In my opinion you are doing about if not the best reviews of the Fujifilm telephoto-lenses available on the net right now and I have seen quite a lot. Thorough technical comparison, drilled down to the photographically important points. Congratulations! 👏
I have both the 100-400 & 150-600, I love both but for birding the reach is far worth having. I marry up the X-T4 with this beast and the 100-400 with the X-T5. I won't travel with the beast so I'm fine leaving it on a tripod for local outings and backyard birding. Great review!
I’ve been using the tamron 150-500. While faster and cheaper by $600. It is heavier. And after holding both, I don’t believe it’s a mere 100gram different. The Fuji feels half the weight. I will be trading my tamron in for the Fuji 150-600 and a teleconveter. I don’t know any 1200mm equivalent lens that are faster than f11
Excellent review as always. For my part I think this lens was precisely aimed and timed for the stacked sensor of the XH-2s, certainly the marketing implied that. Comparing it with other lenses on mirrorless systems is difficult, the 60-600 on the Sony, presumably attached to a full frame, only reaches the equivalent of 400mm. I suspect you could match it to an Olympus lens, but I can’t think of anything else at the moment that’s not stratospherically priced.
That’s not entirely true, considering that Tamron now makes their 150-500mm (a full frame lens) for Fuji X-mount, where the anecdotal reports I’ve heard say that it is performing very well.
@@DustinAbbottTWI Woud love to see you get a hands on the Tamron and compare it with this Fuji 150-600. I would guess the Tamron is sharper with an aperture advantage, while also being smaller too.
@@DustinAbbottTWI Yes of course you’re right, the Tamron is an option. I think it’s a little brighter at 500mm and has the advantage of easier carry when pulled back. As far as sports and wildlife on a X-H2s I’ve a few concerns though. The IS doesn’t appear to perform as well as the Fuji, it’s a lot heavier, I’ve doubts about its weather sealing because it expands and it doesn’t have the same reach. I feel these factors would impact my keeper rate so I’m still considering the Fuji at this point. Maybe I’ll hire both to confirm my impressions before purchasing.
Hey Dustin, thank you for this really excellent review. I shot Fuji for a few years, and loved that camera; however, I switched to Sony to get access to better telephoto lenses. This review actually confirms my decision. I love shooting wildlife, and it's a real shame that their lens line up doesn't include any super telephoto primes. If you could put a bug in their ear: I would have stuck with them if they offered a 350mm f/4 and a 550mm f/6.3. Those focal ranges would have been roughly equivalent to a 500 and a 800 full frame, losing about one stop compared to the big boys, but both would fit into a 95 mm front element, so could be very light and handy, which is the real advantage of the Fujifilm system. There's right now a hole in the market for lightweight prosumer supertelephoto primes, and only Nikon and OM fills it.
Just returned the Tamron 150-500, I bought last week, because of how terrible it's “vibration compensation” is, no wonder they don't have the confidence to speak of “image stabilization”. 😄 Tomorrow I'll pick one of these up. F/8 is a tough pill to swallow, but I'll give it a try. I really wished they made it have a better maximum aperture, I'd rather buy an f/6.3 for 3000€ than an f/8 for 2000€.
I've heard a few Fuji shooters complain about the VC in the Tamron, which makes me wonder if it doesn't play with the IBIS in Fuji cameras at all. In theory the IBIS should be able to do a lot of the heavy lifting.
@@DustinAbbottTWI , I bought the Tamron 17-70mm and tested it on non-IBIS body and IBIS body : it works way better on non-IBIS body ! I think there are some troubles between VC and IBIS cameras... Too bad. My X-T20 had way better results in contrast and sharpness than my X-S10 with the 17-70mm.
This lens was really designed to go with the X-H2s. 26mp, sports and wildlife camera. It would have been great to see a review with this camera and lens combo ......................
I do mention that this would be the better combo, though I don't think you can say that this lens was just designed for that camera. It was Fuji that sent me these two items together.
The curious thing about your review is why you would choose to do it with an X-T5 (XH2). This lens is clearly optimised for use on the X-H2S with its features of the stacked sensor and a form factor which makes holding the lens easier. Bravo for choosing the X-T5 as your camera but if anything all it does is cement the view that it is not the body for this lens. Just my two cents.
Thanks for the solid review - as usual! For birders, this *could* be a tough sell given its slow max aperture and resolution hit from diffraction. I can't see using this over adapted Nikon or Canon glass for that use, especially say a Nikkor 500mm F5.6E PF ED VR prime, which should run around the same price on the used market. For more casual shooters or for general wildlife (shooting neighborhoods, parks, zoos, etc.), the XF 70-300 + 1.4x TC seems like a better option given the small size/weight, the MFD versatility, and - most importantly - the price. It's a very nice, pro-grade build lens, but unless you live in very bright geographies or specifically need an internally zooming telephoto, I find its use case a bit hard to place.
That's basically where I'm at on this lens. There is a lot I like about it, but I think it better suited to the lower resolution bodies - best case scenario may be the X-H2S.
Use this lens on an xh2s for birding animal, which works pretty fine. Been thinking of adapting fast lenses, but we’ll see. For causal use I completely agree withyou, the 70-300 is an amazingly versatile lens. Due to its size I use it all the time!
@@mixeddrinks8100 you lose sharpness using the 2.0 compared to 1.4....the 70-300 gets a bit soft also with the 1.4 at 300, but usable. Always a balance between crop or using a tc. I rarely use my 1.4 even though it's fun to get some extra reach.
I used the XH2s and XH2 and used the Nikon 500 pf with a fringer adaptor. I know the 100-400 well as I shot Fuji for 4 yrs doing wildlife with XH1, XH3 and XT4. I had hopes for Fuji with the XH2s but when this lens hit the market, it was the last straw, with the fact that I went on a trip with the XH2s and XH2 with the 100-400 and 500pf. The bodies overheat from normal still photography. As a a past Nikon user I was so frustrated as my clients using Nikon, Sony and OM-1 shooting birds and wildlife filling cards with great images, and I sat waiting for the two bodies to cool down. Yes it was in direct sunlight, yes I had the grips on and shot at 20fps as we had amazing action. I came back put the cameras in boxes after a clean and sold all the fuji gear except my XT4 and 16-80 f4 for travel. So in sort my view is Fuji is not serious about wildlife photography, chasing the hybrid dream and producing equipment that had great potential but fail in the field
The issues with the glass that Fuji are making and the sensor size (in mp) they seem to be looking at is a huge concern and one which has stopped a lot of people switching to cameras like the XT-5. Many are just sticking to the 26mp sensor to avoid issues of softness etc. I recently considered switching to Sony or Canon because of these limitations. What you find is that Canon and Sony in a lot of cases are sticking with relatively low mp sensors too. So for example the Canon R6 mark 2 which has an amazing AF system and shoots at 40fps is a 24mp sensor. Admittedly it's a FF sensor but you see similar traits in Sony too. I think this lens is one of the few options Fuji owners have to reach out but sadly its just a bit too slow (in terms of light) A 500/600mm f4 would be nice.
@@Sidowse New yep :) Second hand though they are quite reasonable. I was looking at Canon's 500mm f4 either mark one or two recently. Mark 1 is about 2 - 2.5k and mark 2 is about 4-5k. Given these things should last forever its not too bad. However you are correct I would never pay new price for them that's for the folk that make money out of photography :)
@omurferahcan2121have you tried comparing images between the cameras at f/8-f/16? I’d like to know if the XT5 still manages to look better. Diffraction issue mentioned in this video is really more about what is happening at the upper end of the range-i have no doubt that, in strong light and at f4 or less, the XT5 probably looks better.
Ibis in the lens can be turned off from the camera, not ideal but works. Great match to my XH2s😀. I wouldn’t mind a faster long lens for those early mornings and late evenings. Been thinking of adapting lenses for those situations, but perhaps better to have a separate system for that. Love the the fuji colors though, and hesitant to have several systems..
@@DustinAbbottTWI Really hope they are succesful with the H2s which is a beat of a camera, that AF system is really improved. A fast 500 could do fantastically well on such a system if they can maintain a small size. THis might not be possible if they want to make something along the lines of their xf200.
Well explained I learned something about fast lens, when you explained about how the camera used the biggest aperture when focusing even if I have the camera set to f8, if the lens has a 2.8 that’s what will be used then it closes back up. No one has ever taught me that thank you Dustin course I know this lens doesn’t go to F2 just speaking in the general. ((Worlds best reviewer)) God bless my Canadian. Bro.
Compared to a FF Sony 60 mp. With an Xh2 40 mp with a 200 mm have the same angle of view as a Sony 300mm at F2. With the pixel density details you get pixel details as 450 at F2 as a Sony 60 mp. Suddenly the 200mm are not really that bad and with a 1.4 adapter even better. The 2.0 does work on the 200 mm as well. If I had to chose between the 150-600 mm I would go for the 200mm. A magical dream lense
If you want to be a bit nerdy, diffraction on the 40 MP XT-5 sensor will begin to be noticeable above f/6.3 for red colors. It would make sense to see some softness from diffraction at f/8. By f/11 the greens will also be softer from diffraction, so that's why you see such a dramatic shift.
@@mike.kbut it is f8 at 900mm FF angle of view. For a FF 600mm lens at f6.3 (e.g z 180-600mm), with a 1.4x TC it will be f8.9. So this lens is faster than it seems
Seeing how diffraction was mentioned 11 times in this video, I think it would be prudent to do a re-test on a 26mp camera. Obviously diffraction affects all cameras and lenses at some point, but I can’t help but think that Fuji’s engineers know something I don’t. Also, Sony has released 60mp FF sensors with the same pixel density. I assume this would affect the performance of their 200-600 in a similar way.
@@DustinAbbottTWI Right - sharper and 2/3rds of a stop faster which is rather moot IMO. Or at least, at a penalty of less reach and more weight, which might not be worth it to everyone. The goal of my post was more to encourage a re-test at a lower resolution. Some of the best nature shooting I've ever seen comes from an APS-C D500 and 200-500mm f/5.6 - despite the "inferiority" of APS-C and "diffraction limited" performance. Thanks!
I’m curious. Have you tried Capture One with the same tests? My X-H2S sharpness (dog fur, for example) was horrible in Lightroom, so I’ve switched to C1. In other words, the X-Trans sensor raw files are not treated well in LR.
Hi Ian, I didn't do it on this test, but I've done direct comparisons with Fuji files in Lightroom and Capture One in the past and didn't see any tangible difference. The files from the Viltrox 75mm F1.2 look brilliantly sharp using the same camera and the same software.
@@gilleslast3561 Amen. DXo pure raw 3 has saved me from selling my fuji gear. LR had every shot muddy and soft but a quick run through dxo now sharp as a tack.
@@DustinAbbottTWI Actually, the Tamron 150-600 is pretty sharp wide open on Fuji 26 mp cameras. It was developed as a FF lens and was adapted for Fuji APS-C, so you are using only shaper center glass of the lens on the Fuji.
If they got the max aperture down to 5.6 or even 6.3, and charged a little more, like $2300-$2500, I would have sold my Fuji 100-400 in a heartbeat to buy it. For now, I’ll stick with the 100-400, even though that 600mm is enticing
Sony has a 200-600 with f/6.3 that is also is a lot sharper than the fuji, and at least here in europe it's 1650€ compared to the 1979€ fuji is charging. They could've made it have a better max aperture and at least keep the price or even lower it. It's ridiculously expensive as it is. I just bought the Tamron 150-500, seems like a better upgrade from the 100-400 than this lens.
Well the video makes it clear. 40 megapixels should not be paired with 150-600 lens ever. The 200-600 is sharper and on high megapixel full frame the pixel density is lower so you can crop in like it's APSC, or even use one of the Sony APSC bodies.
@@anonymousl5150 It is a bit of shame that Sony does not offer a professional APS-C camera like the X-H2s. The A6xxx serie is outdated and looks like a toy.
@@muttishelfer9122 It is a shame but note that Fuji APSC is almost as big as the full frame. There's virtually no size advantage in most cases as there are very compact lenses available on full frame and some of them have no problem using apsc lenses. Sony APSC might be outdated in function but it still has the latest autofocus and is actually compact, the a6400 is more compact than an x100v or even an xe4.
Fuji has become such a compelling platform for wildlife photography when it comes to the camera side of things. I hope it will only be a matter of time until they offer equally compelling lenses for that topic. The 200mm f2 is too short and every expensive and this 150-600 is a bit (ok, a lot) too slow in aperture to entice me.
Fuji is very slow at releasing telephoto lenses, it took them forever just to release 70-300 and 100-400, both of which lag behind the competition in sharpness. They also now have the worst autofocus with Panasonic improving their phase detection. I tell anyone who wants to get into wildlife that they should stay away from Fuji, or even for landscape as their ultrawides are not particularly sharp (below 18 mm). Their finest telephoto lens is the XF 200 F2 but it's simply too expensive for APSC and superior longer primes exist on other systems for hardcore wildlife shooters. Best alternative for cheap APSC is the sony XF 70-350 and you can transition to Sony's full frame lenses like 200-600 or 70-200 f/2.8.
Ironically in the APS-C space you have Fuji and Canon with amazing camera bodies (X-T5, X-H2/S, Canon R7), but not a lot of compelling telephoto options and then you have Sony, which is loaded with telephoto options but which hasn't released a really competitive APS-C camera.
@@DustinAbbottTWI I hope they release a newer APSC model in the next 2 years. But keep the same compact form with better ergonomics (grip) and video specs.
@@trustnugget280 If you check out Mike Riley's channel you'll see that if you set up the AF properly, it works really well. Contrary to the Canon & Sony "salesmen" on youtube, autofocus is not everything. At 40 fps, you can afford to miss 25% of your shots and still get 30 fps pin sharp. What Sony and Canon don't want people to look at is how much their cameras and glass cost together, and how much the equivilent Fuji gear costs.
Dustin, would You choose this lens or Canon RF 100-500? If you would be planning wild life photography? I know two different systems but I’m just curious your answer.
Thank you :-) This was very helpful for me in the difficult process of deciding which system I should invest in a superzoom lens; for my Sony A9 or my Fujifilm XT5.
I own the 100-400 which pushes the limits of my requirements. The major issue for me is the lack of a decent tripod foot. So looking at the 150-600 I do have a little envey. That said, the focal length is beyond my needs for now. So on to Amazon I must go to find a larger tripod foot. Great video, thanks for the info. Be lucky stay safe.
The tripod foot is pretty pathetic on the 100-400. That's one area where this lens is much improved. I think the suggestion of mounting a long Arca plate is a good one.
Just get the one from Hejnar. But not the low profile one. The latter will make your camera not resting on it if you use battery grip. And you cannot carry it that easy.
I used the arca-foot from iShoot (XF140) on my 100-400 and found it to be a solid on the tripod, having just the right height to also geht my fingers under it and use it as a carry-grip when flipped to the upside of the lens. Recommend it. RRS and Kirk are also offering solid solutions but at a price.
Thanks for a thoughtful review! I wonder whether you had the lens modulation optimizer function, that is supposed to compensate to some degree for diffraction on or off?
That's the math for the pixel pitch. It's the equivalent of 90MP on a full frame sensor. According to The Digital Picture diffraction starts at F5.2 for the lower resolution Canon EOS R7, so, if anything, I'm being very generous in that statement. www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-EOS-R7.aspx
Dustin I would like to see you test whether telephoto range on Fuji stabilizes better with just OIS vs OIS + IBIS. Have seen many artifacts with the latter combination and unfortunately you can't turn off one at a time.
I'm not sure why Fuji hasn't just ported Sigma 150-600mm F5-6.3 instead of developing this lens. Sigma is not that much bigger (its actually shorter but heavier) despite having larger aperture and covering FF.
Well that's probably not on Fuji but Sigma and Tamron to make these decisions. It takes some time to change the mount and test them. Of course it's possible Fuji is blocking them if they don't want competition vs certain lenses.
@@NeXMaX I would be interesting to see a comparison between Tamron 150-500 and this lens. Tamron is significantly smaller and about the same weight, while offering brighter aperture and shorter reach.
I’m very new to photography but looking to shoot some surf photography in Western Australia I’m starting with a fujifilm XT5 and this is the lens I will need for the reach, will it be able to capture some great photos for me to get started then upgrade a camera body as my experience grows?
The strengths and weaknesses will all be pretty similar to what I've spelled out here. The X-T4 isn't quite as good for autofocus, but that will be consistent across any lens.
Hmmm, that's not really an apples to apples comparison. You are comparing an APS-C only mirrorless lens to a full frame DSLR lens. I can't really give you an answer, because the sensor and autofocus system is completely different.
Not in this context. The size of the physical aperture is the same regardless of the sensor size, so an F8 aperture is physically the same as it would be on full frame - which means that light gathering is identical. You will get the same exposure on the Fuji sensor as you would a full frame Canon sensor, for example. The crop sensor does affect the way that depth of field appears, however.
I ordered the Tamron but then it occurred to me the stabilization in video would be terrible unless on a monopod. Considering this one but I do think it’s a little overpriced. Native lenses seem to handle better.
Have you actually tested that in person? I'm curious, as I find it hard to believe that the Fuji version of the VC is so much worse than what I saw on Sony
@@DustinAbbottTWI I haven’t and very little out there on the Fuji copy. I watched a few videos with Sony and it wasn’t smooth handheld. Then I remembered the 18-300 they made for Fuji and it was night and day different from the Fuji 70-300 when it came to stabilization. The Fujifilm 150-600 seemed usable handheld in video from what I’ve seen. I would be fine with the Tamron having less reach and weighing more since I’m sure it’s sharp and much more affordable.
@@DustinAbbottTWI Thank you. I've got the 100-400 already, and a 1.4x teleconverter, and have been weighing whether to upgrade to this one. I'd convinced myself not to upgrade, since for shorter focal lengths I can lose the teleconverter and have a brighter aperture. I'll say that I've definitely had autofocus issues with the darker apertures in marginal lighting conditions, so the teleconverter mostly stays in my bag
@@ericfallabel9201 If I had to guess it would be quite a bit better away from the center. Neither the xf 100-400 or the 70-300 have great mtf away from dead center of the image. The teleconverter certainly doesn't help. I would look at the Tamron 150-500, it is a decently sharp lens and I would guess it would be sharper than any of these.
@Dustin Abbott Yes it is especially since it's new. No OEM MFG warranty, but the seller owns a camera store and offered 1-year seller's warranty with a return label. I have 30 days for a mishap, but since it's in OEM packaging I expect to have this for quite a while. I also bought a Cotton Carrier CCS G3 to carry it around.
Dustin, thank you for the informative video. Please tell me, what is the red mark on the lens? This is a GPS-tracker, what kind of company and model is it? Thanks!
Now that Canon has a 200-800 f9, the existence of that lens actually lends credibility to this lens, they're effectively the same lens at 600mm, and zooming to 800mm f9 isn't much different than cropping, it's both darker and you're likely to lose a lot of image quality. Now we need a head to head to find out which one actually holds up better.
Fair enough, though the Canon doesn't have to face a sensor like the one on the X-T5. That would be a full frame sensor with over 90MP, which doesn't yet exist. It does make a head to head comparison very difficult.
@@DustinAbbottTWI I don't think anyone invested in Fuji-X (including myself) would be upset comparing the Fuji X-T5 with 150-600f8 directly against the Canon R5 with the 200-800f9. Supertelephoto performance is one of the strengths of crop sensor bodies and the Fuji 150-600f8 is the same price as the Canon 200-800f9, and the crop system will still have more effective reach "if" the lens is good enough. Practically one would expect the R5 to easily win this matchup but it's entirely possible for Canon to drop the ball on IQ at 800mm, historically Canon is one of the companies that most hates encroaching on the quality of the Big White lenses with cheaper alternatives.
@@DustinAbbottTWI Pastor DA Ive looked and looked but find absolutely nothing in the menu that indicates me it controls the OIS in camera, the only is the Sensor image stabilization but it’s not the same! 🙇🏻🤷🏻♂️
I'm very fortunate to live close to a lagoon in southern Greece and working with the 100-400mm for a few years. My best photos usually are during the last half hour before sunset, for artistic and bird activity reasons, and as it darkens, noise is marginally reaching my tolerances. I was very excited when I heard about a new 150-600mm coming but very disappointed when it finally came out at f8. So, I'm sticking with the 400 until they hear my preys and make a long tele prime that is a little longer and faster but not f4, heavy and expensive.
I realize you said that you'd suggest pairing this lens with the XH2s... My question is, would you pair it with a lower megapixel camera such as the XT3, or am I off base......? Thank you.
In short, Fujifilm has sacrificed aperture in benefit of internal zooming, weight and size. Sure, amazing engineering achieved here! But photography is about capturing light. In that case and from my personal view, this lens won't meet my S-H2
So.. Thx to the smaller f-stop the lens is having a harder time focusing, on a system that already has about the worst af on the market. Sounds brilliant 😂
You should make those videos 7min long not 27, you would get more views and grow faster As Fujifilm fanboy I'd hardly watch a half an hour video about one lens
