Reading mode: Light Dark

X-H2 or X-H2s, XF150-600 or adapted third party zooms?

Go to last post
M

metehanarin

New member
Messages
8
Reaction score
10
Location
Istanbul, TR
Hi there,

About 6 months ago, I started my bird photogpraghy journey and so far, I managed to capture 100 species! I currently have the X-S10 and the XF70-300, and as you can imagine, it is not enough!

I made up my mind for buying new gear but I can't decide! Should I go with the resolution king X-H2 or the speed king X-H2s? Both cameras are amazing but I can't decide between these two.

X-H2 will give me more room for cropping to get more reach on the subject. The resolution will also help as I do types of photography other than bird photography as well. Coming from an X-S10, I am familiar with the 26MP resolution so the 40MP resolution will be a noticeable increase for me. From what I've heard the autofocus is very similar too but I wouldn't know unless I try.

X-H2s will give me more speed, better AF and almost no rolling shutter. I would be able to use preshot and electronic shutter with no issues, something that I would avoid using in the X-H2. X-H2s is a bit pricier as well.

Another question is the lens choice. Now, any lens that can reach 600mm will be a huge upgrade for me but seeing that the Fuji ends up at F8@600mm, I questioned my choice. I thought, why not go for a Sigma or Tamron 150-600 which ends at F6.3, 2/3 brighter than F8. But going with an adapted third party lens raised other questions. Would it affect image quality, autofocus speed, weather sealing, portability? I wouldn't want a camera and lens combo that's slow and heavy!

If there are any forum members that are experienced with the gear that I've mentioned, I would love to hear your thoughts on how I should decide on my purchase.

Thanks.
 
Rather than create another thread I figured I would ask here and you considering you seem pretty knowledgeable.

What are your thoughts on the xf 100-400? I am not a birder but more of someone who likes to go to state parks and the like. Animals are awesome in general so if I can, I would like a good telephoto lens.
 
FootNote Photo said:
Rather than create another thread I figured I would ask here and you considering you seem pretty knowledgeable.

What are your thoughts on the xf 100-400? I am not a birder but more of someone who likes to go to state parks and the like. Animals are awesome in general so if I can, I would like a good telephoto lens.
Click to expand...
It is find for portraits and action yet add a 1.4x TC and forget about action. Build quality is sub par and I was concerned about that when I got it. Mine lasted just over a year when the barrel locked up preventing zooming and Fuji had to replace the lens. For the price, it should have a pro build.

Morris
 
as mentioned by Morris already, the build quality is not top notch, bought the lens second hand under warranty, worked perfectly for 1year then barrel got stuck. 400$ or so for repair at fujifilm service and 2 weeks later the lens is still going strong but I have to admit I have lost confidence in the quality of the lens to withstand bad weather as it should for a pro lens with weather sealing.

Except that the lens is good optically and great versatility for landscape as well as large animals or animals tolerant to human presence but for small birds I often have to crop quite largely (25-50%) of the image.

despite everything I like the lens a lot for versatility and relative compactness. This lens need to be updated to the the XF 150-600 in terms of build quality I think.

cheers
FootNote Photo said:
Rather than create another thread I figured I would ask here and you considering you seem pretty knowledgeable.

What are your thoughts on the xf 100-400? I am not a birder but more of someone who likes to go to state parks and the like. Animals are awesome in general so if I can, I would like a good telephoto lens.

--
FootNote Photo
Click to expand...
 
FootNote Photo said:
Rather than create another thread I figured I would ask here and you considering you seem pretty knowledgeable.

What are your thoughts on the xf 100-400? I am not a birder but more of someone who likes to go to state parks and the like. Animals are awesome in general so if I can, I would like a good telephoto lens.
Click to expand...
There are just better options on the market now, that’s my take. The 100-400 is a little long in the tooth and only makes sense if you can pick up a good copy at a used price. Otherwise, there are better options i.e Tamron and more recently Sigma which comes in at a great price even for new. In fact, I would probably still shell out the extra for a new Sigma than a used XF 100-400 (based on the UK used market anyway).
 
Last edited:
Really now, that is surprising and disappointing. I thought with the Red badge it was going to be a pro lens. The 16-55 red I have feels pretty damn good.

I am planning on getting the 50-140 but am wondering if I am better off getting a bigger zoom that will be a bit more useful if less specialized.
 
GMacF said:
FootNote Photo said:
Rather than create another thread I figured I would ask here and you considering you seem pretty knowledgeable.

What are your thoughts on the xf 100-400? I am not a birder but more of someone who likes to go to state parks and the like. Animals are awesome in general so if I can, I would like a good telephoto lens.
Click to expand...
There are just better options on the market now, that’s my take. The 100-400 is a little long in the tooth and only makes sense if you can pick up a good copy at a used price. Otherwise, there are better options i.e Tamron and more recently Sigma which comes in at a great price even for new. In fact, I would probably still shell out the extra for a new Sigma than a used XF 100-400 (based on the UK used market anyway).
Click to expand...
I am ok with long in the tooth as long as the image quality holds up. I am not a fan of two people who actually responded describing the same issue. Honestly pretty disappointing.

I looked at the Sima which I am actually a fan of, don't like Tamron that much honestly though, had a bad lens from them once.

Sadly the 150-600 is at a completely different price point.
 
FootNote Photo said:
GMacF said:
FootNote Photo said:
Rather than create another thread I figured I would ask here and you considering you seem pretty knowledgeable.

What are your thoughts on the xf 100-400? I am not a birder but more of someone who likes to go to state parks and the like. Animals are awesome in general so if I can, I would like a good telephoto lens.
Click to expand...
There are just better options on the market now, that’s my take. The 100-400 is a little long in the tooth and only makes sense if you can pick up a good copy at a used price. Otherwise, there are better options i.e Tamron and more recently Sigma which comes in at a great price even for new. In fact, I would probably still shell out the extra for a new Sigma than a used XF 100-400 (based on the UK used market anyway).
Click to expand...
I am ok with long in the tooth as long as the image quality holds up. I am not a fan of two people who actually responded describing the same issue. Honestly pretty disappointing.

I looked at the Sima which I am actually a fan of, don't like Tamron that much honestly though, had a bad lens from them once.

Sadly the 150-600 is at a completely different price point.
Click to expand...
Well it’s still perfectly capable of producing superb images, it’s not a dud lens by any means. Admittedly I can only base my Sigma thoughts on the reviews but in any of the comparisons it’s significantly sharper than the Fuji. The problem with it being an older lens (I know you said you don’t mind long in the tooth, which is fine) is that good used copies may become harder to come by plus they will undoubtedly exhibit zoom creep and dust ingress. The alternative of course is to buy new or possibly refurbished but, as I said previously, at that price you’d be much better served buying one of the others.

I know it may not seem like it, but I have very little to say from a negative point of view on the Fuji 100-400, it’s just that there are better competing options now.
 
Last edited:
FootNote Photo said:
Really now, that is surprising and disappointing. I thought with the Red badge it was going to be a pro lens. The 16-55 red I have feels pretty damn good.

I am planning on getting the 50-140 but am wondering if I am better off getting a bigger zoom that will be a bit more useful if less specialized.
Click to expand...
I have no experience with the 50-140 to say.

Morris
 
FootNote Photo said:
GMacF said:
FootNote Photo said:
Rather than create another thread I figured I would ask here and you considering you seem pretty knowledgeable.

What are your thoughts on the xf 100-400? I am not a birder but more of someone who likes to go to state parks and the like. Animals are awesome in general so if I can, I would like a good telephoto lens.
Click to expand...
There are just better options on the market now, that’s my take. The 100-400 is a little long in the tooth and only makes sense if you can pick up a good copy at a used price. Otherwise, there are better options i.e Tamron and more recently Sigma which comes in at a great price even for new. In fact, I would probably still shell out the extra for a new Sigma than a used XF 100-400 (based on the UK used market anyway).
Click to expand...
I am ok with long in the tooth as long as the image quality holds up. I am not a fan of two people who actually responded describing the same issue. Honestly pretty disappointing.

I looked at the Sima which I am actually a fan of, don't like Tamron that much honestly though, had a bad lens from them once.

Sadly the 150-600 is at a completely different price point.
Click to expand...
Be aware that the Sigma zooms in the opposite direction of Fuji. It can be confusing.

Morris
 
FootNote Photo said:
Really now, that is surprising and disappointing. I thought with the Red badge it was going to be a pro lens. The 16-55 red I have feels pretty damn good.

I am planning on getting the 50-140 but am wondering if I am better off getting a bigger zoom that will be a bit more useful if less specialized.
Click to expand...
I use my XF100-400 gor about 3yrs now and it still works fine (however it was heavily used for about first 18 months and then i bought Sigma C150-600 which became my workhorse for wildlife). So far I didn't observe anything suspicious, and It served me well during the airshow in may. It's not as solid as Canon white Luxury series, but I wouldn't say that build quality is worse than XF150-600 (Sigma S60-600 seems to be more robust and rugged). I also wouldn't say build quality of XF100-400 it's worse than XF16-55, can't compare to XF50-140 as I've never had this lens.
 
I know many already raised the X-H2s over the H2 here, but I'm adding a more general point here:

Diffraction places a pretty finite limit on how much resolution you can get out of a lens. The XF150-600mm seems to max out that limit, but it can't go above. Without getting into the technicalities of pixels vs. spatial resolution, I'll just say that you won't be able to get meaningfully more resolution at F8 from pixel density at 40megapixels on APSC than at 26.

F4 is another story; you can use all the pixels you'd ever want. If pixel density keeps growing, this will be another advantage of large aperture telephoto primes, in addition to light gathering.
 
I use the X-T5 with the XF150-600 zoom, and I get some great photos of birds. But the focus success rate is not always that good. At some point I will buy the X-H2S, but it's a lot of money, and not needed for most of the photography I do.



Great Egret on the Genesee River near Rochester, NY. The original was heavily cropped and then resized. Exposure is straight from the camera, with some additional sharpening.

Great Egret on the Genesee River near Rochester, NY. The original was heavily cropped and then resized. Exposure is straight from the camera, with some additional sharpening.

Howard
 
I have had the XF 100-400 for several years and not experienced any problems with it (touch wood). The only thing I would say is that you have to stop down to f/8 for better sharpness at 400mm, and if you're doing that, you may as well just use the 150-600 (if you can find a reasonably-priced copy, that is).

I also have the 50-140; I absolutely love it, but for wildlife purposes it isn't long enough unless you are up really close or it's a big animal. You can easily add the 1.4x TC to it without any degradation in image quality and a negligible drop in AF speed.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Claudiu Falub
Dovrefjell Winter - Fujifilm X-H2s/XF150-600mm & X-H2/XF50-140mm
Replies
17
Views
11K
biza43
B
A
Bird photography with X-H2s (after X-T5)
2
Replies
29
Views
16K
Morris0
Morris0
J
  • Question Question
XF 35/1.4 and X-T50
Replies
17
Views
12K
John Bean (UK)
J
H
Fuji xf500 f5.6 or nikon 800mm f6.3 or 600mm f4 adapted
Replies
11
Views
8K
Morris0
Morris0
Logan Gregory Photography
Struggling with Autofocus on X-H2 + XF150-600mm Lens – Advice Needed!
Replies
9
Views
7K
Yannis1976
Yannis1976

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