I have owned all 3 lenses. Here is my take after spending a lot of hours with each lens shooting all kinds of wildlife. The 150-600 is very sharp fast focus and many positives, for me it failed because of f8 and as a lens to often shoot in low light and fact that it is a long lens cancelled it out. I have used the 100-400 for 4 yrs and I know the lens well. Never let me down, great IQ, focus and nice size and weight. I have decided to continue with this lens. I would like more reach nut not prepared to compromise on focus and light. The Tamron. I had high expectations. But the lens performed poorly with BIF. The focus is unreliable and in 50% plus cases where I did get a shot in focus it was soft, on static subjects, Compared the the other two, there were no sharpness gain. In fact again the focus should let me down. With 30 plus years experience with wildlife and nature photography using mostly Nikon great and moving to Fuji completely 3 yrs ago, I can honestly say that the Tamron needs a serious firmware update on focus and stabilisation to give optimal results with the Fuji XH2s and XH2. I did use the lens with firmware 3.0 on the XH2s. In my view improved the performance of the 100-400 but no or very limited impact on the Tamron. A lot to like about the lens but for now, definitely the no3.
I found the 100-400 ever so slightly sharper than the Tamron at 150mm but after that they were on par with each other with the Tamron significantly sharper from 300mm onwards. The Tamron also produced better contrast.
I own the 100-400 and the 150-600. The 150 - 600 is sharper and with faster focus. If you use the 1.4 converter on the 100-400 it became 560mm - f8 and soft. The 150-600 is very sharp at max aperture, and the extra reach in bird photography is very important. The 150-600 at 400mm is just a fraction of a stop darker than the 100 - 400. So in wildlife photography I prefer the 150-600. The 100-400 is lighter and smaller and sometimes when you are on a mountain and you want to take not only animals but even a landscape photo, the minimum 100 mm is better than the 150 mm
I have found that using the same brand lens on a given body is, in the long run, the best option. We keep lenses forever while we replace bodies more rapidly. Every camera company works diligently to make their equipment work at it's best and often make software as well as hardware decisions based on the engineer's concepts. Every company has their own ideas about how to accomplish this. As time goes on and they improve their cameras, they try to keep compatibility with their entire lens complement. Other third party lens makers can only make generic lenses that often are not compatible with the newest designs of the camera makers or do not perform at their best.
I own the 150-600 and I I have never regretted it. Yes, f8 is a bit slow, but it is just on stop more than f5.6 .... this is just like f1.4 vs f2. Not such a big deal as the numbers may make it look like. And on my xh2s and xt4 iso 6400 is no issue so also on a cloudy day I had no problems with it. Sometimes I used even more iso and got fine pics after edit them.
One thing I would note… the Tamron cannot use the FujiFilm Teleconverters, whereas both of those FujiFilm lenses can. For me that makes a big enough difference that my choice has to be the FujiFilm 150-600mm.
I have bought a Fuji 1.4 x teleconverter twice. Sold both times. On the XF 100-400 I found a particular issue in very warm weather with heat haze being a particular issue.
Great video thank you. I'm currently considering the Fuji 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6 over the Tamron, because I can use the 1.4x TC (that I already own) to turn it into the 35mm equivalent of 210-840mm f6.3-8.0, as opposed to Tamron's non-TC compatible 225-750mm f/5.0-6.7. And increasingly amazing modern NR software makes the difference between f/6.7 and f/8.0 fairly negligible for the higher ISO that might be required.
The 100-400 is at the moment the same price like the 150-600. As I purchased the XT5 together with a lens for wildlife shooting, last week, I was allowed to test both side by side before buying. I went for the 100-400 because it was a bit faster focusing and also the faster aperture made a difference. The 150-600 is a very good lens, the 100-400 is a bit better performing. The Tamron was out of the question because it was pumping af at every distance change.
Thank Cris, great review. I am planning on buying the 100-400 for landscape with maybe the 1.4 converter. The 600 is just too big to hike with and but I want the extra reach over my 50-140. The benefit to getting the 1.4 converter is that I can use it with both lenses, tremendous reach, quality and flexibility.
Forget the converter, I had it and I was always disappointed with the results. Remember one thing : the purpose of a converter is to get bigger size at short distances not at long distances.
Fair review. I already had the 70-300 which is excellent for hiking / walk around. Fujis decision to sacrifice speed for size & weight was super disappointing; no way would I pay $2k for an f8 lens on apsc. (Although it is super sharp and renders beautifully). I picked up the Tamron on sale for $1,150 and love it… has the best of both worlds in terms of size, focal range & aperture, plus a much better mfd / max reproduction ratio which is similar to the 70-300 that I love as a walk around. I don’t miss the aperture ring on a lens like this because I mostly shoot it wide open and support the weight of the lens with one hand while changing the aperture using the front scroll wheel. Not sure I’d take it on walks longer than a mile although it’s definitely doable.
Absolutely Chad, I can’t agree more about the f8 max aperture… very strange if you ask me. Let’s hope that’ll get fixed in the future. And yes, the 70-300 is a great all around lens. Take care
Finally there's a video comparing fuji 150-600 with other lenses. You should also compare sigma and fuji in that occasion. I'm currently using 70-300 on my xt 30 for birdphotography but that's definitely not enough. I was thinking about new upgrade of the fuji lens but f8 is a disaster. However putting on a third party lenses on fuji will sacrifice the focus.
Hey there, thanks. Yes f8 is very dark. To be honest, besides the slightly higher focus hunting in low-light, the focusing of the Tamron is great and I didn’t have any issues with that. The 70-300 is a great lens too indeed and yes, for small birds 500-600 would be much better. Cheers!
I’ve had the Tamron for almost 3 months and love it! Fits into my kit when camping / driving around nature preserves or going on short walks. Longer hikes I’ll take the 70-300. They both have similar MFD / reproduction ratios. Autofocus & OIS isn’t quite on par with the 70-300 but its very good. What may be a bigger problem with any of these lenses is using with the xt-30. Might be too small to access front dial and use comfortably but worth testing at a local camera shop if possible.
@@rvpcqp Hey Chad, I'm considering the Tamron 150-500 for fuji xt-30 also! Has it been comfortable on that camera or have you had dial/button access issues? I'm sure it'll be incredibly front heavy but that's to be expected...
@@JECiappetta Hi. Tamron 150-500 also caught my attention, however between 150-500mm and 600 there's a considerable gap. Both lenses have got their advantages and disadvantages, but I think everyone chooses due to their needs whether it's more light or zoom, cheaper and more expensive.
I’ve used all three and I chose the 100-400mm. The 100-400mm is better in poor lighting conditions and you can used the 1.4x TC on those day where you need the extra reach…
Interesting review. Thank you. I’ve owned the Fuji 100-400mm and didn’t like the weight. I now have Fuji 70-300mm which has amazing bokeh and I can carry it all day. It’s sharp enough for me to crop equivalent to 400mm (or more). In terms of best value of the three lenses you reviewed…. let’s remember that the 100-400 is now old and can be picked up used for a third off the new price. Stick a Fuji teleconverter on it and you have a bargain lens. IMO
The difference between 300mm, 400mm and 600mm is really not as big as I thought. Might go for the 100-400mm one, since it has a bigger aperture at max focal length.
Can my 1-year old (new) Fujifilm 400mm lens be made smooth again as it was on the first day I purchased it? Rotating the focusing ring is very stiff after moderate use in predominantly dry climate that has never been used outdoors in dusty, rainy or snowy conditions. Any feedback would be most appreciated. Thank you!
Great comparison. I've actually gone with the Tamron 150-600 F5-6.3 G2 Canon w/ Fringer EF-FX pro ll adapter. This way I get the 600mm focal length and a faster lens for the same price as the 150-500. Quick focus and sharp.
which body are you shooting? I'm using the xH2s, and considering a third party lens.. ( I had adapted my old Nikon mount Sigma 150-600 to my XT-3, but the AF was bad, in general on that body.).
That's a really great comparison and explanation - thank you. Not sure why the 70-300 isn't there though. I'm a recent convert to Fujifilm (from Olympus), and coincidentally, have just got into wildlife photography, but Fujifilm isn't well catered for it. I chose the 70-300 over the 400, based on cost and weight, but not sure where to go now - need more reach for BIF. The 150-600 isn't for me at f8, especially at that price so I'm thinking of buying a used Canon body and lens just for wildlife, until Sigma release something juicy.
Ciao Cris, I own the 100-400mm and for me is enough and I think is great lens also with 1.4 teleconverter, However, as usual the video is very interesting.
hi Cris, Very nice content just exactly what I am looking for by the way, do you happen to know if Tamron 150-500 compatible with Fuji's Tele Coverter?
I had the Fujinon 100-400mm because I always found it was a little too soft even under the best conditions possible and testing all combinations possible, sturdy tripod, electronic shutter, with and wo VR and so on. Without TC sharpness was quite acceptable but in this case it was often not long enough for small birds. Now I'm on the brink of purchasing another one and I honestly can't decide if I swallow size and prize of the 150-600 Fujinon or the questionable VR and AF with moving subjects of the Tamron.
Thanks for your message. Y’a that’s not an easy choice! The weight of the Tamron makes it hard to bring around but the 150-600 is long and cannot go under f8. Compromises but I think it really depends how much you’ll be using the 600mm and if that’s a must for you. Take care and good luck!
Thanks for the video Cris - it was worth the wait! Having owned both the Fuji 100-400 and now the Tamron I would agree the Tamron is the better lens overall and even more so given the RRP of each lens. However, as the 100-400 can be picked up used for around £800 here in the UK that makes the decision a little harder. Great to hear your thoughts 👍🏼
I just bought a Tamron 150-500mm on eBay from a Tamron dealer. It is a US model and I wanted the 6 year warranty. I've been a fan of Tamron for a long time! Several years ago I bought some Tamron 16-300mm lenses and the were not compatible with my Canon 80D I used to have. The lens was made before they had the specs for the 80D. At different times I sent 3 of those lenses to Tamron and they updated the firmware and shipped them back free. I bought for, and sent the 16-300mm lenses to my friends in VIệt Nam, and I noticed some of them were made there. I've had several other older Tamron lenses, even had one back in my 35mm film days. I bought a Tamron 18-400mm lens for my 80D and loved that lens. When I switched to Fuji I bought the Tamron 18-300mm lens as soon as it first came out and was waiting for their other lenses to roll out, I was just now able to buy the 150-500mm lens. I am excited to get it!! hehe I am also excited to see it is Made in Việt Nam!! I have friends and adopted family there and hope to be there to live by the end of this year or shortly after the new year. I want to buy the last of my Tamron Trilogy, with my 150-500mm and 18-300mm, I want the 17-70mm. GREAT video, thanks for posting it!!! ~~~ Norris
Hi Chris, great video! Unfortunately, as usual, where there are more options, I get more confused 😂. I right now use a 70-300 mm with 1.4 TC on my x-h2s. The lens is great, light, sharp, and allows nice close up. However the autofocus is slow when doing wildlife (it has just 1 LM). The fuji 150-600 is just too big for me, and it looks like it s darker at every focal length compared to the others lenses. The fuji 100-400 is older and expensive, at least here in the US; however it has just got a new firmware release last week and its autofocus is faster (2 LM) and faster in terms of f/stop. One reviewer here said is not sharp over 300 mm, though! Now I checked other reviews and it seems a pretty sharp lens! Thoughts? Concerning the Tamron, it's too heavy. It was designed for a full frame, so you are losing the only advantage of having an aps-c camera. In addition is more expensive than the same version for sony, and it's not compatible with the TCs. Not sure how fast it would be for wildlife using the new ai animal and birds autofocus present on the xh2(s) cameras. If you have a chance, it will be nice to come out with a comparison in terms of autofocus. Also, I saw that the stabilization (or the VC) is not great. Is that compatible with the IBS? Thanks!
Hey Stefano, thanks! Based on what you say, the only choice would be the 100-400 with the new firmware update (for you specifically I mean). Yes, the Tamron lens is heavy - very (compared to the other 2). I do find the 70-300 to be the best in terms of size and weight and with a TC 1.4 it is also perfect to get a little closer. So I think if you cast everything aside (that you don't need) - the 100-400 would be best (maybe try second hand?) and if AF is very important then... tough one! Take care!
I thought the 100-400 was typically sharpest around f/5.6-f/8, negating it’s wider aperture advantage. Is that true? Also, I’d like to see Fuji make a 200-500 or 250-600 f/5.6, similar to the legendary Nikon lens. It’s a beastly lens but an awesome one. I’m sure Fuji could make something like that but smaller. The Tamron is compelling but focus struggles in low light suggest it’s wider aperture is less useful in practice. No focus, no shot. For me I’d rather have the reach for wildlife, getting closer is more valuable than getting to bump the iso down a couple thirds. You could have noted that the lens is f/7.1 at about 550mm-a touch better. The other question is the OIS of course. I’ve heard that the lens can shoot 1/125 at 600mm, quite impressive. I know we need faster speeds for moving targets, but I’m not ready to write off the 150-600 over one stop. That said, Fuji should have just plumped it by 600 grams, which may have permitted f/6.3 at the long end. Supposedly they felt light weight was more important, so they didn’t match Sony’s spec. But f/5.6 at 836mm equivalent would have been sweet. I hope to rent one of these sometime when I have time to shoot the s*** out of it, perhaps get it used!
Yeah, I have the 70-300, it's lightweight and takes great pics but I'm ready for more focal length. I thought about getting a TC or a 3rd party lens but I know I wont be happy. So, I'm either getting the 150-600 and not looking back or find something else to buy for $2k, like that Gibson SG that I always wanted
If I want to use the camera for everyday, ultrawide and super tele, would you recommend me to get Sony A7RV with Tamron 150-500mm and Sony 16-35mm F4 Power Zoom, GH5 with 100-400 and 8-18 or 9mm or Fuji XT5 with similar lenses? A7RV with the Tamron lens I can crop 2X MFT still get 1000mm and it has the unique 4 ways screen too and great EVF. Do all of them I can add extension tube to get ultramacro which is more than 1 magnification? A7RV and GH5 is 2g different, GH6 is 100g heaiver but that Tamron is 2X the Leica weight!
Hi! Thanks but your message. I use Fuji and Leica for photography. I used to use the GH5 and GH5s but only for video. So can't tell you about Sony cameras (that I only use to film). The XT5 is a great everyday camera I think and I'd go with that. Tamron has good lenses for example the 18-300mm covers a lot or otherwise a Fujinon 16-55mm and a Fujinon 70-300mm. But there are SO many choices I cannot advice you on Panasonic, Leica, Sony, Fuji and Tamron in a single message on a video about Fuji X mount :) Cheers
Hello there, it really depends on distances, time of day, etc. But I think these 3 are a safe choice. Do wait about a week - something new is coming out but can’t talk about it yet 🤫😉cheers
Perfect review. The exact 3 lenses I wanted compared. I do worry about the reported Tamron focus issues. Many replies seem to mention that. The Canon Tamron with the Fringer adapter sounded interesting. Do you lose any camera control or any other Fujifilm Lenz features with that adapter? I have an XT-5.
@@cris_photography Thank you! I'm also eager to see if they launch their brilliant 50-400 for the X mount. That would keep things lighter, compact, more versatile and for me personally, even more reason to actually take along with me outside versus these larger lenses. It would pair well with the 17-70 for local motor sport events and zoos. Let's see. Keep up the great reviews!
In Belgium, i just bought a secondhand the 150-600 for an insane price (900€). It’s the same price to the 100-400 and tamron 150-500. But sigma just released the 100-400 for Fuji. More choices are coming, it’s good for the byers
I got the Tamron 18-300 as my walkabout travel lens on the XH2. It has been a stellar performer so far and even allows for opportunistic wildlife shots, including birds. I would not use it as a primary lens on a dedicated safari but definitely as a backup or on camera 2.
I own the two fuj's/ I had the 100-400 wich is an amazing lens and the other 150-600 als take great photos. I had the Tamron 150-500 for sony very heavy so I returned it,
Thanks for the useful video, had to like and subscribe! I'm relatively new to digital photography and am wondering how easy/feasible it is to use the 100mm-400mm without a tripod? I'm currently using a Fujinon 50-230mm lens, but am looking to upgrade for an upcoming safari trip. Any advice would be appreciated 😊
Awesome - thanks ☺️ It has OIS so shouldn’t be a problem if you are in broad day light In lower apertures, might be a little more tricky though. But I shot a lot handheld and it was ok I’d say. Cheers!
In Germany I paid 1500€ for the Tamron and used it for 1 month in Southeast Asia. After this wildlife trip through Thailand, Laos, Vietnam and Cambodia, I wanted more zoom and found that there is no teleconverter for the Tamron. so I will sell the Tamron and get the Fujinon 150-600 with 1.4 converter. Of course, this focal length for this price has disadvantages, as mentioned in the video. It is not bright and thus restricts you somewhat. At "only" 2000 € you have to make compromises if you want a lot of zoom 😅
Hands down, I’d rather get the 100-400. It’s much brighter. If you want to get something close to the 150-600, get a 1.4x teleconverter. It’ll make the 100-400 f/4.5-5.6 a 140-560 f/6.3-8. I know it’s not the same, but it’s close enough for me.
Nice video, it kinda helps make up my mind. One full stop faster is a big deal in telephotos. If you shoot wildlife, they tend to come out at dawn or dusk, so you need that extra speed. I do not see anything in the other lenses that would make up for the loss in speed. Now... if only the price was a little better. 1899USD for Fuji 100-400 - sheesh.
Hey thanks, glad it was helpful. For the price, it’s the current price here in Switzerland but y’a, it is indeed more expensive elsewhere unfortunately - you’re right! Take care
My understanding is that both the 100-400 and 150-500 are “optimal” around 1-stop down, so basically f/8 lenses. If you don’t mind a bit of softness wide open you will be happy. Otherwise, I think the 150-600 MIGHT be faster than both those lenses in “real world” shooting. Something to think about. I personally would take any of these lenses if I wasn’t sure they are excellent wide open, or all the way out.
@@gdfswonder636 cheaper and lighter but even more downgrade in image quality but for me it is worth it, hobby and memory saving for me, mainly taking photos and videos of travel for family use
@@gdfswonder636 pretty sure it was on sale, could always buy it to test it out and return it if needed or go rent one since you already have the 70-300.
Man, I feel like my XF 100-400 mm is way too soft at 300 mm+, but at the same time, there really isn't any anything much better out there. The 150-600 is way too dark for wildlife on an APS-C sensor if you're in a forest, and as for the Tamron I am kind of worried about the autofocus and subject detection. I think in terms of image quality, the Tamron is the way to go, especially on the new 40 MP sensors. A new version of the XF 100-400, optimized for the new high megapixel cameras, would be great.
Hey thanks for your message. I use center AF (old schools) and I don’t have problems with AF in general with these lenses. That said, the AF of the old model 1.4 is pretty bad imo. Take care
The 150-600 just doesn’t have enough bokeh for the price. Would have been an instant buy were it a stop faster through the range, even if it meant it cost 500 more. Presently the background is too busy at 600 for wildlife shots.
Thanks and unfortunately I can only agree on the max aperture and DOF for the price and size. Maybe we’ll see a better version in the future - who knows. Cheers
Thank you very much! I almost buy the 150-600, but looking at the slight difference, I prefer to loose the light with my extender :) I love and use a lot my 100-400 lens. Always in my camera, wherever I go, and I could even capture some distant butterflies with it ! Thank you , from Uruguay.
There is a difference in the price - I was looking at Swiss prices. The Fujinon 100-400mm actually costs 1800$
Hi Cris just checked the prices here in Switzerland and the Tamron and the Fuji 100-400 are about the same circa 1400 chf.
Yes exactly 👍🏼
I have owned all 3 lenses. Here is my take after spending a lot of hours with each lens shooting all kinds of wildlife. The 150-600 is very sharp fast focus and many positives, for me it failed because of f8 and as a lens to often shoot in low light and fact that it is a long lens cancelled it out. I have used the 100-400 for 4 yrs and I know the lens well. Never let me down, great IQ, focus and nice size and weight. I have decided to continue with this lens. I would like more reach nut not prepared to compromise on focus and light. The Tamron. I had high expectations. But the lens performed poorly with BIF. The focus is unreliable and in 50% plus cases where I did get a shot in focus it was soft, on static subjects, Compared the the other two, there were no sharpness gain. In fact again the focus should let me down. With 30 plus years experience with wildlife and nature photography using mostly Nikon great and moving to Fuji completely 3 yrs ago, I can honestly say that the Tamron needs a serious firmware update on focus and stabilisation to give optimal results with the Fuji XH2s and XH2. I did use the lens with firmware 3.0 on the XH2s. In my view improved the performance of the 100-400 but no or very limited impact on the Tamron. A lot to like about the lens but for now, definitely the no3.
Thanks a lot for the extended feedback based on your experience and the different points on each lens - very helpful! take care
I agree. I’m happy with the 100-400mm its never let me down, it takes up little space in my back pack and the images it delivers are excellent.
Lol the “Tampon” lol
I found the 100-400 ever so slightly sharper than the Tamron at 150mm but after that they were on par with each other with the Tamron significantly sharper from 300mm onwards. The Tamron also produced better contrast.
Have you used the Fuji 70-300? It seems like a really nice lens at a great price, given the shorter reach. The range would pair nicely with my 17-70.
I own the 100-400 and the 150-600. The 150 - 600 is sharper and with faster focus. If you use the 1.4 converter on the 100-400 it became 560mm - f8 and soft. The 150-600 is very sharp at max aperture, and the extra reach in bird photography is very important. The 150-600 at 400mm is just a fraction of a stop darker than the 100 - 400. So in wildlife photography I prefer the 150-600. The 100-400 is lighter and smaller and sometimes when you are on a mountain and you want to take not only animals but even a landscape photo, the minimum 100 mm is better than the 150 mm
👍🏼
I have found that using the same brand lens on a given body is, in the long run, the best option. We keep lenses forever while we replace bodies more rapidly. Every camera company works diligently to make their equipment work at it's best and often make software as well as hardware decisions based on the engineer's concepts. Every company has their own ideas about how to accomplish this. As time goes on and they improve their cameras, they try to keep compatibility with their entire lens complement. Other third party lens makers can only make generic lenses that often are not compatible with the newest designs of the camera makers or do not perform at their best.
Hey there, thanks for your message and for sharing your thoughts ;) take care
I own the 150-600 and I I have never regretted it. Yes, f8 is a bit slow, but it is just on stop more than f5.6 .... this is just like f1.4 vs f2. Not such a big deal as the numbers may make it look like. And on my xh2s and xt4 iso 6400 is no issue so also on a cloudy day I had no problems with it. Sometimes I used even more iso and got fine pics after edit them.
Awesome! Yes that can definitely work for some like in your case - it is only 1 stop indeed 😉 take care
One thing I would note… the Tamron cannot use the FujiFilm Teleconverters, whereas both of those FujiFilm lenses can. For me that makes a big enough difference that my choice has to be the FujiFilm 150-600mm.
Hello Andy, yes that’s a valid point 👍🏼
thank you! i have been looking for the answer to this!
Thanks @Andy..
This is the reason why I came into the comment section.
Thanks for clarifying that information❤
I have bought a Fuji 1.4 x teleconverter twice. Sold both times. On the XF 100-400 I found a particular issue in very warm weather with heat haze being a particular issue.
Great video thank you. I'm currently considering the Fuji 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6 over the Tamron, because I can use the 1.4x TC (that I already own) to turn it into the 35mm equivalent of 210-840mm f6.3-8.0, as opposed to Tamron's non-TC compatible 225-750mm f/5.0-6.7. And increasingly amazing modern NR software makes the difference between f/6.7 and f/8.0 fairly negligible for the higher ISO that might be required.
Hey Darrell, thanks. Y’a that sounds about right! It’s a great choice - take care
The 100-400 is at the moment the same price like the 150-600.
As I purchased the XT5 together with a lens for wildlife shooting, last week, I was allowed to test both side by side before buying.
I went for the 100-400 because it was a bit faster focusing and also the faster aperture made a difference.
The 150-600 is a very good lens, the 100-400 is a bit better performing.
The Tamron was out of the question because it was pumping af at every distance change.
Thanks Jonatan for the feedback and tests with these lenses. Cheers
I have both, the Fuji 100-400 and the 150-600. I use the 150-600 when traveling in the car and 100-400 when traveling by plane.
Makes sens in terms of space usage. Thanks for sharing 😉
Thank Cris, great review. I am planning on buying the 100-400 for landscape with maybe the 1.4 converter. The 600 is just too big to hike with and but I want the extra reach over my 50-140. The benefit to getting the 1.4 converter is that I can use it with both lenses, tremendous reach, quality and flexibility.
Hey Andrew, thanks!
Yes it’s very true - the converter does give you great flexibility indeed! Take care
Forget the converter, I had it and I was always disappointed with the results. Remember one thing : the purpose of a converter is to get bigger size at short distances not at long distances.
Fair review. I already had the 70-300 which is excellent for hiking / walk around. Fujis decision to sacrifice speed for size & weight was super disappointing; no way would I pay $2k for an f8 lens on apsc. (Although it is super sharp and renders beautifully). I picked up the Tamron on sale for $1,150 and love it… has the best of both worlds in terms of size, focal range & aperture, plus a much better mfd / max reproduction ratio which is similar to the 70-300 that I love as a walk around. I don’t miss the aperture ring on a lens like this because I mostly shoot it wide open and support the weight of the lens with one hand while changing the aperture using the front scroll wheel. Not sure I’d take it on walks longer than a mile although it’s definitely doable.
Absolutely Chad, I can’t agree more about the f8 max aperture… very strange if you ask me. Let’s hope that’ll get fixed in the future. And yes, the 70-300 is a great all around lens. Take care
I had the Fuji 100-400. Too heavy to carry around. Now have Fuji 70-300mm and am amazed at its bokeh. Love it!
Finally there's a video comparing fuji 150-600 with other lenses. You should also compare sigma and fuji in that occasion. I'm currently using 70-300 on my xt 30 for birdphotography but that's definitely not enough. I was thinking about new upgrade of the fuji lens but f8 is a disaster. However putting on a third party lenses on fuji will sacrifice the focus.
Hey there, thanks. Yes f8 is very dark. To be honest, besides the slightly higher focus hunting in low-light, the focusing of the Tamron is great and I didn’t have any issues with that. The 70-300 is a great lens too indeed and yes, for small birds 500-600 would be much better. Cheers!
I’ve had the Tamron for almost 3 months and love it! Fits into my kit when camping / driving around nature preserves or going on short walks. Longer hikes I’ll take the 70-300. They both have similar MFD / reproduction ratios. Autofocus & OIS isn’t quite on par with the 70-300 but its very good. What may be a bigger problem with any of these lenses is using with the xt-30. Might be too small to access front dial and use comfortably but worth testing at a local camera shop if possible.
@@rvpcqp Hey Chad, I'm considering the Tamron 150-500 for fuji xt-30 also! Has it been comfortable on that camera or have you had dial/button access issues? I'm sure it'll be incredibly front heavy but that's to be expected...
@@JECiappetta Hi. Tamron 150-500 also caught my attention, however between 150-500mm and 600 there's a considerable gap. Both lenses have got their advantages and disadvantages, but I think everyone chooses due to their needs whether it's more light or zoom, cheaper and more expensive.
I’ve used all three and I chose the 100-400mm. The 100-400mm is better in poor lighting conditions and you can used the 1.4x TC on those day where you need the extra reach…
Absolutely 👍🏼
Interesting review. Thank you. I’ve owned the Fuji 100-400mm and didn’t like the weight. I now have Fuji 70-300mm which has amazing bokeh and I can carry it all day. It’s sharp enough for me to crop equivalent to 400mm (or more).
In terms of best value of the three lenses you reviewed…. let’s remember that the 100-400 is now old and can be picked up used for a third off the new price. Stick a Fuji teleconverter on it and you have a bargain lens. IMO
Thanks Barry! You bring up some very good points 😉 take care
I watched your video and decided to go with the xc 50-230
Cool 💪🏼
The difference between 300mm, 400mm and 600mm is really not as big as I thought. Might go for the 100-400mm one, since it has a bigger aperture at max focal length.
Right? Thought the same 😉 take care
Can my 1-year old (new) Fujifilm 400mm lens be made smooth again as it was on the first day
I purchased it? Rotating the focusing ring is very stiff after moderate use in predominantly dry climate that has never been used outdoors in dusty, rainy or snowy conditions. Any feedback would be most appreciated. Thank you!
Hello there, good question! Maybe try contacting the place where you bought it and see if that’s under warranty? Take care
Great comparison. I've actually gone with the Tamron 150-600 F5-6.3 G2 Canon w/ Fringer EF-FX pro ll adapter. This way I get the 600mm focal length and a faster lens for the same price as the 150-500. Quick focus and sharp.
Interesting choice Bruce! Thanks for sharing
which body are you shooting? I'm using the xH2s, and considering a third party lens.. ( I had adapted my old Nikon mount Sigma 150-600 to my XT-3, but the AF was bad, in general on that body.).
@@sonofnothing X-T5
So the fringer AF is really good? How is it for video?
That's a really great comparison and explanation - thank you. Not sure why the 70-300 isn't there though. I'm a recent convert to Fujifilm (from Olympus), and coincidentally, have just got into wildlife photography, but Fujifilm isn't well catered for it. I chose the 70-300 over the 400, based on cost and weight, but not sure where to go now - need more reach for BIF. The 150-600 isn't for me at f8, especially at that price so I'm thinking of buying a used Canon body and lens just for wildlife, until Sigma release something juicy.
Thanks George! It’s a very good point and I could have thrown in the 70-300 indeed - especially with the x1.4 ring. Maybe another time! Take care
I have the 100-400mm lens and thinking of adding a teleconverter to boost range (if I need it).
Nice! Ya that’s a good setup
Ciao Cris, I own the 100-400mm and for me is enough and I think is great lens also with 1.4 teleconverter, However, as usual the video is very interesting.
Grazie Mauro! Si in effetti il teleconverter è molto utile x ingrandire ancora di più. A presto!
hi Cris, Very nice content just exactly what I am looking for
by the way, do you happen to know if Tamron 150-500 compatible with Fuji's Tele Coverter?
Thanks! No it’s not compatible sorry
I had the Fujinon 100-400mm because I always found it was a little too soft even under the best conditions possible and testing all combinations possible, sturdy tripod, electronic shutter, with and wo VR and so on. Without TC sharpness was quite acceptable but in this case it was often not long enough for small birds. Now I'm on the brink of purchasing another one and I honestly can't decide if I swallow size and prize of the 150-600 Fujinon or the questionable VR and AF with moving subjects of the Tamron.
Thanks for your message. Y’a that’s not an easy choice! The weight of the Tamron makes it hard to bring around but the 150-600 is long and cannot go under f8. Compromises but I think it really depends how much you’ll be using the 600mm and if that’s a must for you. Take care and good luck!
Thanks for the video Cris - it was worth the wait! Having owned both the Fuji 100-400 and now the Tamron I would agree the Tamron is the better lens overall and even more so given the RRP of each lens. However, as the 100-400 can be picked up used for around £800 here in the UK that makes the decision a little harder. Great to hear your thoughts 👍🏼
Thanks Gareth! Good to know on the price - it varies a lot in different countries indeed.
Take care!
I just bought a Tamron 150-500mm on eBay from a Tamron dealer. It is a US model and I wanted the 6 year warranty. I've been a fan of Tamron for a long time! Several years ago I bought some Tamron 16-300mm lenses and the were not compatible with my Canon 80D I used to have. The lens was made before they had the specs for the 80D. At different times I sent 3 of those lenses to Tamron and they updated the firmware and shipped them back free. I bought for, and sent the 16-300mm lenses to my friends in VIệt Nam, and I noticed some of them were made there. I've had several other older Tamron lenses, even had one back in my 35mm film days. I bought a Tamron 18-400mm lens for my 80D and loved that lens. When I switched to Fuji I bought the Tamron 18-300mm lens as soon as it first came out and was waiting for their other lenses to roll out, I was just now able to buy the 150-500mm lens. I am excited to get it!! hehe I am also excited to see it is Made in Việt Nam!! I have friends and adopted family there and hope to be there to live by the end of this year or shortly after the new year. I want to buy the last of my Tamron Trilogy, with my 150-500mm and 18-300mm, I want the 17-70mm. GREAT video, thanks for posting it!!! ~~~ Norris
Wow awesome! I can see you had some history with Tamron 😅😙 take care
Hi Chris, great video! Unfortunately, as usual, where there are more options, I get more confused 😂. I right now use a 70-300 mm with 1.4 TC on my x-h2s. The lens is great, light, sharp, and allows nice close up. However the autofocus is slow when doing wildlife (it has just 1 LM). The fuji 150-600 is just too big for me, and it looks like it s darker at every focal length compared to the others lenses. The fuji 100-400 is older and expensive, at least here in the US; however it has just got a new firmware release last week and its autofocus is faster (2 LM) and faster in terms of f/stop. One reviewer here said is not sharp over 300 mm, though! Now I checked other reviews and it seems a pretty sharp lens! Thoughts? Concerning the Tamron, it's too heavy. It was designed for a full frame, so you are losing the only advantage of having an aps-c camera. In addition is more expensive than the same version for sony, and it's not compatible with the TCs. Not sure how fast it would be for wildlife using the new ai animal and birds autofocus present on the xh2(s) cameras. If you have a chance, it will be nice to come out with a comparison in terms of autofocus. Also, I saw that the stabilization (or the VC) is not great. Is that compatible with the IBS? Thanks!
Hey Stefano, thanks!
Based on what you say, the only choice would be the 100-400 with the new firmware update (for you specifically I mean). Yes, the Tamron lens is heavy - very (compared to the other 2). I do find the 70-300 to be the best in terms of size and weight and with a TC 1.4 it is also perfect to get a little closer.
So I think if you cast everything aside (that you don't need) - the 100-400 would be best (maybe try second hand?) and if AF is very important then... tough one!
Take care!
I thought the 100-400 was typically sharpest around f/5.6-f/8, negating it’s wider aperture advantage. Is that true? Also, I’d like to see Fuji make a 200-500 or 250-600 f/5.6, similar to the legendary Nikon lens. It’s a beastly lens but an awesome one. I’m sure Fuji could make something like that but smaller. The Tamron is compelling but focus struggles in low light suggest it’s wider aperture is less useful in practice. No focus, no shot.
For me I’d rather have the reach for wildlife, getting closer is more valuable than getting to bump the iso down a couple thirds. You could have noted that the lens is f/7.1 at about 550mm-a touch better. The other question is the OIS of course. I’ve heard that the lens can shoot 1/125 at 600mm, quite impressive. I know we need faster speeds for moving targets, but I’m not ready to write off the 150-600 over one stop. That said, Fuji should have just plumped it by 600 grams, which may have permitted f/6.3 at the long end. Supposedly they felt light weight was more important, so they didn’t match Sony’s spec. But f/5.6 at 836mm equivalent would have been sweet. I hope to rent one of these sometime when I have time to shoot the s*** out of it, perhaps get it used!
Thanks for the feedback and thoughts about these lenses Matt - appreciated
Yeah, I have the 70-300, it's lightweight and takes great pics but I'm ready for more focal length. I thought about getting a TC or a 3rd party lens but I know I wont be happy. So, I'm either getting the 150-600 and not looking back or find something else to buy for $2k, like that Gibson SG that I always wanted
Great comparison. Thank you very much. 😀
My pleasure 😉
Great video Cris. I've been looking for a comparison between the 400 Fuji and 500 Tammy. This was just the ticket.
Awesome Tom - great to hear! Take care
If I want to use the camera for everyday, ultrawide and super tele, would you recommend me to get Sony A7RV with Tamron 150-500mm and Sony 16-35mm F4 Power Zoom, GH5 with 100-400 and 8-18 or 9mm or Fuji XT5 with similar lenses? A7RV with the Tamron lens I can crop 2X MFT still get 1000mm and it has the unique 4 ways screen too and great EVF. Do all of them I can add extension tube to get ultramacro which is more than 1 magnification? A7RV and GH5 is 2g different, GH6 is 100g heaiver but that Tamron is 2X the Leica weight!
Hi! Thanks but your message. I use Fuji and Leica for photography. I used to use the GH5 and GH5s but only for video. So can't tell you about Sony cameras (that I only use to film). The XT5 is a great everyday camera I think and I'd go with that. Tamron has good lenses for example the 18-300mm covers a lot or otherwise a Fujinon 16-55mm and a Fujinon 70-300mm. But there are SO many choices I cannot advice you on Panasonic, Leica, Sony, Fuji and Tamron in a single message on a video about Fuji X mount :)
Cheers
I'm tempted to sell my 70-300 for the Tamron. Would be great if Sigma released their new 60-600 for X-mount. I'd be all over that.
Yep absolutely
Any recommendations for sport, motorsport photography?
Hello there, it really depends on distances, time of day, etc. But I think these 3 are a safe choice. Do wait about a week - something new is coming out but can’t talk about it yet 🤫😉cheers
@@cris_photography nice, i have time until Christmas actually😂😂😂
Looked at the Fuji 100-400 yesterday and for me seems like the one or maybe just the 70-300
Thé 70-300 is a great lens too indeed and the lightest of the bunch 👍🏼
Perfect review. The exact 3 lenses I wanted compared. I do worry about the reported Tamron focus issues. Many replies seem to mention that. The Canon Tamron with the Fringer adapter sounded interesting. Do you lose any camera control or any other Fujifilm Lenz features with that adapter? I have an XT-5.
Thanks and glad it was helpful! Honestly I didn’t try the fringer adapter so can’t help here. Sorry
1:04 thank you for this. It seems like the difference between 500-600 isn't much.
No indeed, that’s why I did that comparaison 👍🏼 you’d think but not that much of a difference. Cheers
@@cris_photography Thank you! I'm also eager to see if they launch their brilliant 50-400 for the X mount. That would keep things lighter, compact, more versatile and for me personally, even more reason to actually take along with me outside versus these larger lenses. It would pair well with the 17-70 for local motor sport events and zoos. Let's see. Keep up the great reviews!
In Belgium, i just bought a secondhand the 150-600 for an insane price (900€). It’s the same price to the 100-400 and tamron 150-500. But sigma just released the 100-400 for Fuji. More choices are coming, it’s good for the byers
Wow crazy!
Thanks for the comparing job, as a 150-500 owner, I'll say .... yes, it's so heavy that I usually carry Tamron 18-300 with me only haha
😰 I hear you!
I got the Tamron 18-300 as my walkabout travel lens on the XH2. It has been a stellar performer so far and even allows for opportunistic wildlife shots, including birds. I would not use it as a primary lens on a dedicated safari but definitely as a backup or on camera 2.
Great review! thank you!
My pleasure!
I own the two fuj's/ I had the 100-400 wich is an amazing lens and the other 150-600 als take great photos. I had the Tamron 150-500 for sony very heavy so I returned it,
I understand on the weight - it isn’t the lightest lens out there for sure! Take care
Awesome. Thanks for making this Video
My pleasure
Thanks for the useful video, had to like and subscribe! I'm relatively new to digital photography and am wondering how easy/feasible it is to use the 100mm-400mm without a tripod? I'm currently using a Fujinon 50-230mm lens, but am looking to upgrade for an upcoming safari trip. Any advice would be appreciated 😊
Awesome - thanks ☺️
It has OIS so shouldn’t be a problem if you are in broad day light
In lower apertures, might be a little more tricky though. But I shot a lot handheld and it was ok I’d say. Cheers!
@@cris_photography thanks so much for the advice!
Fujifilm 100-400mm is the lightest, the brightest, and the cheapest 😊 there ya go!
😉
Hi Cris, shout out from indonesia. Great review as always. Could you tell us if the tamron can use the fuji tele converter?
Hey Aditya! Greeting to you too. Per what I know you can’t use it but I haven’t tried personally (one of my next tests I think). Take care
Excellent video!
Thank you!
In Germany I paid 1500€ for the Tamron and used it for 1 month in Southeast Asia. After this wildlife trip through Thailand, Laos, Vietnam and Cambodia, I wanted more zoom and found that there is no teleconverter for the Tamron. so I will sell the Tamron and get the Fujinon 150-600 with 1.4 converter. Of course, this focal length for this price has disadvantages, as mentioned in the video. It is not bright and thus restricts you somewhat. At "only" 2000 € you have to make compromises if you want a lot of zoom 😅
Thanks for sharing your personal experience Benjamin! Take care
Hands down, I’d rather get the 100-400. It’s much brighter. If you want to get something close to the 150-600, get a 1.4x teleconverter. It’ll make the 100-400 f/4.5-5.6 a 140-560 f/6.3-8. I know it’s not the same, but it’s close enough for me.
Hey Daniel, thanks and yes, that’s a great option too!
Nice video, it kinda helps make up my mind.
One full stop faster is a big deal in telephotos. If you shoot wildlife, they tend to come out at dawn or dusk, so you need that extra speed. I do not see anything in the other lenses that would make up for the loss in speed.
Now... if only the price was a little better. 1899USD for Fuji 100-400 - sheesh.
Hey thanks, glad it was helpful. For the price, it’s the current price here in Switzerland but y’a, it is indeed more expensive elsewhere unfortunately - you’re right! Take care
My understanding is that both the 100-400 and 150-500 are “optimal” around 1-stop down, so basically f/8 lenses. If you don’t mind a bit of softness wide open you will be happy. Otherwise, I think the 150-600 MIGHT be faster than both those lenses in “real world” shooting. Something to think about. I personally would take any of these lenses if I wasn’t sure they are excellent wide open, or all the way out.
the Fuji lenses could use TC though, my current setup is the 70-300 with the TC.
Nice 👍🏼
I have the 70-300, which I love, but I'm considering the 150-600. How happy are you with the 70-300 plus the TC?
@@gdfswonder636 cheaper and lighter but even more downgrade in image quality but for me it is worth it, hobby and memory saving for me, mainly taking photos and videos of travel for family use
@@gdfswonder636 pretty sure it was on sale, could always buy it to test it out and return it if needed or go rent one since you already have the 70-300.
@@mixeddrinks8100 Thanks for the feedback.
and a teleconverter is installed for 150-500?
Hello Boris, no it isn’t. I hear it ain’t compatible with the Tamron but I still have to try. Cheers
Thank you!!!
My pleasure 👍🏼
I got a brand new Japan manufactured import 100-400 for $1200 total. I had to go with faster glass.
Nice! I hear y’a on the aperture… makes sense cheers
Man, I feel like my XF 100-400 mm is way too soft at 300 mm+, but at the same time, there really isn't any anything much better out there. The 150-600 is way too dark for wildlife on an APS-C sensor if you're in a forest, and as for the Tamron I am kind of worried about the autofocus and subject detection. I think in terms of image quality, the Tamron is the way to go, especially on the new 40 MP sensors. A new version of the XF 100-400, optimized for the new high megapixel cameras, would be great.
Hey thanks for the feedback and for sharing your experience 👍🏼 take care
A little too old but you missed one key point in this video which is autofocus accuracy and lock on moving subject.
Hey thanks for your message.
I use center AF (old schools) and I don’t have problems with AF in general with these lenses. That said, the AF of the old model 1.4 is pretty bad imo. Take care
The 150-600 just doesn’t have enough bokeh for the price. Would have been an instant buy were it a stop faster through the range, even if it meant it cost 500 more. Presently the background is too busy at 600 for wildlife shots.
Thanks and unfortunately I can only agree on the max aperture and DOF for the price and size. Maybe we’ll see a better version in the future - who knows. Cheers
@@cris_photography yeah right now tamron seems like the best bet. Unfortunately the Fuji tax makes it more expensive than the Sony mount counterpart.
@@SiddhantParkar I would buy the Tamron, but im not willing to buy 400-500€ for the same lens just because there is a X instead of E Mount built in.
I will choose the Fuji, the Tamron is too heavy 🙂
I understand that choice - i many cases it makes a huge difference indeed! Take care
i like the tamron result images
👍🏼
I’ve purchased the Tamron 150-500. Kept it for a week and returned for the Fuji 100-400. There is simply no comparison. Stick to Fuji
Thanks for sharing your experience
you can skip all that and just get the Tamron 18-400mm for $699 if youre like me who's just starting out and need a decent zoom lense
Yes, that’s a decent alternative indeed (but 18-300 for Fuji X mount) made a review of that lens as well
@@cris_photography Ill check it out!
The only reason to buy the Fuji 150-600 si it's white so dudes will think you got some fancy Sony Gmaster 🤣
😂
ua-cam.com/video/r0rxQMiZPgc/v-deo.html hand moisturizer is needed in the house
😂😂😂✌🏼
Thank you very much! I almost buy the 150-600, but looking at the slight difference, I prefer to loose the light with my extender :) I love and use a lot my 100-400 lens. Always in my camera, wherever I go, and I could even capture some distant butterflies with it ! Thank you , from Uruguay.
My pleasure! Glad it could be helpful to you 😉 cheers from Switzerland 🇨🇭🙂
@@cris_photography just curious , where are you in Switzerland? I went there to Zurich last year :)