The way you organised the content, and the pictures used for illustration all are very comprehensive, there is no misleading or pleading for a product. Please keep making more videos like these.
Same here, seems like nobody cares about that lens. And if possible, test the sharpness on the new 40MP sensor. I tested the Tamron 150-500 briefly on a X-H2 and the autofocus was terrible, it just wouldn't focus from infinity the close distance or vice versa.. that was pretty frustrating.. the focus limiter was turned off on the lens and in body of course. Maybe just a firmware Problem that hadn't been fixed
Salut Mathieu! I have been a fan of your work since I bought my first XT3. Being by then a committed to sports photography. You have been a reference of knowledge and at the same time very supportive. Brilliant job!
Excellent and unbiased review! I bought the 100-400mm four years ago and if I had to buy a supertelephoto lens now I probably would go for the 150-600mm due to its extra range. I'm shooting my pictures with the 100-400mm on f/8 already most of the times, so that's not really an issue for me. The only advantage the 100-400mm has now over the 150-600mm (in Europe at least) is the price. We're speaking about a difference of 500 euro which is quite a lot. Makes me even more glad that I bought my lens for 1250 euro with a cash back action.
I have the 100-400 and a 1.4x TC for extra reach. Did you compare the image quality of the 100-400+1.4x at 560mm with the 150-600mm at 560mm? That's the comparison I'm most interested in. I've been shooting the 100-400 @ max aperture f/5.6. Thanks for letting me know that it's actually sharper at f/8, I will try that now.
I haven't been able to find an honest, reliable side-by-side comparison of this, so I'm coming to the conclusion (quite possibly wrongly) that there's probably very little difference that can't be sorted with Topaz Photo ai; in which case the sheer size of the 150-600 makes the 'upgrade' not worth the hastle in my case.
I'm really thinking hard about that 150-600 for sports photography. With pretty much any option available for Fujifilm X mount, I'll be limited to daytime shooting, unless I get lucky enough to shoot a game that's lit for TV. I've also thought about the Tamron, too. It's just so hard to decide.
I just bought the 100-400 after only using primes for years. It’s huge! Just one thing though. Is the rubber zoom ring on the 100-400 supposed to have a little bit of wobble and play? I’m not used to lenses with zoom rings so not sure if it’s normal.
@@MathieuGasquetMirrorLessons No, it’s throughout the entire zoom range. I’ve seen one review of the lens where the focus ring has a lot of wobble but mine is fine. It’s just the zoom ring that has a bit of wobble.
Hope you'll be able to test the Tamron on one of the 40MP camera models in the future. There's barely any tests of it, and your tests are by far the best when it comes to bird/wildlife photography. I'm thinking about maybe selling my XF 100-400 for the Tamron 150-500 mm at some point. I heard it's quite a bit sharper at high zoom levels, and having a 40MP X-H2 with a lens that's kind of soft feels like a waste. Fuji should really release a new Super-Telephoto Zoom lens for those new cameras themselves.
Good job Mathieu, as always! Your test is based on facts and that’s all we need. I switched from the 100/400 for the 150/600 for the extra reach and it really means something. More Sharpness is also welcome and speed of AF is noticeable. Could you share your set-up for the AFC parameters? I believe the key is here.
Great review as always. Thank you for your videos and delivering such a high quality! I am happy with my proven 100-400 and now I know I don't have to consider switching to the new model at all. Thank you!
Great pics! If the Tamron is optimally sharp wide open than IMO it has an advantage over the Fuji 150-600mm aside from the price - lower iso or higher shutter speed at a given focal length. The legendary Nikon 200-500 f5.6 is well worth the shorter reach for all its other attributes, maybe the Tamron is similar. I’d prefer to stick with first party lenses but at these prices Fuji makes it very difficult.
Iso is not really a problem with digital processing anymore. The t-stop value of a lens is what determines true exposure at a given f stop, not the f stop number. You'd have to test this manually side by side.
internal zoom lenses are a much different beast -vs- external zooms. I've owned the tamron 150-600 as well as the sigma before landing on the sony 200-600. I'll never go back. Yes they're harder to store in your bag but they're SO much easier to handle when shooting and zooming. I do wish this fuji version was slightly faster, I could deal with it being wider and sony's proven the optics aren't that different and theirs covers FF. The fuji is lighter though. Personally I find ~$2k for these quite reasonable for what you get. I just picked up the fuji 150-600 for $1600 used and I'm really impressed so far.
@@benjaminbjacobsen I sold the sony 200-600 because I thought it was a CA dumpster fire, then bought the fuji 150-600 to try (which in my country was even more expensive). there is a lot to be said for the benefits of correct exposure when having that extra reach. Optically the sony was better but the subject distance is the major issue as birds are skittish in my country. The stabilisation of X-H2 and fuji 150-600 is surprisingly good, even better than my Olympus 150-400 TC and OM-1. The sony must be made out of heavier kilograms because it is noticeably heavier than the 500g difference suggests. I maintain that at the top end of town, throw away brand loyalty and go with the best tool, and use it for only bird photography.
Thank you for this very informative comparison. Well done as always! I would like to underline one important point in favour of the 100-400 mm (or the Tamron 150-500) and this is its size when put into a camera bag. It can be carried easily on the camera in the main compartment of a Domke F2 even with a short hood added (the full-size hood isn't really needed as flare is no problem at all). With the 150-600mm you start talking about midsize backpacks to carry it which makes a photographers life with it quite a bit harder.
Very helpful. I’m shopping for a new lens and apsc camera to upgrade and get more zoom reach for my birding from an older canon 77D and 100-400 L vers2.
Great review. Very well done. Thank you. I have a question however to the wording you use "suffers more from diffraction at f/16? What does that mean? As I understand diffraction it is the physical limitation of resolution by the size of the aperture. That means that at a given focal length the set aperture limits you resolution on any lens to a theoretical optimum - and actual perfromance can only get worse due to aberrations.
With focal length and price as considerations, how does the keeper rate compare for the Fuji 150-600 on the X-H2s vs the canon R6 with the 800mm f11. At first look it would seem the canon is a lot more successful, however the canon lens has a limited area in the centre for AF. All other lenses for the canon are a lot more expensive.
Subscribed! Really appreciate your perspective on this. Very thorough review, I think the 150-600 might be the right lens for me. Definitely going to be taking a look at your reviews from now on.
Hi Mathieu. Thanks a lot for your great videos. Just subscribed to your channel after viewing the one about bird photography with X-T4. Had been looking for ages for reliable presentation of the X-T4 autofocus. I’m new to photography and satrted witht he X100V. I notice though that my "Kids action Photos" are not satisfactory. Partly because of me, partly because of the autofocus. But also the lens: I’m often too far away from the action. I’m about to get the X-T4 with XF 16-55 as my first lens, but am not sure what to get on top of that. I was wondering if for my kids’ skiing, cycling and other sporting photos, the Fujinon 70-300 would provide me with enough margin in terms of Zoom. Or if I should directly go for the 100-400. Thanks in advance for your input. Cheers, Nicolas
I would think the 70-300mm is enough for sports. Obviously it always depends on how close you can get, but I imagine being close enough to your kids shouldn’t be too much of a challenge? I had great results with a 70-200mm (equivalent) in the past when doing ski, cycling and football.
I recently bought the XF 70-300mm lens and I like it. On comparing the 70-300mm and the 100-400mm lens in the shop, I realised that the 100-400mm lens would be too heavy for me. I will probably buy the matched 1.4X teleconverter in the new year and that would give a 630mm (35mm equivalent) focal length. That would give a nice lightweight and portable setup. If you are about to buy a new camera, you could buy the X-T5. Because it has the 40MP sensor you could crop the images more than the X-T4 images.
I would go for the 400mm, you won't regret it and most probably wished you had. Check out the second hand market. You can pick them up for about £800. Merry Christmas
I love the work you do Mathieu. Thank you for your objectivity. Question: What would see as the pros and cons of the 150-600 in comparison to the Panasonic Leica 100-400 with the G9 (or other Panasonic cameras)?
Mainly the autofocus, because of Pana’s inferior DfD system. The Pana 100-400 is more compact which is a great advantage, but I think the Fuji lens is a bit sharper and you also have the teleconverter option with Fuji.
I am deciding to get a leica 100-400. But g9 is struggling with birds in flight so I am a bit hesitant. OM1 and fuji xh2s are attractive options but I need to get many lenses for these systems as well.
Comparing the Tamron to the Fuji 150-600mm on specs alone: I like the Fuji's focus buttons and preset focus point. That alone is worth it for me, plus the Fuji will get any firmware updates with possible improvements. I think I will try to get the Fuji at some point.
Thank you for the review. I think I'll be waiting for the Tamron 150-500mm to hit the shelves. Only thing that bothers me on that lens is the locking mechanism on the zoom wheel. Also, the stabilization isn't on par with the native Fuji lenses, too jumpy for video. If they make the lens stabe work better with Fuji bodies, then we certainly have a winner.
If the Tamron is designed for a full frame image circle, won't it be bigger and heavier than the two Fujinon zooms which are designed for the smaller aps-c image circle?
From the official specs: - Tamron: 209.6mm length, 93mm diameter, 1710g - Fuji 100-400mm: 210.5mm length, 94.8mm diameter, 1375g - Fuji 150-600mm: 314.5mm length, 99mm diameter, 1605g The full frame lens is not larger, quite the contrary in fact. There are different things that can affect the size of a lens: aperture, optical design etc. It's not just about the sensor they need to cover. A great example is the Nikon 300mm F4 PF and the Olympus 300mm Pro. The first is designed for full frame, yet it is smaller than the latter, designed for M4/3.
Thanks Mathieu. This is the second time I've watched this trying to decide. I own the 100-400 w/1.4TC. I like the size and weight. I will probably upgrade to the 150-600 and keep the TC for the odd time I might want it. One question: How do you turn off the OIS on the 150-600?
Thank You, Mathieu! I enjoyed your review very much! I have an X-T2 and am new to the Fuji system so I didn’t even know about the 150-600. I like to image larger birds like heron-who are very skittish and I seldom get as close as I’d like but, on my Canon system my fixed 400mm/f5.6 prime is adequate so I suspect the 100-400 might be sufficient If I sit quietly on a porch or the garden I can get close enough to Colobri that a 70-200 is ok & 100-400 would be perfect 👌 Thanks Again! You got a new subscriber 👍
seems like the game has changed due to cleaner ISO and better stabilization. all the long zooms now seems to start at 5.6. used to be constant f4 as a compromise from large 2.8 lens. do these 5.6 lens really fit the bill today becos of the ISO and stabilizaiton?
Hmm not really, zoom lenses such as the 100-400mm F4.5-5.6 (or similar) have been around for a long time with other brands. But you certainly have a point about the ISO: modern sensors offer more possibilities than 10 years ago, so manufacturers probably feel less pressure to design fast lenses. Also, a 100-400mm F4 would most likely be much larger and more expensive, and you want to first attract customers with more competitive price, especially if you're a brand like Fujifilm that didn't start to make a name for itself with wildlife in the first place. They have the wonderful 200mm F2, which is very expensive and probably only owned by a few.
@@MathieuGasquetMirrorLessons I had a 100-300/f4 tokina w the fujis2pro. Think abt 15 years ago and was very pleased w the results and a constant f4. There was also a 70to200f4 Nikkor. But agree that a 100to400f4 will be serious money n weight. Only ppl who are really into wildlife will consider.
Great review as always Matthew. For me one of the most important things on these tele lenses is MFD because I like to shoot hummingbirds. Hummingbirds are very small so you need the longest zoom and the closest MFD possible. Ability to focus limit at wide end rather than at tele end is also important. That why Olympus lenses like 100-400 or 300 f4 are nice because they have capacity to limit focus at wide end and mfd is 1.2/1.3 meters. Canon 100-500rf is nice because it gives you 1.2m mfd but you cannot limit focus on wide end. Sony 200-600 is about 2.5 meters and you can limit focus at wide end so it is ok too but I would have preferred shorter mfd. this looks in the same league with Sony 200-600.
Great Job Mathieu. I appreciate your objective approach to this evaluation. I would value your evaluation of the X-H2/X-T5 verses the X-T4.....yes, there is new technology and some improvements, but is there enough value added to the final photo/video output to make upgrading a practical consideration - much in the way you did such a great job comparing the lens performance in this video when matched with the X-H2S and the X-T4. This was valuable stuff.
Thank you for the kind words, Max. I am planning to test the X-H2 and X-T5, although I'm not sure about when yet. Probably at the beginning of next year at this point.
T'es top comme tout le temps. 👍😀À chaque fois que je me pose des questions en cours de vidéo, tu y réponds en fin de vidéo. un XF 100-400 en dessous de mille me tente beaucoup en ce moment Merci pour tout
Hi. Can you please tell me if birds in flight photos were taken using tripod or other mount? I have great trouble trying to focus on birds in flight while handheld. Sitting birds are fine, but midflight is just impossible. Maybe I need to work on my biceps, the 150-600+xt4 is killing me -_-''
All the photos were taken hand-held. Sometimes, I use a monopod with heavier lenses like the Sony 200-600mm. A monopod or a tripod can be very helpful to compose and follow the birds with more stability. Personally, I prefer to work hand-held because I like to be able to move as free as possible. Are you getting tired also with static subjects? Maybe you just need to practice following birds in flight, it’s not easy to keep them in the frame at the beginning, especially if they are fast or fly a bit erratically.
Very good job. At this stage I would say the 150-600 is the best bargain for wild life (but wtf did they do a black & ugly sunshade ?). But the Tamron would be more than interesting to test when available (autofocus capabilities compared to Fuji ones). We count on you Matthieu !! :)
Yeah, I too wondered about the black hood, it doesn't really fit well with the nice silver finish of the lens. I guess it's cheaper to make it this way.
Salut Mathieu! Thanks for this insightful comparison video between the lenses. As someone who's interested in bird photography, I found it really helpful to see how these two lenses perform in different situations. However, as someone who's just getting started with bird photography as a hobby, I find the prices of these lenses, even in the used market, to be quite steep. I was wondering if you have any suggestions for a cheaper alternative that still offers decent performance and image quality, especially for use with my X-T4. Merci!
The Fuji 70-300mm is a good option. I've compared that one with the 100-400mm ( ruclips.net/video/ZSyzh3Wye6Q/видео.html ). There is also the Tamron 150-500mm, but I only tested the Sony version. It did very well in my test when it comes to sharpness and AF performance.
Thanks so much Mathieu - this was just the video I have been waiting on. Based on the samples in the video it does indeed seem the 150-600 is sharper wide open but once stopped down to an equivalent aperture the 100-400 is on par. I think I just about prefer having the faster aperture of the 100-400 with the versatility offered by the 1.4x TC when the extra reach is absolutely needed.
Complimenti! Sempre top reviews. I really appreciate putting results into charts. In these times when there are still people moving to mirrorless that could well opt for a radical change of system, the Sony 200-600 is a very compelling option.
Grazie! Yes the Sony 200-600 is a great lens, although much heavier than the Fuji 150-600mm. But of course there are other advantages with the Sony system.
Really appreciate this video Mathieu and even more the effort you have invested in the BIF comparisons. Kudos! I have Fuji gear (Xt-4 and some wide angle zoom lens). But for a birding trip recently, I rented the sony 200-600 with the A7RIV (for the long reach and also limited rental options in India) and I was blown with the shots i got especially BIF. Considering the full frame and AF differences between Sony and Fujifilm, I really wanted to see a comparison between these 2 lenses (sony 200-600 and Fuji 150-600) and cant seem to find it anywhere online. I am in a dilemma either to invest in the new Fuji lens or spend a little more and get the sony along with a used body (probably A6600 as sony has great deals) while consciously accepting to carry more weight with an extra body 🤔 Any suggestions would be appreciated! 🙏
Keep in mind that the A6600 is quite small and light, and the Sony 200-600mm is large and heavy. Personally, I find the A6600 uncomfortable to use with such lens. If you're more satisfied with what you got with the Sony kit you rented, why not considering switching to Sony entirely? I mean sell your Fuji kit and get the 200-600 and a Sony body like the A7 IV. Obviously it depends if you want to keep your X-T4 for other things (and if you own other Fuji lenses).
Hi Mathieu, I have the X-T2, and started recently to use it for bird photography together with the 100-400 zoom. No surprise the AF has been the problem. Going through this video of yours, I’m so glad the 100-400 is on par with the most recent zoom 150-600, in terms of AF speed, accuracy, etc. So I’m considering it is the camera that I need to upgrade, likely to the X-H2S. In your reviews, you refer for each camera iteration (X-T3, X-T4, X-H2S), the AF improvements are there, but not impressive. In my case, upgrading directly from X-T2 to the X-H2S, do you think the AF improvement will be significant? Also, in relation with the improved X-H2S in low light, have you found it benefit on bird photography? Thanks!
When it comes to AF, you'll certainly see a more relevant difference if you go from X-T2 to X-H2S, plus you'll get all the benefits of the stacked sensor and electronic shutter: much faster continuous shooting, blackout-free live view and less rolling shutter.
No idea honestly. There are a lot of cameras out there and it's difficult to review everything when your only chance is to rent or buy. I'll wait to see if the rumoured Z8 comes out, and then maybe I'll make a comparison.
Merci encore pour ce test très complet prenant en compte tous les facteurs en jeu. Tant que j'y suis, une question : A quand un comparatif teleconvertisseurs vs crop😉
My 150-600mm is much sharper than the 100-400mm ever was. Better contrast. The keeper rate is also much higher. So my experiences are completely different.
I think the 150-600 is a bit overrated and overpriced, kind of a fail. To dark with f8 in many wildlife Situations. Also you don't have nice blurred backgrounds. The only thing I like is the reach and the internal zoom. It's a pity that the sharpness of the 100-400 is a bit weak at 400 mm and the build quality a bit poor. I'd like to see a Version II of it with internal Zoom. Maybe also an 150-500 like tamron... an 400 f5.6 prime lens also would be great.
I just bought the 100-400, and I have the 70-300 and the 1.4 TLC. I have to say, this xh2s is pure garbage when it comes to autofocus and wildlife photography. Of course, if you are trying to take pictures of a steady elephant, this is the camera to go. However, if you need to take pics of small birds, flying, Or even on the grass, then save your money: this is far away from being a decent camera. I m so disappointed with it 😭. Great video! Cheers
Fujifilm, with the poor lens performance from this 150-600mm and with no 600mm prime lens, serious wildlife photographer will not be attracted by your system.
I also disagree. Been shooting with the 70-300, until now that I received my 150-600. Went out and just shot wide open at the long end. While under some circumstance it took a little while for it to decide what I needed it to focus on, due to foliage and so on, for birds in flight it locks on like a steel jaw. It is as sharp as anyone who is taking pictures and not pixel peeping might want. I kept images from every subject (read burst) I shot except the first. The day was gray so I was shooting at 900 Iso with no significant noise issues. Great background blur, etc. my only gripe is the lens is hefty and I need to get used to it. Yes, it is long for an APSC lens but considering it is internal zoom it is still much more manageable than a comparable ff bazooka. BTW I was shooting handheld and the stabe on this lens is awesome, on a different league compared to my 70-300. Won’t be needing a TC with this kind of range. And the 70-300 is already a pretty good lens. So to say the 150-600 is pretty damned good is not saying a lot. Some people might argue about f-8 being an issue. Seriously, given the capabilities of the fuji system as a whole (I’m using an xt-4), I fail to see this as a serious concern. Of course I would love to have an f2 prime and have the deep pockets to buy it and to pay for guided safaris and a team of serfs to carry my gear so I could use it but who is in a position to do that? Not implying this is a lens for the average Joe only either. It is very much a pro grade lens.
![I.N "HALLUCINATION" | [Stray Kids : SKZ-PLAYER]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/n5B5q1Hwt_U/mqdefault.jpg)
The way you organised the content, and the pictures used for illustration all are very comprehensive, there is no misleading or pleading for a product. Please keep making more videos like these.
Thank you!
Waiting for your review of Tamron 150-500 for Fuji.
Same here, seems like nobody cares about that lens. And if possible, test the sharpness on the new 40MP sensor.
I tested the Tamron 150-500 briefly on a X-H2 and the autofocus was terrible, it just wouldn't focus from infinity the close distance or vice versa.. that was pretty frustrating.. the focus limiter was turned off on the lens and in body of course. Maybe just a firmware Problem that hadn't been fixed
Me too
thank you Mathieu , excellent comparison . Still waiting for the X-H2 review for birds/wildlife, preferably with both 100-400mm and 150-600mm .
Salut Mathieu! I have been a fan of your work since I bought my first XT3. Being by then a committed to sports photography. You have been a reference of knowledge and at the same time very supportive.
Brilliant job!
Thank you very much, I really appreciate it!
Excellent and unbiased review!
I bought the 100-400mm four years ago and if I had to buy a supertelephoto lens now I probably would go for the 150-600mm due to its extra range. I'm shooting my pictures with the 100-400mm on f/8 already most of the times, so that's not really an issue for me. The only advantage the 100-400mm has now over the 150-600mm (in Europe at least) is the price. We're speaking about a difference of 500 euro which is quite a lot. Makes me even more glad that I bought my lens for 1250 euro with a cash back action.
is it just me, or are the images from the 100-400 are sharper?
I have the 100-400 and a 1.4x TC for extra reach. Did you compare the image quality of the 100-400+1.4x at 560mm with the 150-600mm at 560mm? That's the comparison I'm most interested in. I've been shooting the 100-400 @ max aperture f/5.6. Thanks for letting me know that it's actually sharper at f/8, I will try that now.
This is the exact same question I have. I already have the 1.4 TC, curious if a 100-400 with the TC is equivalent in IQ to the 150-600 at 560mm
I haven't been able to find an honest, reliable side-by-side comparison of this, so I'm coming to the conclusion (quite possibly wrongly) that there's probably very little difference that can't be sorted with Topaz Photo ai; in which case the sheer size of the 150-600 makes the 'upgrade' not worth the hastle in my case.
Exactly the detailed comparison I've been waiting for. Thank You!😄
Great to hear! 😊
I'm really thinking hard about that 150-600 for sports photography. With pretty much any option available for Fujifilm X mount, I'll be limited to daytime shooting, unless I get lucky enough to shoot a game that's lit for TV. I've also thought about the Tamron, too. It's just so hard to decide.
Did you make a decision in the end ?
I just bought the 100-400 after only using primes for years. It’s huge! Just one thing though. Is the rubber zoom ring on the 100-400 supposed to have a little bit of wobble and play? I’m not used to lenses with zoom rings so not sure if it’s normal.
I don't remember the zoom ring having a bit of wobble and play. Does this happen when it's set at a specific length, like 100mm or 400mm?
@@MathieuGasquetMirrorLessons No, it’s throughout the entire zoom range. I’ve seen one review of the lens where the focus ring has a lot of wobble but mine is fine. It’s just the zoom ring that has a bit of wobble.
Hope you'll be able to test the Tamron on one of the 40MP camera models in the future. There's barely any tests of it, and your tests are by far the best when it comes to bird/wildlife photography.
I'm thinking about maybe selling my XF 100-400 for the Tamron 150-500 mm at some point. I heard it's quite a bit sharper at high zoom levels, and having a 40MP X-H2 with a lens that's kind of soft feels like a waste. Fuji should really release a new Super-Telephoto Zoom lens for those new cameras themselves.
Well, actually they released a new super tele zoom with the X-H2S, the 150-600mm.
Not sure about the Tamron, I'll try and do my best.
Excellent and thorough review/comparison. Very helpful - thank you!
Glad you enjoyed it!
Good job Mathieu, as always! Your test is based on facts and that’s all we need. I switched from the 100/400 for the 150/600 for the extra reach and it really means something. More Sharpness is also welcome and speed of AF is noticeable. Could you share your set-up for the AFC parameters? I believe the key is here.
I've shared them in my X-H2S review here: ruclips.net/video/QbrGM7PK3T8/видео.html
Great review as always. Thank you for your videos and delivering such a high quality! I am happy with my proven 100-400 and now I know I don't have to consider switching to the new model at all. Thank you!
Glad it helped!
Great pics! If the Tamron is optimally sharp wide open than IMO it has an advantage over the Fuji 150-600mm aside from the price - lower iso or higher shutter speed at a given focal length. The legendary Nikon 200-500 f5.6 is well worth the shorter reach for all its other attributes, maybe the Tamron is similar. I’d prefer to stick with first party lenses but at these prices Fuji makes it very difficult.
Iso is not really a problem with digital processing anymore. The t-stop value of a lens is what determines true exposure at a given f stop, not the f stop number. You'd have to test this manually side by side.
internal zoom lenses are a much different beast -vs- external zooms. I've owned the tamron 150-600 as well as the sigma before landing on the sony 200-600. I'll never go back. Yes they're harder to store in your bag but they're SO much easier to handle when shooting and zooming. I do wish this fuji version was slightly faster, I could deal with it being wider and sony's proven the optics aren't that different and theirs covers FF. The fuji is lighter though. Personally I find ~$2k for these quite reasonable for what you get. I just picked up the fuji 150-600 for $1600 used and I'm really impressed so far.
@@benjaminbjacobsen I sold the sony 200-600 because I thought it was a CA dumpster fire, then bought the fuji 150-600 to try (which in my country was even more expensive). there is a lot to be said for the benefits of correct exposure when having that extra reach. Optically the sony was better but the subject distance is the major issue as birds are skittish in my country. The stabilisation of X-H2 and fuji 150-600 is surprisingly good, even better than my Olympus 150-400 TC and OM-1. The sony must be made out of heavier kilograms because it is noticeably heavier than the 500g difference suggests.
I maintain that at the top end of town, throw away brand loyalty and go with the best tool, and use it for only bird photography.
Thank you for this very informative comparison. Well done as always! I would like to underline one important point in favour of the 100-400 mm (or the Tamron 150-500) and this is its size when put into a camera bag. It can be carried easily on the camera in the main compartment of a Domke F2 even with a short hood added (the full-size hood isn't really needed as flare is no problem at all). With the 150-600mm you start talking about midsize backpacks to carry it which makes a photographers life with it quite a bit harder.
Thank you, good point!
Very helpful. I’m shopping for a new lens and apsc camera to upgrade and get more zoom reach for my birding from an older canon 77D and 100-400 L vers2.
Great review. Very well done. Thank you. I have a question however to the wording you use "suffers more from diffraction at f/16? What does that mean? As I understand diffraction it is the physical limitation of resolution by the size of the aperture. That means that at a given focal length the set aperture limits you resolution on any lens to a theoretical optimum - and actual perfromance can only get worse due to aberrations.
Yes that's what I refer to in the video.
So well done! Thanks for what you do.
Thanks for watching!
With focal length and price as considerations, how does the keeper rate compare for the Fuji 150-600 on the X-H2s vs the canon R6 with the 800mm f11. At first look it would seem the canon is a lot more successful, however the canon lens has a limited area in the centre for AF. All other lenses for the canon are a lot more expensive.
Thank you for this comparison, I’ve been wondering if I should upgrade.
Glad I could help!
Subscribed! Really appreciate your perspective on this. Very thorough review, I think the 150-600 might be the right lens for me. Definitely going to be taking a look at your reviews from now on.
Thank you! Let me know how you find the 150-600mm is you get one.
Thank you for this excellent video. You foresaw my question about Tamron lens. I would appreciate if review the x mount version.
Thanks, I'll try!
@@MathieuGasquetMirrorLessonscan't wait for your tamron 150-500mm review video for x-mount.
Hi Mathieu. Thanks a lot for your great videos. Just subscribed to your channel after viewing the one about bird photography with X-T4. Had been looking for ages for reliable presentation of the X-T4 autofocus.
I’m new to photography and satrted witht he X100V. I notice though that my "Kids action Photos" are not satisfactory. Partly because of me, partly because of the autofocus. But also the lens: I’m often too far away from the action.
I’m about to get the X-T4 with XF 16-55 as my first lens, but am not sure what to get on top of that.
I was wondering if for my kids’ skiing, cycling and other sporting photos, the Fujinon 70-300 would provide me with enough margin in terms of Zoom. Or if I should directly go for the 100-400.
Thanks in advance for your input.
Cheers,
Nicolas
I would think the 70-300mm is enough for sports. Obviously it always depends on how close you can get, but I imagine being close enough to your kids shouldn’t be too much of a challenge? I had great results with a 70-200mm (equivalent) in the past when doing ski, cycling and football.
I recently bought the XF 70-300mm lens and I like it. On comparing the 70-300mm and the 100-400mm lens in the shop, I realised that the 100-400mm lens would be too heavy for me.
I will probably buy the matched 1.4X teleconverter in the new year and that would give a 630mm (35mm equivalent) focal length. That would give a nice lightweight and portable setup.
If you are about to buy a new camera, you could buy the X-T5. Because it has the 40MP sensor you could crop the images more than the X-T4 images.
I would go for the 400mm, you won't regret it and most probably wished you had. Check out the second hand market. You can pick them up for about £800. Merry Christmas
eventually what lens do you recommend me for xt5 for best performance and image quality? thanks
Nice review! I would like to know the length including front cap and rear cap.
I love the work you do Mathieu. Thank you for your objectivity. Question: What would see as the pros and cons of the 150-600 in comparison to the Panasonic Leica 100-400 with the G9 (or other Panasonic cameras)?
Mainly the autofocus, because of Pana’s inferior DfD system.
The Pana 100-400 is more compact which is a great advantage, but I think the Fuji lens is a bit sharper and you also have the teleconverter option with Fuji.
@@MathieuGasquetMirrorLessons Excellent! Thanks Mathieu!
I am deciding to get a leica 100-400. But g9 is struggling with birds in flight so I am a bit hesitant. OM1 and fuji xh2s are attractive options but I need to get many lenses for these systems as well.
Comparing the Tamron to the Fuji 150-600mm on specs alone: I like the Fuji's focus buttons and preset focus point. That alone is worth it for me, plus the Fuji will get any firmware updates with possible improvements. I think I will try to get the Fuji at some point.
Thank you for the review. I think I'll be waiting for the Tamron 150-500mm to hit the shelves. Only thing that bothers me on that lens is the locking mechanism on the zoom wheel. Also, the stabilization isn't on par with the native Fuji lenses, too jumpy for video. If they make the lens stabe work better with Fuji bodies, then we certainly have a winner.
Hopefully they can release some firmware updates to improve the stabilisation.
@@MathieuGasquetMirrorLessons We can only hope...
If the Tamron is designed for a full frame image circle, won't it be bigger and heavier than the two Fujinon zooms which are designed for the smaller aps-c image circle?
From the official specs:
- Tamron: 209.6mm length, 93mm diameter, 1710g
- Fuji 100-400mm: 210.5mm length, 94.8mm diameter, 1375g
- Fuji 150-600mm: 314.5mm length, 99mm diameter, 1605g
The full frame lens is not larger, quite the contrary in fact. There are different things that can affect the size of a lens: aperture, optical design etc. It's not just about the sensor they need to cover.
A great example is the Nikon 300mm F4 PF and the Olympus 300mm Pro. The first is designed for full frame, yet it is smaller than the latter, designed for M4/3.
@@MathieuGasquetMirrorLessons Interesting. Thank you!
Thanks Mathieu. This is the second time I've watched this trying to decide. I own the 100-400 w/1.4TC. I like the size and weight. I will probably upgrade to the 150-600 and keep the TC for the odd time I might want it. One question: How do you turn off the OIS on the 150-600?
You have to turn it off on the camera (best to assign that to a function button).
Best gear reviewer on YT, by far...
Thank you very much!
Thank You, Mathieu! I enjoyed your review very much! I have an X-T2 and am new to the Fuji system so I didn’t even know about the 150-600.
I like to image larger birds like heron-who are very skittish and I seldom get as close as I’d like but, on my Canon system my fixed 400mm/f5.6 prime is adequate so I suspect the 100-400 might be sufficient
If I sit quietly on a porch or the garden I can get close enough to Colobri that a 70-200 is ok & 100-400 would be perfect 👌
Thanks Again! You got a new subscriber 👍
Thank you Will, I appreciate your comment. Let me know how do you like the 100-400mm if you get one.
seems like the game has changed due to cleaner ISO and better stabilization. all the long zooms now seems to start at 5.6. used to be constant f4 as a compromise from large 2.8 lens. do these 5.6 lens really fit the bill today becos of the ISO and stabilizaiton?
Hmm not really, zoom lenses such as the 100-400mm F4.5-5.6 (or similar) have been around for a long time with other brands.
But you certainly have a point about the ISO: modern sensors offer more possibilities than 10 years ago, so manufacturers probably feel less pressure to design fast lenses. Also, a 100-400mm F4 would most likely be much larger and more expensive, and you want to first attract customers with more competitive price, especially if you're a brand like Fujifilm that didn't start to make a name for itself with wildlife in the first place. They have the wonderful 200mm F2, which is very expensive and probably only owned by a few.
@@MathieuGasquetMirrorLessons I had a 100-300/f4 tokina w the fujis2pro. Think abt 15 years ago and was very pleased w the results and a constant f4. There was also a 70to200f4 Nikkor. But agree that a 100to400f4 will be serious money n weight. Only ppl who are really into wildlife will consider.
Great review as always Matthew. For me one of the most important things on these tele lenses is MFD because I like to shoot hummingbirds. Hummingbirds are very small so you need the longest zoom and the closest MFD possible. Ability to focus limit at wide end rather than at tele end is also important. That why Olympus lenses like 100-400 or 300 f4 are nice because they have capacity to limit focus at wide end and mfd is 1.2/1.3 meters. Canon 100-500rf is nice because it gives you 1.2m mfd but you cannot limit focus on wide end. Sony 200-600 is about 2.5 meters and you can limit focus at wide end so it is ok too but I would have preferred shorter mfd. this looks in the same league with Sony 200-600.
Great Job Mathieu. I appreciate your objective approach to this evaluation. I would value your evaluation of the X-H2/X-T5 verses the X-T4.....yes, there is new technology and some improvements, but is there enough value added to the final photo/video output to make upgrading a practical consideration - much in the way you did such a great job comparing the lens performance in this video when matched with the X-H2S and the X-T4. This was valuable stuff.
Thank you for the kind words, Max. I am planning to test the X-H2 and X-T5, although I'm not sure about when yet. Probably at the beginning of next year at this point.
T'es top comme tout le temps. 👍😀À chaque fois que je me pose des questions en cours de vidéo, tu y réponds en fin de vidéo.
un XF 100-400 en dessous de mille me tente beaucoup en ce moment
Merci pour tout
Merci pour ton commentaire!
Hi. Can you please tell me if birds in flight photos were taken using tripod or other mount?
I have great trouble trying to focus on birds in flight while handheld. Sitting birds are fine, but midflight is just impossible. Maybe I need to work on my biceps, the 150-600+xt4 is killing me -_-''
All the photos were taken hand-held. Sometimes, I use a monopod with heavier lenses like the Sony 200-600mm.
A monopod or a tripod can be very helpful to compose and follow the birds with more stability. Personally, I prefer to work hand-held because I like to be able to move as free as possible.
Are you getting tired also with static subjects? Maybe you just need to practice following birds in flight, it’s not easy to keep them in the frame at the beginning, especially if they are fast or fly a bit erratically.
Very good job. At this stage I would say the 150-600 is the best bargain for wild life (but wtf did they do a black & ugly sunshade ?). But the Tamron would be more than interesting to test when available (autofocus capabilities compared to Fuji ones). We count on you Matthieu !! :)
Yeah, I too wondered about the black hood, it doesn't really fit well with the nice silver finish of the lens. I guess it's cheaper to make it this way.
Great review!
So If I got it right, 70-300 owners better switch optical stabilization off right?
With fast moving subjects yes, use a fast shutter speed instead.
Salut Mathieu! Thanks for this insightful comparison video between the lenses. As someone who's interested in bird photography, I found it really helpful to see how these two lenses perform in different situations. However, as someone who's just getting started with bird photography as a hobby, I find the prices of these lenses, even in the used market, to be quite steep. I was wondering if you have any suggestions for a cheaper alternative that still offers decent performance and image quality, especially for use with my X-T4. Merci!
The Fuji 70-300mm is a good option. I've compared that one with the 100-400mm ( ruclips.net/video/ZSyzh3Wye6Q/видео.html ).
There is also the Tamron 150-500mm, but I only tested the Sony version. It did very well in my test when it comes to sharpness and AF performance.
@@MathieuGasquetMirrorLessons Thanks for the fast replay. I'll take a look!
Thanks so much Mathieu - this was just the video I have been waiting on. Based on the samples in the video it does indeed seem the 150-600 is sharper wide open but once stopped down to an equivalent aperture the 100-400 is on par. I think I just about prefer having the faster aperture of the 100-400 with the versatility offered by the 1.4x TC when the extra reach is absolutely needed.
These are valid points Gareth. Glad the video was helpful.
thanks for excellent reviews!
My pleasure!
Complimenti! Sempre top reviews.
I really appreciate putting results into charts.
In these times when there are still people moving to mirrorless that could well opt for a radical change of system, the Sony 200-600 is a very compelling option.
Grazie!
Yes the Sony 200-600 is a great lens, although much heavier than the Fuji 150-600mm. But of course there are other advantages with the Sony system.
looking forward to Tamron 150-500 review :)
Seems to me you've put a lot of work into this video. Good work, very informative!
Thank you, much appreciated!
Really appreciate this video Mathieu and even more the effort you have invested in the BIF comparisons. Kudos!
I have Fuji gear (Xt-4 and some wide angle zoom lens). But for a birding trip recently, I rented the sony 200-600 with the A7RIV (for the long reach and also limited rental options in India) and I was blown with the shots i got especially BIF.
Considering the full frame and AF differences between Sony and Fujifilm, I really wanted to see a comparison between these 2 lenses (sony 200-600 and Fuji 150-600) and cant seem to find it anywhere online.
I am in a dilemma either to invest in the new Fuji lens or spend a little more and get the sony along with a used body (probably A6600 as sony has great deals) while consciously accepting to carry more weight with an extra body 🤔
Any suggestions would be appreciated! 🙏
Keep in mind that the A6600 is quite small and light, and the Sony 200-600mm is large and heavy. Personally, I find the A6600 uncomfortable to use with such lens.
If you're more satisfied with what you got with the Sony kit you rented, why not considering switching to Sony entirely? I mean sell your Fuji kit and get the 200-600 and a Sony body like the A7 IV. Obviously it depends if you want to keep your X-T4 for other things (and if you own other Fuji lenses).
How does it work w GFX 100s?
It doesn’t. The GFX has a different mount (not to mention the lenses would not cover the larger sensor).
Thank u
Hi Mathieu, I have the X-T2, and started recently to use it for bird photography together with the 100-400 zoom. No surprise the AF has been the problem. Going through this video of yours, I’m so glad the 100-400 is on par with the most recent zoom 150-600, in terms of AF speed, accuracy, etc.
So I’m considering it is the camera that I need to upgrade, likely to the X-H2S. In your reviews, you refer for each camera iteration (X-T3, X-T4, X-H2S), the AF improvements are there, but not impressive. In my case, upgrading directly from X-T2 to the X-H2S, do you think the AF improvement will be significant?
Also, in relation with the improved X-H2S in low light, have you found it benefit on bird photography?
Thanks!
When it comes to AF, you'll certainly see a more relevant difference if you go from X-T2 to X-H2S, plus you'll get all the benefits of the stacked sensor and electronic shutter: much faster continuous shooting, blackout-free live view and less rolling shutter.
@@MathieuGasquetMirrorLessons Thanks a lot for your reply!
Thanks for the efforts, liked before watch.
Haha, thank you!
Another cracking video 👌
Cheers!
Excellent video ! 👍
I needed just this!
When will you test the Nikon Z6II?
No idea honestly. There are a lot of cameras out there and it's difficult to review everything when your only chance is to rent or buy. I'll wait to see if the rumoured Z8 comes out, and then maybe I'll make a comparison.
Merci encore pour ce test très complet prenant en compte tous les facteurs en jeu.
Tant que j'y suis, une question :
A quand un comparatif teleconvertisseurs vs crop😉
Thank You
Just one question: why do you say the SILVER it looks white to me.
It’s a light silver, it can mislead depending on the light but it’s not 100% white.
Its a great lens
My 150-600mm is much sharper than the 100-400mm ever was. Better contrast. The keeper rate is also much higher. So my experiences are completely different.
i had the 100-400 before but sold it cos at infinity focus, the sharpness is dissaponting. looking into the the 150-600 as the next option
At 400 the 100-400 looks sharper wide open. ruclips.net/video/yzA4lhRFYdA/видео.html
by official MFT chart and many reviews 100-400 is not very good at the long end
150-600mm is an F8 lens …. F8 !!
I think the 150-600 is a bit overrated and overpriced, kind of a fail. To dark with f8 in many wildlife Situations. Also you don't have nice blurred backgrounds. The only thing I like is the reach and the internal zoom. It's a pity that the sharpness of the 100-400 is a bit weak at 400 mm and the build quality a bit poor. I'd like to see a Version II of it with internal Zoom. Maybe also an 150-500 like tamron... an 400 f5.6 prime lens also would be great.
The build quality is poor? It's a friggin tank. I have it and it's solid
I just bought the 100-400, and I have the 70-300 and the 1.4 TLC. I have to say, this xh2s is pure garbage when it comes to autofocus and wildlife photography. Of course, if you are trying to take pictures of a steady elephant, this is the camera to go. However, if you need to take pics of small birds, flying, Or even on the grass, then save your money: this is far away from being a decent camera. I m so disappointed with it 😭. Great video! Cheers
have you updated the firmware? This has been improved with updates
Fujifilm, with the poor lens performance from this 150-600mm and with no 600mm prime lens, serious wildlife photographer will not be attracted by your system.
I disagree...
I also disagree. Been shooting with the 70-300, until now that I received my 150-600. Went out and just shot wide open at the long end. While under some circumstance it took a little while for it to decide what I needed it to focus on, due to foliage and so on, for birds in flight it locks on like a steel jaw. It is as sharp as anyone who is taking pictures and not pixel peeping might want. I kept images from every subject (read burst) I shot except the first. The day was gray so I was shooting at 900 Iso with no significant noise issues. Great background blur, etc. my only gripe is the lens is hefty and I need to get used to it. Yes, it is long for an APSC lens but considering it is internal zoom it is still much more manageable than a comparable ff bazooka. BTW I was shooting handheld and the stabe on this lens is awesome, on a different league compared to my 70-300. Won’t be needing a TC with this kind of range. And the 70-300 is already a pretty good lens. So to say the 150-600 is pretty damned good is not saying a lot. Some people might argue about f-8 being an issue. Seriously, given the capabilities of the fuji system as a whole (I’m using an xt-4), I fail to see this as a serious concern. Of course I would love to have an f2 prime and have the deep pockets to buy it and to pay for guided safaris and a team of serfs to carry my gear so I could use it but who is in a position to do that? Not implying this is a lens for the average Joe only either. It is very much a pro grade lens.