Great review Steve. I’ve owned the 100-400, 55-200mm and immediately sold them when I got the amazing 70-300 which surpasses these other two lenses in all sorts of ways. I particularly like its portability and its lovely bokeh which is amazing considering it’s f5.6. Get the -xt5 and crop like crazy for super long shots!!
I have the 70-300 on an XT3 and its a lovely lens. Was going to hire a 100-400 for bird photography but the weight is putting me off. The 70-300 is so easy to use and as you mention is sharp. Thanks for the review.
Hi Steve just wanted to say thanks for your videos around the Fuji lenses. Your videos are really informative and I’ve enjoyed them. I just ordered the 700-300 however ALMOST went with the sigma 100-400 Thanks for your content hope you make some more videos in the future
I've got both lenses. When I switched to the 100-400 was the only really long option without looking at adapting glass from other manufacturers. I like it but the size and weight make it a bit of a PITA to carry round, especially if you're only carrying it on the off chance that you might need it rather than knowing you will (e.g. family days out). Plus the minimum focusing distance can be a challenge in some of the places you might want to use it. When the 70-300 was released I fortunately managed to get one at the time stock on it was supposedly still quite low. It instantly claimed its own spot in my camera bag as I can still fit in a camera body with two or three other lenses depending on what I think I'll need whereas with the 100-400 I'd either have to pick just one lens or chance a lens picking up knocks by having it in the bottle holder pockets of the camera bag. Now the 150-600 is out I have to admit I'm tempted to get that and look at selling or trading the 100-400 in. Yes, it's f8 at the long end but then if you slap the 1.4x TC on the 100-400 for some extra reach you're going to be at f8 on the long end as well but I'd hope the 150-600 at 600mm would be sharper than the 100-400+1.4x TC combo. Obviously the one thing that gives pause for thought is that Sigma and Tamron both have 150-600 lenses that are brighter at the long end (f6.3) and both have started releasing Fuji mount lenses so you have to wonder if they might think of bringing those into their Fuji line-up (although Tamron do have their 150-500 in X mount already so maybe they're going to concentrate on that). All somewhat moot for me right now anyway as I look at a rather empty photography gear fund...
The 70-300 took about 3 months to get to me, but there was one point when I was told I wouldn't actually get it for a whole year... I'm glad that wasn't the case. My current bag has the 10-24mm, 18-135mm and 70-300mm with TC. It's a great kit of lenses covering virtually everything you need for most situations. But, that's only possible because of the light weight of the 70-300mm. I know what you mean about gear funds, they often run low for a few months after Christmas... But I'd love to see Sigma's 150-600mm on the X-mount. Either way, unfortunately, I wouldn't be able to use them.
Am in same dilemma, having shoulder issues. My big FF camera & lens weighs over 2kg. Looked at M4/3 options, around 1700gr, then compare old Xt2 with 70-300+ 1.4tc, 1227gr. Interesting. Images hold up well with latter lens. Now wondering whether need newer Xt model but don’t like Xt5 due to noise & q menu. Hope the tendonitis eases soon, look after yourself and thanks for this video
Hi Steve, I hope you will fully recover from the tendinitis conditions soon! Thanks for this review. I got bot the 70-300mm and the 100-400mm, mainly for surf photography. Not only does the extra reach matter in my case but the focus accuracy with the 100-400mm is really amazing. I hardly miss a shot even when I have to quickly zoom in or out, which is a well documented problem with the 70-300mm. For occasional sports photographers the 100-400mm might still be the best Fuji option as you can get used copies for 900-1000€. This actually made me decide to go with the Fuji lens as opposed to the new Sigma or Tamron options.
Maybe because I am now using it on the X-T5, but I'm not missing shots with the 70-300 either. But, there's no doubt that the 100-400 is a really great lens. Have you tried the new 150-600mm yet?
I would love to try the 150-600mm, but for me it's just not affordable. For surf photography I also find myself using the 100-200mm range quite a bit, so maybe the 150-600mm would be overkill on the long end and missing 50mm on the short end, at least for my needs...
@@stephanjurgens3766 That's entirely possible. I think I would miss that wider end of the lens if I started at 150. The only difference might be if you're using it for wildlife.
To add to this... it sounds like you're referencing using the AF for long ranges, whereas I choose to pull focus manually which is why I'm asking what makes you feel like you're missing. I feel it's quite hard to rely on AF at longer ranges especially with moving objects that are at fairly high speed
Just found your channel through this video and I'm really liking it! And I tend to be a bit critical. No 1 minute intro with sleepy music or other pretentiousness, straight to the point and I love it. Your presentation and narration is also excellent and great information about the products themselves, that's what I'm here for! Every now and then you don't hesitate to press the subscribe button right away. Keep it up!
Thank you so much, I am ever so humbled by your kind words. I have to admit, I've not made a video for a while, but I am working on an updated one for wildlife photography and will have a free downloadable guide as well.
Glad to hear you're still making videos, it's sadly rare to find channels that are actually pleasant to watch. You actually speak your mind and I know I'm watching a real person with actual opinions and a real interest in the subject, when so many channels are obviously influenced by sponsorships or loaner gear. Hopefully you'll find the chance to make more videos, if you ask me this is the kind of content people really do appreciate.
@@CharlesFBI One of the things I think is important; I don't review gear unless I have bought it. I might talk about an offering from the point of view of someone who could buy it, but generally I try and keep informed about what's out there, make a purchase and then talk about the gear. I got into this more to share my journey than review things, and learning the camera and what is capable with the kit I have is a big part of that. That's why Ive made the videos on noise reduction and ISO, as they were things I was interested in knowing at the time.
Thanks so much for your terrific videos, and especially this one Steve. I am in the process of choosing between these two and this was a splendid comparison that showed what I was looking for. Keep up the great work.
@@SteveMellorPhotography I ended up selecting the 70-300. It came down to the size and price. I feel the minuscule difference in image quality and big cost discrepancy makes the red badge a tough pill to swallow in comparison. I saved enough to pick up the 1.4 teleconverter for a little extra oomph.
Great video. I don',t agree with the statement about 'the lenses loosing clairty at the long end'. I have tried the 100-400mm and was disappointed by the sharpness at 400. The reason why i am still adapating my canon 100-400mm mk 2 L because its sharpness at 400mm is way way superior than the fuji version wide open. The only fuji long lens that i find great in comparison to my sharp canon lenses is the 50-140mm.
I was just thinking I hadn't seen anything from you for a while and five minutes later you pop up with this. I don't have the 70 - 300 lens, but I do have both the 100 - 400 and 150 - 600mm lenses. I like the 100 - 400, it's my go to lens for travel and is good for wildlife and plenty of landscapes. The bigger lens is a handful and ot especially fast, but it is of course good for small birds or a distant fox or deer. Then again, it only just fits in my bag with one other small lens.
It’s been a very odd time for me. I have 2 more videos ready to go and another being edited at the moment, so there’s more coming… But my computer finally gave up the ghost and I had to wait over a month whilst they built the new one. I’ve had a bit of an enforced break from everything whilst that was happening. I’ve been blown away by the 70-300mm, but there’s no doubt that the 100-400mm is an incredible lens. I don’t think anything will really compete with the 150-600mm for wildlife, from what I’ve currently seen of it.
Good to see you back Steve. I've been looking at the 100 to 400 2nd hand. However there is the Tamron 150 to 500 out there but that comes in at £1400 which is a bit beyond my budget so I'll stick with the Tamron 18 to 300 for the time being.
@@SteveMellorPhotography It is saves me swapping around like I used to with the 18 to 55 for the 50 to 230 still have them loathe to get rid if the 18 to 55 love that lens.
I have the 70 -300 and have just bought the 100-400 arriving tomorrow so hoping it meets my expectations. I have both teleconverters although I almost despise the 2x. Where I live the marshes and rivers are wide open spaces. I have struggled sometimes to get tight enough on shy Herons which always lurk on the far shore. Even with 40Mp sensor the 70-300 is stretching a bit too far too often and I don't like it on my tripod (will mention more on that later). I'm planning to use the 70-300 without the teleconverter for close work and I love it for insects, a fantastic lens. The 100-400 with the 1.4 tele should satisfy my craving for the far shore Herons and birds in flight, I found the 100-300 good but hoping for better-range for Marsh Harriers etc. Weight... well, walking is tough these days anyways so bicycle and car will take most of the strain. And one really really big deal for me is I want better tripod use. The drooping ball head syndrome with the 100-300 drives me potty. I tried all sorts of gadgets to balance the thing out but it's too clumsy. The 100-400 tripod collar balancing act will open doors to a gimbal head. Which on it's own is a big deal for me.
I hope the lens has met your expectations. The dropping ball head is always an annoyance, but it doesn't get better with the 100-400, unfortunately. And, I've used the 70-300 on a gimbal recently, it can be done. But, I get what you're saying about the 100-400mm for reach and its a good reason to get the lens if ultimately that's what you need.
@@SteveMellorPhotography The 100-400 with 1.4 teleconverter on a gimbal head. Verdict Excellent. My only gripe is the speed of AF on the XH2 for fast flying small birds. Alot of that is my lack of skill with the heavy lens and probably my settings choices... I won't give up on it, but I'm thinking Swallows are currently beyond my scope... for now. Talking about scopes. Playing with a red-dot.... Very interesting....
I’m going to defend the 100-400 on this one. If you add a 1.4x teleconverter, it’s extremely close to the 150-600 in focal length with a similar aperture as the 150-600. The 100-400 becomes a 140-560mm at f/6.3-8 which is 1/3 stop slower on the wide end. I fell the 100-400 isn’t worth swapping out for the 150-600 if reach is a question when a tele will get you very close, unless you need the extra 40mm for some reason. As for the 70-300, it is a fantastic lens. I used that lens so much before I sold it recently. I’m now thinking about getting it again in the near future. Though the 100-400 is a major consideration.
I think you would get the 150-600mm if the 100-400mm with the TC is still too little. You can use the TC on the 150-600mm, and you're getting closer to the action if you want some Really close-up wildlife. But, it's a hell of a price.
@@SteveMellorPhotography true, but you’re also getting an f/8-11. If you’re shooting fast action/wildlife in anything but the brightest of days, you’re going to have a hard time. Early morning/late evenings at high shutter speeds would basically be a no go, unless your subject is sitting still.
@@SteveMellorPhotography thank you for the reply, I have to ask- between a 100-400 going for $950 and 70-300, taking weight into consideration, which would you personally go for? (Ignoring the hand injury of course)
Yes, unfortunately. Honestly, I am struggling with any form of photography at the moment. Lighter lenses make it a lot easier, of course, but the weight and size of the 100-400mm just make it unmanageable. Just zooming with the lens twists my wrist in a way that it does not want to go. When I'm not on camera, I pretty much constantly have a wrist brace on, which helps a little... I've been told this usually clears up over time (although it will come back if you're not careful) but it can take several years.
@@SteveMellorPhotography I’m really sorry to hear that Steve, it must be a hard thing to accept such limitations being so involved in photography for so long. I’ve had in the last few years two knee replacements, a hip replacement and am waiting for my remaining hip to be done, l have struggled to walk the sorts of distances you would expect to encounter to get to a location with my 100-400 lens, so I sold it and bought the 150-600. I frequently ponder what I’ve done and what was I thinking. Possible grounds for a psychiatric assessment maybe? Seriously though, good luck Steve I sincerely hope your situation improve soon.
@@mac69041 I've seen similar things with my Mum (who's 82 now) and Dad before he passed away last year. I enjoy visiting zoos and wildlife preserves, so we get the chance to get a bit closer to nature there, and those are trips that mum can join me on... But, I do understand the problems with medical interventions that stop you from achieving what you want. But, these things can be recovered from so that you can at least take similar pictures again. I wish you all the best on your road to recovery. I'm sure the 150-600mm will come in handy at some point.
Agree - the 70-300 is an excellent addition and much easier to handle. I have both and unless I am on a dedicated shoot where the 100-400 may be better, then it is the 70-300 every time. I also found that any atmostpheric hazes or shimmer can make the 100-400 unusable in certain conditions. Then there is the new 40mp sensor which will allow extra cropping to get the same focal length as the 100-400 without losing image quality...which further stacks in favour of the 70-300
Have you got one of the 40mp cameras yet? I’m likely going to do a video on that soon as I now have an X-T5, so I’ll get to try it out. I think the AI enhanced scaling is going to be much more important for wildlife in the future. It’s already let me push the camera more without having to worry as much about things like grain.
100-400 can produce gorgeous images but is very inconsistent at 400mm depending on light conditions and the distance from the subject. It's a pitty for bird photography. 70 300 is more consistent and in my experience resolves better the 40mpx
I'd not noticed the inconsistencies in the 100-400mm before using the 70-300mm, but I suppose when you don’t have much to compare it to, you don't notice that as much.
![Jack Harlow - Hello Miss Johnson [Official Music Video]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/Q86_nlRoIGw/mqdefault.jpg)
Great review Steve. I’ve owned the 100-400, 55-200mm and immediately sold them when I got the amazing 70-300 which surpasses these other two lenses in all sorts of ways. I particularly like its portability and its lovely bokeh which is amazing considering it’s f5.6. Get the -xt5 and crop like crazy for super long shots!!
I have the 70-300 on an XT3 and its a lovely lens. Was going to hire a 100-400 for bird photography but the weight is putting me off. The 70-300 is so easy to use and as you mention is sharp. Thanks for the review.
Thanks for watching 😁
Great review 👍
Hi Steve just wanted to say thanks for your videos around the Fuji lenses.
Your videos are really informative and I’ve enjoyed them.
I just ordered the 700-300 however ALMOST went with the sigma 100-400
Thanks for your content hope you make some more videos in the future
I've got both lenses. When I switched to the 100-400 was the only really long option without looking at adapting glass from other manufacturers. I like it but the size and weight make it a bit of a PITA to carry round, especially if you're only carrying it on the off chance that you might need it rather than knowing you will (e.g. family days out). Plus the minimum focusing distance can be a challenge in some of the places you might want to use it.
When the 70-300 was released I fortunately managed to get one at the time stock on it was supposedly still quite low. It instantly claimed its own spot in my camera bag as I can still fit in a camera body with two or three other lenses depending on what I think I'll need whereas with the 100-400 I'd either have to pick just one lens or chance a lens picking up knocks by having it in the bottle holder pockets of the camera bag.
Now the 150-600 is out I have to admit I'm tempted to get that and look at selling or trading the 100-400 in. Yes, it's f8 at the long end but then if you slap the 1.4x TC on the 100-400 for some extra reach you're going to be at f8 on the long end as well but I'd hope the 150-600 at 600mm would be sharper than the 100-400+1.4x TC combo.
Obviously the one thing that gives pause for thought is that Sigma and Tamron both have 150-600 lenses that are brighter at the long end (f6.3) and both have started releasing Fuji mount lenses so you have to wonder if they might think of bringing those into their Fuji line-up (although Tamron do have their 150-500 in X mount already so maybe they're going to concentrate on that).
All somewhat moot for me right now anyway as I look at a rather empty photography gear fund...
The 70-300 took about 3 months to get to me, but there was one point when I was told I wouldn't actually get it for a whole year... I'm glad that wasn't the case. My current bag has the 10-24mm, 18-135mm and 70-300mm with TC. It's a great kit of lenses covering virtually everything you need for most situations. But, that's only possible because of the light weight of the 70-300mm.
I know what you mean about gear funds, they often run low for a few months after Christmas... But I'd love to see Sigma's 150-600mm on the X-mount. Either way, unfortunately, I wouldn't be able to use them.
Am in same dilemma, having shoulder issues. My big FF camera & lens weighs over 2kg. Looked at M4/3 options, around 1700gr, then compare old Xt2 with 70-300+ 1.4tc, 1227gr. Interesting. Images hold up well with latter lens. Now wondering whether need newer Xt model but don’t like Xt5 due to noise & q menu. Hope the tendonitis eases soon, look after yourself and thanks for this video
I use the OM5 with the Panasonic 100-300. I find that very light and sharp.
But this lens does look great.
Hi Steve, I hope you will fully recover from the tendinitis conditions soon! Thanks for this review. I got bot the 70-300mm and the 100-400mm, mainly for surf photography. Not only does the extra reach matter in my case but the focus accuracy with the 100-400mm is really amazing. I hardly miss a shot even when I have to quickly zoom in or out, which is a well documented problem with the 70-300mm. For occasional sports photographers the 100-400mm might still be the best Fuji option as you can get used copies for 900-1000€. This actually made me decide to go with the Fuji lens as opposed to the new Sigma or Tamron options.
Maybe because I am now using it on the X-T5, but I'm not missing shots with the 70-300 either. But, there's no doubt that the 100-400 is a really great lens. Have you tried the new 150-600mm yet?
I would love to try the 150-600mm, but for me it's just not affordable. For surf photography I also find myself using the 100-200mm range quite a bit, so maybe the 150-600mm would be overkill on the long end and missing 50mm on the short end, at least for my needs...
@@stephanjurgens3766 That's entirely possible. I think I would miss that wider end of the lens if I started at 150. The only difference might be if you're using it for wildlife.
what camera are you shooting on? I am on an XT-3 and curious to know... what makes you feel like you're missing shots?
To add to this... it sounds like you're referencing using the AF for long ranges, whereas I choose to pull focus manually which is why I'm asking what makes you feel like you're missing. I feel it's quite hard to rely on AF at longer ranges especially with moving objects that are at fairly high speed
Thank you so much Steve, you read my mind and answered ALL my questions about these two (three) lenses. Much obliged! 😀
I'm happy to see your video! You've always provided great information that helped me when I first bought my XT-3.
Thank you ever so much. It’s lovely to hear you enjoy the videos :)
Just found your channel through this video and I'm really liking it! And I tend to be a bit critical. No 1 minute intro with sleepy music or other pretentiousness, straight to the point and I love it. Your presentation and narration is also excellent and great information about the products themselves, that's what I'm here for! Every now and then you don't hesitate to press the subscribe button right away. Keep it up!
Thank you so much, I am ever so humbled by your kind words. I have to admit, I've not made a video for a while, but I am working on an updated one for wildlife photography and will have a free downloadable guide as well.
Glad to hear you're still making videos, it's sadly rare to find channels that are actually pleasant to watch. You actually speak your mind and I know I'm watching a real person with actual opinions and a real interest in the subject, when so many channels are obviously influenced by sponsorships or loaner gear. Hopefully you'll find the chance to make more videos, if you ask me this is the kind of content people really do appreciate.
@@CharlesFBI One of the things I think is important; I don't review gear unless I have bought it. I might talk about an offering from the point of view of someone who could buy it, but generally I try and keep informed about what's out there, make a purchase and then talk about the gear. I got into this more to share my journey than review things, and learning the camera and what is capable with the kit I have is a big part of that. That's why Ive made the videos on noise reduction and ISO, as they were things I was interested in knowing at the time.
Thanks so much for your terrific videos, and especially this one Steve. I am in the process of choosing between these two and this was a splendid comparison that showed what I was looking for. Keep up the great work.
I'd love to know what you eventually chose :)
@@SteveMellorPhotography I ended up selecting the 70-300. It came down to the size and price. I feel the minuscule difference in image quality and big cost discrepancy makes the red badge a tough pill to swallow in comparison. I saved enough to pick up the 1.4 teleconverter for a little extra oomph.
Great video. I don',t agree with the statement about 'the lenses loosing clairty at the long end'. I have tried the 100-400mm and was disappointed by the sharpness at 400. The reason why i am still adapating my canon 100-400mm mk 2 L because its sharpness at 400mm is way way superior than the fuji version wide open. The only fuji long lens that i find great in comparison to my sharp canon lenses is the 50-140mm.
I was just thinking I hadn't seen anything from you for a while and five minutes later you pop up with this. I don't have the 70 - 300 lens, but I do have both the 100 - 400 and 150 - 600mm lenses. I like the 100 - 400, it's my go to lens for travel and is good for wildlife and plenty of landscapes. The bigger lens is a handful and ot especially fast, but it is of course good for small birds or a distant fox or deer. Then again, it only just fits in my bag with one other small lens.
It’s been a very odd time for me. I have 2 more videos ready to go and another being edited at the moment, so there’s more coming… But my computer finally gave up the ghost and I had to wait over a month whilst they built the new one. I’ve had a bit of an enforced break from everything whilst that was happening.
I’ve been blown away by the 70-300mm, but there’s no doubt that the 100-400mm is an incredible lens. I don’t think anything will really compete with the 150-600mm for wildlife, from what I’ve currently seen of it.
Good to see you back Steve. I've been looking at the 100 to 400 2nd hand. However there is the Tamron 150 to 500 out there but that comes in at £1400 which is a bit beyond my budget so I'll stick with the Tamron 18 to 300 for the time being.
That Tamron looks like a great lens for the price :)
@@SteveMellorPhotography It is saves me swapping around like I used to with the 18 to 55 for the 50 to 230 still have them loathe to get rid if the 18 to 55 love that lens.
I have the 70 -300 and have just bought the 100-400 arriving tomorrow so hoping it meets my expectations. I have both teleconverters although I almost despise the 2x. Where I live the marshes and rivers are wide open spaces. I have struggled sometimes to get tight enough on shy Herons which always lurk on the far shore. Even with 40Mp sensor the 70-300 is stretching a bit too far too often and I don't like it on my tripod (will mention more on that later).
I'm planning to use the 70-300 without the teleconverter for close work and I love it for insects, a fantastic lens. The 100-400 with the 1.4 tele should satisfy my craving for the far shore Herons and birds in flight, I found the 100-300 good but hoping for better-range for Marsh Harriers etc.
Weight... well, walking is tough these days anyways so bicycle and car will take most of the strain. And one really really big deal for me is I want better tripod use. The drooping ball head syndrome with the 100-300 drives me potty. I tried all sorts of gadgets to balance the thing out but it's too clumsy. The 100-400 tripod collar balancing act will open doors to a gimbal head. Which on it's own is a big deal for me.
I hope the lens has met your expectations. The dropping ball head is always an annoyance, but it doesn't get better with the 100-400, unfortunately. And, I've used the 70-300 on a gimbal recently, it can be done. But, I get what you're saying about the 100-400mm for reach and its a good reason to get the lens if ultimately that's what you need.
@@SteveMellorPhotography The 100-400 with 1.4 teleconverter on a gimbal head. Verdict Excellent. My only gripe is the speed of AF on the XH2 for fast flying small birds. Alot of that is my lack of skill with the heavy lens and probably my settings choices... I won't give up on it, but I'm thinking Swallows are currently beyond my scope... for now.
Talking about scopes. Playing with a red-dot.... Very interesting....
Did you know there is a custom tripod lens ring for the 70-300?
I’m going to defend the 100-400 on this one. If you add a 1.4x teleconverter, it’s extremely close to the 150-600 in focal length with a similar aperture as the 150-600. The 100-400 becomes a 140-560mm at f/6.3-8 which is 1/3 stop slower on the wide end. I fell the 100-400 isn’t worth swapping out for the 150-600 if reach is a question when a tele will get you very close, unless you need the extra 40mm for some reason.
As for the 70-300, it is a fantastic lens. I used that lens so much before I sold it recently. I’m now thinking about getting it again in the near future. Though the 100-400 is a major consideration.
I think you would get the 150-600mm if the 100-400mm with the TC is still too little. You can use the TC on the 150-600mm, and you're getting closer to the action if you want some Really close-up wildlife. But, it's a hell of a price.
@@SteveMellorPhotography true, but you’re also getting an f/8-11. If you’re shooting fast action/wildlife in anything but the brightest of days, you’re going to have a hard time. Early morning/late evenings at high shutter speeds would basically be a no go, unless your subject is sitting still.
Hi! For motosports 70-300 mm or 100-400 mm?
Great review !🙏
Thank you ever so much, I’m glad you liked it :)
I would like to see 70-300 vs sigma 100-400 as they are similarly priced. Fuji's 100-400 is almost double the price.
Thank you
My pleasure :)
How would one feel about putting the 400mm on an x-t30
I would think it would work rather well.
@@SteveMellorPhotography thank you for the reply, I have to ask- between a 100-400 going for $950 and 70-300, taking weight into consideration, which would you personally go for? (Ignoring the hand injury of course)
Steve, I just really hope your wrist will get better. And even until that moment you will take a lot of pictures.
Thank you. I’ve had another setback at the moment, but I will get out there again ASAP
Are you unable to manage the 100-400 even with a monopod or tripod?
Yes, unfortunately. Honestly, I am struggling with any form of photography at the moment. Lighter lenses make it a lot easier, of course, but the weight and size of the 100-400mm just make it unmanageable. Just zooming with the lens twists my wrist in a way that it does not want to go. When I'm not on camera, I pretty much constantly have a wrist brace on, which helps a little... I've been told this usually clears up over time (although it will come back if you're not careful) but it can take several years.
@@SteveMellorPhotography I’m really sorry to hear that Steve, it must be a hard thing to accept such limitations being so involved in photography for so long.
I’ve had in the last few years two knee replacements, a hip replacement and am waiting for my remaining hip to be done, l have struggled to walk the sorts of distances you would expect to encounter to get to a location with my 100-400 lens, so I sold it and bought the 150-600. I frequently ponder what I’ve done and what was I thinking. Possible grounds for a psychiatric assessment maybe?
Seriously though, good luck Steve I sincerely hope your situation improve soon.
@@mac69041 I've seen similar things with my Mum (who's 82 now) and Dad before he passed away last year. I enjoy visiting zoos and wildlife preserves, so we get the chance to get a bit closer to nature there, and those are trips that mum can join me on... But, I do understand the problems with medical interventions that stop you from achieving what you want.
But, these things can be recovered from so that you can at least take similar pictures again. I wish you all the best on your road to recovery. I'm sure the 150-600mm will come in handy at some point.
Agree - the 70-300 is an excellent addition and much easier to handle. I have both and unless I am on a dedicated shoot where the 100-400 may be better, then it is the 70-300 every time. I also found that any atmostpheric hazes or shimmer can make the 100-400 unusable in certain conditions. Then there is the new 40mp sensor which will allow extra cropping to get the same focal length as the 100-400 without losing image quality...which further stacks in favour of the 70-300
Have you got one of the 40mp cameras yet? I’m likely going to do a video on that soon as I now have an X-T5, so I’ll get to try it out. I think the AI enhanced scaling is going to be much more important for wildlife in the future. It’s already let me push the camera more without having to worry as much about things like grain.
@@SteveMellorPhotography Yes, I got the XT5 on the first day it shipped...17th November!!!!
Useful video. Thanks. But the wobbly tripod sequence when you recorded yourself supposedly taking the pictures was pretty comical.
I did actually take the photos whilst recording that.
The lens must have great IS.
100-400 can produce gorgeous images but is very inconsistent at 400mm depending on light conditions and the distance from the subject. It's a pitty for bird photography. 70 300 is more consistent and in my experience resolves better the 40mpx
I'd not noticed the inconsistencies in the 100-400mm before using the 70-300mm, but I suppose when you don’t have much to compare it to, you don't notice that as much.