Is the XF 150-600 overpriced

TrophyJem wrote:

I've been looking at purchasing the XF 150-600 as my next lens. I recently sold my 100-400.

Searching for the best price, I notice that the Sony 200-600 is £400 less than the Fuji lens here in the UK.

Now maybe the Fuji is much better, but the Sony is a full frame lens and brighter. It got me to thinking is the Fuji lens overpriced for what it is?

Your thoughts?

I don’t have an opinion but it’s only 200 quid difference at Wex and Park Cameras

TrophyJem wrote:

I've been looking at purchasing the XF 150-600 as my next lens. I recently sold my 100-400.

Searching for the best price, I notice that the Sony 200-600 is £400 less than the Fuji lens here in the UK.

Now maybe the Fuji is much better, but the Sony is a full frame lens and brighter. It got me to thinking is the Fuji lens overpriced for what it is?

Your thoughts?

The Sony is out for a few years so demand is not as strong as the relatively new Fuji lens.  The price will drop in time and used will also become an option.

Morris

Here in NZ, Fuji lenses are often price-competitive in the shorter primes but in the zooms they start getting up there in price. Even so, there's only a few hundred $ difference between the 100-400 and 150-600 here at most retailers.

Only the FF Sony 200-600 is around the same price as Fuji's offerings, the Sony 100-400 is about $1,000 more pricey, and the same-ish lenses in Canon RF or Nikon Z are significantly more expensive (around $2,000+ more).

TrophyJem wrote:

I've been looking at purchasing the XF 150-600 as my next lens. I recently sold my 100-400.

Searching for the best price, I notice that the Sony 200-600 is £400 less than the Fuji lens here in the UK.

Now maybe the Fuji is much better, but the Sony is a full frame lens and brighter. It got me to thinking is the Fuji lens overpriced for what it is?

Your thoughts?

The 150-600 is a superb lens, and having used the 100-400 previously, it’s my opinion that it’s a significant improvement over its predecessor, both in terms of reach and overall IQ consistency across its FL range.  I have no experience with the Sony lens, so I can’t provide any comparative experience or data for that lens in comparison with the 150-600.  While it’s pretty expensive, I think the price of the 150-600 is pretty well in line with what should be expected.  Whether it’s worth the expense or whether the Sony lens is somehow a better deal is better answered by looking at reviews and drawing your conclusions from that.  But I have zero regrets about making the switch to that lens a few months ago.

Jerry-astro wrote:

TrophyJem wrote:

I've been looking at purchasing the XF 150-600 as my next lens. I recently sold my 100-400.

Searching for the best price, I notice that the Sony 200-600 is £400 less than the Fuji lens here in the UK.

Now maybe the Fuji is much better, but the Sony is a full frame lens and brighter. It got me to thinking is the Fuji lens overpriced for what it is?

Your thoughts?

The 150-600 is a superb lens, and having used the 100-400 previously, it’s my opinion that it’s a significant improvement over its predecessor, both in terms of reach and overall IQ consistency across its FL range. I have no experience with the Sony lens, so I can’t provide any comparative experience or data for that lens in comparison with the 150-600. While it’s pretty expensive, I think the price of the 150-600 is pretty well in line with what should be expected. Whether it’s worth the expense or whether the Sony lens is somehow a better deal is better answered by looking at reviews and drawing your conclusions from that. But I have zero regrets about making the switch to that lens a few months ago.

The Sony lens, while an excellent lens is not one of there top of the lines lens while the 100-400 is.

Morris

Just a few more data points.

I was about to buy the 23 f1.4 and then I realized the full frame Nikon Z 35mm was a few hundred less! So many other fuji lenses may cost more than full frame.

Second, you might also look at the Canon 100-500. It's just under $3k and the aperture at the long end is 7.1.

Also, one of the main draws of the 150-600 is it's so light. But if you're always using a gimbal then maybe you don't care about size and the premium isn't worth it.

I'm not a lens expert or a rigorous tester but my impression was the 100-400 behaved like a typical old school zoom where it was weaker in the extremes. I think this is where people said it was soft on the long end, because they got better results in the middle of the zoom range. On the other hand, the 150-600 felt like it was designed to be shot at 600.

So I'd say if you're shooting mostly portraits of birds, it's an excellent lens even at F8. If you want bird in flight with 1/3200 shutter speed, it will be challenging at F8. But going down to F4 results in exponential price and size increases. The nikon z 600 f4 is like $15,000.

vcxz wrote:

Just a few more data points.

I was about to buy the 23 f1.4 and then I realized the full frame Nikon Z 35mm was a few hundred less! So many other fuji lenses may cost more than full frame.

Second, you might also look at the Canon 100-500. It's just under $3k and the aperture at the long end is 7.1.

The 150-600 when set to 500 is 7.1 also so....

Also, one of the main draws of the 150-600 is it's so light. But if you're always using a gimbal then maybe you don't care about size and the premium isn't worth it.

I'm not a lens expert or a rigorous tester but my impression was the 100-400 behaved like a typical old school zoom where it was weaker in the extremes. I think this is where people said it was soft on the long end, because they got better results in the middle of the zoom range. On the other hand, the 150-600 felt like it was designed to be shot at 600.

So I'd say if you're shooting mostly portraits of birds, it's an excellent lens even at F8. If you want bird in flight with 1/3200 shutter speed, it will be challenging at F8. But going down to F4 results in exponential price and size increases. The nikon z 600 f4 is like $15,000.

I suppose it may take a year, but if the Fujifilm 150-600 is like their 100-400, it will go on sale at a good discount periodically.  I know one year the discount on the 100-400 was $500.  It has not been discounted that much recently but is has gone on sale at least once a year.

Jerry-astro wrote:

TrophyJem wrote:

I've been looking at purchasing the XF 150-600 as my next lens. I recently sold my 100-400.

Searching for the best price, I notice that the Sony 200-600 is £400 less than the Fuji lens here in the UK.

Now maybe the Fuji is much better, but the Sony is a full frame lens and brighter. It got me to thinking is the Fuji lens overpriced for what it is?

Your thoughts?

The 150-600 is a superb lens, and having used the 100-400 previously, it’s my opinion that it’s a significant improvement over its predecessor, both in terms of reach and overall IQ consistency across its FL range. I have no experience with the Sony lens, so I can’t provide any comparative experience or data for that lens in comparison with the 150-600. While it’s pretty expensive, I think the price of the 150-600 is pretty well in line with what should be expected. Whether it’s worth the expense or whether the Sony lens is somehow a better deal is better answered by looking at reviews and drawing your conclusions from that. But I have zero regrets about making the switch to that lens a few months ago.

Sony 200-600mm is a fantastic lens and there isn't much that can be compared to it on E-mount.
But Fuji 150-600mm is actually 225-900mm. A lot longer reach.

I haven't handled the 150-400 yet.  How is it for travelling?  It appears to be much longer than the 100-400 (at 100).  Have you sold the 100-400 or do you keep it around for a more compact setup?

So, it is over priced because someone else makes something cheaper? Without any thoughts as to if one might be better than the other or if changing systems isn’t more expensive overall? As others have said, this is Fujis hot new long lens.  I’m sure if you wait a year or two it’ll come down in price or at least have a sale.

I’m so thankful I don’t use long lenses, they ALL seem expensive to me! But if I did, you damn well know I’d buy the Fuji. It rarely pays to be cheap if you are happy with a system. If that 400 difference is breaking the bank, maybe the new gear should wait in general is my feeling. Also, switching to Sony from Fuji is a complete 180 ergonomics and haptics wise. and not in a good way.

I personally do think it's a little overpriced giving the f8. But it's hard to know if it was a little cheaper would the quility be as good as it is, it's honestly the best built lens I've had in my hands.

We only know if it's overpriced ifbwe knew Fuji margins, but we will never know.

TrophyJem wrote:

John Gellings wrote:

So, it is over priced because someone else makes something cheaper? Without any thoughts as to if one might be better than the other or if changing systems isn’t more expensive overall? As others have said, this is Fujis hot new long lens. I’m sure if you wait a year or two it’ll come down in price or at least have a sale.

I’m so thankful I don’t use long lenses, they ALL seem expensive to me! But if I did, you damn well know I’d buy the Fuji. It rarely pays to be cheap if you are happy with a system. If that 400 difference is breaking the bank, maybe the new gear should wait in general is my feeling. Also, switching to Sony from Fuji is a complete 180 ergonomics and haptics wise. and not in a good way.

I didn't say it was overpriced.

But if you ask the question, doesn't it imply you think it is?

Nebell wrote:

Jerry-astro wrote:

TrophyJem wrote:

I've been looking at purchasing the XF 150-600 as my next lens. I recently sold my 100-400.

Searching for the best price, I notice that the Sony 200-600 is £400 less than the Fuji lens here in the UK.

Now maybe the Fuji is much better, but the Sony is a full frame lens and brighter. It got me to thinking is the Fuji lens overpriced for what it is?

Your thoughts?

The 150-600 is a superb lens, and having used the 100-400 previously, it’s my opinion that it’s a significant improvement over its predecessor, both in terms of reach and overall IQ consistency across its FL range. I have no experience with the Sony lens, so I can’t provide any comparative experience or data for that lens in comparison with the 150-600. While it’s pretty expensive, I think the price of the 150-600 is pretty well in line with what should be expected. Whether it’s worth the expense or whether the Sony lens is somehow a better deal is better answered by looking at reviews and drawing your conclusions from that. But I have zero regrets about making the switch to that lens a few months ago.

Sony 200-600mm is a fantastic lens and there isn't much that can be compared to it on E-mount.
But Fuji 150-600mm is actually 225-900mm. A lot longer reach.

No!  The focal length dose not change.  The FOV is different as we are looking at a crop when compared to full frame.

Morris

Morris0 wrote:

Nebell wrote:

Jerry-astro wrote:

TrophyJem wrote:

I've been looking at purchasing the XF 150-600 as my next lens. I recently sold my 100-400.

Searching for the best price, I notice that the Sony 200-600 is £400 less than the Fuji lens here in the UK.

Now maybe the Fuji is much better, but the Sony is a full frame lens and brighter. It got me to thinking is the Fuji lens overpriced for what it is?

Your thoughts?

The 150-600 is a superb lens, and having used the 100-400 previously, it’s my opinion that it’s a significant improvement over its predecessor, both in terms of reach and overall IQ consistency across its FL range. I have no experience with the Sony lens, so I can’t provide any comparative experience or data for that lens in comparison with the 150-600. While it’s pretty expensive, I think the price of the 150-600 is pretty well in line with what should be expected. Whether it’s worth the expense or whether the Sony lens is somehow a better deal is better answered by looking at reviews and drawing your conclusions from that. But I have zero regrets about making the switch to that lens a few months ago.

Sony 200-600mm is a fantastic lens and there isn't much that can be compared to it on E-mount.
But Fuji 150-600mm is actually 225-900mm. A lot longer reach.

No! The focal length dose not change. The FOV is different as we are looking at a crop when compared to full frame.

But in actual use, if you are using 24mp cameras... the FF will be 600mm and the APSC will act like a 900mm at 24mp.  I see no point in saying the mm on the front of the lens doesn't change.  We know that.  We use Fujis.  We are also good at math including the number 1.5.