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

bensonga

Well-known member
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! :cry::facesmack:

Gary
 

JaapD

Member
That should be similar with what you get from the Olympus FT 150/2 SHG, no? :grin:
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.
 

iiiNelson

Well-known member
I don’t have pics to share but it’s 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 “must have” lenses for the system.
 

bensonga

Well-known member
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
 

JaapD

Member
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.
 

iiiNelson

Well-known member
...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.
 

Shashin

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

bensonga

Well-known member
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
 

k-hawinkler

Well-known member
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? :facesmack:
I am using m43, APS-C, FF, and MF gear, depending on best fit. :grin:
The best camera is the one you have with you, could even be an iPhone. :thumbup:
 

ptomsu

Workshop Member
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!
 

biglouis

Well-known member
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
 

tcdeveau

Well-known member
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 :watch:
 

ptomsu

Workshop Member
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 :thumbs:
 

Shashin

Well-known member
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:

biglouis

Well-known member
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.

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
 
Top