This site is supported by the advertisements on it, please disable your AdBlocker so we can continue to provide you with the quality content you expect.

Fujinon 100-400mm Discussion Thread

Discussion in 'Fuji X-Mount Lens Forum' started by robert, Jan 14, 2016.

  1. GreenGuy33

    GreenGuy33 Active Member

    Joined:
    Oct 25, 2016
    Messages:
    60
    Likes Received:
    27

    -Return to Top-

    I have a Tamron 150-600 on a Nikon D7100. Has anyone compared the Fuji 100-400 to the Tamron? I am thinking of giving my daughter the last of my Nikon gear and buying a Fuji 100-400 for bif. What tracking settings do you use on the Fuji lens for bif?

    Thanks!
    (great forum, btw.)
     
  2. Phalcon

    Phalcon New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 18, 2017
    Messages:
    3
    Likes Received:
    0

    -Return to Top-

    I'm greatly encouraged to see that so many people like the XF 100-400. I've had mine on my X-T2 since last fall and have yet to get a really sharp image. I used to shoot with the Canon 100-400 first gen lens and got loads of very sharp images with that lens. So, I have examined every aspect of my technique and really think I have a bad lens. Has anyone else had this experience?
     
  3. twest820

    twest820 119777C

    Joined:
    Jan 9, 2014
    Messages:
    508
    Likes Received:
    120

    -Return to Top-

    You might be comparing a good Canon 100-400 to a not so great Fuji 100-400. But yeah. My Fuji 100-400 recently got stolen in what's best described as a perfect storm of bad luck (sometimes you do everything right and it still doesn't work out). From a functional standpoint I can't say I'm sorry it's gone as early difficulties had worsened substantially, I never managed to see in it what others have found in theirs, ended up blurring nervous bokeh in Photoshop, and addressing the poorly designed foot was going to be just another hassle in what'd become a chronic stream of problems. Was already planning switching.
     
  4. GreenGuy33

    GreenGuy33 Active Member

    Joined:
    Oct 25, 2016
    Messages:
    60
    Likes Received:
    27

    -Return to Top-

    I really want the Fuji 100-400mm lens. :(
     
  5. llevine

    llevine Premium Member

    Joined:
    Apr 25, 2015
    Messages:
    465
    Likes Received:
    109
    Location:
    El Paso, Texas

    -Return to Top-

    I love the lens. Having great results with my x-t2. Does take some practice.
     
  6. llevine

    llevine Premium Member

    Joined:
    Apr 25, 2015
    Messages:
    465
    Likes Received:
    109
    Location:
    El Paso, Texas

    -Return to Top-

    I should add that I previously used a Nikon 200-400 f4 with my D4. Was glad to switch to the lighter load.
     
  7. Phalcon

    Phalcon New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 18, 2017
    Messages:
    3
    Likes Received:
    0

    -Return to Top-

    I plan to return this lens to the dealer this week and hope to get some resolution (pun not intended). At this point I don't even put it on the camera any more. I've tried a range of ISO settings, a range of f-stops, with and without OIS; on a tripod and handheld. I don't need more practice....I simply think I have a bad lens. Let's see what the dealer will do with it.
     
  8. llevine

    llevine Premium Member

    Joined:
    Apr 25, 2015
    Messages:
    465
    Likes Received:
    109
    Location:
    El Paso, Texas

    -Return to Top-

    Sounds like it might be a bad lens. Good luck.
     
  9. Macmodus

    Macmodus Premium Member

    Joined:
    Dec 7, 2013
    Messages:
    916
    Likes Received:
    1,910
    Location:
    Apeldoorn, Netherlands

    -Return to Top-

  10. Macmodus

    Macmodus Premium Member

    Joined:
    Dec 7, 2013
    Messages:
    916
    Likes Received:
    1,910
    Location:
    Apeldoorn, Netherlands

    -Return to Top-

    (crop and resized)
    [​IMG]
     
    llevine, minguela and Phalcon like this.
  11. pcovers

    pcovers Member

    Joined:
    Sep 27, 2016
    Messages:
    13
    Likes Received:
    7

    -Return to Top-

    I tried the latest version of the Tamron on my Olympus E-M5 Mk II. different sesnor, but not a far off comparion. The Tamron was sharp at 400, and less so as it got to maximum reach. It was a well constructed lens, but, as big as the Fuji 100-400 is, the Tamron was just too much bigger. I am significantly more pleased with the 100-400mm on my X-T20 than what I could do with the Tamron on the E-M 5 Mk II. By the way, I was using a Metabones smart adapter between the Tamron and the Olympus. Not the speed version, just the smart version that allowed for autofocus and exif data between the Canon mount and the Oly body.

    I love the 100-400mm. Anyone with a bad experience must surely have a bad lens.
     
    Last edited: Mar 23, 2017 at 5:38 PM
  12. jpgcarpintero

    jpgcarpintero Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 6, 2015
    Messages:
    210
    Likes Received:
    432
    Location:
    Madrid, Spain

    -Return to Top-

    Hey @Macmodus , I like the detail and sharpness you get from your shots. For any reason that I am still trying to find out, I can´t get that details when I use Lightroom or PS... what sotfware do you use to develop your pictures?

    Looking forward to hear from you soon!

    Thanks
     
  13. twest820

    twest820 119777C

    Joined:
    Jan 9, 2014
    Messages:
    508
    Likes Received:
    120

    -Return to Top-

    I wouldn't be so sure. Telezooms commonly soften at the long end and Fuji's 100-400 shares the trait. Some measurements show it comparing very favourably and some tests find it to be softer than every competing lens from around 250+mm. What this suggests is Fuji's optical design for the lens is capable of excellence but Fuji's quality control not as much as one would like for a lens at this price point. Performance does seem more consistently good in the 100-200 range but buying a -400 to use primarily to -200 is kind of an odd choice. Also, other manufacturers offer zooms in the class which integrate better with TCs or with tripods.

    If one's going to use the 100-400 generally throughout its range with no particular need beyond 600mm equivalent Fuji doesn't offer a bad set of tradeoffs. Considering the limitations I'm quite hesitant to suggest it as a 150-600 alternative, however, particularly in the 400-600 range where the Fuji needs a TC.
     
  14. Phalcon

    Phalcon New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 18, 2017
    Messages:
    3
    Likes Received:
    0

    -Return to Top-

    You'll get full agreement from me on your post. I sent my 100-400 back to Fuji this week so will know what they say in a month or so. If they can't provide a solution, I'll sell the lens and may consider a tele-prime if they release one later this year. Do you hear good things about the 50-140 zoom? That may be a good choice in conjunction with a 400mm prime or whatever they release in a long prime.
     
  15. Macmodus

    Macmodus Premium Member

    Joined:
    Dec 7, 2013
    Messages:
    916
    Likes Received:
    1,910
    Location:
    Apeldoorn, Netherlands

    -Return to Top-

    Actually, I use a few options

    The RAW file I open with Camera Raw
    • Camera Profile
    • Dehaze
    • Exposure
    • Contrast
    • Shadows
    • Blacks
    • And Clarity
    • Sharpening / and nois reduction
    IF
    Is there any disturbing noise I use:
    • NIK DFine2
    IF
    I want extra sharpening I use:
    • TOPAZ LABS / Detail / Desaturated Blush 1 on an new layer for max 15%
    This is though quite global, depends heavily on the photo.
    It happens more and more now that I have the X-T2. I just do some adjustments in Camera Raw!
    and that's it.
     
  16. pcovers

    pcovers Member

    Joined:
    Sep 27, 2016
    Messages:
    13
    Likes Received:
    7

    -Return to Top-

    One of the causes of a bad lens could certainly be poor QC. When the lens is manufactured to spec, the lens produces very sharp results at 400mm. I would say if one is not getting sharp results at the farthest end of its focal range they should return it as not being satisfactory.
     
  17. Macmodus

    Macmodus Premium Member

    Joined:
    Dec 7, 2013
    Messages:
    916
    Likes Received:
    1,910
    Location:
    Apeldoorn, Netherlands

    -Return to Top-

  18. twest820

    twest820 119777C

    Joined:
    Jan 9, 2014
    Messages:
    508
    Likes Received:
    120

    -Return to Top-

    Could be. Until such time as someone characterizes unit to unit variability in the 100-400 it's hard to say. Currently the best available data I'm aware of about patterns in zoom manufacturing---which Fuji conforms to---suggests this definition of in spec most likely selects for the top 10-20% of 100-400s produced. If so, statistically speaking that's a lot of buying, testing, and returning to obtain satisfaction. At the price point it seems not unreasonable to expect the manufacturer to take care of that rather than the customer. But that's kind of not how the industry operates.

    The next event I'm aware of which will move the data significantly is Roger Cicala's impending push Lens Rentals' 70-200 characterization data to their blog. I'm curious to see if the expectation revises meaningfully in response; from what's been published on telezoom variability so far it's not implausible the odds might improve. But, to indulge in a spot of speculation, I'd be a little surprised if they came out much better than even. MTF in well controlled zooms typically exhibits around ±10% variation. Fuji's specifications plus the available test results on the lens so far are consistent with that.
     
  19. pcovers

    pcovers Member

    Joined:
    Sep 27, 2016
    Messages:
    13
    Likes Received:
    7

    -Return to Top-

    Agreed that it is reasonable to expect a manufacturer to assure quality prior to the customer experience. If that does not happen on an individual sample, it's reasonable for a customer to not accept the sample if it does not meet their quality expectation. Knowing that the lens design is capable of very sharp images, I would never accept less. You can't expect qualities of a product that does not in general exhibit those qualities, but this is not the case in this lens. The evidence is well documented as to what the lens is capable of. It is up the the consumer to accept less than that or not, even if that is a frustrating process and one would hope that the manufacturer would not have dropped the ball on quality.

    At the consumer level, I would not argue specs, I would refuse quality less than the lens has demonstrated it is capable of. If I really, really wanted the lens, I would return as lacking sharpness until either I received one that matched the quality it has demonstrated, or until I was refused the request for replacement. But I wouldn't accept an unsharp lens at 400 when it has proven to be capable of sharpness across many samples.
     

Share This Page