Reading mode: Light Dark

Beginner sports/wildlife Fuji vs Canon

Go to last post
K

kmonroe99

Well-known member
Messages
213
Reaction score
171
I know I'm comparing APS-C vs full frame but I'm not looking to produce large prints so...

Hobbyist looking to expand from landscape into school sports/birds. I own a Fuji X-T2 with the kit lens. I also have a Canon R6 with 24-105 kit lens. Money for zoom telephoto for either body is not an issue; even 3rd party (Tamron, Sigma) lenses would be acceptable. Primary concern is size/weight due to shoulder/arm issues.

So with Fuji, stick with X-T2 or move to T3/T4? Go with a 100-400 Fuji lens? Or go to the Canon with a zoom or even maybe the 600 or 800 fixed?
 
kmonroe99 said:
I know I'm comparing APS-C vs full frame but I'm not looking to produce large prints so...

Hobbyist looking to expand from landscape into school sports/birds. I own a Fuji X-T2 with the kit lens. I also have a Canon R6 with 24-105 kit lens. Money for zoom telephoto for either body is not an issue; even 3rd party (Tamron, Sigma) lenses would be acceptable. Primary concern is size/weight due to shoulder/arm issues.

So with Fuji, stick with X-T2 or move to T3/T4? Go with a 100-400 Fuji lens? Or go to the Canon with a zoom or even maybe the 600 or 800 fixed?
Click to expand...
Please define large prints.

For example, I can print 13x19 with exceptional detail in a m4/3 system.
 
ikolbyi said:
kmonroe99 said:
I know I'm comparing APS-C vs full frame but I'm not looking to produce large prints so...

Hobbyist looking to expand from landscape into school sports/birds. I own a Fuji X-T2 with the kit lens. I also have a Canon R6 with 24-105 kit lens. Money for zoom telephoto for either body is not an issue; even 3rd party (Tamron, Sigma) lenses would be acceptable. Primary concern is size/weight due to shoulder/arm issues.

So with Fuji, stick with X-T2 or move to T3/T4? Go with a 100-400 Fuji lens? Or go to the Canon with a zoom or even maybe the 600 or 800 fixed?
Click to expand...
Please define large prints.

For example, I can print 13x19 with exceptional detail in a m4/3 system.
Click to expand...
I just meant sensor size isn't part of my comparison.
 
I use my Canon FF to photograph low-light-action, my Olympus does everything else.

Reason: weight and size and I can achieve professional results. FF is needed for higher ISO.

The Fuji will provide more 'reach' meaning your lenses will zoom in further because of the APSC sensor.

The Canon will have higher ISO performance being FF. If you are looking at using this for Sports/Wildlife, I would stay far-far away from the R as I have used that camera and the EVF is horrible due to its poor refresh rate. I have no experience with Fuji.

Olympus is the king of sports/wildlife provided you have natural light.
 
Last edited:
ikolbyi said:
I use my Canon FF to photograph low-light-action, my Olympus does everything else.

Reason: weight and size and I can achieve professional results. FF is needed for higher ISO.

The Fuji will provide more 'reach' meaning your lenses will zoom in further because of the APSC sensor. - bold added
Click to expand...
I realize I am nitpicking but FF has the same reach as APS-C or any other crop sensor if you crop the FF image to match the crop sensor image.

What you lose with cropped FF is MP count but with high MP camera such as A7R IV (61 MP -> 30 MP APS-C crop), it's possible to have the reach and MP.
ikolbyi said:
The Canon will have higher ISO performance being FF. If you are looking at using this for Sports/Wildlife, I would stay far-far away from the R as I have used that camera and the EVF is horrible due to its poor refresh rate. I have no experience with Fuji.

Olympus is the king of sports/wildlife provided you have natural light.
Click to expand...
 
Given your preference for a compact & lightweight system, I'll flesh out some Fuji options. There are several good zooms for the new sports enthusiast. These include the 16-55mm f/2.8 and the 50-140mm f/2.8. Their full frame equivalents are standard focal length ranges for sports. The X-T2's autofocus is good but the X-T4 would be a significant upgrade in that department. An X-T3 or X-T30 would not be as dramatic but still an upgrade in AF. The 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6 is currently the only Fuji lens that's a good fit for wildlife photography.

All that said, the Canon EOS R6 should be a really solid sports body. Its face detect autofocus is reportedly quite good. And of course, the selection of native mount and (with an adapter) EF mount lenses by Canon, Sigma and Tamron for sports and wildlife is an order of magnitude greater than the Fuji lineup...especially for wildlife.

Sports and wildlife are genres with different lens needs. Given the substantial cost to add multiple lenses to build a basic set for both, I might recommend adding one Fuji lens (probably the 50-140) to see how that does with your X-T2 for sports. If you like the results, the size & weight, and user interface, expand your kit. If this trial run isn't what you'd hoped, add a 70-200mm f/2.8 lens for use with your R6 and see how that goes. In fact, you could take the approach of renting both lenses for use during a photo shoot of a game. Use one system during the 1st half and the other during the 2nd. Whichever kit delivers the goods, wins :)

Good luck.
 
mostlyboringphotog said:
ikolbyi said:
I use my Canon FF to photograph low-light-action, my Olympus does everything else.

Reason: weight and size and I can achieve professional results. FF is needed for higher ISO.

The Fuji will provide more 'reach' meaning your lenses will zoom in further because of the APSC sensor. - bold added
Click to expand...
I realize I am nitpicking but FF has the same reach as APS-C or any other crop sensor if you crop the FF image to match the crop sensor image.

What you lose with cropped FF is MP count but with high MP camera such as A7R IV (61 MP -> 30 MP APS-C crop), it's possible to have the reach and MP.
mostlyboringphotog said:
The Canon will have higher ISO performance being FF. If you are looking at using this for Sports/Wildlife, I would stay far-far away from the R as I have used that camera and the EVF is horrible due to its poor refresh rate. I have no experience with Fuji.

Olympus is the king of sports/wildlife provided you have natural light.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
The OP didn't list a high MP-FF camera where what your are suggesting is possible. The Canon R6 is a 20 MP-FF sensor. You can crop the APSC sensor on the Fuji to obtain even further reach.

I only crop a maximum of 20% on my m4/3 to prevent image detail degradation due to smaller sensor size.
 
I have an X-T30 and Sony a7iii, and Sony a7iii's autofocus is much better when photographing moving subjects.

My guess is Canon's autofocus will be much superior to Fujifilm X-T2(especially with eye AF).
The second factor to consider is the light transmission, when calculating the fullframe equivalent we have to multiply by a constant 1.5(or 1.6, I am not exactly sure) and this makes many APSC lenses considerably darker by comparison.

I have been in a similar dilemma and my current choice is to go with buying a fullframe telephoto lens.
With my kit I have better autofocus with a7iii and will get a brighter lens when comparing the equivalent APSC lenses in the same price point.

Also the weight difference between APSC and Fullframe is not that huge.

For example X-T2 + XF 100-400mmF4.5-5.6 totally has a weight of 507g + 1375g = 1882g
R6 + RF100-500mm F4.5-7.1 has a combined weight of 680g + 1365g(without tripod mount) = 2045 g
 
Last edited:
kesariraju said:
The second factor to consider is the light transmission, when calculating the fullframe equivalent we have to multiply by a constant 1.5(or 1.6, I am not exactly sure) and this makes many APSC lenses considerably darker by comparison.
Click to expand...
I wouldn't use the term "darker". The images are not darker when comparing FF vs APSC vs m4/3. I have all 3 systems.

The difference between FF, APSC & m4/3 is DOF (Depth of Field) and ISO performance.

FF (1x crop/no crop) will give you shallower DOF and best ISO (low light) performance.

m4/3 (2x crop) will be the lightest and smallest system because the lenses are 1/2 the size as a result. Olympus also makes their products almost indestructible with extremely sharp lenses - especially the pro lenses.

APSC sits in the middle of FF & m4/3 with 1.5x crop (Sony/Nikon) or 1.6x crop (Canon).

Regarding DOF, if you are shooting F2.8 and larger on a FF sensor, then don't worry about DOF, because a m4/3-APSC with a F1.x lens will achieve the same DOF result. This matters if you are shooting F1.x with a FF sensor, then APSC and m4/3 will be at a disadvantage here because F0.9 and lower aperture lenses don't exist for APSC & m4/3 (that I am aware of). Meaning you can't achieve the equivalent DOF shot.

https://www.opticallimits.com/Reviews/986-equivalence

Equivalent Lens size and aperture between the 3 systems:
  • Full format: 50mm f/2.8
  • APS-C: 32mm f/1.8 (using 1.55x now)
  • MFT: 25mm f/1.4
 
Last edited:
you need the versatility of a zoom lens first - a 100-400 or 150-600, then you can consider a longer telephoto prime, if your field experience tells you that you need it.

Personally, I would avoid Canon, I don' t want to use an already huge telephoto lens with an adapter, but that's me. If sports and wildlife were my thing, I would choose Sony: best AF system, huge selection of native and third party lenses.
 
kmonroe99 said:
I know I'm comparing APS-C vs full frame but I'm not looking to produce large prints so...

Hobbyist looking to expand from landscape into school sports/birds. I own a Fuji X-T2 with the kit lens. I also have a Canon R6 with 24-105 kit lens. Money for zoom telephoto for either body is not an issue; even 3rd party (Tamron, Sigma) lenses would be acceptable. Primary concern is size/weight due to shoulder/arm issues.

So with Fuji, stick with X-T2 or move to T3/T4? Go with a 100-400 Fuji lens? Or go to the Canon with a zoom or even maybe the 600 or 800 fixed?
Click to expand...
Canon and Sony have the same issue: size and weight, especially when we are talking about 300 - 600mm lenses. If size and weight are non-issues, then I can only comment on Canon systems and Canon + Sigma lenses.

If we are talking about outdoor (natural light) subjects shooting situations only, then Olympus is the clear winner. If we are talking about indoor or dusk photography, then APSC (FF best) would be a better option because Olympus falls apart in my opinion at ISO 5000+. The m4/3 can't handle action photography in low-light situations. It's legendary IS (image stabilization) is useless when operating shutter speed of 1/800+
 
ikolbyi said:
kesariraju said:
The second factor to consider is the light transmission, when calculating the fullframe equivalent we have to multiply by a constant 1.5(or 1.6, I am not exactly sure) and this makes many APSC lenses considerably darker by comparison.
Click to expand...
I wouldn't use the term "darker". The images are not darker when comparing FF vs APSC vs m4/3. I have all 3 systems.

The difference between FF, APSC & m4/3 is DOF (Depth of Field) and ISO performance.

FF (1x crop/no crop) will give you shallower DOF and best ISO (low light) performance.

m4/3 (2x crop) will be the lightest and smallest system because the lenses are 1/2 the size as a result. Olympus also makes their products almost indestructible with extremely sharp lenses - especially the pro lenses.

APSC sits in the middle of FF & m4/3 with 1.5x crop (Sony/Nikon) or 1.6x crop (Canon).

Regarding DOF, if you are shooting F2.8 and larger on a FF sensor, then don't worry about DOF, because a m4/3-APSC with a F1.x lens will achieve the same DOF result. This matters if you are shooting F1.x with a FF sensor, then APSC and m4/3 will be at a disadvantage here because F0.9 and lower aperture lenses don't exist for APSC & m4/3 (that I am aware of). Meaning you can't achieve the equivalent DOF shot.

https://www.opticallimits.com/Reviews/986-equivalence

Equivalent Lens size and aperture between the 3 systems:
  • Full format: 50mm f/2.8
  • APS-C: 32mm f/1.8 (using 1.55x now)
  • MFT: 25mm f/1.4
Click to expand...
Full-frame (FF) only offers a low light performance advantage if you use the full area of the sensor. In sports and wildlife - especially wildlife - photography, it's common to shoot at 500mm on an APS-C system and crop a bit to get the composition you want. That angle of view is equivalent to a 750mm lens on a FF camera...and the resulting image still needs a crop.

The bottom line is, if a photo made with a FF camera is cropped to APS-C size or smaller, that final image has just as much noise as a photo of the same subject made with an APS-C camera using the same shutter speed and f-stop. If the FF sensor isn't 45 MP or more, the APS-C image will probably put more pixels on the subject. It'll have better resolution.

So while it's all well and good to talk equivalence of different format systems, it's important to have that discussion in a real world context. If the OP lives someplace where wildlife is habituated to human presence and comfortable with a photographer in close proximity, a FF camera might offer a genuine advantage in low light performance. But if the OP lives in a place with hunting seasons for the wildlife he wants to photograph, APS-C is a format that will offer real advantages over FF for the kind of photography he wants to do.
 
Bill Ferris said:
ikolbyi said:
kesariraju said:
The second factor to consider is the light transmission, when calculating the fullframe equivalent we have to multiply by a constant 1.5(or 1.6, I am not exactly sure) and this makes many APSC lenses considerably darker by comparison.
Click to expand...
I wouldn't use the term "darker". The images are not darker when comparing FF vs APSC vs m4/3. I have all 3 systems.

The difference between FF, APSC & m4/3 is DOF (Depth of Field) and ISO performance.

FF (1x crop/no crop) will give you shallower DOF and best ISO (low light) performance.

m4/3 (2x crop) will be the lightest and smallest system because the lenses are 1/2 the size as a result. Olympus also makes their products almost indestructible with extremely sharp lenses - especially the pro lenses.

APSC sits in the middle of FF & m4/3 with 1.5x crop (Sony/Nikon) or 1.6x crop (Canon).

Regarding DOF, if you are shooting F2.8 and larger on a FF sensor, then don't worry about DOF, because a m4/3-APSC with a F1.x lens will achieve the same DOF result. This matters if you are shooting F1.x with a FF sensor, then APSC and m4/3 will be at a disadvantage here because F0.9 and lower aperture lenses don't exist for APSC & m4/3 (that I am aware of). Meaning you can't achieve the equivalent DOF shot.

https://www.opticallimits.com/Reviews/986-equivalence

Equivalent Lens size and aperture between the 3 systems:
  • Full format: 50mm f/2.8
  • APS-C: 32mm f/1.8 (using 1.55x now)
  • MFT: 25mm f/1.4
Click to expand...
Full-frame (FF) only offers a low light performance advantage if you use the full area of the sensor. In sports and wildlife - especially wildlife - photography, it's common to shoot at 500mm on an APS-C system and crop a bit to get the composition you want. That angle of view is equivalent to a 750mm lens on a FF camera...and the resulting image still needs a crop.

The bottom line is, if a photo made with a FF camera is cropped to APS-C size or smaller, that final image has just as much noise as a photo of the same subject made with an APS-C camera using the same shutter speed and f-stop. If the FF sensor isn't 45 MP or more, the APS-C image will probably put more pixels on the subject. It'll have better resolution.

So while it's all well and good to talk equivalence of different format systems, it's important to have that discussion in a real world context. If the OP lives someplace where wildlife is habituated to human presence and comfortable with a photographer in close proximity, a FF camera might offer a genuine advantage in low light performance. But if the OP lives in a place with hunting seasons for the wildlife he wants to photograph, APS-C is a format that will offer real advantages over FF for the kind of photography he wants to do.
Click to expand...
Which is why me personally, if I am shooting nature my Canon sits home and I'm using my Olympus with 150mm f/2.8 lens and 2.0 extender (600mm equivalent in FF). My Knees and back thank me for it.

Lugging around a 300mm FF lens is no fun and it requires a monopod.
 
Last edited:
ikolbyi said:
Bill Ferris said:
ikolbyi said:
kesariraju said:
The second factor to consider is the light transmission, when calculating the fullframe equivalent we have to multiply by a constant 1.5(or 1.6, I am not exactly sure) and this makes many APSC lenses considerably darker by comparison.
Click to expand...
I wouldn't use the term "darker". The images are not darker when comparing FF vs APSC vs m4/3. I have all 3 systems.

The difference between FF, APSC & m4/3 is DOF (Depth of Field) and ISO performance.

FF (1x crop/no crop) will give you shallower DOF and best ISO (low light) performance.

m4/3 (2x crop) will be the lightest and smallest system because the lenses are 1/2 the size as a result. Olympus also makes their products almost indestructible with extremely sharp lenses - especially the pro lenses.

APSC sits in the middle of FF & m4/3 with 1.5x crop (Sony/Nikon) or 1.6x crop (Canon).

Regarding DOF, if you are shooting F2.8 and larger on a FF sensor, then don't worry about DOF, because a m4/3-APSC with a F1.x lens will achieve the same DOF result. This matters if you are shooting F1.x with a FF sensor, then APSC and m4/3 will be at a disadvantage here because F0.9 and lower aperture lenses don't exist for APSC & m4/3 (that I am aware of). Meaning you can't achieve the equivalent DOF shot.

https://www.opticallimits.com/Reviews/986-equivalence

Equivalent Lens size and aperture between the 3 systems:
  • Full format: 50mm f/2.8
  • APS-C: 32mm f/1.8 (using 1.55x now)
  • MFT: 25mm f/1.4
Click to expand...
Full-frame (FF) only offers a low light performance advantage if you use the full area of the sensor. In sports and wildlife - especially wildlife - photography, it's common to shoot at 500mm on an APS-C system and crop a bit to get the composition you want. That angle of view is equivalent to a 750mm lens on a FF camera...and the resulting image still needs a crop.

The bottom line is, if a photo made with a FF camera is cropped to APS-C size or smaller, that final image has just as much noise as a photo of the same subject made with an APS-C camera using the same shutter speed and f-stop. If the FF sensor isn't 45 MP or more, the APS-C image will probably put more pixels on the subject. It'll have better resolution.

So while it's all well and good to talk equivalence of different format systems, it's important to have that discussion in a real world context. If the OP lives someplace where wildlife is habituated to human presence and comfortable with a photographer in close proximity, a FF camera might offer a genuine advantage in low light performance. But if the OP lives in a place with hunting seasons for the wildlife he wants to photograph, APS-C is a format that will offer real advantages over FF for the kind of photography he wants to do.
Click to expand...
Which is why me personally, if I am shooting nature my Canon sits home and I'm using my Olympus with 150mm f/2.8 lens and 2.0 extender (600mm equivalent in FF). My Knees and back thank me for it.

Lugging around a 300mm FF lens is no fun and it requires a monopod.
Click to expand...
300mm on a monopod? Is that a reference to a 300mm f/2.8? A 300mm f/4 or 300mm in an f/5.6 zoom would hardly be in need of a monopod? The 200-500mm f/5.6 I use with an APS-C body is easily handholdable and delivers a FF equivalent 750mm field of view. A 300mm PF with a TC or a 500mm PF is an even more portable option.

While I am personally not inclined to use M43 for birds, wildlife, and sports, I do have to hand it to Olympus; that 150-400mm f/4.5 looks like an impressive piece of kit.
 
Bill Ferris said:
ikolbyi said:
Bill Ferris said:
ikolbyi said:
kesariraju said:
The second factor to consider is the light transmission, when calculating the fullframe equivalent we have to multiply by a constant 1.5(or 1.6, I am not exactly sure) and this makes many APSC lenses considerably darker by comparison.
Click to expand...
I wouldn't use the term "darker". The images are not darker when comparing FF vs APSC vs m4/3. I have all 3 systems.

The difference between FF, APSC & m4/3 is DOF (Depth of Field) and ISO performance.

FF (1x crop/no crop) will give you shallower DOF and best ISO (low light) performance.

m4/3 (2x crop) will be the lightest and smallest system because the lenses are 1/2 the size as a result. Olympus also makes their products almost indestructible with extremely sharp lenses - especially the pro lenses.

APSC sits in the middle of FF & m4/3 with 1.5x crop (Sony/Nikon) or 1.6x crop (Canon).

Regarding DOF, if you are shooting F2.8 and larger on a FF sensor, then don't worry about DOF, because a m4/3-APSC with a F1.x lens will achieve the same DOF result. This matters if you are shooting F1.x with a FF sensor, then APSC and m4/3 will be at a disadvantage here because F0.9 and lower aperture lenses don't exist for APSC & m4/3 (that I am aware of). Meaning you can't achieve the equivalent DOF shot.

https://www.opticallimits.com/Reviews/986-equivalence

Equivalent Lens size and aperture between the 3 systems:
  • Full format: 50mm f/2.8
  • APS-C: 32mm f/1.8 (using 1.55x now)
  • MFT: 25mm f/1.4
Click to expand...
Full-frame (FF) only offers a low light performance advantage if you use the full area of the sensor. In sports and wildlife - especially wildlife - photography, it's common to shoot at 500mm on an APS-C system and crop a bit to get the composition you want. That angle of view is equivalent to a 750mm lens on a FF camera...and the resulting image still needs a crop.

The bottom line is, if a photo made with a FF camera is cropped to APS-C size or smaller, that final image has just as much noise as a photo of the same subject made with an APS-C camera using the same shutter speed and f-stop. If the FF sensor isn't 45 MP or more, the APS-C image will probably put more pixels on the subject. It'll have better resolution.

So while it's all well and good to talk equivalence of different format systems, it's important to have that discussion in a real world context. If the OP lives someplace where wildlife is habituated to human presence and comfortable with a photographer in close proximity, a FF camera might offer a genuine advantage in low light performance. But if the OP lives in a place with hunting seasons for the wildlife he wants to photograph, APS-C is a format that will offer real advantages over FF for the kind of photography he wants to do.
Click to expand...
Which is why me personally, if I am shooting nature my Canon sits home and I'm using my Olympus with 150mm f/2.8 lens and 2.0 extender (600mm equivalent in FF). My Knees and back thank me for it.

Lugging around a 300mm FF lens is no fun and it requires a monopod.
Click to expand...
300mm on a monopod? Is that a reference to a 300mm f/2.8? A 300mm f/4 or 300mm in an f/5.6 zoom would hardly be in need of a monopod? The 200-500mm f/5.6 I use with an APS-C body is easily handholdable and delivers a FF equivalent 750mm field of view. A 300mm PF with a TC or a 500mm PF is an even more portable option.

While I am personally not inclined to use M43 for birds, wildlife, and sports, I do have to hand it to Olympus; that 150-400mm f/4.5 looks like an impressive piece of kit.
Click to expand...
 
ikolbyi said:
Bill Ferris said:
ikolbyi said:
Bill Ferris said:
ikolbyi said:
kesariraju said:
The second factor to consider is the light transmission, when calculating the fullframe equivalent we have to multiply by a constant 1.5(or 1.6, I am not exactly sure) and this makes many APSC lenses considerably darker by comparison.
Click to expand...
I wouldn't use the term "darker". The images are not darker when comparing FF vs APSC vs m4/3. I have all 3 systems.

The difference between FF, APSC & m4/3 is DOF (Depth of Field) and ISO performance.

FF (1x crop/no crop) will give you shallower DOF and best ISO (low light) performance.

m4/3 (2x crop) will be the lightest and smallest system because the lenses are 1/2 the size as a result. Olympus also makes their products almost indestructible with extremely sharp lenses - especially the pro lenses.

APSC sits in the middle of FF & m4/3 with 1.5x crop (Sony/Nikon) or 1.6x crop (Canon).

Regarding DOF, if you are shooting F2.8 and larger on a FF sensor, then don't worry about DOF, because a m4/3-APSC with a F1.x lens will achieve the same DOF result. This matters if you are shooting F1.x with a FF sensor, then APSC and m4/3 will be at a disadvantage here because F0.9 and lower aperture lenses don't exist for APSC & m4/3 (that I am aware of). Meaning you can't achieve the equivalent DOF shot.

https://www.opticallimits.com/Reviews/986-equivalence

Equivalent Lens size and aperture between the 3 systems:
  • Full format: 50mm f/2.8
  • APS-C: 32mm f/1.8 (using 1.55x now)
  • MFT: 25mm f/1.4
Click to expand...
Full-frame (FF) only offers a low light performance advantage if you use the full area of the sensor. In sports and wildlife - especially wildlife - photography, it's common to shoot at 500mm on an APS-C system and crop a bit to get the composition you want. That angle of view is equivalent to a 750mm lens on a FF camera...and the resulting image still needs a crop.

The bottom line is, if a photo made with a FF camera is cropped to APS-C size or smaller, that final image has just as much noise as a photo of the same subject made with an APS-C camera using the same shutter speed and f-stop. If the FF sensor isn't 45 MP or more, the APS-C image will probably put more pixels on the subject. It'll have better resolution.

So while it's all well and good to talk equivalence of different format systems, it's important to have that discussion in a real world context. If the OP lives someplace where wildlife is habituated to human presence and comfortable with a photographer in close proximity, a FF camera might offer a genuine advantage in low light performance. But if the OP lives in a place with hunting seasons for the wildlife he wants to photograph, APS-C is a format that will offer real advantages over FF for the kind of photography he wants to do.
Click to expand...
Which is why me personally, if I am shooting nature my Canon sits home and I'm using my Olympus with 150mm f/2.8 lens and 2.0 extender (600mm equivalent in FF). My Knees and back thank me for it.

Lugging around a 300mm FF lens is no fun and it requires a monopod.
Click to expand...
300mm on a monopod? Is that a reference to a 300mm f/2.8? A 300mm f/4 or 300mm in an f/5.6 zoom would hardly be in need of a monopod? The 200-500mm f/5.6 I use with an APS-C body is easily handholdable and delivers a FF equivalent 750mm field of view. A 300mm PF with a TC or a 500mm PF is an even more portable option.

While I am personally not inclined to use M43 for birds, wildlife, and sports, I do have to hand it to Olympus; that 150-400mm f/4.5 looks like an impressive piece of kit.
Click to expand...
I own the Sigma 120-300mm f2.8 and it is a heavy large monster.

I have used Sigma 300mm f2.8 prime & Canon 300mm f2.8L and they are beasts as well, not as bad as the Sigma zoom.

I realize I am describing low aperture lenses, and the variable zoom versions like the versions you described will be smaller and lighter. Will any of this be acceptable for the OP?

Their is no perfect system, each user prefers something different for different reasons. All we can do is recommend options and outline why we prefer those options.
Click to expand...
I think we're totally aligned on that last point. I'm a big believer in the value of folks sharing their personal experiences and life-photographic-lessons learned in the DPR forums; especially in response to folks seeking recommendations on gear to buy and use. I try to keep in mind that while I'm sharing my experiences and whatever limited knowledge I've acquired, ultimately, the goal is helping a person find the gear that will be the right fit for them. And that may very well not be the gear that's right for me.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Keyboard shortcuts

f
Forum
m
My threads
Mobile site
About
Editorial content
Cameras & Lenses
Community
All content, design, and layout are Copyright © 1998–2025 Digital Photography Review All Rights Reserved.
Reproduction in whole or part in any form or medium without specific written permission is prohibited.
When you use DPReview links to buy products, the site may earn a commission.
©GPS Media - Guides, Products, Services.
Back
Top