Having both the 70-300 and the 100-400, I can say that they are two totally different photography tools. The 70-300 is good for landscape telephotos, and general work. It is NOT a great wildlife lens. It is weakest at 300mm which, by itself, rules it out for most wildlife work. It also falls short with the 1.4TC because it simply magnifies the lack of sharpness at 300mm. The 100-400mm that I have is exceptionally sharp at 400mm, and works nearly flawlessly with the 1.4TC. The 70-300 is far more portable, and I use it when I am casually traveling, or in situations where a large lens is not usable. For all other times, especially when I really need the reach, I use the 100-400mm every time.
I have this lens and the 150-600mm. At first when I got the second lens I thought for sure I would sell the first lens. But it turns out I still like the 100-400 for obvious advantage, faster aperture more compact size and still a great reach. So it keeps on earning its keep.
@ Depends on what you shoot. I’m into birding so the 150-600 is the one I would pick. If you’re into birding too I would consider the 70-300 as an everyday carry and the 150-600 when I’m shooting birds for sure. The 50-140 is a great fast lens but too short for birding. The 70-300 is such a small lens you can carry both no problem for those sudden close shooting opportunities.
Credible review, cool pics, nice bird feeder. Changing to a new system, however, leaves viewers wondering. Have you ever shot nature scenes from a blind - waiting for pics instead of toting gear?
@@hughjohns9110 Well, the now old Canon 100-400 IS II is the same weight as the Fuji, and on many full frame cameras is basically the same size as the fuji package. You'll pay a bit more, but that's the only difference.
No one will argue the Fuji is better than the Canon EF 100-400 ii L. But that also costs $500 more and requires an adaptor to use on mirrorless cameras (extra $130). The RF 100-500 is $700 more and has a slower max aperture across the zoom range. The fuji lenses can be had in excellent used condition for less than half MSRP too.
I also have the Nikon Z7II, and the Z 100-400mm. Nice images, but if you want reach, you need to go a LOT larger. 600mm is the minimum on FF for wildlife, and those lenses are twice as large as the Fuji. The images I get from the two formats are not too different, so I can't agree with your statement that the Fuji doesn't compare with Nikon. Canon/Sony I don't own, but I can't see their results being any different.
“If you can’t get great images with this lens, it’s not the lenses fault.” “Also, this lens will be up for sale as I will be switching camera systems entirely because Fuji af still suck and lens selection is minimal while costing as much as FF…” Same lol
Having both the 70-300 and the 100-400, I can say that they are two totally different photography tools. The 70-300 is good for landscape telephotos, and general work. It is NOT a great wildlife lens. It is weakest at 300mm which, by itself, rules it out for most wildlife work. It also falls short with the 1.4TC because it simply magnifies the lack of sharpness at 300mm. The 100-400mm that I have is exceptionally sharp at 400mm, and works nearly flawlessly with the 1.4TC. The 70-300 is far more portable, and I use it when I am casually traveling, or in situations where a large lens is not usable. For all other times, especially when I really need the reach, I use the 100-400mm every time.
I have this lens and the 150-600mm. At first when I got the second lens I thought for sure I would sell the first lens. But it turns out I still like the 100-400 for obvious advantage, faster aperture more compact size and still a great reach. So it keeps on earning its keep.
If you could only select one, which would you go with? I have the XH2 with the 16-55 and plan to get the 50-140 as well as one of these two lenses.
@ Depends on what you shoot. I’m into birding so the 150-600 is the one I would pick. If you’re into birding too I would consider the 70-300 as an everyday carry and the 150-600 when I’m shooting birds for sure. The 50-140 is a great fast lens but too short for birding. The 70-300 is such a small lens you can carry both no problem for those sudden close shooting opportunities.
Another great video, really nice photos 🎉
Thank you brother!
Smartphones are in no way taking over the camera market! A 50mp one inch phone sensor will never match even a 24mp FF sensor
Credible review, cool pics, nice bird feeder. Changing to a new system, however, leaves viewers wondering. Have you ever shot nature scenes from a blind - waiting for pics instead of toting gear?
Thanks for stopping by! I have not yet shot from a blind but I would love to
What tripod do you use?
It's a K&F Concept one with multiple modes, they have a couple of available options on sale
I have to say, I have both the 70-300 and the 100-400 and I see no difference in IQ at 300mm.
You must have an exceptional copy of your 70-300mm. Mine is sharp up to about 250mm. Weaker from there out.
@ maybe I just don’t pixel peep like you must do. I’m a photographer not a gear nerd.
Salut, de unde ești?
Salutare, Bucuresti
@@MihaiStrömpl mișto canalu, mult spor!
Mersi mult!@@CRaul87
I am a Fuji shooter, but I have to say that the photos from this lens just do not compare to FF rom Nikon/Canon/Sony. This si a sad fact. :(
If they did, nobody would buy big heavy full frame systems.
Compare to what lens?
@@hughjohns9110 Well, the now old Canon 100-400 IS II is the same weight as the Fuji, and on many full frame cameras is basically the same size as the fuji package. You'll pay a bit more, but that's the only difference.
No one will argue the Fuji is better than the Canon EF 100-400 ii L. But that also costs $500 more and requires an adaptor to use on mirrorless cameras (extra $130). The RF 100-500 is $700 more and has a slower max aperture across the zoom range. The fuji lenses can be had in excellent used condition for less than half MSRP too.
I also have the Nikon Z7II, and the Z 100-400mm. Nice images, but if you want reach, you need to go a LOT larger. 600mm is the minimum on FF for wildlife, and those lenses are twice as large as the Fuji. The images I get from the two formats are not too different, so I can't agree with your statement that the Fuji doesn't compare with Nikon. Canon/Sony I don't own, but I can't see their results being any different.
“If you can’t get great images with this lens, it’s not the lenses fault.”
“Also, this lens will be up for sale as I will be switching camera systems entirely because Fuji af still suck and lens selection is minimal while costing as much as FF…”
Same lol
Two things can be true at the same time😄
@@MihaiStrömpl yes 100% 👌😆
Firmware 6.0 to the rescue...?
@@MihaiStrömplinterested in buying, if still available.