Coming from a 50-140...

Blue_fuji · Feb 23, 2016

I find this lens very useful for the range it brings, compared to my 50-140. But man did I think the 50-140 was big, well not anymore. This lens is of course a lot smaller than the Nikkor 200-500 and weighs a lot less, but I suppose the overall size and internal focusing of the 50-140 is nice. But I do enjoy the zoom of this lens for when I need the range. It doesn't seem as fast as the 50-140 at focusing, not like the 50-140 is always super fast but it seems the focus hunting goes on a little bit longer. But I guess there are sacrifices when you trade range for a little bit of speed. So far, it seems right there with it's smaller sibling as far as sharpness goes, even to 400. Maybe a little less sharp, but it's got a lot more range. Not too bad considering I shoot handheld and use the wifi feature from time to time. The lens is a lot wider and takes a bit more elbow grease to zoom in and out but it sure is made well, and somehow, but i'm not sure why draws a lot of looks, esp with the lens hood attached. Since I like to keep my distance, this zoom is a very nice addition and I can't wait to try it out on the X-Pro 2!

Fujifilm X-T1, 100-400, 400mm, f/5.6, 1/60, iso 2000

Fujifilm X-T1, 100-400, 373mm, f/5.6, 1/140, iso 200

mrwho27 · Feb 23, 2016

My apology, but those pictures that you attached are very, very low quality! I hope that is not the quality of the 100-400.

Jerry-astro · Feb 23, 2016

pepsijunior said:
I find this lens very useful for the range it brings, compared to my 50-140. But man did I think the 50-140 was big, well not anymore. This lens is of course a lot smaller than the Nikkor 200-500 and weighs a lot less, but I suppose the overall size and internal focusing of the 50-140 is nice. But I do enjoy the zoom of this lens for when I need the range. It doesn't seem as fast as the 50-140 at focusing, not like the 50-140 is always super fast but it seems the focus hunting goes on a little bit longer. But I guess there are sacrifices when you trade range for a little bit of speed. So far, it seems right there with it's smaller sibling as far as sharpness goes, even to 400. Maybe a little less sharp, but it's got a lot more range. Not too bad considering I shoot handheld and use the wifi feature from time to time. The lens is a lot wider and takes a bit more elbow grease to zoom in and out but it sure is made well, and somehow, but i'm not sure why draws a lot of looks, esp with the lens hood attached. Since I like to keep my distance, this zoom is a very nice addition and I can't wait to try it out on the X-Pro 2!

Fujifilm X-T1, 100-400, 400mm, f/5.6, 1/60, iso 2000

Fujifilm X-T1, 100-400, 373mm, f/5.6, 1/140, iso 200

If you're shooting handheld, you're probably going to need to shoot at a significantly higher ISO or you'll need use a tripod in order to get sharp results. These are pretty soft and clearly suffering from motion blur. The 1/FL rule works pretty well for shutter speed as long as you consider the crop factor, which means shooting at 400mm suggests a shutter speed of at least 1/500s, if not higher. OIS helps here and if you have a very steady hand and good technique, you might still be stable at a somewhat lower speed, but that will definitely take practice.

The blur is pretty noticeable even at the lowest resolution here. Did you not notice it? Supertele lenses really amplify movement, so getting a sharp image is really tricky, as I've found out with my own copy of this lens.

Astrophotographer 10 · Feb 23, 2016

IBIS would be very helpful here. I agree 1/1000th sec would be the go and a tripod or monopod.

Greg.

57LowRider · Feb 24, 2016

These images do not compare with what I've seen so far from this lens, almost as if OIS was off. There's stuff to try; switching on the focus limiter (and, of course, OIS), setting Pre-AF to On and keeping the lens pointed at the zone you're going to shoot in (this applies to all the telephoto zooms, really).

Blue_fuji · Feb 24, 2016

Jerry-astro said:
pepsijunior said:

I find this lens very useful for the range it brings, compared to my 50-140. But man did I think the 50-140 was big, well not anymore. This lens is of course a lot smaller than the Nikkor 200-500 and weighs a lot less, but I suppose the overall size and internal focusing of the 50-140 is nice. But I do enjoy the zoom of this lens for when I need the range. It doesn't seem as fast as the 50-140 at focusing, not like the 50-140 is always super fast but it seems the focus hunting goes on a little bit longer. But I guess there are sacrifices when you trade range for a little bit of speed. So far, it seems right there with it's smaller sibling as far as sharpness goes, even to 400. Maybe a little less sharp, but it's got a lot more range. Not too bad considering I shoot handheld and use the wifi feature from time to time. The lens is a lot wider and takes a bit more elbow grease to zoom in and out but it sure is made well, and somehow, but i'm not sure why draws a lot of looks, esp with the lens hood attached. Since I like to keep my distance, this zoom is a very nice addition and I can't wait to try it out on the X-Pro 2!

Fujifilm X-T1, 100-400, 400mm, f/5.6, 1/60, iso 2000

Fujifilm X-T1, 100-400, 373mm, f/5.6, 1/140, iso 200

Click to expand...

If you're shooting handheld, you're probably going to need to shoot at a significantly higher ISO or you'll need use a tripod in order to get sharp results. These are pretty soft and clearly suffering from motion blur. The 1/FL rule works pretty well for shutter speed as long as you consider the crop factor, which means shooting at 400mm suggests a shutter speed of at least 1/500s, if not higher. OIS helps here and if you have a very steady hand and good technique, you might still be stable at a somewhat lower speed, but that will definitely take practice.

The blur is pretty noticeable even at the lowest resolution here. Did you not notice it? Supertele lenses really amplify movement, so getting a sharp image is really tricky, as I've found out with my own copy of this lens.

Yes, I did notice the motion blur and it sure was annoying especially with the background getting busy on the second image. It definitely caught me off guard going into using this lens as it shows me i'm not used to using a longer telephoto for sure. Shooting my first few images with this lens I didn't even think of the 1/FL rule and I wish I would have. That will surely help in the future as it will take me a lot of practice considering I don't think I seem to have gotten a good handheld technique down yet. I appreciate the responses and this will help further aid me in the future.

How are you enjoying this lens so far, and do you think it is more of a learning curve than most other telephoto lenses you've experienced?

Blue_fuji · Feb 24, 2016

57LowRider said:
57LowRider wrote:

These images do not compare with what I've seen so far from this lens, almost as if OIS was off. There's stuff to try; switching on the focus limiter (and, of course, OIS), setting Pre-AF to On and keeping the lens pointed at the zone you're going to shoot in (this applies to all the telephoto zooms, really).

I know, it's pretty disturbing to me cause the OIS was on but I should've shot at a higher shutter speed. I have pre-AF on but not the focus limiter. I actually thought about trying that. So does the focus limiter make a huge difference?

malcolml1 · Feb 24, 2016

My first few hours with the 100-400 were a bit disappointing. I was thinking that I had a bad copy - especially as all the other examples I'd seen were so good. Later on that evening I took some shots indoors with a flash. Everything was super-sharp, so I realized my blurry photos of earlier on must be user technique error.

With just a little practice and experience I find a massive difference. At 400mm every mistake is amplified and the OIS, whilst very good, cannot perform miracles.

Malcolm

Blue_fuji · Feb 24, 2016

malcolml1 said:
My first few hours with the 100-400 were a bit disappointing. I was thinking that I had a bad copy - especially as all the other examples I'd seen were so good. Later on that evening I took some shots indoors with a flash. Everything was super-sharp, so I realized my blurry photos of earlier on must be user technique error.

With just a little practice and experience I find a massive difference. At 400mm every mistake is amplified and the OIS, whilst very good, cannot perform miracles.

Malcolm

Everything you said here sums up exactly what I'm going through. It's good to hear positive feedback. As in I feel like I'm the only one. Like you said, even with OIS on every mistake is amplified and with these shots I took is an indication there sure is a learning curve with this one over the 50-140, which btw looks no bigger than a standard paperweight compared to this beast

Vic Chapman · Feb 24, 2016

pepsijunior said:
malcolml1 said:

My first few hours with the 100-400 were a bit disappointing. I was thinking that I had a bad copy - especially as all the other examples I'd seen were so good. Later on that evening I took some shots indoors with a flash. Everything was super-sharp, so I realized my blurry photos of earlier on must be user technique error.

With just a little practice and experience I find a massive difference. At 400mm every mistake is amplified and the OIS, whilst very good, cannot perform miracles.

Malcolm

Click to expand...

Everything you said here sums up exactly what I'm going through. It's good to hear positive feedback. As in I feel like I'm the only one. Like you said, even with OIS on every mistake is amplified and with these shots I took is an indication there sure is a learning curve with this one over the 50-140, which btw looks no bigger than a standard paperweight compared to this beast

I've never shot with a stabilsed lens of this focal length but I have shot with such as Nikon D300 (APS) and non-stabilised 50-500mm Sigma zoom - a far heavier outfit. I used it on a tripod but more often on a Monopod for such as motor sport. On safari I used a beanbag of the type that screws to the camera/lens foot. I often shot using these methods of support at lower than the reciprocal for the FL (1/750). For airshows and BiFs/wildlife on the move I had a "V" attachment which fitted the monopod in which I rested a beanbag so if a plane/bird changed from horizontal to vertical flight I could still follow and allow the monopod to fall against my chest. I also shot BiFs and planes handheld. Basically, a support will allow you shoot far more steadily even without OIS. When shooting moving subjects you will actually find it easier to get sharp pictures handheld (esp with OIS) because it is more difficult to hold a heavy lens still than to hold while moving. A monopod will greatly relieve the strain on your arm and shoulder muscles too.

Blue_fuji · Feb 24, 2016

Vic Chapman said:
pepsijunior said:

malcolml1 said:

My first few hours with the 100-400 were a bit disappointing. I was thinking that I had a bad copy - especially as all the other examples I'd seen were so good. Later on that evening I took some shots indoors with a flash. Everything was super-sharp, so I realized my blurry photos of earlier on must be user technique error.

With just a little practice and experience I find a massive difference. At 400mm every mistake is amplified and the OIS, whilst very good, cannot perform miracles.

Malcolm

Click to expand...

Everything you said here sums up exactly what I'm going through. It's good to hear positive feedback. As in I feel like I'm the only one. Like you said, even with OIS on every mistake is amplified and with these shots I took is an indication there sure is a learning curve with this one over the 50-140, which btw looks no bigger than a standard paperweight compared to this beast

Click to expand...

I've never shot with a stabilsed lens of this focal length but I have shot with such as Nikon D300 (APS) and non-stabilised 50-500mm Sigma zoom - a far heavier outfit. I used it on a tripod but more often on a Monopod for such as motor sport. On safari I used a beanbag of the type that screws to the camera/lens foot. I often shot using these methods of support at lower than the reciprocal for the FL (1/750). For airshows and BiFs/wildlife on the move I had a "V" attachment which fitted the monopod in which I rested a beanbag so if a plane/bird changed from horizontal to vertical flight I could still follow and allow the monopod to fall against my chest. I also shot BiFs and planes handheld. Basically, a support will allow you shoot far more steadily even without OIS. When shooting moving subjects you will actually find it easier to get sharp pictures handheld (esp with OIS) because it is more difficult to hold a heavy lens still than to hold while moving. A monopod will greatly relieve the strain on your arm and shoulder muscles too.

webber15 · Feb 24, 2016

Nope...no need for ibis at all,,just an improvement in technique and learning...

Dave...

Jerry-astro · Feb 24, 2016

pepsijunior said:
Yes, I did notice the motion blur and it sure was annoying especially with the background getting busy on the second image. It definitely caught me off guard going into using this lens as it shows me i'm not used to using a longer telephoto for sure. Shooting my first few images with this lens I didn't even think of the 1/FL rule and I wish I would have. That will surely help in the future as it will take me a lot of practice considering I don't think I seem to have gotten a good handheld technique down yet. I appreciate the responses and this will help further aid me in the future.

How are you enjoying this lens so far, and do you think it is more of a learning curve than most other telephoto lenses you've experienced?

I'm enjoying it immensely, but you're right, it's quite unforgiving in terms of technique. As effective as the IS is, at 400mm (or worse, 560 with the TC), it's difficult to get a solid, sharp image handheld without lots of practice. This is hardly unique to this lens though. It's true of any long telephoto. The advantage of this particular lens is the excellent 5-stop IS. This helps a lot with hand held shots, but at 400-560mm it doesn't take a lot of movement to even blow past the 5 stop coverage and introduce motion blur. Also note that DoF is VERY thin at these focal lengths... another reason why you don't get a lot of margin to play with. You often have to stop down just to get all of your subject in focus at the same time. That's something I'm still having to get used to again.

Keep at it. I think we have one of the best of this sort of lenses out there. Your patience will be rewarded by some amazing shots.

Jerry-astro · Feb 24, 2016

Vic Chapman said:
I've never shot with a stabilsed lens of this focal length but I have shot with such as Nikon D300 (APS) and non-stabilised 50-500mm Sigma zoom - a far heavier outfit. I used it on a tripod but more often on a Monopod for such as motor sport. On safari I used a beanbag of the type that screws to the camera/lens foot. I often shot using these methods of support at lower than the reciprocal for the FL (1/750). For airshows and BiFs/wildlife on the move I had a "V" attachment which fitted the monopod in which I rested a beanbag so if a plane/bird changed from horizontal to vertical flight I could still follow and allow the monopod to fall against my chest. I also shot BiFs and planes handheld. Basically, a support will allow you shoot far more steadily even without OIS. When shooting moving subjects you will actually find it easier to get sharp pictures handheld (esp with OIS) because it is more difficult to hold a heavy lens still than to hold while moving. A monopod will greatly relieve the strain on your arm and shoulder muscles too.

I'm coming to that same conclusion as well. I found using a tripod at a zoo, for example, to be incredibly awkward and cumbersome. By the time I had it adjusted right (even carrying it around extended), I often lost the shot. If you need to react quickly or work in more confined spaces, it just doesn't work well (at least for me, anyway). Fortunately, my tripod converts nicely to a monopod, and next time out, I will give it a try. I'm betting it will make a huge difference.

Vic Chapman · Feb 24, 2016

Jerry-astro said:
Also note that DoF is VERY thin at these focal lengths... another reason why you don't get a lot of margin to play with. You often have to stop down just to get all of your subject in focus at the same time. That's something I'm still having to get used to again.

I know you know about DoF and distance Jerry but just to make it clear to the OP - DoF will apparently decrease for subjects at the same distance with longer lenses and will be narrow at close distance - but for the distances which a long lens like the 100-400 + 1.4 will mostly be applied, the DoF wide open @ f8.4 should be adequate. A frame filling large BiF side-on from wingtip to wingtip might require a slightly smaller aperture but generally for anything small enough to fit in the frame the max aperture should do. DoF increases with greater distance.

Blue_fuji · Feb 24, 2016

Jerry-astro said:
pepsijunior said:

Yes, I did notice the motion blur and it sure was annoying especially with the background getting busy on the second image. It definitely caught me off guard going into using this lens as it shows me i'm not used to using a longer telephoto for sure. Shooting my first few images with this lens I didn't even think of the 1/FL rule and I wish I would have. That will surely help in the future as it will take me a lot of practice considering I don't think I seem to have gotten a good handheld technique down yet. I appreciate the responses and this will help further aid me in the future.

How are you enjoying this lens so far, and do you think it is more of a learning curve than most other telephoto lenses you've experienced?

Click to expand...

I'm enjoying it immensely, but you're right, it's quite unforgiving in terms of technique. As effective as the IS is, at 400mm (or worse, 560 with the TC), it's difficult to get a solid, sharp image handheld without lots of practice. This is hardly unique to this lens though. It's true of any long telephoto. The advantage of this particular lens is the excellent 5-stop IS. This helps a lot with hand held shots, but at 400-560mm it doesn't take a lot of movement to even blow past the 5 stop coverage and introduce motion blur. Also note that DoF is VERY thin at these focal lengths... another reason why you don't get a lot of margin to play with. You often have to stop down just to get all of your subject in focus at the same time. That's something I'm still having to get used to again.

Keep at it. I think we have one of the best of this sort of lenses out there. Your patience will be rewarded by some amazing shots.

Your right about the dof. It definitely is not a lens for auto settings it seems. I didn't even consider the TC cause I figured it would be trouble for me. This lens seems like a great way to learn the camera as it will have me thinking of every setting even more so. It does seem very sharp for its range.

Daniel Lauring · Feb 24, 2016

pepsijunior said:
I find this lens very useful for the range it brings, compared to my 50-140.

Fujifilm X-T1, 100-400, 400mm, f/5.6, 1/60, iso 2000

Fujifilm X-T1, 100-400, 373mm, f/5.6, 1/140, iso 200

One reason, besides the size, that I sold this lens was that Bokeh. Yuck!

Blue_fuji · Feb 24, 2016

Daniel Lauring said:
pepsijunior said:

Click to expand...

One reason, besides the size, that I sold this lens was that Bokeh. Yuck!

It bothers me too but I figured it might just be me! It's very very busy

Canadianguy · Feb 24, 2016

You can make that 3. I remember seeing similar images with that kind of Bokeh from the 50-140

That Bokeh is really bad. Is that due to the OIS?

pepsijunior said:
Daniel Lauring said:

pepsijunior said:

I find this lens very useful for the range it brings, compared to my 50-140.

Click to expand...

One reason, besides the size, that I sold this lens was that Bokeh. Yuck!

Click to expand...

It bothers me too but I figured it might just be me! It's very very busy

Jerry-astro · Feb 24, 2016

Daniel Lauring said:
pepsijunior said:

I find this lens very useful for the range it brings, compared to my 50-140.

Fujifilm X-T1, 100-400, 373mm, f/5.6, 1/140, iso 200

Click to expand...

One reason, besides the size, that I sold this lens was that Bokeh. Yuck!

Perhaps you can post an example or two of a similar lens (i.e. Super tele zoom or prime) that would render close-in branches or other busy backgrounds a whole lot better. I've found the bokeh for backgrounds somewhat further in the distance to be excellent and certainly not worthy of dumping the lens. Additionally, when necessary (as in a case like this), I can use software like Focus CK to further blur backgrounds as necessary. I'll take a tack sharp lens with this issue any day over one that can't deliver uniform sharpness throughout its range.

Also, concering size, can you find a similar lens for crop format that is much smaller or lighter? Pretty hard to deliver decent optics in a much smaller size or lighter weight. Canon's 100-400 Mk 2 is a good example of that (nearly identical size and weight and no better IQ).

Coming from a 50-140...

Senior Member

Forum Enthusiast

Forum Pro

Forum Pro

Senior Member

Senior Member

Senior Member

Forum Enthusiast

Senior Member

Forum Pro

Senior Member

Senior Member

Forum Pro

Forum Pro

Forum Pro

Senior Member

Daniel Lauring

Guest

Senior Member

Senior Member

Forum Pro

Similar threads

Keyboard shortcuts