Good initial first impressions. I ordered this lens for wildlife photography. I like its portability between it and my 16-80mm I think I'll be covered.
Compact form factor and compatibility with the teleconverters (which I already own) will make this lens hard to resist for me. I town all the Fuji telephoto zooms except 55-200 and 200 f/2, but I still see place for this one (more than the 55-200). Will be interested to see how the TCs affect focus speed and accuracy. Cheers!
Thanks for the review. My local camerashop in Iceland just got another shipment of this lens, maybe I should just go for it, don't want to stand to close to the volcano, lol.
When zooming with the 70-300 did you see that it blurred the picture ? No such issu with the 55-200... more suitable for video... but still very nice lens ... although I have the 100-400 ...
Unfortunately yes, I did notice it and I pointed it out. I haven't tried recently with the 55-200, i will do it as soon as I can. But all the rest about this lens seems to be really good
I only had a very quick shooting with the 100-400. My impressions were incredibly positive, but I don't have enough experience with the 100-400 to make a comparison. I'm trying to find a copy for testing purposes and for comparison purposes
@@LucaPetraliaPhotography Great! I am thinking about getting x-t3 with that lens instead of getting tamron 150-600 for nikon. It is more expensive though...
Forget it Luca, I’m not using the Italian google translator anymore, I can do it in English or in Argentinian (haha). This is a good first impressions video, I have a couple of questions, you mentioned that it’s very similar in weight to the 55-200, does it mean that it’s a more “plasticky” lens? and how do you find the built quality in general? The other question is about the auto-OIS, I know what you are referring to because it’s the same on the 16-80 that I have, what I don’t understand is what is the issue with it (I'm not being sarcastic), I used it on a tripod and didn't have any problems, you mentioned that you would like to have the option to turn it on and off with a dedicated switch and that you actually set a function button for it, did you find that it wasn't working properly? Thank you.
The lens feels a little bit more plasticky than the 16-80mm. It doesn't feel cheap, but hollow. I don't know if it makes sense you you. It's not similar to an XC lens, but it doesn't feel as premium as others. For the ois I found that it's working great, so no problem with it. I would love to have a switch because once you try to set your frame on a tripod the ois settles after the lens is still, and this slightly changed the composition at times
Bought the lens as soon as it became available. Happy with my decision.
Good initial first impressions. I ordered this lens for wildlife photography. I like its portability between it and my 16-80mm I think I'll be covered.
I have the same combo, with the laowa 9mm to cover the super wide angle. And I'm more than happy.
I hope to be able to post a review pretty soon
Great thanks!
Thank you!
Neat presentation. Nice.
Thank you!
Compact form factor and compatibility with the teleconverters (which I already own) will make this lens hard to resist for me. I town all the Fuji telephoto zooms except 55-200 and 200 f/2, but I still see place for this one (more than the 55-200). Will be interested to see how the TCs affect focus speed and accuracy. Cheers!
I'll to find the TCs, but I can't promise
Thanks for the review. My local camerashop in Iceland just got another shipment of this lens, maybe I should just go for it, don't want to stand to close to the volcano, lol.
Ahaha... Well, go for it. Every purchase is justified if it's for safety reasons
Hello, beautiful movie. Do you also use filter on your lenses to protect them?
Giel
I use UV filters as I hate lens hoods and caps
When zooming with the 70-300 did you see that it blurred the picture ? No such issu with the 55-200... more suitable for video... but still very nice lens ... although I have the 100-400 ...
Unfortunately yes, I did notice it and I pointed it out.
I haven't tried recently with the 55-200, i will do it as soon as I can.
But all the rest about this lens seems to be really good
Thanks for the review. Did you have experience with Fuji 100-400 lens? If you did how does it compare to this lens?
I only had a very quick shooting with the 100-400. My impressions were incredibly positive, but I don't have enough experience with the 100-400 to make a comparison. I'm trying to find a copy for testing purposes and for comparison purposes
@@LucaPetraliaPhotography Great! I am thinking about getting x-t3 with that lens instead of getting tamron 150-600 for nikon. It is more expensive though...
@@ArsenijeRadenovic I have heard great thing about the fringer adapter, but I never had the chance to try one.
Forget it Luca, I’m not using the Italian google translator anymore, I can do it in English or in Argentinian (haha). This is a good first impressions video, I have a couple of questions, you mentioned that it’s very similar in weight to the 55-200, does it mean that it’s a more “plasticky” lens? and how do you find the built quality in general? The other question is about the auto-OIS, I know what you are referring to because it’s the same on the 16-80 that I have, what I don’t understand is what is the issue with it (I'm not being sarcastic), I used it on a tripod and didn't have any problems, you mentioned that you would like to have the option to turn it on and off with a dedicated switch and that you actually set a function button for it, did you find that it wasn't working properly? Thank you.
The lens feels a little bit more plasticky than the 16-80mm. It doesn't feel cheap, but hollow. I don't know if it makes sense you you. It's not similar to an XC lens, but it doesn't feel as premium as others.
For the ois I found that it's working great, so no problem with it.
I would love to have a switch because once you try to set your frame on a tripod the ois settles after the lens is still, and this slightly changed the composition at times
@@LucaPetraliaPhotography Thank you for the prompt reply Luca, I was asking if you found it to be more plasticky than the 55-200, not the 16-80.
@@Enrique-the-photographer I'd say yes. It feels a little hollow.