k-hawinkler
Well-known member
2x TC on Sony is the better choice. :thumbup:
The GetDPI Photography Forum
Great to see you here. Join our insightful photographic forum today and start tapping into a huge wealth of photographic knowledge. Completing our simple registration process will allow you to gain access to exclusive content, add your own topics and posts, share your work and connect with other members through your own private inbox! And don’t forget to say hi!
XF 200mm f2 WR lens
- Thread starter bensonga
- Start date
biglouis
Well-known member
I can't even begin to work out what the minimum aperture is with 2x - is it f11???
LouisB
k-hawinkler
Well-known member
That depends on the lens.
For FE 400/2.8 it’s 800/5.6.
For FE 100-400/4.5-5.6 it’s 800/11.
The Sony A9 could always AF-C up to f/11.
Now with FW 5.0 it can AF-C up to f/16 IIRC.
k-hawinkler
Well-known member
The images above were at 800mm f/11, this one at 400mm f/5.6.
Last edited:
I can add my two penneth to this thread. I tried a pre production XF 200mm on my X-H1 last year and after a very brief test outside the shop I was impressed with the AF accuracy and the sharpness of the resulting couple of images I took (unfortunately I've deleted them as I decided I wasn't going to buy the lens). This came on the back of me selling the XF100-400mm which is, without a doubt, the worst Fuji lens I've tried to date. On the up side, at around the same time I bought the GF250mm and 1.4xTC for my Fuji GFX50S. That lens is simply stunning. No use for wildlife I hear you shout? Not for birds in flight, I'd agree, but for static wildlife, I've used it quite a bit. Here's a couple of examples, the 2nd shot is taken with the TC attached. I can't see any loss of IQ when using it:
Common Starling by Mark, on Flickr
Chaffinch by Mark, on Flickr
Common Starling by Mark, on FlickrChaffinch by Mark, on Flickr
bab
Active member
Also please remember when using long glass there are many other factors associated with wide open apertures, and setting your camera to HIGH GAIN that corrupts the IQ. This is especially true sending on light direction given any lenses ability to achieve micro contrast and sharpness which will eliminate 99% of lens choice. I don’t shoots birds in flight or static anymore but when I did it was a real challenge so I congratulate you on the images and your patience.I can add my two penneth to this thread. I tried a pre production XF 200mm on my X-H1 last year and after a very brief test outside the shop I was impressed with the AF accuracy and the sharpness of the resulting couple of images I took (unfortunately I've deleted them as I decided I wasn't going to buy the lens). This came on the back of me selling the XF100-400mm which is, without a doubt, the worst Fuji lens I've tried to date. On the up side, at around the same time I bought the GF250mm and 1.4xTC for my Fuji GFX50S. That lens is simply stunning. No use for wildlife I hear you shout? Not for birds in flight, I'd agree, but for static wildlife, I've used it quite a bit. Here's a couple of examples, the 2nd shot is taken with the TC attached. I can't see any loss of IQ when using it:
biglouis
Well-known member
I am surprised you state the 100-400 is the worst fuji lens you've tried. I took the plunge and moved from an m43rds based system for birds/wildlife to the X-T3 and 100-400 and have been very pleased with the results (which you can see in the X-T3 thread in this part of the forum). Perhaps you had a bad copy.
I also own the GFX50S and have thought about adding either the 100-200 or the 250 as a bird portrait rig. I tried some test shots with the GF 120 and was impressed with what I pulled out but of course it is way too short for most circumstances.
But before I'd spend the dough on a GF250 I'd have to think seriously about whether to go the whole hog and get the XF 200mm instead. It would make more sense in the long run on the X-T3 than the 250, even with the TC1.4x on the GFX if only because the speed of the AF.
Just my two cents.
LouisB
I also own the GFX50S and have thought about adding either the 100-200 or the 250 as a bird portrait rig. I tried some test shots with the GF 120 and was impressed with what I pulled out but of course it is way too short for most circumstances.
But before I'd spend the dough on a GF250 I'd have to think seriously about whether to go the whole hog and get the XF 200mm instead. It would make more sense in the long run on the X-T3 than the 250, even with the TC1.4x on the GFX if only because the speed of the AF.
Just my two cents.
LouisB
Last edited:
I may have had a bad copy but quite a few people I've spoken to or read reports from who've either owned or used the 100-400mm haven't been too impressed. I found that with static subjects which were fairly close it would just about get acceptable results from, anything at a distance or moving at more than walking pace, no chance. This defeated the object for which I bought it so I sold it.
ptomsu
Workshop Member
Sorry Marc,
but this is completely false WRT Fuji 100-400. I owned this lens for more than 2 years and if I miss one thing really from my Fuji setup it is this lens. Absolutely the best tele-zoom I have ever shot and I have shot quite a lot.
So either you must have had a bad copy or I don't know what happened, but the Fuji 100-400 is an absolutely stunning lens!
k-hawinkler
Well-known member
Thanks Marc. Could your camera have been lacking with that lens?
All I can say is I'll tell it like it is and my results with the 100-400 I owned were unimpressive. I tried it on 3 bodies and it was the same story in all cases. I accept that others have better experiences with different versions of the same product, I may well have had a particularly bad copy, I know it was a real disappointment to me as every other lens I've had from Fuji (XF and GF) has been excellent.