My first experiences with the Fuji 70-300

Morris0

Forum Pro
Messages
45,193
Solutions
24
Reaction score
44,929
Location
New York, NY, US
I ordered the lens on Sunday morning and it arrived Tuesday morning. It is small and light with the same plasticky build as the 100-400. I purchased the lens so that I can have a lighter lens to take hiking and that dose not triggers my carpel tunnel when hand holding as my Sigma 150-600 C dose. All of the images I'm posting in this review were shot RAW and converged with Adobe ACR with sharpening and noise reduction disabled. In one case I brightened the shadows. In Photoshop I saved as JPEG highest definition.

The first photos were out kitchen window which is near my feeders and a tree where the birds that visit my feeder go. I opened the window so no glass was there to interfere and the first visitor was a female downy woodpecker. She ignored me while driving a peanut into the bark of our dogwood.

a59884c2f1764a708457844994f1780b.jpg

In the afternoon I decided to take a walk around Kissena Park to continue my testing. On the way out I stopped to take a few photos in my garden as the 70-300 can focus very close. Two samples one wide open at f5.6 and another at f22.

b6de94782dd64374974192a190999cbc.jpg

a3ed00db35004dd89e2a649f0586dbc6.jpg

In the park I tried out the 1.4x TC. The first image has the shadows raised

View attachment dcb2e9ca4d93488fa60ffb8c36569281.jpg

8b06d629cc2143ca894e011807434735.jpg

I also tried the 2x TC

d2fbd847e7ff4a08a5b5fc4ebedced86.jpg

5329dd97e92d42a0a366140931af3553.jpg

This last image is at 300mm wide open and show off how nicely the lens renders out of focus areas. There are people and an assortment of flowering trees in the background.

3061e5169010464e910f125973049e42.jpg

The only time I found the focus limiter switch was necessary was when using the 2x TC and without if focus was very slow and with it acceptable. Otherwise, focus is snappy and it tracked well with and without the TCs. I was able to take flight photos with both of the TCs. OIS was not always reliable and found the best practice was to keep the shutter speed up. The lens is so light that I did not bother with a camera strap during my 3 hour walk in the park. Some times I held the camera by the lens barrel and others by the X-T3 bump out grip. Balance was very nice with the bare X-3. The 70-300 is a fun lens to use and as you can see it's quite sharp.

Morris
 
I am sorry Morris but the images you posted do not look sharp at all to me. Could be my old eyes are failing but compared to some of your previous posts, this lens does not look right at all.

Best wishes Alan
 
I am sorry Morris but the images you posted do not look sharp at all to me. Could be my old eyes are failing but compared to some of your previous posts, this lens does not look right at all.

Best wishes Alan
Hi Alan,

I think your eyes are fine. My posts are usually sharpened and these are not. This is the first image cropped and sharpened.



c3f87187ec05474e999fc60bcea101e9.jpg

Morris
 
I am sorry Morris but the images you posted do not look sharp at all to me. Could be my old eyes are failing but compared to some of your previous posts, this lens does not look right at all.

Best wishes Alan
“ACR with sharpening disabled” isn’t going to get the crispest results.
 
Nice ! Sorry if I offended.
No offence at at all. Lens reviews are best when they present the unsharpened results.

Morris
 
Were all your images captured using mechanical shutter?
 
Yes, rarely use the electronic shutter to avoid the rolling shutter effect.
 
Hi Morris!

I also love this lens and the only disadvantage so far is its OIS which might be not that great (haven't tested it thoroughly). How is the IQ with the 2X extender? Would you be so kind posting so RAW files with the 2X?

Enjoy your new lens!
 
Hi Morris!

I also love this lens and the only disadvantage so far is its OIS which might be not that great (haven't tested it thoroughly). How is the IQ with the 2X extender? Would you be so kind posting so RAW files with the 2X?

Enjoy your new lens!
I see I'm not the only person questioning the OIS. It was inconstant at best. I copied a bunch of RAF files to my dropbox

RAF Files

Morris
 
Hi Morris!

I also love this lens and the only disadvantage so far is its OIS which might be not that great (haven't tested it thoroughly). How is the IQ with the 2X extender? Would you be so kind posting so RAW files with the 2X?

Enjoy your new lens!
I see I'm not the only person questioning the OIS. It was inconstant at best. I copied a bunch of RAF files to my dropbox

RAF Files

Morris
Thanks for these, Morris. I had a go at some of these with my usual workflow and to my eye, the 2X TC shots look OK if you don't look too close, but are noticeably softer (and less attractive) than without a TC or with the 1.4X TC. I'm not sure if the 2X shots might be soft due to slightly missed focus or motion blur, but they do seem softer than the other shots.

No TC
No TC

No TC
No TC

1.4X TC
1.4X TC

2X TC
2X TC

2X TC
2X TC
 
Last edited:
I don't know about the sharpness. I think it is fair to see how reasonable sharpening with a good raw converter works better with some slightly soft lenses than others. A lot of older lenses with better OOF appearance will take to the sharpening far better than the newer, more brittle designs - especially so regarding longer zooms.

The look on the 2x TC shots is unappealing - oddly flat, and the bokeh is atrocious. I'm pretty sure that the 2x is really only a good device for faster primes. Of course, that is pretty much true since, well, forever. Certainly particularly true in this case. The 1.4x TC is almost surprisingly that much better (not perfect, but OK) - at least in these examples. Of course, DPreview had a fairly similar conclusion - though these images really drive it home conclusively (IMO).
 
Hi Eric,

I noticed the differences in sharpness right away and was not surprised. A 2x TC forces a number of compromises. A higher shutter speed is necessary for the longer focal length and this is happening at the same time as the effective aperture is getting smaller so one must up the ISO and then noise starts to affect detail. A lot of photographers will use a 1.4x TC and crop rather than use a 2x.

Thank you for pointing this out as some may not have observed the difference or understood what is happening.

Morris
 
As we are talking about difference processing methods, this is using my current workflow which starts with bringing the image into Photoshop using ACR with sharpening and noise reduction off. I also make adjustments to light levels, and color before opening in Photoshop and doing touch up as desired. My last step before saving is to sharpen with Topaz Labs AI sharpen, sometimes in a layer only revealing sharpening in areas that need it and also sometimes applying noise reduction to the areas that don't need sharpening.

614c52c4721340758275ca02f2ed2a83.jpg

Detail seems very close when I look at the robin at 100%.

Have a great day!

Morris
 
Last edited:
I don't know about the sharpness. I think it is fair to see how reasonable sharpening with a good raw converter works better with some slightly soft lenses than others. A lot of older lenses with better OOF appearance will take to the sharpening far better than the newer, more brittle designs - especially so regarding longer zooms.

The look on the 2x TC shots is unappealing - oddly flat, and the bokeh is atrocious. I'm pretty sure that the 2x is really only a good device for faster primes. Of course, that is pretty much true since, well, forever. Certainly particularly true in this case. The 1.4x TC is almost surprisingly that much better (not perfect, but OK) - at least in these examples. Of course, DPreview had a fairly similar conclusion - though these images really drive it home conclusively (IMO).
Some of the flatness is differences in lighting yet without question, the 1.4x produces a nicer image.

Morris
 
A bit disapointed..

None of the birds shots are really sharp at 300, 420 or 600mm

The flowers appear too very soft

Surprising

Checked the RAF files not better...

What was the AF settings ?

Thx

Bob
 
A bit disapointed..

None of the birds shots are really sharp at 300, 420 or 600mm

The flowers appear too very soft

Surprising

Checked the RAF files not better...

What was the AF settings ?

Thx

Bob
Hi Bob,

I used my usual settings.

Morris
 
Yes bur nevertheles I find the final result rather soft in terms of lack of contrast (300mm shot)
 
Yes bur nevertheles I find the final result rather soft in terms of lack of contrast (300mm shot)
Time of day may be a factor for the contrast. Look at the last image in the set taken when the sun was much lower in the sky.

Morris
 

Keyboard shortcuts

Back
Top