Don't be afraid of f8

Black-capped Chickadee February 2023

This started out as a reply to backgrounds in one of Cristian's threads but I decided to make my own thread instead of encroaching on his.
Ever since the lens was introduced with preproduction samples, many online voices have been questioning the legitimacy of how useful the XF150-600 would be due to the admittedly limiting maximum aperture of f8 on the long end. It's too dark for early light. It's too dark for low light. A maximum aperture so small can't produce smooth backgrounds. It will never work in the rain forest or other such dark habitats.
All kinds of excuses not to try.
I happen to like low light, for me twilight is a special kind of magic and my favorite time of day. I prefer overcast to sunny - there is nothing like the sky as a giant soft box. My home away from home is Peru and while I haven't been back since the pandemic, I have many hours of experience in dark conditions there and will enjoy many more in the near future.

Would an f4 lens be of use to me in these conditions? Absolutely.
Does the lack of an f4 lens stop me from making images in conditions like these?
Absolutely not.

I have been doing it for years with Canon equipment, later with the X-T2 and the XF100-400, and now with the X-H2S and XF150-600. Why? For my images of songbirds, I've always been close enough to need more DOF. We are talking about around 4 meters or so close. Without enough depth of field at such distances, you end up with sharp eyes and soft feet. So, I was always using apertures around f11.

This was the reason I was not scared of buying an f8 lens - I've already been there making it work for a long time.

The art comes not from the tool, but how the tool is applied - but having said that, this combination of the X-H2S and XF150-600 is a fine tool. Online critics of it either haven't tried it or do not know how to best apply it. They dismiss it at f8, which is an assumption.

Have a look for yourself

Honestly, it's just nice to see a bird today that hasn't been Topaz-ed to death at 100%.

Excellent image and a well argued point.

I have seen a lot of images from this lens. All have impressed me.

I am fine with my 100-400, but every time I see examples from photographers who know their trade, my desire to get a copy strengthens!

Sorry to disappoint you but Topaz AI is a part of my process. Perhaps not to death, but it is a step for me. As Adams said: the negative is the score, and the print is the performance. Well written music is easier to make sound great than that which is poorly composed - or garbage in, garbage out.
I am trying to write well and do less heavy lifting with the performance - for me, this is easier as I don't play as well as I compose. For another with better skills in post production, it would still benefit to have a great score to begin with. But they could perform it better than I do.
Higher ISOs and software like Topaz are part of the way things are done in 2023 - for consideration, recent thoughts on the subject from Jan Wegener (an excellent bird photographer).

YouTube on high vs. low ISOs

Once upon a time, technology in the camera as well as in post production software, limited us to working with lower ISOs as a lower ISO was the path to better quality images. Better cameras and better software have opened up higher ISOs to be used to go farther.
From my perspective, Topaz is not for use to turn garbage into Michelangelo. It is a step for taking what is already quality and making it shine.
Thank you for your comment.

For a period of time, I held on to my XF100-400. Several months of use with the new lens convinced me that I could sell the old lens and keep the XF150-600. 
For me, not only has it delivered better quality with birds but it is also an excellent lens for hand held butterfly photography. 
Thank you for your thoughts.

I thought it was and there's nothing wrong with using Topaz or any other solution. I just really hate it when everything is smoothed to hell and back. Your usage is measured and subtle, which I think is a good thing.

Great capture, if you haven't tried DxO they have a great 150-600 lens profile that adds some good natural sharpness to the images.

I have not tried DxO, I've read good things but have been using Topaz for several years.
Have you used both, and if so, what are your thoughts on how they compare?
Thank you for your comment.

kmhwildlife wrote:

I have not tried DxO, I've read good things but have been using Topaz for several years.
Have you used both, and if so, what are your thoughts on how they compare?
Thank you for your comment.

Yes I have both and use them sometimes together. I wouldn't say one is better then another tbh, a great thing about Topaz is that it can massively improve Jpegs unlike DxO. But for images I really want to put the time into, DxO offers a better starting point to edit.

Thank you, I may have to try it out and see what I find.

I think you will have a lot of fun with it. If you have any experience in other camera systems with big lenses, you will find this one to be crisp, balanced, and very portable. 
Thank you for your comment.