Is the XF 150-600 overpriced

John Gellings wrote:

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.

But what if you were to consider say an A6400/6600? Then you're getting the cheaper 200-600 and the associated APS-C crop factor.

And I'm only speaking hypothetically here - I have no idea if either of those Sony's are capable cameras or not.

GMacF wrote:

John Gellings wrote:

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.

But what if you were to consider say an A6400/6600? Then you're getting the cheaper 200-600 and the associated APS-C crop factor.

And I'm only speaking hypothetically here - I have no idea if either of those Sony's are capable cameras or not.

Certainly true and they are capable, but then you’d be stuck with a Sony!

John Gellings wrote:

GMacF wrote:

John Gellings wrote:

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.

But what if you were to consider say an A6400/6600? Then you're getting the cheaper 200-600 and the associated APS-C crop factor.

And I'm only speaking hypothetically here - I have no idea if either of those Sony's are capable cameras or not.

Certainly true and they are capable, but then you’d be stuck with a Sony!

And a very heavy lens.

Both lenses are 600mm at the long end.  The focal length dose not change when one crops.  One gets the same DOF.   You can crop an image from a 200mm lens and get more reach yet it's still 200mm cropped.

Morris

Morris0 wrote:

John Gellings wrote:

GMacF wrote:

John Gellings wrote:

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.

But what if you were to consider say an A6400/6600? Then you're getting the cheaper 200-600 and the associated APS-C crop factor.

And I'm only speaking hypothetically here - I have no idea if either of those Sony's are capable cameras or not.

Certainly true and they are capable, but then you’d be stuck with a Sony!

And a very heavy lens.

Both lenses are 600mm at the long end. The focal length dose not change when one crops. One gets the same DOF. You can crop an image from a 200mm lens and get more reach yet it's still 200mm cropped.

Morris

But with less resolution.  At the same mp, the cropped sensor gives you a longer lens.  The mm are the same but people care more about the reach.   With the APSC you can crop too.

Same here, no regret after replacing 100-400 with the 150-600mmAt 600mm definitly better than the combo 100-400mm +1.4TC, a combo already very good.

ChrisGibbons001 wrote:

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.

Perhaps a bit off topic, but margins really aren't particularly relevant.  Pricing -- at least for luxury goods or gear such as cameras -- is always a matter of value, and whether customers feel that the pricing justifies the expense.  If enough customers are willing to pay the price, then it's probably priced where it should be.  If demand is low, then the product may well be overpriced, particularly if the pricing is high in comparison to competition.

Jerry and others, I know this is a subjective question based on which camera body etc, but did you notice faster continuous focus acquisition or subject stickiness and correct focus throughout a continuous burst of photos when you changed to the XF150-600 from XF100-400. I feel the XF100-400 loses focus throughout a burst shoot when panning sometimes. I'm intrigued by the XF150-600 for photographing very fast military jets flying low in valleys at 500 mph. I've stuck with the XF100-400 up to now as it's perhaps a slightly brighter aperture at given focal length, but I'm considering the longer newer lens.

Xshooter wrote:

Jerry and others, I know this is a subjective question based on which camera body etc, but did you notice faster continuous focus acquisition or subject stickiness and correct focus throughout a continuous burst of photos when you changed to the XF150-600 from XF100-400. I feel the XF100-400 loses focus throughout a burst shoot when panning sometimes. I'm intrigued by the XF150-600 for photographing very fast military jets flying low in valleys at 500 mph. I've stuck with the XF100-400 up to now as it's perhaps a slightly brighter aperture at given focal length, but I'm considering the longer newer lens.

Excellent question, but I'm afraid that it's not one that I can readily address as of yet.  I have not yet tried to use the 150-600 for motion tracking or panning using AF-C (we're still in the midst of Oregon's rather cold and wet winter, making birding a bit challenging and uncomfortable for lazy photographers such as myself ).  In terms of static subjects, I've found AF-S focus acquisition to be fast and reliable, but that's not where your specific concern is.  I'm hoping others may have some direct experience they can share here.

The Sony 200-600 has a standard price of $1,998.00. That's $1 less than the Fuji 150-600mm f/5.6-8. If you found a retailer offering a new copy of the Sony at a significant price reduction, I'd be cautious about assuming there isn't a catch. If the price looks "too good to be true," it probably is.

As to the spec differences, Fuji and Sony cater to different customers. The Fuji zoom weighs 400g (0.9 lb) less than the Sony. Fuji caters to customers who prefer portable systems. In keeping with that commitment, they've designed a wildlife zoom that's more compact and lighter than the competition.

If the build and optical quality of the Fuji optic are comparable to the Sony, pricing should be similar. The spec differences are a reflection of the different properties of the customers for those brands.

John Gellings wrote:

Morris0 wrote:

John Gellings wrote:

GMacF wrote:

John Gellings wrote:

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.

But what if you were to consider say an A6400/6600? Then you're getting the cheaper 200-600 and the associated APS-C crop factor.

And I'm only speaking hypothetically here - I have no idea if either of those Sony's are capable cameras or not.

Certainly true and they are capable, but then you’d be stuck with a Sony!

And a very heavy lens.

Both lenses are 600mm at the long end. The focal length dose not change when one crops. One gets the same DOF. You can crop an image from a 200mm lens and get more reach yet it's still 200mm cropped.

Morris

But with less resolution. At the same mp, the cropped sensor gives you a longer lens. The mm are the same but people care more about the reach. With the APSC you can crop too.

What has less resolution John?  You can take a photo at 10mm and crop to the equivalent of 600mm.   The result may not be pleasing.  Focal length is focal length.  Yes a crop sensor provides more reach, well sort of as one can crop a full size sensor's image and the lower resolution image when compared to a crop sensor may or may not stand up.

Morris

Bill Ferris wrote:

The Sony 200-600 has a standard price of $1,998.00. That's $1 less than the Fuji 150-600mm f/5.6-8. If you found a retailer offering a new copy of the Sony at a significant price reduction, I'd be cautious about assuming there isn't a catch. If the price looks "too good to be true," it probably is.

I don’t know where you live, but where I live the Sony is about 10–15% cheaper, and available from many reputable dealers. No price reduction, no catch, just business as usual.

Price is relative, and if something is overpriced only you can know, but maybe there is something to it that the Fujifilm lens is overpriced compared to the Sony? It’s the same story with Olympus / OMDS. Their longer lenses aren’t particularly cheap compared to FF, but a comparison between systems with different sensor sizes is almost always BS.

Morris0 wrote:

Nebell wrote:

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.

And here we go again… swoooooooosh

Equivalency, equivalency, please leave me alone. I really want to, but I’m too drunk to go home.

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?

Maybe we should ask this question when the Fuji lens is three years old and Fuji has the same user-base as Sony

Each brand prices their gear according to their own rationale, which we're just not privy to. However, one factor might be the time frame in which the lens was conceived, designed, and put into production, which in this case would be during a global pandemic with all of its associated difficulties. The Sony was released in 2019, so its R&D was done well before the challenges of the last few years.

Here in Canada the Fuji lens is $50 cheaper at regular retail prices ($2149 vs $2199), so a prospective customer's decision between the two brands would probably be based more on each system as a whole rather than on individual pieces of gear.

I don't know if people are able to get the same price as me but I bought the 150-600 for $1650 shipped, no tax from Greentoe. I can't say what retailer sold it to me but it is an authorized dealer according to Fuji's website.

All other factors aside, remember that prior to the 150-600mm lens being released, the retail price of the 100-400mm was $1999 upon its release.

I have had the 100-400 for a while and really like it, but the 150-600 seems to be on the next level, especially at its maximum zoom. And it was released at the same price that the 100-400 was upon its release.

Expensive for sure, but I wouldn't classify it as overpriced.

I’ve shot the 150-600 on an X-H2S and it was great at an airshow in excellent light.

Being so slow at 600 - I don’t feel it is an upgrade over the 100-400 + 1.4 tc.

And I’d take the Sony 200-600 over either if I’m honest. I think that lens is *underpriced*