Site Sponsors
Results 1 to 32 of 32

Thread: XF 200mm f2 WR lens

  1. #1
    Super Duper
    Senior Member
    bensonga's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Alaska
    Posts
    2,796
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    1029

    XF 200mm f2 WR lens

    Any one here with this seemingly rare and impressive lens? Photos etc to share?

    https://www.thephoblographer.com/201...ifilm-x-mount/

    https://www.photographyblog.com/revi..._ois_wr_review



    Gary
    Likes 1 Member(s) liked this post

  2. #2
    Super Duper
    Senior Member
    k-hawinkler's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    The "Land of Enchantment"
    Posts
    4,623
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: XF 200mm f2 WR lens

    That should be similar with what you get from the Olympus FT 150/2 SHG, no?
    With best regards, K-H.
    Likes 1 Member(s) liked this post

  3. #3
    Super Duper
    Senior Member
    bensonga's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Alaska
    Posts
    2,796
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    1029

    Re: XF 200mm f2 WR lens

    True...and when I finally decided to buy an Oly 150/2, when I checked back on the one I had been keeping my eye on for so long it had been sold!

    Gary

  4. #4
    Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2015
    Posts
    39
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: XF 200mm f2 WR lens

    Quote Originally Posted by k-hawinkler View Post
    That should be similar with what you get from the Olympus FT 150/2 SHG, no?
    No, unfortunately not. It should be similar to an Oly 150mm f/1.4, (or to a 300mm f/2.8 in 35mm format) due to equal depth of field. But that one doesn't exist.

    So now you might get an idea where the price difference Fuji vs Oly may come from....

    Regards,
    Jaap.

  5. #5
    Super Duper
    Senior Member
    iiiNelson's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Kentucky
    Posts
    4,576
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: XF 200mm f2 WR lens

    Quote Originally Posted by bensonga View Post
    Any one here with this seemingly rare and impressive lens? Photos etc to share?

    https://www.thephoblographer.com/201...ifilm-x-mount/

    https://www.photographyblog.com/revi..._ois_wr_review



    Gary
    I donít have pics to share but itís an impressive lens for sure. I tried one out at the local XT3 launch event. If I were a sports or wildlife shooter firmly invested into Fuji X system then it would be on my short list of ďmust haveĒ lenses for the system.
    Visible Light & IR Photographer
    http://www.iiinelsonimages.com

  6. #6
    Super Duper
    Senior Member
    bensonga's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Alaska
    Posts
    2,796
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    1029

    Re: XF 200mm f2 WR lens

    Quote Originally Posted by JaapD View Post
    No, unfortunately not. It should be similar to an Oly 150mm f/1.4, (or to a 300mm f/2.8 in 35mm format) due to equal depth of field. But that one doesn't exist.

    So now you might get an idea where the price difference Fuji vs Oly may come from....

    Regards,
    Jaap.
    DOF is one aspect for comparing these lenses. Equivalent FOV when mounted on the relevant camera and light gathering at the maximum aperture are others. For two out of those three, the Olympus 150mm f2 is equivalent to the Fuji 200mm f2. I'm sure that is what K-H had in mind.

    Gary
    Thanks 1 Member(s) thanked for this post
    Likes 3 Member(s) liked this post

  7. #7
    Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2015
    Posts
    39
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: XF 200mm f2 WR lens

    Quote Originally Posted by bensonga View Post
    DOF is one aspect for comparing these lenses. Equivalent FOV when mounted on the relevant camera and light gathering at the maximum aperture are others. For two out of those three, the Olympus 150mm f2 is equivalent to the Fuji 200mm f2. I'm sure that is what K-H had in mind.

    Gary
    In your ‘two out of three’ line of thinking are you really saying that it is valid to compare a Oly 150mm f/1.4 against a (non existing 35mm format) Canon 300mm/ 1.4? Such Canon lens would have a front element diameter of at least 214mm. This is absolutely ridiculous.

    Lens comparison between formats should be against equal field of view and depth of field.

    Regards,
    Jaap.

  8. #8
    Super Duper
    Senior Member
    iiiNelson's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Kentucky
    Posts
    4,576
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: XF 200mm f2 WR lens

    Quote Originally Posted by JaapD View Post
    ...This is absolutely ridiculous.

    Lens comparison between formats should be against equal field of view and depth of field.

    Regards,
    Jaap.
    According to whom?

    Let me be clear. I’m not trying to be combative here but for many the light gathering and equivalent field of view is all that matter. DoF is a matter of distance to subject being photographed to go along with the aperture value. For many looking at extreme telephoto lenses these are non-factors as the DoF is as shallow as one need to get the subject in focus with a adequately blurred background. It’s a reason many wildlife photographer will run a crop sensor camera adjacent to the full frame one. They want the reach and the light gathering and figure the DoF loss is generally fine for their purposes.

    Everyone has different needs and for many its not just about a blurry background. Sometimes you just want to be at ISO 1600 instead of 3200 or 6400.
    Visible Light & IR Photographer
    http://www.iiinelsonimages.com
    Thanks 1 Member(s) thanked for this post

  9. #9
    Super Duper
    Senior Member
    Shashin's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    Missouri, USA
    Posts
    5,462
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    150

    Re: XF 200mm f2 WR lens

    Quote Originally Posted by JaapD View Post
    In your ‘two out of three’ line of thinking are you really saying that it is valid to compare a Oly 150mm f/1.4 against a (non existing 35mm format) Canon 300mm/ 1.4? Such Canon lens would have a front element diameter of at least 214mm. This is absolutely ridiculous.

    Lens comparison between formats should be against equal field of view and depth of field.

    Regards,
    Jaap.
    You can make comparisons on any factor you think is important, not the just the one you state. The maximum aperture is the lens speed. Having fast, telephoto lenses is one advantage of smaller formats. I have an APS-C system for the benefits of that smaller format. After all, lens speed was always one of the most important benefits of 35mm over larger film formats.

    Now, if you are just trying to "prove" 35mm is better than smaller formats, then you will go with the DoF and "light-gathering" argument, but that is just cherry-picking variables. But equivalency is not science. And your objection to two of three is the problem with equivalency as two different systems cannot make all variable equivalent, meaning one will have to be selected to not be equivalent.
    Last edited by Shashin; 27th March 2019 at 16:46.

  10. #10
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2018
    Posts
    296
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: XF 200mm f2 WR lens

    I have noticed a trend that m43 users focus on light gathering and full frame users focus on depth of field. Cherry picking parameters.

  11. #11
    Super Duper
    Senior Member
    bensonga's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Alaska
    Posts
    2,796
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    1029

    Re: XF 200mm f2 WR lens

    Quote Originally Posted by faberryman View Post
    I have noticed a trend that m43 users focus on light gathering and full frame users focus on depth of field. Cherry picking parameters.
    Not at all. A shallow or deeper DOF is often important to me, as both a m43 and larger format (including MFD and formerly 4x5 film) system user. I own a few f1.2 m43 lenses to get the shallowest DOF possible with the m43 cameras, when I want it. If I want even shallower DOF, I will most often use a FF35 DSLR or mirrorless camera with a f1.4 or f2 lens (when possible). It all depends on what I am trying to accomplish. Sometimes I want greater DOF in a lightweight kit and m43 excels at meeting this requirement. However, I also prefer shooting at the lowest ISO possible and so maximum aperture light gathering is an important factor for me.

    My Fuji APS-C cameras and lenses are a nice middle ground. Wish I could justify getting the 200/2 lens. Maybe someday.

    Gary
    Likes 2 Member(s) liked this post

  12. #12
    Super Duper
    Senior Member
    k-hawinkler's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    The "Land of Enchantment"
    Posts
    4,623
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: XF 200mm f2 WR lens

    Quote Originally Posted by faberryman View Post
    I have noticed a trend that m43 users focus on light gathering and full frame users focus on depth of field. Cherry picking parameters.

    Well, where do I fit in your philosophy?
    I am using m43, APS-C, FF, and MF gear, depending on best fit.
    The best camera is the one you have with you, could even be an iPhone.
    With best regards, K-H.
    Likes 1 Member(s) liked this post

  13. #13
    Super Duper
    Senior Member
    pegelli's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    Belgium
    Posts
    3,385
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: XF 200mm f2 WR lens

    Quote Originally Posted by faberryman View Post
    I have noticed a trend that m43 users focus on light gathering and full frame users focus on depth of field. Cherry picking parameters.
    ďAll generalizations are dangerous, even this one.Ē
    ― Alexandre Dumas-fils
    My Pics
    Likes 2 Member(s) liked this post

  14. #14
    Workshop Member ptomsu's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Austria, close to Vienna
    Posts
    4,767
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: XF 200mm f2 WR lens

    Quote Originally Posted by faberryman View Post
    I have noticed a trend that m43 users focus on light gathering and full frame users focus on depth of field. Cherry picking parameters.
    I could not care less about such generalisations - I am always using what suits me best and what I can/want to afford for what I want to do PERIOD!

    Nothing else!

  15. #15
    Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2015
    Posts
    39
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: XF 200mm f2 WR lens

    Exactly, thatís what they are: generalizations. Off topic w.r.t. OPís thread.

    Regards,
    Jaap.

  16. #16
    Senior Member biglouis's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Posts
    2,492
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: XF 200mm f2 WR lens

    Although the lens gets stellar reviews it seems a trend that most reviewers resort to using it with the supplied 1.4x converter. This suggests the one drawback of the lens, for wildlife at least, that 200mm (or 300mm effective fov) is just too short. Even at 1.4x the effective fov is only 420mm which might be ok for wildlife portraits but you'd still be cropping heavily. For birds in flight, in my experience, you needs a longer lens or a bigger sensor to crop from (and Fuji currently max out at the 26mpx on the X-T3).

    Or am I missing something?

    One internet pundit suggests that the only reason for the existence of the 200/2 is that Fuji are planning on introducing a pro-body to go with it and other future lenses.

    LouisB

  17. #17
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Location
    Atlanta, GA
    Posts
    950
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: XF 200mm f2 WR lens

    It's an interesting lens and performs well from the reviews I've seen.

    One of the reasons I bought into the X-system though was to have a small and compact system with decent IQ and reasonably priced lenses. The 200mm f2 does seem compact and reasonably priced compared to fast telephotos for other systems, but for me, the price of the lens is outside the ballpark of what I'd consider spending on X-system lenses by a significant margin. It's nice to see Fuji developing lenses like this, but at $5-6k/lens, I'm out.

    I'll still happily check out images for fun though if anyone here picks one up

  18. #18
    Workshop Member ptomsu's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Austria, close to Vienna
    Posts
    4,767
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: XF 200mm f2 WR lens

    Quote Originally Posted by biglouis View Post
    Although the lens gets stellar reviews it seems a trend that most reviewers resort to using it with the supplied 1.4x converter. This suggests the one drawback of the lens, for wildlife at least, that 200mm (or 300mm effective fov) is just too short. Even at 1.4x the effective fov is only 420mm which might be ok for wildlife portraits but you'd still be cropping heavily. For birds in flight, in my experience, you needs a longer lens or a bigger sensor to crop from (and Fuji currently max out at the 26mpx on the X-T3).

    Or am I missing something?

    One internet pundit suggests that the only reason for the existence of the 200/2 is that Fuji are planning on introducing a pro-body to go with it and other future lenses.

    LouisB
    Hm - larger sensors and decent lenses (mirrorless) for wildlife - sorry but then my choice would be clearly the Sony A9 paired with that wonderful G-Master 100-400. Given all the advancements that the latest FW updates brought for this camera and the fact that this camera (sensor) was already the best performer for fast action before the FW updates makes this a no-brainer for me. Let me say it otherwise - if I were to go into serious wildlife shooting and want (need) FF my choice would be this Sony combo.

    As you I am very attracted by Fuji cameras and lenses - main reasons these products are simply the most photographic ones available today (except Leica) but for a totally different price. And we all know that stellar color science! But the 2/200 - although a stellar lens - is simply too restricting for real wildlife shooting. IMHO and with all my wildlife shooting experience I always prefer the benefits of a great zoom (the 100-400 in the Fuji lineup) to a fixed focal length. So here you already have it - the best combo for wildlife in Fuji ecosystem today.

    WRT professional Fuji camera - I think this is currently their X-H1 and I am pretty sure this will become the X-H2 as soon as it will be released.

    But forget any different sensor size in the Fuji lineup - this is APSC and MFD - period. They made it so clear so many times that this is their strategy and I am pretty sure this will not change soon.

    Future sensor developments in APSC should move the MP count to around 36MP and will probably give at least the same IQ but with much higher resolution than today's 26MP sensors. I think this will happen over the next 2-3 years at least if not faster, so a little patience and you should be in heaven with your Fuji systems

  19. #19
    Super Duper
    Senior Member
    Shashin's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    Missouri, USA
    Posts
    5,462
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    150

    Re: XF 200mm f2 WR lens

    Quote Originally Posted by biglouis View Post
    Although the lens gets stellar reviews it seems a trend that most reviewers resort to using it with the supplied 1.4x converter. This suggests the one drawback of the lens, for wildlife at least, that 200mm (or 300mm effective fov) is just too short. Even at 1.4x the effective fov is only 420mm which might be ok for wildlife portraits but you'd still be cropping heavily. For birds in flight, in my experience, you needs a longer lens or a bigger sensor to crop from (and Fuji currently max out at the 26mpx on the X-T3).
    And yet the 300mm has been a staple in wildlife and sports for a long time. I think you are not understanding the type of photography and the techniques used with a 300mm lens. Not all wildlife photography needs to be tight head shots of small birds. And you can also achieve more with blinds.
    Last edited by Shashin; 17th April 2019 at 15:48.
    Will

    http://www.hakusancreation.com
    Likes 1 Member(s) liked this post

  20. #20
    Senior Member biglouis's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Posts
    2,492
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: XF 200mm f2 WR lens

    Quote Originally Posted by Shashin View Post
    And yet the 300mm has been a staple in wildlife and sports for a long time. I think you are not understanding the type of photography and the techniques used with a 300mm lens. Not all wildlife photography needs to be tight head shots of small birds. And you can also achieve more with blinds.
    Yes, I agree. I was generalising too much from my own experience. I don't spend much time in blinds and in any case most blinds I've been to are not any closer (and often more distant) than the encounters I have shooting in the countryside.

    The results I've seen from the 200/2 are undeniably drop-dead gorgeous but I also know from talking with one owner that for birds the photographs have to be cropped severely due to the max 420mm equivalent focal length with the 1.4x converter. But hand on my heart if I could afford to, I'd probably buy one despite my concerns.

    Quote Originally Posted by ptomsu View Post
    Hm - larger sensors and decent lenses (mirrorless) for wildlife - sorry but then my choice would be clearly the Sony A9 paired with that wonderful G-Master 100-400. Given all the advancements that the latest FW updates brought for this camera and the fact that this camera (sensor) was already the best performer for fast action before the FW updates makes this a no-brainer for me. Let me say it otherwise - if I were to go into serious wildlife shooting and want (need) FF my choice would be this Sony combo.
    Everyone who uses the Sony for birding does rave about it. However, as the A9 is full frame and 24.2mpx I suspect you would need to spend a lot of time with a 1.4xTC on the lens if you really want to avoid severe cropping of results.

    I still wish that of all the suppliers, Nikon had a better mirrorless solution. I think I would choose a Z6 with the PF 500/5.6 over all the other options if the price was not ridiculous compared with both Sony and Fujfilm, at present.

    LouisB

  21. #21
    Super Duper
    Senior Member
    k-hawinkler's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    The "Land of Enchantment"
    Posts
    4,623
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: XF 200mm f2 WR lens

    2x TC on Sony is the better choice.
    With best regards, K-H.

  22. #22
    Senior Member biglouis's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Posts
    2,492
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: XF 200mm f2 WR lens

    Quote Originally Posted by k-hawinkler View Post
    2x TC on Sony is the better choice.
    I can't even begin to work out what the minimum aperture is with 2x - is it f11???

    LouisB

  23. #23
    Super Duper
    Senior Member
    k-hawinkler's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    The "Land of Enchantment"
    Posts
    4,623
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: XF 200mm f2 WR lens

    Quote Originally Posted by biglouis View Post
    I can't even begin to work out what the minimum aperture is with 2x - is it f11???

    LouisB
    That depends on the lens.
    For FE 400/2.8 itís 800/5.6.
    For FE 100-400/4.5-5.6 itís 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.



    With best regards, K-H.
    Thanks 1 Member(s) thanked for this post
    Likes 7 Member(s) liked this post

  24. #24
    Super Duper
    Senior Member
    k-hawinkler's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    The "Land of Enchantment"
    Posts
    4,623
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: XF 200mm f2 WR lens

    The images above were at 800mm f/11, this one at 400mm f/5.6.

    Last edited by k-hawinkler; 18th April 2019 at 15:10.
    With best regards, K-H.
    Likes 8 Member(s) liked this post

  25. #25
    Senior Member biglouis's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Posts
    2,492
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: XF 200mm f2 WR lens

    Thanks, K-H. Always good to see examples. With the Fuji 100-400 I have to stop down to f11 with the 1.4TC to get good sharpness. The examples are remarkable for a 2.0x converter.

    LouisB
    -----
    "My photography books", Flickr Stream
    Thanks 1 Member(s) thanked for this post
    Likes 1 Member(s) liked this post

  26. #26
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2017
    Location
    Northern England
    Posts
    267
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: XF 200mm f2 WR lens

    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
    Thanks 1 Member(s) thanked for this post
    Likes 9 Member(s) liked this post

  27. #27
    Senior Member bab's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    California
    Posts
    408
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    1

    Re: XF 200mm f2 WR lens

    Quote Originally Posted by Mark C View Post
    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
    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 donít 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.
    Thanks 1 Member(s) thanked for this post

  28. #28
    Senior Member biglouis's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Posts
    2,492
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: XF 200mm f2 WR lens

    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
    Last edited by biglouis; 28th April 2019 at 00:53.

  29. #29
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2017
    Location
    Northern England
    Posts
    267
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: XF 200mm f2 WR lens

    Quote Originally Posted by biglouis View Post
    I am surprised you state the 100-400 is the worst fuji lens you've tried...LouisB
    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.
    Thanks 1 Member(s) thanked for this post

  30. #30
    Workshop Member ptomsu's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Austria, close to Vienna
    Posts
    4,767
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: XF 200mm f2 WR lens

    Quote Originally Posted by Mark C View Post
    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
    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!
    Life is an ever changing journey
    http://photography.tomsu.eu/
    https://www.flickr.com/photos/peter_...tography/sets/
    Likes 1 Member(s) liked this post

  31. #31
    Super Duper
    Senior Member
    k-hawinkler's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    The "Land of Enchantment"
    Posts
    4,623
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: XF 200mm f2 WR lens

    Quote Originally Posted by Mark C View Post
    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.
    Thanks Marc. Could your camera have been lacking with that lens?
    With best regards, K-H.

  32. #32
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2017
    Location
    Northern England
    Posts
    267
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: XF 200mm f2 WR 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.
    Thanks 1 Member(s) thanked for this post

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •