really (unbelievably) close but if I take out the EX I'm back out to 420 (300 x 1.4) and with less weight than the 100-400.
I only bought the 70-300 because my 55-200 wouldn't take the TC but boy am I glad that I did. Like you though I do miss the 55-70 width sometimes...I think I am resolved to take the 55-200 mostly (it's a great lens) and the 70-300 (plus TC + EX) if I know I'm going to want more reach.
I'm wondering if the 16-80 will take the TC, if it does I might trade in my trusty 55-200...on we go eh. Thanks for the great videos and inspiration, stay safe and please keep up the great work, Cheers Peter
Thanks for the comment Peter, it’s interesting to hear how many people really rate the 70-300. I think it’s a great lens but that 55-70 gap bothers me a lot. I’m thinking more and more about the 16-80 (which doesn’t take the TC by the way) to cover that gap but haven’t been able to borrow one yet. I’m here in the Dolomites right now, and have the 16-55mm along with the Laowa 9m for when I want to go extra wide. I’ve liked the 16-55 a lot and it’s got me thinking that if the 16-80 is decent, then the 9mm, the 16-80 and the 70-300 might be the way to go. I do love the 10-24 and 55-200, but if the 16-80 compares comparitively with the 10-24 then this might be a better option. One of the participants on the workshop has one, so I did some comparison shots with the 16-55, and at some point, when I can get hold of a 16-80, I’ll have a review up
@@AndyMumford What do you think with switching the 10-24 with Laowa 9mm especially if you already have the 16-55, cause that 16-24mm range already overlapping and the the small factor of the Laowa kindly interesting.
@@yannote8302 I’m actually using the 9mm instead of the 10-24mm on this trip because I’ve brought the 16-55 with me, and I’m actually finding it works. Until I get home I can’t give an accurate idea of whether I’m happy with the image quality of the Laowa, but it seems good so far. If course it’s a manual focus lens, so if you shoot a lot in AF you have to remember to focus properly (with a wide angle it’s not always clear on the screen that you’re slightly out of focus) and there is a bit of distortion, particularly when you’re shooting in vertical mode. But, I’m seriously thinking of keeping this as my kit, or using the 16-80 and 70-300 with the 9mm going forward.
@@AndyMumford eagerly waiting for your good news :) , honestly I never excited with the 16-80 maybe I don't have much time testing in the store side by side with the 16-55 I bring my notebook at the store and in short period it looks the 16-55 have better sharpness, contrast and color rather than the 16-80 and at that time there is the shutter shock problem issue so finally I pick the 16-55 it's heavier, bigger, more expensive and without IS :)
I wunder why you dont talk about the XF50-140mmF2.8 R LM OIS WR.... this would fit your work 100% and it is a Red Lable and it weighs only 995g.
It's a great lens no doubt, but not for me. I spoke about it here czcams.com/video/MaQtTKRRphI/video.html
I want to see you doing a video with Nigel Danson
I don't actually know him, and I'm not sure he's ever heard of me
@@AndyMumford he's a landscape photographer and he have a CZcams channel like you, you are both great photographer
Wow, 50Kms in 7 hours and taking photos! Impressive fitness.
Haha, no. 15km hikes, and being out for 7 hours. We stopped lots for photo sessions.
@@AndyMumford Ah, that is more my distance. Great review as one who has both the 55-200 and the 100-400. The 55-200 is my hiking lens, the 100-400 for nature, mainly deer in the South of England. Keep up the great reviews.
Andy, now that you have all (or almost all?) the comparisons for fuji tele lenses I wonder why you keep ignoring 55-230 existence in every video? 😃Are you not satisfied with that lens at all?
The 55-230 is an XC lens, rather than an XF lens, so I tend to overlook it. I’ve heard quite a few times that it can be quite soft, and it doesn’t really have much that the 55-200 doesn’t..and that lens is already plenty light enough for me
That lens is okay for casual stuff and you can get some decent shots with it, but, it's not sharp or bright enough for any serious work.
I can assure that this lens does have zoom creep. There’s even a lock you can engage because of it.
All I can say is that the copy I borrowed didn't creep, and it wasn't a new lens at all
@@AndyMumford Mine creeps and I've seen multiple reviews say it does.
@@martinlundkristiansen3859 Guss I must just be lucky and have the only copy that doesn't creep then 🤔
@@AndyMumford Apparently so.
Sorry Andy, Capture 1 not Premier Pro.
Got it 😊
3 tiny screws siting in plastic holding heavy front elements . VERY cheap.
Seems like a very biased review, i understand it’s from a practical landscape viewpoint, but things like amount of lenses you’re carrying, the feeling of its weight, gaps in other focal lengths, many of these things are highly subjective and are up to the discretion of the user, and aren’t directly relative to the abilities of the lens itself. Like at the end of the day, does it shoot sharp? How much does it weigh relative to other lens? Are there comparable lens for the price? What are its features? These are the things I’d expect to hear about. Not everyone goes out on multi-hour hiking journeys with several water bottles so I think it’s irrelevant, most people aren’t doing that and again it’s subjective. I just think this review can confuse someone who would otherwise buy it because some of those extremely subjective experiences have tainted your experience. This is otherwise a good review, and I liked the comparisons between the 55-200 and the 400. The point about teleconverter usage was also interesting, although I probably wouldn’t use one myself. Seems like this lens would be pretty neat for some moon shots.
It's not biased. To attempt to review the lens outside of my experience and usage would be equally dishonest and pointless. This isn't a review channel, it's a landscape photography channel, and as a Fuji landscape photographer I reviewed the lens from that perspective. Peo
Every review on CZcams is subjective, that's what any opinion is and in all my reviews I make it pretty clear what I'm interested in when I use a lens and review it from that perspective.
If that doesn't interest or isn't relevant to you, no problem, other reviews and opinions are available aplenty.
Dont complain about the weight, you went there for taking fotos, not for drinking 2l of water 😂
Well, it’s a fact that its a heavy lens, and if you’re going to be hiking with it then it0s something you need to take into account. Something like the 70-300 will give you more or less the same at less than half the weight, which means you can carry an extra lens or a spare body
I use this lens for wildlife and it's great. Only wish it was brighter and with constant aperture. I can't imagine carrying it up the hill.
Yeah, it's a great lens, but it weighs a tonne