Weight was the biggest deciding factor for me between these two lenses. The whole reason I went with the Fuji system was how light it was compared to the Canon camera and lenses I was using. Maybe when I was 20-something I could carry the 100-400mm easily for miles while hiking/backpacking, but being 50+ and having a couple of health issues means scaling back on weight.
When I chose the 100-400, it was wildlife and bird photography I had in mind. Size and weight is I guess a personal thing and I was a bit worried about it when I bought it. I've been using it for about 4 months now though on an x-t2. With a battery grip, I've hiked with it for an hour+ at a time holding it in my right hand by the grip while walking and it's not really bothered me yet. I'm sure that would bother some though. For longer hikes, it goes in a backpack some of the time. I also bought a 1.4x and 2x teleconverter with it. After using both for a bit, I sold the 2x and kept the 1.4x. If I'm out in bright sunlight shooting birds, the 1.4x is great. I've been able to get plenty of really sharp photos of birds in motion even with the dated AF of the x-t2. If it's lower light conditions, I take the teleconverter off. I found the 2x teleconverter on the 100-400 reduced the quality to the point that a heavy crop was almost as good as the 400 with the 2x. Maybe I screwed something up. I didn't keep the 2x for very long. The 1.4x is definitely a keeper with the 100-400 though! I've been surprised at how good the lens stabilization has been on the x-t2 which lacks IBIS.
The 70-300mm is a great lens for hiking and travel in general imo. I can carry it in my backpack with no issues and it's great combined with the 16-80mm. If more reach is needed I feel like the 150-600mm is the better choice now. If I pack a lens that large the difference between them doesn't matter much anymore.
On your last point, of overall focal range, you don't want to subtract but rather divide. So you're getting 300/70 (just over 4x zoom range) vs 400/100 (4x zoom range). The difference is pretty modest (about 7%), but slightly leans toward the 70-300mm. Otherwise, interesting points all around.
My 100-400 is one solid piece of gear. Attached to my Xpro2 - mine escaped from my camera bag and bounced down four big (very big!!) steps on a Mayan ruin at Coba, on the Yucatan 🫣. Only to be stopped from going further by a burley American in front of me (huge thanks btw). I feared the worst if I'm honest 😩 Some slight cosmetic damage to my Xpro2 aside and some zoom creep, which was non-existent before my gear escaped - i actually took some of my best shots AFTER my gear bounced down those steps 😀
I feel as though this is somewhat misleading... if you take stills at 5.6 with each camera fully zoomed (300 and 400 respectively) the 300 is 100% sharper than the 400. Your comparison here basically used the 70 - 300 against itself saying that lens is at its weakest at that range, but at its weakest... it is still outputting a sharper image than the camera you are comparing it to. Would you agree?
the 70-300 absolutely has a larger focal range since focal lengths are best compared to each other in terms of percents/ratios,. but 70-300 covers ~4.3x zoom range while the 100-400 is just 4. also 100mm is roughly 1.5x the length of 70 while 400 is only ~1.3x the length of 300 meaning that the difference between 70 and 100 is greater and more noticeable than the difference between 400 and 300. but since we buy these lenses for their long capabilities, their wide ends aren't nearly as important. and last gripe: the compression only differs if you are willing to back up from the subject to achieve a similar composition. but whether you're at 16mm or 400mm, the background compression will be the same if you are standing the same distance from the subject at each focal length. your comments on background blur were totally something new to think about though and it's true that you can't beat reach when shooting wildlife. i've been considering selling my 100-400 for a 70-300 mainly for size/weight savings since i don't have a car to easily transport my lenses and thus either use a backpack or limited motorcycle storage.
Thank you for your opinion. for all people shooting wildlife or birds or something else: The 70-300 is not really an option - With the 100-400 you have f5.6 at 400mm. With the 70-300mm you have f5.6 at 300mm and 400mm only with f8 or something. 70-300mm is not an option if you need reach.
The 150-600 now obsoletes the 100-400 in this scenario though. So as of 2022 the 70-300 and 150-600 are a perfect pair (if you need more than 300mm then nothing beats the 150-600, and if you don't then nothing beats the 70-300).
Thanks so much for this video because it helped me to choose the XF100 400 over the 70-300 mm. After going to B&H I discovered that, although the XF100 400mm is a large lens, I could handle it when walking around when attached to my XH2. To mitigate it bouncing on my hip I purchased a Cotton Carrier CCS G3 to carry it around. If you are worried about carrying it around buy the CCS G3 and you can Carty this on hikes, or where ever you go. I paired this with my XH2, Viltrox 13mm 1.4, 18 55mm, and the XF16-80. This is getting to be a very satisfying but expensive hobby. I bought this lens from a Canadian importer new for 1099.00 with only a seller 1-year warranty and no OEM MFG warranty and so far it works flawlessly. I have 30 days to keep or return it. So far it's a keeper.
This is a great and honest comparison. Thank you. It really highlights the dipping point at which someone would choose one over the other in a fair way 👍🏻
I'm really struggling to love my 100400. The focus is almost always off at the long end (above 300?). If used with focus tracking and/or CH or CL, it has no focus at all at the long end. Have to use it in Single shot mode. As far as I know there is no firmware fix for that. Otherwise it is ok. The range is great, especially woth 1.4x. But focusing problems.... I just assume most of my images will be super soft and I'll have to squeeze them to smaller size to hide the lack of focus.
You lost me after the half way mark. The same argument you made regarding 300mm on both lenses and compression on 400mm would just apply to the 150-600mm as well and those used can be affordable. The next bit about heavier lens resulting in better stabilization just seems wrong when using handheld when accounting for fatigue. On Tripod having the weight would be nice but having lower centre of gravity is better so would still need something in centre on windy days.
How fast does it focus with the X-T3? I always think of Fuji as a street, portrait, and landscape brand. Wildlife and birds in flight, not so much. I'm curious How well they perform. I guess an XH2s is the best for wildlife?
If you are in environments where you can use tripods, probably this lens works. But if your need versatility and movement, you need something much more lighter. When I when to Antarctica, many people with very long lenses like this finally start using their phones because of the impossibility of use big lenses effectively. I did great with a 27mm (fuji) and a 70-300 (canon, not the best but it worked)
Bringing up the point about user experience specific to how it relates with fujifilm products is a reasonable point when you consider the fact that Fuji products are, in great part, as much of photographic hardware as they are aesthetic and even nostalgic in nature. I know I love holding my x-t30, going out and just holding a tool, manipulating it, and even sometimes just looking at it, as strange as that sounds.
Hi Mark, I am using fujifilm xt30 ii , can u teach me how to transfer video to computer or phone please ? I have done the images but not video. Thank you in advance.
I have the 100-400 but really enjoyed the education from this video. I got mine for $400 or $500 less than the standard price, and from what I have seen that is not hard to find if one is patient. (I did not get it from B&H as I stopped buying used lenses from them after I twice received lenses that were just rolling around in bare boxes - i.e., not safely packed.)
We have and love the 100-400, BUT we use it on a tripod. Just got the 70-300 today and can't wait to try it out this weekend...this is for hand held use with no tripod.
Interesting video as always, a different perspective for sure but I am firmly in the "lightweight" camp :) maybe you could review TTArtisan 500mm and compare it to the 100-400mm.
Great practical review - I'm now more confident I made the right choice buying the 100-400mm. Coming from my Nikon D850 fitted with the Sigma 60-600mm 6lb monster this wont be too bad. I chose the 100-400mm over the Fuji 150-600 because of the better low light capabilities of the 100-400mm. you've got a new subscriber too.
Thanks for the vid Mark, there are a few s/hand 100-400's out there as well now. AND thanks for the Melbourne pic's. Were you visiting or are you now a local?
to be honest i am a fan of your videos and reviews :) here you mounted 100-400 on xt4, but i am wondering if you recommend it on my new xt5 with 40mp for the best image quality and performance for action and wildlife photography? thank you
@@markwiemels many thanks. i watched many videos in this regard and your points are very details and quite useful for noticing and making the best decision. again thank you :)
Thanks for the real world comparison, which has the better magnification? When I’m out shooting wildlife I also love the forna, plants especially tulips and other florals, so magnification is a factor that I factor in.
Good question, I’m not sure, but I do hear the 70-300 has a very good close focus and magnification. Sorry, I really can’t give you a definitive answer.
I don't notice any sag in my mount/lens. My main tripod is pretty premium, I use this one - geni.us/wxLPJc9 but I also use a monopod at times too. I use this monopod - geni.us/QrQI
Great video mark, was watching going this guys familiar, then realised you sold me an immaculate 55-200mm. How do you think the 100-400 changes the calculation?
That's funny, small world! The 100-400 is a whole different thing, namely, if 400mm is the focal length you need, for the best possible shot in a given situation, then 200mm is not going to do much for you. The 100-400 is big and expensive, I actually don't use it as much as I would like, mainly because of the size, but when I use it, the results are as good as any lens I have ever used. I do love it.
This is a great video to clear my confusion. Range isn't the only thing to consider. Also, did you get the 1.4 tc? I saw in a video that the 2 tc doesn't really do much if you just crop in without tc you get better image than the tc. Can you share results of 1.4tc vs crop without tc?
I don’t have one, check out camera conspiracy’s UA-cam channel, he did a video on this. I concluded that there was no benefit to the tc, based on his video.
i've had both teleconverters and the 50-140, 80mm, and 100-400. for the zooms the TC's add a huge level of convenience and make composition easier compared to shooting with the intention of cropping. also for the zooms there will be slightly more detail available with the TC compared to not, but the difference is negligible and depends on the scene being shot as the TCs will also add notable more chromatic aberration. for the macro lens, the added CA is just way too much and not worth the hassle. and for the 100-400 specifically, the autofocus performance just drops too much and makes the 2x not worth it (Fuji even warns against this combo on their website). i would only recommend the 2x if you were using it with the 50-140 (i have no experience with the 70-300 and can't comment on that lens). i sold the 2x but still have and use the 1.4x for certain occasions for either TC though, get them for the convenience more than anything else
I didn’t see this until after I made my decision and it’s spot on IMO. I was waffling between the 100-400 and the 70-300 w/1.4tc which ends up close in reach and price to the 1-400 used, for a worse image(theoretically). After a week I took the used 100-400 back to trade for a new 100-400… and the 1.4tc😁 The used one had a sticky zoom, but the photos I got were good enough to nearly double what I was willing to spend, apparently.
Thats funny, I bought a used one on ebay with the same issue, I fell in love with the images @400. The seller took the lens back and gave me a refund, I then went and bought a new lens.
For the vast majority of people the vast majority of the time the 70-300 is the best choice and the only rational choice. For a small minority the 100-400 will be the one that makes sense. There will be relatively few that pick the 70-300 simply because of its lower price, the size, weight and therefore the chances of actually having the lens with you are the decision makers. Ultimately the two lenses are both there for a reason.
Great review! I think I’m leaning towards the 100-400mm. I haven’t bought a lens for my camera in over a year and wanting a telephoto that I will use for a long time!
good thorough review! i am however generally very dissatisfied with the IQ coming out of my 100-400 - maintaining and getting the correct point of focus is also very difficult! i findenthe Nikon 300 plus nikon TC - adapted onto fuji using the Fringer adapter, much superior!
Oh I just rolled my eyes 🤣🤣 But thanks for your video. You have a point. If a person uses Fuji exclusively and is getting paid for shots exclusively for these focal ranges, there’s not much argument. But then again, if you’re getting paid to get these shots, Fuji is a tough sell to this date. Even with the new xf150-600.
Thank you for this review Mark, I really liked it! Now I am reassured that the 100-400 is the way to go! I have one question what is the most comfortable way to carry this set-up in the field if shooting wildlife/ bird photography?
Weight was the biggest deciding factor for me between these two lenses. The whole reason I went with the Fuji system was how light it was compared to the Canon camera and lenses I was using. Maybe when I was 20-something I could carry the 100-400mm easily for miles while hiking/backpacking, but being 50+ and having a couple of health issues means scaling back on weight.
I get that, I'm not far behind you on that front.
When I chose the 100-400, it was wildlife and bird photography I had in mind. Size and weight is I guess a personal thing and I was a bit worried about it when I bought it. I've been using it for about 4 months now though on an x-t2. With a battery grip, I've hiked with it for an hour+ at a time holding it in my right hand by the grip while walking and it's not really bothered me yet.
I'm sure that would bother some though. For longer hikes, it goes in a backpack some of the time.
I also bought a 1.4x and 2x teleconverter with it. After using both for a bit, I sold the 2x and kept the 1.4x. If I'm out in bright sunlight shooting birds, the 1.4x is great. I've been able to get plenty of really sharp photos of birds in motion even with the dated AF of the x-t2. If it's lower light conditions, I take the teleconverter off.
I found the 2x teleconverter on the 100-400 reduced the quality to the point that a heavy crop was almost as good as the 400 with the 2x. Maybe I screwed something up. I didn't keep the 2x for very long. The 1.4x is definitely a keeper with the 100-400 though! I've been surprised at how good the lens stabilization has been on the x-t2 which lacks IBIS.
So much great insight here. Thank you for sharing, I have been thinking about getting the 1.4 tele-converter.
Maybe the reason the 2x is worse on your X- T2 is because it doesn’t have stabilization
@@gloomsdoom649 Possibly. It also seemed a lot worse when tripod mounted, but I didn't spent a lot of time with it on a tripod.
@@NeilMcAliece Thanks for the feedback!
The 70-300mm is a great lens for hiking and travel in general imo. I can carry it in my backpack with no issues and it's great combined with the 16-80mm. If more reach is needed I feel like the 150-600mm is the better choice now. If I pack a lens that large the difference between them doesn't matter much anymore.
On your last point, of overall focal range, you don't want to subtract but rather divide. So you're getting 300/70 (just over 4x zoom range) vs 400/100 (4x zoom range). The difference is pretty modest (about 7%), but slightly leans toward the 70-300mm.
Otherwise, interesting points all around.
Very true, good insight.
You convinced me. The 70-300mm is the better one for me.
Good to hear.
My 100-400 is one solid piece of gear.
Attached to my Xpro2 - mine escaped from my camera bag and bounced down four big (very big!!) steps on a Mayan ruin at Coba, on the Yucatan 🫣.
Only to be stopped from going further by a burley American in front of me (huge thanks btw).
I feared the worst if I'm honest 😩
Some slight cosmetic damage to my Xpro2 aside and some zoom creep, which was non-existent before my gear escaped - i actually took some of my best shots AFTER my gear bounced down those steps 😀
I feel as though this is somewhat misleading... if you take stills at 5.6 with each camera fully zoomed (300 and 400 respectively) the 300 is 100% sharper than the 400.
Your comparison here basically used the 70 - 300 against itself saying that lens is at its weakest at that range, but at its weakest... it is still outputting a sharper image than the camera you are comparing it to. Would you agree?
the 70-300 absolutely has a larger focal range since focal lengths are best compared to each other in terms of percents/ratios,.
but 70-300 covers ~4.3x zoom range while the 100-400 is just 4. also 100mm is roughly 1.5x the length of 70 while 400 is only ~1.3x the length of 300 meaning that the difference between 70 and 100 is greater and more noticeable than the difference between 400 and 300. but since we buy these lenses for their long capabilities, their wide ends aren't nearly as important.
and last gripe: the compression only differs if you are willing to back up from the subject to achieve a similar composition. but whether you're at 16mm or 400mm, the background compression will be the same if you are standing the same distance from the subject at each focal length.
your comments on background blur were totally something new to think about though and it's true that you can't beat reach when shooting wildlife. i've been considering selling my 100-400 for a 70-300 mainly for size/weight savings since i don't have a car to easily transport my lenses and thus either use a backpack or limited motorcycle storage.
I agree. My 100-400 does not get used as much as I would like, because of the size.
I cannot hand held the 100-400 so I chose the 70-300 instead. That's the main reason for me. Plus I can get more zoom with the zoom extension tube
Sounds like a good choice.
Thank you for your opinion. for all people shooting wildlife or birds or something else: The 70-300 is not really an option - With the 100-400 you have f5.6 at 400mm. With the 70-300mm you have f5.6 at 300mm and 400mm only with f8 or something. 70-300mm is not an option if you need reach.
Good tip, thanks.
The 150-600 now obsoletes the 100-400 in this scenario though.
So as of 2022 the 70-300 and 150-600 are a perfect pair (if you need more than 300mm then nothing beats the 150-600, and if you don't then nothing beats the 70-300).
@@budthecyborg4575 the 150-600 does look awesome.
@@budthecyborg4575 Id rather get a tamron 150-600 G2 for Just over $1000 with the fringer at that point. Cheaper and faster than the Fuji option.
Thanks so much for this video because it helped me to choose the XF100 400 over the 70-300 mm. After going to B&H I discovered that, although the XF100 400mm is a large lens, I could handle it when walking around when attached to my XH2.
To mitigate it bouncing on my hip I purchased a Cotton Carrier CCS G3 to carry it around. If you are worried about carrying it around buy the CCS G3 and you can Carty this on hikes, or where ever you go.
I paired this with my XH2, Viltrox 13mm 1.4, 18 55mm, and the XF16-80. This is getting to be a very satisfying but expensive hobby.
I bought this lens from a Canadian importer new for 1099.00 with only a seller 1-year warranty and no OEM MFG warranty and so far it works flawlessly. I have 30 days to keep or return it. So far it's a keeper.
Great to hear.
This is a great and honest comparison. Thank you. It really highlights the dipping point at which someone would choose one over the other in a fair way 👍🏻
very informative, good job, i am researching this now. thanks
9:15
5 stops at 400mm is also quite different to 5.5 stops at 300, it's harder to achieve the former.
I'm really struggling to love my 100400. The focus is almost always off at the long end (above 300?). If used with focus tracking and/or CH or CL, it has no focus at all at the long end. Have to use it in Single shot mode. As far as I know there is no firmware fix for that. Otherwise it is ok. The range is great, especially woth 1.4x. But focusing problems.... I just assume most of my images will be super soft and I'll have to squeeze them to smaller size to hide the lack of focus.
You lost me after the half way mark. The same argument you made regarding 300mm on both lenses and compression on 400mm would just apply to the 150-600mm as well and those used can be affordable. The next bit about heavier lens resulting in better stabilization just seems wrong when using handheld when accounting for fatigue. On Tripod having the weight would be nice but having lower centre of gravity is better so would still need something in centre on windy days.
Would not find many 150-600 on the used market, not yet at least. If I did, I would worry about why, it’s only just been released.
How fast does it focus with the X-T3? I always think of Fuji as a street, portrait, and landscape brand. Wildlife and birds in flight, not so much. I'm curious How well they perform. I guess an XH2s is the best for wildlife?
If you are in environments where you can use tripods, probably this lens works. But if your need versatility and movement, you need something much more lighter. When I when to Antarctica, many people with very long lenses like this finally start using their phones because of the impossibility of use big lenses effectively. I did great with a 27mm (fuji) and a 70-300 (canon, not the best but it worked)
Bringing up the point about user experience specific to how it relates with fujifilm products is a reasonable point when you consider the fact that Fuji products are, in great part, as much of photographic hardware as they are aesthetic and even nostalgic in nature. I know I love holding my x-t30, going out and just holding a tool, manipulating it, and even sometimes just looking at it, as strange as that sounds.
Hi Mark, I am using fujifilm xt30 ii , can u teach me how to transfer video to computer or phone please ? I have done the images but not video. Thank you in advance.
I have the 100-400 but really enjoyed the education from this video. I got mine for $400 or $500 less than the standard price, and from what I have seen that is not hard to find if one is patient. (I did not get it from B&H as I stopped buying used lenses from them after I twice received lenses that were just rolling around in bare boxes - i.e., not safely packed.)
Thanks, disappointing to heat about the issue with B&H.
We have and love the 100-400, BUT we use it on a tripod. Just got the 70-300 today and can't wait to try it out this weekend...this is for hand held use with no tripod.
Interesting video as always, a different perspective for sure but I am firmly in the "lightweight" camp :) maybe you could review TTArtisan 500mm and compare it to the 100-400mm.
Great practical review - I'm now more confident I made the right choice buying the 100-400mm. Coming from my Nikon D850 fitted with the Sigma 60-600mm 6lb monster this wont be too bad. I chose the 100-400mm over the Fuji 150-600 because of the better low light capabilities of the 100-400mm. you've got a new subscriber too.
I liked the perspectives offered here. Thank you for that.
Thanks.
i use an xe3 so this lens is just hilarious looking on there. my debate was between the 150-600 and the 100-400.
wow! I can imagine!
have owned the 100to400 twice and sold both. the images at distance greater than abt 10 metres is dissapointing. within 5m, it is absolutely superb.
Thanks for the vid Mark, there are a few s/hand 100-400's out there as well now. AND thanks for the Melbourne pic's. Were you visiting or are you now a local?
I live here.
Excellent, I hope to bump into you at a fujifilm user group outing some time!
Is the 100-400 par focal?
It's not natively parfocal but software does a decent job at emulating if you have the lens firmware up to date.
to be honest i am a fan of your videos and reviews :) here you mounted 100-400 on xt4, but i am wondering if you recommend it on my new xt5 with 40mp for the best image quality and performance for action and wildlife photography? thank you
I think I had read that it does work well with that sensor. The images are crazy detailed, so I would expect it too.
@@markwiemels many thanks. i watched many videos in this regard and your points are very details and quite useful for noticing and making the best decision. again thank you :)
Thanks for the real world comparison, which has the better magnification? When I’m out shooting wildlife I also love the forna, plants especially tulips and other florals, so magnification is a factor that I factor in.
Good question, I’m not sure, but I do hear the 70-300 has a very good close focus and magnification. Sorry, I really can’t give you a definitive answer.
70-300 gives you a 1:2 magnification
You forgot the proxi macro capability of the XF70-300, HUGE difference between the two.
Thanks very helpful. I still get some sag with the 100-400, which may be at the lens mount. I also need a heavier tripod. What do you use?
I don't notice any sag in my mount/lens. My main tripod is pretty premium, I use this one - geni.us/wxLPJc9 but I also use a monopod at times too. I use this monopod - geni.us/QrQI
Great video, your points made a lot of sense, thank you! 🙏
awesome video mark thanks !
You are most welcome!
Great video mark, was watching going this guys familiar, then realised you sold me an immaculate 55-200mm. How do you think the 100-400 changes the calculation?
That's funny, small world! The 100-400 is a whole different thing, namely, if 400mm is the focal length you need, for the best possible shot in a given situation, then 200mm is not going to do much for you. The 100-400 is big and expensive, I actually don't use it as much as I would like, mainly because of the size, but when I use it, the results are as good as any lens I have ever used. I do love it.
This is a great video to clear my confusion. Range isn't the only thing to consider. Also, did you get the 1.4 tc? I saw in a video that the 2 tc doesn't really do much if you just crop in without tc you get better image than the tc. Can you share results of 1.4tc vs crop without tc?
I don’t have one, check out camera conspiracy’s UA-cam channel, he did a video on this. I concluded that there was no benefit to the tc, based on his video.
i've had both teleconverters and the 50-140, 80mm, and 100-400. for the zooms the TC's add a huge level of convenience and make composition easier compared to shooting with the intention of cropping.
also for the zooms there will be slightly more detail available with the TC compared to not, but the difference is negligible and depends on the scene being shot as the TCs will also add notable more chromatic aberration.
for the macro lens, the added CA is just way too much and not worth the hassle. and for the 100-400 specifically, the autofocus performance just drops too much and makes the 2x not worth it (Fuji even warns against this combo on their website). i would only recommend the 2x if you were using it with the 50-140 (i have no experience with the 70-300 and can't comment on that lens).
i sold the 2x but still have and use the 1.4x for certain occasions
for either TC though, get them for the convenience more than anything else
@@AJ-em2rb Thanks AJ! I would only go for the 1.4TC if needed and have bought the 70-300 over 100-400 for some reasons.
What about Sigma 100-400 ?
Can I ask, what tripod you use for this camera?
I shoot handheld.
Thank you for clearing that up for me. I will purchase the 100 to 400 off the back of this video. Cheers
I went with the Fuji 100-400; I'm learning that I need more practice.LOL The size is something to get used to.
I didn’t see this until after I made my decision and it’s spot on IMO. I was waffling between the 100-400 and the 70-300 w/1.4tc which ends up close in reach and price to the 1-400 used, for a worse image(theoretically). After a week I took the used 100-400 back to trade for a new 100-400… and the 1.4tc😁 The used one had a sticky zoom, but the photos I got were good enough to nearly double what I was willing to spend, apparently.
Thats funny, I bought a used one on ebay with the same issue, I fell in love with the images @400. The seller took the lens back and gave me a refund, I then went and bought a new lens.
For the vast majority of people the vast majority of the time the 70-300 is the best choice and the only rational choice. For a small minority the 100-400 will be the one that makes sense. There will be relatively few that pick the 70-300 simply because of its lower price, the size, weight and therefore the chances of actually having the lens with you are the decision makers. Ultimately the two lenses are both there for a reason.
Great review! I think I’m leaning towards the 100-400mm. I haven’t bought a lens for my camera in over a year and wanting a telephoto that I will use for a long time!
Yes, I think some people buy the 70-300 based on price, but really wan't the 100-400.
good thorough review! i am however generally very dissatisfied with the IQ coming out of my 100-400 - maintaining and getting the correct point of focus is also very difficult! i findenthe Nikon 300 plus nikon TC - adapted onto fuji using the Fringer adapter, much superior!
Interesting insight, thank you for sharing.
Oh I just rolled my eyes 🤣🤣
But thanks for your video. You have a point. If a person uses Fuji exclusively and is getting paid for shots exclusively for these focal ranges, there’s not much argument.
But then again, if you’re getting paid to get these shots, Fuji is a tough sell to this date. Even with the new xf150-600.
Thank you for this review Mark, I really liked it! Now I am reassured that the 100-400 is the way to go! I have one question what is the most comfortable way to carry this set-up in the field if shooting wildlife/ bird photography?
I use the largest peak design strap, it comes with a mounting point that you attaches to the tripod mount on the lens. I find it works well.
@@markwiemels thank you!
I don’t even own a Fuji and now I’m thinking of picking up this 100-400 😂
Too heavy?
I hate you.
... Just ordered it used for 950€ from a trusted store here in germany.
haha! You have done well! That's a bargain!
Soft and expensive.
It’s expensive, but not even remotely soft.