Hi Jerred... This is a tough one. I had the 100-400 as a rental for a month - it was a lens I always wanted. But... the 70-300 wins for me, especially for its ability to focus close. And size. And weight. And price. It's such a great value lens and so versatile. For those times I need to "reach out and touch something," I want to give the 150-600 a try. I know it's a beast in size, but double the reach has it's time and place... Thanks for sharing these thoughts and awesome photos.
Michael - thanks to you too man. I watched your 70-300 video and loved it. I've got the Tamron 150-500 coming at some point (whenever they send it to me), so I'm curious about that one as well on Fuji.
for me the problem with 100 - 400 is, if I am willing to spend that amount of money and willing to carry a heavy lens + tripod for most cases then why not just buy 150 - 600. Where is 70 - 300 feels more approachable. Ofcourse I would not able to get that close but then again I will be taking it more often with me which increases the chance to get more shots 🤷🏽
Amazing shots i know this is an year old video but one interesting thing you might be aware that shooting in 1080p 240 fps will give additional 1.29x crop resulting almost 600 FOV also adding 1 4x TC makes it almost 800 mm FOV.
Wow! I can't believe that we have almost identical blinds. Anyway, thanks for doing this. I am just about ready to pull the trigger on the Fuji X-H2 and was looking at both of the Fuji lenses. The 100-400mm is awesome, but I'm not sure it is worth it. It weighs 3.0 lbs, which seems heavy for an APS-C system whereas my Sigma 100-400mm ef for a FF Canon weighs only 2.55 lbs. The price difference is just as notable; i.e. $1500 for the Fuji 100-400mm vs $900 for the Sigma (Canon mount). I think I am going to get Fuji 70-300mm and will test the Sigma 100-400mm ef using the Fringer adapter before seriously considering the Fuji 100-400mm lens. But you are right, the Fuji 100-400mm is impressive; but heavy.
In October, I was in the camera and had a choice between a new 70-300mm and a used 100-400mm lens, the 100-400mm was little bit more expensive that the 70-300mm. On trying them out, I realised that the 100-400mm would be too heavy for me so I bought the 70-300mm. The plan is to buy the 1.4X teleconverter that would give a 35mm equivalent focal length of 630mm in a small and light package. At the moment I have an X-E3 and will probably upgrade to the X-S20 when it comes out, hopefully with the 40MP sensor. I was impressed with your images and your software seemed to be very good, Photo AI could be on my shopping list.
The 70-300 is really missing that crucial reach for birding imo. I am actually looking into switching to fuji and getting the 100-400 since a fuji body and lens would be much smaller and over 2 pounds lighter than my current dslr setup.
Very interesting comparison. I've thought about selling my 100-400mm, and it certainly weighed me down for recent travel. But, I only own an XPro3 and XH-1, so I don't have the advantage of the XH2s higher pixel count. For me if I want to go light with a telephoto I think I'd just slap on a 1.4X, or maybe the 2X teleconverter on my 50-140mm. Although I find the 1.4X teleconverter much better over the 2.0X teleconverter. So 2.0X teleconverter isn't a great option IMHO. Ha, I should try the 2.0X teleconverter on the 100-400mm just for giggles! ;)
Based on your comparison, there is no scenario where you just keep the 70-300; the image quality and reach of the 100-400 is simply too good. So, either keep the 100-400 to capture top notch images, or keep both so you have a lightweight option.
I agree totally…..I have the 100-400 but for general photography the 70-300 is great with it’s closer focus and wider view. Definitely a purpose for both.
Looking forward to watching this as just bought 70-300 and hope to sell the 100-400 as it is just too heavy for me now. The 70-300 is so much easier to handle although doesn't feel as sturdy of course. But I think it will suit me well for my amateur bird and wildlife photography, along with the super new Fuji X-T5.
Thanks, friend! Honestly - the 70-300 is a super awesome lens. I’m not sure if I did the 70-300 a disservice in this video. The shots from the 100-400 in comparison were shot in better light. I’ll probably do another, more lengthy video because I do think the 70-300 is REALLY good!
@@JerredZ I've just watched half of this video and all that you said at the beginning was my thoughts exactly - can I crop in successfully, etc. etc. but I just had to stop and comment as I need to say that your unedited shots, (which probably also lose something on screen when being uploaded to YT), are far, far better on that little 70-300 than I could mostly manage on my 100-400! They looked jolly good to me and I would be happy with those, even unedited, if they were mine. So I think I am going to be very happy with mine once I get used to it! And what a fab selection of birds you get in your garden! Lucky, or what?! Anyhow, back to the video to watch till the end now! 🙂
Hi, nice video! I personally have the 70-300, with 1.4 teleconverter and the xh2s. The combo is amazing: light, and can reach quite far. I shoot mainly wildlife, so even birds, although I m not a big fan of them... I honestly can't complain. I shoot raw though, and just post on social media, so I have never printed them. Of course, light is everything, cause when you crop that much the noise looks really bad. But, hey, we live in the world full of AI, so let's exploit it. A question: why are you importing pics as jpeg in topaz and not like tiff, 16 bit? Everytime you modify a jpg you lose some quality, whereas Tiff is lossless... Thanks!
hey, Stefano - I use jpegs most of the time just for ease of use. I've done so many tests, and yes, the .Tif files are lossless... but for what I do in photography, I keep my RAW files for archives and if I need to edit anything again, and most of the time export a working jpeg that fits my needs. I've done a ton of tests, and for me personally, I find that this works out best. Lower file sizes, faster processing. If I need the RAW file, I can always go back to that.
Interesting video! I have both the 70-300 & 100-400 too and was wondering the same thing. Which one to sell?? One year later what did you decide? BTW I would love to see a head-2head of the 70-300 with extra cropping + topaz versus the 100-400 + topaz. This video only shows the 70-300 with cropping
Hey, thank you!! Well, I sold the 70-300. The 70-300 is much more versatile, but the 100-400 edges it out in overall image quality! I think that holds true with Topaz... overall the 100-400 gives better files IMHO!
Thank you Jerred. I decided to pull the trigger and sell the 70-300 too and buy a cheap 50-230 (VERY lichtweight AND SHARP!!!) for traveling besides my 100-400. @@JerredZ
Finally someone sees this. I had the 100to400 before n have commented in preview n Fuji fanboys said the lens is super sharp even at infinity etc...aanythung less than 10to20m...zoom in n the images are beautiful, anything further...the result is really...bad..I sold the 100to400.
Ligth usual makes big difference on cheaper lenses. As if the cheaper glass works better with lots of light. I have shoot amazingly sharp images with a lense like 50-230 mrk ll, with lots of light, fast shutter and low ISO
Oh, Eddy... when I first started this video, I was sure I'd pick the 70-300 hands down... no doubt. But then when I started working through it, I came to a different conclusion! LOL! I love it though - it's all so much fun.
As a Fuji user shooting wildlife, I find it strange that so many Fuji reviewers even compare the 100-400 with the 70-300. I understand if a telephoto zoom is not an integral part of your equipment but if you are a serious nature photographer you only have 1 option. People rave about the 150-600 but again at f8 it is a serious compromise for a nature photographer. But this is unfortunately the compromise that Fuji photographers have to live with. The reason why more and more use Nikon or Canon lenses with adaptors on the XH2s. I use the Nikon 300 f4 pf and 500 f5.6 pf as Fuji unfortunately have nothing to offer. I say it again. If Nikon can produce the 300 f4 pf and 500 pf f5.6 primes with the weight and size that they are, why cant Fuji do something. Look at Nikon's new 400 f4.5 Z mount lens. if Fuji produce a 400 f4.5 prime lens with that size and cost... or wait until Nikon produce a APS-C sensor in the Z mount in the style of the Nikon D500, Fuji wildlife shooters will jump ship big time.
Do you know of any good canon lenses I should consider? I do have a fringer, but its hard to figure out if buying more canon lenses versus a native is worth the trade off. not just in AF (potentially) but it will add considerable bulk too.
