GF 100-200 or GF 250

[biglouis]

Any thoughts from people who own both lenses? The main use would be wildlife portraits. Especially my local foxes. I do use my 45-100 at present but the 100 end is not long enough - although cropping in I still get fantastic detail.

I would inevitably use either lens for some landscape and or architectural detail photography. I do portraits rarely and in fact my recent acquisition of the 45-100 is probably enough for that.

I know I should hire both but I rarely do this and it can actually be quite expensive/difficult at the moment.

I appreciate the zoom is a benefit as is the very keen pricing of the 100-200 but I am worried the 200 end will again not be long enough and the 250 will make a tangible difference. Will it, really?

The fact that both take the TC1.4x is also, of course, useful but not sure about the actual image degradation, For example, when I use the XF TC1.4 with my XF100-400 or XC50-140 I always have to stop down at least half/one stop to achieve best IQ.

Any thoughts from forum members would be appreciated.

LouisB

 

[MGrayson]

I owned and loved both. The 100-200 is a carry-everywhere lens. Light, sharp, useful range. The 250 (with 1.4x) is stunningly good, but more special purpose. I shot the transit of Mercury with it hand-held.

100-200 (tight crop, still 15MP...)
Untitled by Matthew Grayson, on Flickr

250 with 1.4x (1/25 sec hand held!) In general, 1.4x can be used wide open on the 250. Never tried it on the 100-200.
Untitled by Matthew Grayson, on Flickr

And 250 with extension tubes:
Untitled by Matthew Grayson, on Flickr

Matt

 

[algrove]

I own both and seem to use the 100-200 on one camera all the time and on occasion use the 1.4 with it. I use the 250 on a more limited basis when I know I need reach. For me the 100-200 is the most versatile of the two.

 

[Don Libby]

I own both as well as the 1.4 teleconverter and plan to keep it all. I'm using these lenses now on the GFX100 and find both of them to be excellent lenses. The 100-200 (with or without the 1.4) is a great choice when I need more of a choice of focal length and the 250 (with and without the 1.4) is excellent for longer hard to reach subjects. If Fuji ever decided to produce a longer telephoto than the 250 (250 with the 1.4 equals 350 or 280 with the crop) say in the range of 300plus (300 with a 1.4 would equal 420 or 336 with the crop) I'd buy it.

 

[Knorp]

Using the long end of the 45-100/4.0 how much cropping do you actually require for your locals ?
Will the long end of the 100-200/5.6 suffice ? Or 140-280/7.8 with the 1.4x ?
The 'Big Boy' is a limited lens perhaps, but then you could have 250/4.0 or even 350/5.6 and shoot happily wide open although with limited DOF.

Or stick to that foxy XF100-400 . . .

 

[biglouis]

Thanks all.

OK, confession time. After reading the comments I did some more research about both lenses and in the process discovered that my preferred camera store in the UK are giving a GBP450 reduction at the till if you buy the 100-200. It bring the price in the UK down to GBP1349 and I am afraid at that price I think it would be irresponsible not to buy it

They are actually out of stock with the supplier and expected in the next day or so, so I suspect I won't get it much before next week.

Thanks again for all the comments.

LouisB

 

[Shashin]

Louis, I am not sure you are getting the subtext here: you should by both! Isn't that the GetDPI way? The only real choice is which one to buy first.

 

[spb]

Thanks all.

OK, confession time. After reading the comments I did some more research about both lenses and in the process discovered that my preferred camera store in the UK are giving a GBP450 reduction at the till if you buy the 100-200. It bring the price in the UK down to GBP1349 and I am afraid at that price I think it would be irresponsible not to buy it

They are actually out of stock with the supplier and expected in the next day or so, so I suspect I won't get it much before next week.

Thanks again for all the comments.

LouisB

That would be my choice if I was to buy a tele zoom not sure about the converter as well though.

 

[olafphoto]

The GF 250 is super heavy and big but it is one of the best, if not the best GF lens out there. Simply stunning! I will try to find some images I took last year with it. I also worked quite extensively with the GF 100-200 but I was never impressed with it.

 

[spb]

The GF 250 is super heavy and big but it is one of the best, if not the best GF lens out there. Simply stunning! I will try to find some images I took last year with it. I also worked quite extensively with the GF 100-200 but I was never impressed with it.

Interesting Olaf. I agree the GF250 is super heavy (at least for me), I found the 110 also too heavy. I do agree entirely though on the lens quality. I tested a GF 250 out when it came out and was impressed with the images created with it. Was tempted by the 100-200 - what did not impress you about it?

 

[biglouis]

Damn. Supply is very low in the UK and originally I expected to have the 100-200 by the end of last week. Now it is projected for near the end of the month!

Louis

 

[aksclix]

The gf 250 is a phenomenal lens.. Gorgeous rendering.. even with the 1.4x TC, the background separation is surreal.. and, with a powerful camera (any gfx) on the back, you can crop the hell out of images and still get a super sharp image! I NEVER used the tripod collar.. My wrists aren't strong but I can certainly lug this around for the amazing quality it delivers whether or not weight is a deal breaker for you is the question you need to answer.. considering you need it for wildlife portraits.. 250 and the 1.4x TC would be my choice of gear for that.. additional zoom at f4 vs less zoom at f5.6
I do not have the 100-200 though..

 

[Knorp]

Damn. Supply is very low in the UK and originally I expected to have the 100-200 by the end of last week. Now it is projected for near the end of the month!

Louis

I think this is an omen ... consider the 250 !

 

[biglouis]

The gf 250 is a phenomenal lens.. Gorgeous rendering.. even with the 1.4x TC, the background separation is surreal.. and, with a powerful camera (any gfx) on the back, you can crop the hell out of images and still get a super sharp image! I NEVER used the tripod collar.. My wrists aren't strong but I can certainly lug this around for the amazing quality it delivers whether or not weight is a deal breaker for you is the question you need to answer.. considering you need it for wildlife portraits.. 250 and the 1.4x TC would be my choice of gear for that.. additional zoom at f4 vs less zoom at f5.6
I do not have the 100-200 though..

Hmmm. This is really make me rethink. The 100-200 order I have can be cancelled as it isn't even in stock at present.

Going to think long and hard about whether I want to wait until such time as I can afford the 250/4+1.4TC instead of the 100-200.

BTW, the weight of the GF250 (1425g) is actually about the same as XF100-400 (1375g) which I have no qualms about lugging about, often with the TC.1,4x (129g)

Decisions, decisions.

 

[AlanS]

Just do it Louis, you know you want to!

 

[biglouis]

Just do it Louis, you know you want to!

Haha. Thanks for attempting to be my enabler.

 

[aksclix]

Hmmm. This is really make me rethink. The 100-200 order I have can be cancelled as it isn't even in stock at present.

Going to think long and hard about whether I want to wait until such time as I can afford the 250/4+1.4TC instead of the 100-200.

BTW, the weight of the GF250 (1425g) is actually about the same as XF100-400 (1375g) which I have no qualms about lugging about, often with the TC.1,4x (129g)

Decisions, decisions.

I have seen the gf 250 used go for as low as 2400 in '9' condition at B&H a couple of times.. maybe you could wait and watch the used space I was initially skeptical about the 1.4x TC.. usually I don't like TCs but this one seems to show no compromise.. I always shoot with the 1.4x and wide open at 5.6

This is because I feel even the 250 (198 in 35mm FF) is not enough for me.. heck even with 1.4x, I sometimes want a bit more closer.. so, in my mind the 200mm (~158mm) is never going to be enough for wildlife portraits.. unless you're really up close with the wild animals.. even for a zoo setting where the animals aren't that far away it will fall short..

 

[Shashin]

Great great thing is, if the 250 does not work out, you can buy the 100-200 at the end of the month...

You just know we were going to try to get you to buy both...

(I have this theory about GetDPI. It seems people are generous and caring, but I think it is just a form of schadenfreude, where we are just enjoying trying to bankrupt you.)

 

[Knorp]

You know you want that reach ...

| gfx-50s | gf250 | tc1.4 |

 

[scho]

Great great thing is, if the 250 does not work out, you can buy the 100-200 at the end of the month...

You just know we were going to try to get you to buy both...

(I have this theory about GetDPI. It seems people are generous and caring, but I think it is just a form of schadenfreude, where we are just enjoying trying to bankrupt you.)

They are all Dante understudies.