The amount of effort and passion you put into these tests for the lenses are unbelievable (precisely the reason I subscribe to your channel!)... thank you so much for doing this on behalf of every fuji shooters!
I really appreciate how thorough you try to be with these tests, how you share your methodology in advance, and how you solicit advice prior to doing the tests. I think that makes the results more valuable and more interesting. I’m really looking forward to these tests-particularly on the 100-400 both with and without the teleconverters. I already have an opinion. I’ll be curious how it lines up with your results. Thanks for all the work it’s going to take to get this done.
Fuji is not made for pro wildlife photography. I mean you can do it, but if you put two pro photographer, with canon, nikon or sony and the other with Fuji. The one with one of those gears and lenses will not easily, but will do a better job then the Fuji. I own a Fuji and as outdoor photographer, I really like it. I am now going in the wildlife photo, with 100-400, and I can say, that I am really happy with it, I will maybe buy the 200mm with convertor 1.4x and I hope that Fuji will make a xh2 in the future with maybe a new lens for wildlife. I can say, that if you start photography, and your goal is wildlife photography, go on Nikon or Canon. (: If you already have Fuji, stay with it (: Sorry for my English, my first language is Italian.
Be interesting to see your findings. I had the XC50-230 and then moved to the 55-200, it’s great for shots of my dog and landscapes but no reach. I also have this year bought the 100-400 & 1.4x, which is great in good light but I take off the converter when gloomy or getting dark. I lose a reach but get sharper images with more separation. I’ve never had a really long zoom lens and love going out with the 100-400. Perhaps in time the rumoured 70-300 with a 1.4x will be the best option.
I can't wait to see the results of this test. I have the 100-400 + 1.4xTC and I love it. Too bad the 70-300 is not out yet so it could be part of your test.
Excited. I'm thinking about the 100-400 to take advantage of the great sale going on right now. I currently own the 50-140 and although I personally think it's a fantastic lens by any metric (size, weight, price, IQ, OIS, weather sealing), I'd like a bit more reach.
This should be the go to channel for so many people for so many reasons. Your methodologies are so well thought out & executed. Keep up this superb work. Looking forward to the results video in the future!!
Depending upon how distant the wildlife is, sharpness measured on the sensor may not be as important as sharpness (or resolution) as measured on the wildlife subject. It would be expressed in arc-seconds of resolution. It’s the kind of thing astronomers consider for telescopes. For this test, your target should always be at the same, very far distance. For example, the zoom at 400mm might be less sharp on the sensor than at 350mm, but resolve more on the subject at 400mm. One last comment: for me, I only own one telephoto lens, the 50-200mm. So that’s the best one for me. Simple.
Yes I plan to do a bit of sharpness vs resolution/crop ability comparing as well. Thank you very much for the info though and yes I 100% agree about the lens you have vs the one you don't.
Something to consider for the zooms: It's easier to get fast-moving animals into the frame while zoomed out. Then quickly zoom in without losing the animal -- that may only work if the focus does not change to complete blurryness during zooming. Refocus and take the shot. I am not sure about a metric for this... can the change of focus during zooming be measured?
Not sure about measured but I can still show examples of what each lens is like with focusing while zooming. For each I could focus wide, zoom as fast as possible in the star with AF on and see how long it takes to get focus. Not comparable to other lenses but good to know.
Hey, so excited you make that video, as i just purchased the 100-400 with 1.4tc. What I would consider really important for wildlife is not only af speed, but af-c tracking accuracy. I realized on my xt30 is that af-c is fast locking on the subject but then when distance change(or i just move the camera to another subject while still having shutter button half pressed), the lens is hesitant for almost a second to change to the new focus(even when that new subject is complety out of focus) . Thats pretty frustrating, i tried all 6 afc settings, changed af size from small to area/zone, but that behavior stayed the same. I rely more on af s now, but situations like BIF makes me realize how important good afc is for wildlife, thats what i would consider working into your algorithm too. Cheers and thanks for your efforts!!!
I think tracking speed is all worked out at the camera end of things. So while I would get different results with each lens it is more a review of the body rather than the lens...I think.
You've asked how to test certain factors, or what to test but I think it would be great for you to state what you believe are requirements of a good wildlife lens? Obviously (I think) reach or zoom is really important, as you opened with, but what other factors do you believe are the most important factors to make a great wildlife lens?
I was expecting a ranking like the wide angle ones. Although we all know that for wildlife, there is only one fuji lens that can be termed as 'optimal', the 100-400. It would have been much more practical if Fujifilm had come with 400mm f2.8 or 4 or 600mm f4 instead of the 200mm. Although, considering the price of those lenses from other brands, I think, even then the 100-400 would remain the optimal wildlife lens for Fujifilm.
I'll be checking in on your results with great interest! :-) Currently, the 90mm F2 is my longest lens and I've struggled to decide which lens to add on the long end. Tested the 50-140mm once (awesome quality, but I'm not sure it adds enough reach over my 90 to justify the purchase) and the 100-400mm (perhaps I had the misfortune of running into a bad copy, but I found it quite subpar in terms of sharpness; certainly nowhere close to the 50-140 in terms of IQ). But speaking about wildlife shooting with a Fuji - if you ever consider doing a video on Fuji's many AF modes and how to best utilize them when shooting wildlife, that would be awesome.
I have a wildlife series coming very soon which will go for a 4-8 videos, I plan to cover everything in that, just waiting on fujifilm NZ to get me all the lenses, but it's not far away
perfect timing with this series Thomas. Just got my hands on my own copy of the 100-400 and own the 55-200. Curious what these results will yield! Keep it up!
Is the XF 18-135mm not worth considering a review with this bunch? It's a bit short, but really only 5mm shorter than the XF 50 - 140mm. I love my XC 50 - 230mm, it's always given me tack sharp images and price-performance ratio is incredible, and its limited aperture is compensated by superb high ISO performance. I am looking for a WR lens to complement the XC 50 - 230 this that remains portable, and wondering if the XF 18 - 135mm is a good complement?
I own the 50-140 and find it far to short for wildlife BUT it is useful in lower light situations e.g. forest/bush. It also works with the 1.4x and 2x convertors wheret he 18-135 does not. I am confident you could still get good wildlife shots with the 18-135, but if wildlife is what you're buying a lens for I don't think the 18-135 should be a contender compared to the others mention in this video. BUT I have a open mind and I'm vulnerable to peer pressure 😁🤣
Fair point. But as some of these "dedicated" wildlife lenses are significant investments to upgrade to, would be useful to compare if it's worth the upgrade for those who might own a copy of the general use 18 - 135. I found this perspective quite useful in your wide angle review, as I had dumped my kit XC 15 - 45 in storage until I realized it could actually hold its own in certain cases to my XF 10-24mm with much more portability. P.S. For low lights I have converted a vintage fixed 200mm lens to cover me for this use. Just can't imagine lugging around the 50 - 140 on a hike! Portability is super important for us hobbyists
I'll see how I feel about it after giving the 50-140 a test. If I feel like the 50-140 just isn't suitable for wildlife without a teleconvertor I will most likely pass on the 18-135 for this series. BUT that doesn't mean I won't put the 18-135 through all these test when I do finally review it in a travel/versatile series.
Yes! Struggling to decide whether to get the 2x teleconverter for my 50-140mm to stay light or to wait and get the 100-400mm. Will be interesting to see the results. Kinda hoping that the image quality doesn't degrade too much with the converter.
@@ThomasBusbyPhotography I have both zooms and both teleconverters. I would say 50-140 + 2x is not quite versatile enough for wildlife. The 100-400 +/- 1.4x is more versatile. But I'm very curious to see how the sharpness, stabilization and autofocus compare. Oh! and don't forget wildlife videography (in some future project) : ).
I'd love to but unfortunately I don't have easy access to those items sorry, all third party review videos in the past the gear has been supplied by fans of the channel.
@@ThomasBusbyPhotography I am currently using a Pentax MF SMC 300mm f4 lens. I would love the Fuji 100-400mm zoom but the price is so much higher than third party options, even when you add in a Fringer adapter. If you call the Fringer and the Fuji 1.4x adapter the same price the Sigma lens comes in at less than half the price of the Fuji 100-400mm.
I'm hoping to buy a wildlife lens in the next year so I'm really interested in seeing your findings, especially for the 70-300mm when that gets released!
For measuring stabilization, I recommend the methodology used by the website called "Lenstip" (not going to link them; the RUclips gods might disapprove): Motion blur, with and without stabilization, features an element of randomness. There's no particular shutter speed that makes your handheld shot blurry, there's always an element of chance in how your hand moves. For example with some lens at 1/125th ss you might have 10% chance of getting a blurred shot from camera shake, at 1/60th ss the chance may be 40%, and so on. So what lenstip does is shoot a set of images at each shutter speed interval, and with that make a graph with the shutter speed on the X-axis and the percentage of blurred shots on the Y-axis. Like this (made up numbers): [SS | blurred %] 1/500 | 5% 1/250 | 10% 1/125 | 20% 1/60 | 50% 1/30 | 85% Draw a line from point to point and you have a curve. Do the same with stabilizer turned on, plot in the same graph and you can compare them. The average distance between the graphs in x-direction is the stabilization performance. Example list: [SS | blurred % | blurred % with OIS] 1/500 | 5% | 0% 1/250 | 10% | 0% 1/125 | 20% | 5% 1/60 | 50% | 10% 1/30 | 85% | 20% In the example above, the stabilization is two stops: There's two stops of exposure time between where the stabilized and unstabilized shot have the same chance for motion blurred result.
PS: Often the result won't be a clean whole number difference like above. That's not a problem as long as you stick to the logarithm(2) scale that we call "stops" of exposure. If you draw the graph on paper (I highly recommend pre-gridded paper) with 1 centimeter distance between each shutter speed stop mark (1/500, 1/250, 1/125, ...), then a linear distance on the paper is a linear number of stops: 1 centimeter is 1 stop, and 3.5 centimeters is indeed 3.5 stops.
@@ThomasBusbyPhotography I was having trouble with the camera/lens getting sharp images which should not happen with this lens I know. Shutter speed was above 250 sec hand held. Once I put it on the tripod it got worse so I switched off ibis and it got better but still not as good as my X100V. I had to send both back but I really ant this set up. Not having a moan at you lol just struggling to get it sorted lol. I have been into for photography for 38 years so know my way round a camera 🤦🏻. Thanks for your videos they do help greatly. 👍🏻👍🏻👍🏻
Oh right, the first 16mm f1.4 I got from Fuji was sharp as a tack, I did a firmware update for it and it killed it. It was hard to explain how, like the pixels weren't getting alined correct. If you get another, and it's sharp, Don't Update the lens. Xt4 body firmware are all good, but the second 16 1.4 I got I didn't update and it was perfect.
Personally I have given up on Fuji for wildlife photography. Currently Sony has the most interesting gear and next year we are likely to see new lenses from Canon and Nikon. I do not see Fuji to catch up with both lens choice or AF any time soon.
I have faith, I agree AF in both photo and video is fujis weakest area at the moment. But at the moment the gear is still more than good enough to get stunning shots.
@@ThomasBusbyPhotography Fujifim has so many lenses still to update and wildlife photography is only a niche. And they never ever tried to release a robust body ever since the X-H1 failed. I would love to see something like Canon EF 200-400mm f/4L IS USM Extender 1.4x. More likely are still Sigma telephoto lenses, as Sigma can sell its lenses across serveral mounts.
I am very much at the mercy of Fujifilm NZ, I need all the viable options all at once for quite a while so it needs to work around roadshows, presentations, sales training etc and yes the 70-300 has caused it to be delayed a little unfortunately
I was actually expecting to receive them all at the start of this month, and I'll be reviewing them as a series instead of one at a time. E.g. one video will be about sharpness, another about focus speed etc, so I can release the videos as I do the tests, and I'll have a finally summery video at the end
@@ThomasBusbyPhotography That sounds like a helpful approach. I'll be looking forward to the series once you get an opportunity to get your hands on the gear!
I'm excited to hear your thoughts on 55-200 and the 50-230! By the way, did you ever test the 18f2 or 23 1.4/2 for astro? Are the latter two too narrow for the test?
@@ThomasBusbyPhotography for the money you pay and the lens you get,it is definitely not a great deal. For wildlife you better off with a Nikon D500 and a 200-500mm . If you pockets are deep enough you can go for the 500mm f5.6 pf. You can get decent pictures with the Fuji but it is to much hassle for very little reward. I don't even talk about the 8 batteries needed to last the whole day... a real pain in the ass 🙄
The amount of effort and passion you put into these tests for the lenses are unbelievable (precisely the reason I subscribe to your channel!)... thank you so much for doing this on behalf of every fuji shooters!
Thank you for the awesome encouragement and support.
Ogerall this is fantastic, I like how you put these up "warts n all", keep up the awesome work mate
Hahaha cheers mate, not everyone appreciatea the "warts" but I'm happy you do.
I really appreciate how thorough you try to be with these tests, how you share your methodology in advance, and how you solicit advice prior to doing the tests. I think that makes the results more valuable and more interesting. I’m really looking forward to these tests-particularly on the 100-400 both with and without the teleconverters. I already have an opinion. I’ll be curious how it lines up with your results. Thanks for all the work it’s going to take to get this done.
Thank you for the support and encouragement!!
Awesome shots!
Fuji is not made for pro wildlife photography. I mean you can do it, but if you put two pro photographer, with canon, nikon or sony and the other with Fuji. The one with one of those gears and lenses will not easily, but will do a better job then the Fuji.
I own a Fuji and as outdoor photographer, I really like it.
I am now going in the wildlife photo, with 100-400, and I can say, that I am really happy with it, I will maybe buy the 200mm with convertor 1.4x and I hope that Fuji will make a xh2 in the future with maybe a new lens for wildlife.
I can say, that if you start photography, and your goal is wildlife photography, go on Nikon or Canon. (:
If you already have Fuji, stay with it (:
Sorry for my English, my first language is Italian.
Be interesting to see your findings. I had the XC50-230 and then moved to the 55-200, it’s great for shots of my dog and landscapes but no reach. I also have this year bought the 100-400 & 1.4x, which is great in good light but I take off the converter when gloomy or getting dark. I lose a reach but get sharper images with more separation. I’ve never had a really long zoom lens and love going out with the 100-400. Perhaps in time the rumoured 70-300 with a 1.4x will be the best option.
Yeah partly doing all this testing now so I can compare them to that lens if/when it comes out
I can't wait to see the results of this test. I have the 100-400 + 1.4xTC and I love it. Too bad the 70-300 is not out yet so it could be part of your test.
It will get put through the same tests and compared to all these once it's out.
Excited. I'm thinking about the 100-400 to take advantage of the great sale going on right now. I currently own the 50-140 and although I personally think it's a fantastic lens by any metric (size, weight, price, IQ, OIS, weather sealing), I'd like a bit more reach.
Sounds like you're in the exact same situation as me.
Me too! I'm very curious to see the review on the TCs, and anxious to see whether the loss of speed with the 2 x will be a deal breaker.
Don’t run into to many Fuji shooters, awesome to see the passion for it. Great video
Thank you!
its the xc 50-230 for sure
This should be the go to channel for so many people for so many reasons. Your methodologies are so well thought out & executed. Keep up this superb work. Looking forward to the results video in the future!!
Thank you!!
Thanks for all your quality content. Excited to see how my 55-200 ranks with all the other lenses. I’m looking to get the 100-400 next.
Depending upon how distant the wildlife is, sharpness measured on the sensor may not be as important as sharpness (or resolution) as measured on the wildlife subject. It would be expressed in arc-seconds of resolution. It’s the kind of thing astronomers consider for telescopes. For this test, your target should always be at the same, very far distance. For example, the zoom at 400mm might be less sharp on the sensor than at 350mm, but resolve more on the subject at 400mm. One last comment: for me, I only own one telephoto lens, the 50-200mm. So that’s the best one for me. Simple.
Yes I plan to do a bit of sharpness vs resolution/crop ability comparing as well. Thank you very much for the info though and yes I 100% agree about the lens you have vs the one you don't.
My preference would be to keep price separate.
Yeah I'm leaning that way.
Might mention prices as a %% difference etc.
But not factor it in to any scoring algorithm if I use one.
Something to consider for the zooms:
It's easier to get fast-moving animals into the frame while zoomed out. Then quickly zoom in without losing the animal -- that may only work if the focus does not change to complete blurryness during zooming. Refocus and take the shot.
I am not sure about a metric for this... can the change of focus during zooming be measured?
Not sure about measured but I can still show examples of what each lens is like with focusing while zooming.
For each I could focus wide, zoom as fast as possible in the star with AF on and see how long it takes to get focus.
Not comparable to other lenses but good to know.
Hey, so excited you make that video, as i just purchased the 100-400 with 1.4tc. What I would consider really important for wildlife is not only af speed, but af-c tracking accuracy. I realized on my xt30 is that af-c is fast locking on the subject but then when distance change(or i just move the camera to another subject while still having shutter button half pressed), the lens is hesitant for almost a second to change to the new focus(even when that new subject is complety out of focus) . Thats pretty frustrating, i tried all 6 afc settings, changed af size from small to area/zone, but that behavior stayed the same. I rely more on af s now, but situations like BIF makes me realize how important good afc is for wildlife, thats what i would consider working into your algorithm too. Cheers and thanks for your efforts!!!
I think tracking speed is all worked out at the camera end of things. So while I would get different results with each lens it is more a review of the body rather than the lens...I think.
You've asked how to test certain factors, or what to test but I think it would be great for you to state what you believe are requirements of a good wildlife lens? Obviously (I think) reach or zoom is really important, as you opened with, but what other factors do you believe are the most important factors to make a great wildlife lens?
I'll state all that in the series final once I've shot a ton with every lens
I was expecting a ranking like the wide angle ones. Although we all know that for wildlife, there is only one fuji lens that can be termed as 'optimal', the 100-400. It would have been much more practical if Fujifilm had come with 400mm f2.8 or 4 or 600mm f4 instead of the 200mm. Although, considering the price of those lenses from other brands, I think, even then the 100-400 would remain the optimal wildlife lens for Fujifilm.
Factoring in price you might be right man, I'm excited to find out.
Nice to see some kiwi birds again as an expat kiwi of 10 years. Quality material too bro! Subbed as a new Fuji owner. (X-S10)
Cheers bro good to have ya on board and thanks for the support.
I'll be checking in on your results with great interest! :-) Currently, the 90mm F2 is my longest lens and I've struggled to decide which lens to add on the long end. Tested the 50-140mm once (awesome quality, but I'm not sure it adds enough reach over my 90 to justify the purchase) and the 100-400mm (perhaps I had the misfortune of running into a bad copy, but I found it quite subpar in terms of sharpness; certainly nowhere close to the 50-140 in terms of IQ). But speaking about wildlife shooting with a Fuji - if you ever consider doing a video on Fuji's many AF modes and how to best utilize them when shooting wildlife, that would be awesome.
I have a wildlife series coming very soon which will go for a 4-8 videos, I plan to cover everything in that, just waiting on fujifilm NZ to get me all the lenses, but it's not far away
perfect timing with this series Thomas. Just got my hands on my own copy of the 100-400 and own the 55-200. Curious what these results will yield! Keep it up!
Thank you!
Is the XF 18-135mm not worth considering a review with this bunch? It's a bit short, but really only 5mm shorter than the XF 50 - 140mm.
I love my XC 50 - 230mm, it's always given me tack sharp images and price-performance ratio is incredible, and its limited aperture is compensated by superb high ISO performance. I am looking for a WR lens to complement the XC 50 - 230 this that remains portable, and wondering if the XF 18 - 135mm is a good complement?
I own the 50-140 and find it far to short for wildlife BUT it is useful in lower light situations e.g. forest/bush.
It also works with the 1.4x and 2x convertors wheret he 18-135 does not.
I am confident you could still get good wildlife shots with the 18-135, but if wildlife is what you're buying a lens for I don't think the 18-135 should be a contender compared to the others mention in this video.
BUT I have a open mind and I'm vulnerable to peer pressure 😁🤣
Fair point. But as some of these "dedicated" wildlife lenses are significant investments to upgrade to, would be useful to compare if it's worth the upgrade for those who might own a copy of the general use 18 - 135. I found this perspective quite useful in your wide angle review, as I had dumped my kit XC 15 - 45 in storage until I realized it could actually hold its own in certain cases to my XF 10-24mm with much more portability.
P.S. For low lights I have converted a vintage fixed 200mm lens to cover me for this use. Just can't imagine lugging around the 50 - 140 on a hike! Portability is super important for us hobbyists
I'll see how I feel about it after giving the 50-140 a test.
If I feel like the 50-140 just isn't suitable for wildlife without a teleconvertor I will most likely pass on the 18-135 for this series.
BUT that doesn't mean I won't put the 18-135 through all these test when I do finally review it in a travel/versatile series.
I think stabilization helps framing more than a slower shutter speed
Very very true, I guess I can easily show some comparisions of framing with IS on and off.
Yes! Struggling to decide whether to get the 2x teleconverter for my 50-140mm to stay light or to wait and get the 100-400mm. Will be interesting to see the results. Kinda hoping that the image quality doesn't degrade too much with the converter.
Exactly my thinking and hoping
@@ThomasBusbyPhotography I have both zooms and both teleconverters. I would say 50-140 + 2x is not quite versatile enough for wildlife. The 100-400 +/- 1.4x is more versatile. But I'm very curious to see how the sharpness, stabilization and autofocus compare. Oh! and don't forget wildlife videography (in some future project) : ).
Hahaha I thought about that, but dedicated video related projects are further down the line
Sigma 150-600mm for Canon mount with Fringer II?
I'd love to but unfortunately I don't have easy access to those items sorry, all third party review videos in the past the gear has been supplied by fans of the channel.
@@ThomasBusbyPhotography I am currently using a Pentax MF SMC 300mm f4 lens. I would love the Fuji 100-400mm zoom but the price is so much higher than third party options, even when you add in a Fringer adapter. If you call the Fringer and the Fuji 1.4x adapter the same price the Sigma lens comes in at less than half the price of the Fuji 100-400mm.
Yeah but I don't want to buy every lens I plan to test so what lenses get tested are depanted on who wants to send me lenses to test.
I'm hoping to buy a wildlife lens in the next year so I'm really interested in seeing your findings, especially for the 70-300mm when that gets released!
For measuring stabilization, I recommend the methodology used by the website called "Lenstip" (not going to link them; the RUclips gods might disapprove):
Motion blur, with and without stabilization, features an element of randomness. There's no particular shutter speed that makes your handheld shot blurry, there's always an element of chance in how your hand moves. For example with some lens at 1/125th ss you might have 10% chance of getting a blurred shot from camera shake, at 1/60th ss the chance may be 40%, and so on. So what lenstip does is shoot a set of images at each shutter speed interval, and with that make a graph with the shutter speed on the X-axis and the percentage of blurred shots on the Y-axis.
Like this (made up numbers):
[SS | blurred %]
1/500 | 5%
1/250 | 10%
1/125 | 20%
1/60 | 50%
1/30 | 85%
Draw a line from point to point and you have a curve.
Do the same with stabilizer turned on, plot in the same graph and you can compare them. The average distance between the graphs in x-direction is the stabilization performance.
Example list:
[SS | blurred % | blurred % with OIS]
1/500 | 5% | 0%
1/250 | 10% | 0%
1/125 | 20% | 5%
1/60 | 50% | 10%
1/30 | 85% | 20%
In the example above, the stabilization is two stops: There's two stops of exposure time between where the stabilized and unstabilized shot have the same chance for motion blurred result.
PS: Often the result won't be a clean whole number difference like above. That's not a problem as long as you stick to the logarithm(2) scale that we call "stops" of exposure. If you draw the graph on paper (I highly recommend pre-gridded paper) with 1 centimeter distance between each shutter speed stop mark (1/500, 1/250, 1/125, ...), then a linear distance on the paper is a linear number of stops: 1 centimeter is 1 stop, and 3.5 centimeters is indeed 3.5 stops.
This is awesome information thank you VERY much!
Also glad you are test the TC's as well as I agree it will be good to see what lens works bast with them.
Would you need to switch ibis off with monopod? 👍🏻
What are you shooting and with what lens?
I don't think you even need to turn it off with a tripod, it is very smart
@@ThomasBusbyPhotography I was having trouble with the camera/lens getting sharp images which should not happen with this lens I know. Shutter speed was above 250 sec hand held. Once I put it on the tripod it got worse so I switched off ibis and it got better but still not as good as my X100V. I had to send both back but I really ant this set up. Not having a moan at you lol just struggling to get it sorted lol. I have been into for photography for 38 years so know my way round a camera 🤦🏻. Thanks for your videos they do help greatly. 👍🏻👍🏻👍🏻
What lens are you using?
@@ThomasBusbyPhotography 16mm 1.4
Oh right, the first 16mm f1.4 I got from Fuji was sharp as a tack, I did a firmware update for it and it killed it.
It was hard to explain how, like the pixels weren't getting alined correct.
If you get another, and it's sharp, Don't Update the lens.
Xt4 body firmware are all good, but the second 16 1.4 I got I didn't update and it was perfect.
Personally I have given up on Fuji for wildlife photography. Currently Sony has the most interesting gear and next year we are likely to see new lenses from Canon and Nikon. I do not see Fuji to catch up with both lens choice or AF any time soon.
I have faith, I agree AF in both photo and video is fujis weakest area at the moment.
But at the moment the gear is still more than good enough to get stunning shots.
@@ThomasBusbyPhotography Fujifim has so many lenses still to update and wildlife photography is only a niche. And they never ever tried to release a robust body ever since the X-H1 failed. I would love to see something like Canon EF 200-400mm f/4L IS USM Extender 1.4x. More likely are still Sigma telephoto lenses, as Sigma can sell its lenses across serveral mounts.
I image a lot of the original prime lenses as Mark II are on the way.
@@ThomasBusbyPhotography do you mean MkII Fuji X lenses?
I mean like the 10-24mm mkII.
I hope they mark II coming for the older 23,35 and 56mm lenses
Hey, Thomas. I've been anxiously awaiting this video series. Did you decide to delay it so that you could include the 70-300?
I am very much at the mercy of Fujifilm NZ, I need all the viable options all at once for quite a while so it needs to work around roadshows, presentations, sales training etc and yes the 70-300 has caused it to be delayed a little unfortunately
@@ThomasBusbyPhotography Ah, I hadn't thought about that.
I was actually expecting to receive them all at the start of this month, and I'll be reviewing them as a series instead of one at a time.
E.g. one video will be about sharpness, another about focus speed etc, so I can release the videos as I do the tests, and I'll have a finally summery video at the end
@@ThomasBusbyPhotography That sounds like a helpful approach. I'll be looking forward to the series once you get an opportunity to get your hands on the gear!
Hahah me too, cheers for the support
I'm excited to hear your thoughts on 55-200 and the 50-230!
By the way, did you ever test the 18f2 or 23 1.4/2 for astro? Are the latter two too narrow for the test?
I haven't been able to get hold of the 18mm but both 23mm are going to be in next week's video
Fujifilm system is not made for wildlife photography. I sold my X-T2 two years ago for this reason and bought a Canon DSLR.
Just because it's not the best, doesn't mean it still can't be amazing.
@@ThomasBusbyPhotography for the money you pay and the lens you get,it is definitely not a great deal. For wildlife you better off with a Nikon D500 and a 200-500mm . If you pockets are deep enough you can go for the 500mm f5.6 pf. You can get decent pictures with the Fuji but it is to much hassle for very little reward. I don't even talk about the 8 batteries needed to last the whole day... a real pain in the ass 🙄
But the cost is zero if you already own the gear for other purposes and you must shoot in a very different style than me to need so many batteries.
@@ThomasBusbyPhotography I agree with you. I used to photograph seabirds in the north sea