I own and love my #Fujifilm 200mm f/2.0 lens. It is amazing for fashion. It replaces my trusty old Nikon 300 f/2.8 lens. The 1.4 teleconverter brings it up to a 280mm f/2.8 lens or the equivalent of a 420mm on FF.
Thanks for this small and thorough review. I completely agree, 200mm is quite less for bird and wildlife and that leaves us only with 100-400 zoom. If fuji comes up with a 400 2.8 or 4 or 500 5.6, that's gonna draw a lot of wildlife photographers into this system (including myself) who admires the system but don't get into it due to lack of telephoto options. Fuji can do it, they have proved it with the 200 f2.
I do use this system and shoot birds quite a bit. The 100-400 is a great walk-around bird lens (equivalent to 600mm on a FF). But I agree with you that Fuji needs to come out with a 400 f2.8 or 4. That would make the system more versatile. Thanks for watching and your comments!
Rented twice and I agree, it is a wonderful lens, but price and focal length really killed this lens. Another 100mm might have helped, but no doubt would have pushed the price higher as well, likely nearing the $10k range. I recently picked up the 150-600 and despite the relatively slow variable aperture, I am loving this lens. Comes in at a great price point ($2k) combined with a killer focal length, I am very pleased with the results from this hunk of glass over the last year. Rumors of a 500mm f4 might be in the offing, we shall see, like the 200mm, I won't have the wallet for it. Though I might rent one on an occasion should a need arise.
Hey John, just found your review on the 200mm. Like your set up with the 2 teleconverters 1.4 attached, with it we are at ~400mm, which I find is quite a number. While using the H2S one could even increase by using the Sports AF. Need to try that out. The focus limitation is due to the extension cube I assume, which is in general used for macros, isn't it?
In order for the two teleconverters to be stacked you have to have space between them, hence the extension tube, which limits the focus. I think with the addition of the 150-600 to the Fujifilm lenses that option would probably be a better route if a longer reach is needed.
Good review. Thanks a lot 👍 This is a great lens for wildlife and also for indoor sport. You are right. For BIF the lens is not long enough. A 400mm f/2.8 or 600mm f/4 would be great. But the price tag would be also much higher. At my wish list is a 135mm f/1.8.
I was able to have a go with one of these recently and it's a great lens, but I do wish they had made it an f2.8 for better portability, something like the size of the Pana-Leica 200/2.8 for micro 4/3.
Thanks for the review! Regarding your experience with the 100-400, how are you doing with the 4.5 - 5.6 aperture? Isn't it too dark? How is it going with the bokeh?
My primary use for the 100-400 has been birds and a few landscapes. The 4.5-5.6 isn't bad for the speed on the lens but occasionally gets a little slow, resulting in high ISO's--particularly for birds, but noise reduction software fixes most problem images. The bokeh has been fine but then I'm not a bokeh fanatic either.
Nice. Would you reason the "lens+1.4x+16mm extension +1.4x attachment. Why not the extension tube be at camera end. Is it because of protruding glass in the 1.4x converter?
@@iamwisdomsky I didn't have a 2X I only own a 1.4X. The difference between the two is significant. The 2X besides a greater loss of light does affect image sharpness where the 1.4 loss of image sharpness is imperceptible. Also, the 200 f2.0 comes with a 1.4X tele so combining it with my own 1.4X gave me greater reach than using a 2X at the same loss of light and no perceptible image quality loss.
