DPReview TV: Fujifilm XF 70-300mm F4-5.6 review

Such is the way of modern cameras and electronics. A three year old X-H1 with grip is worth just over a third of what it was new. You just have to look at is the value you get from it being the photos you take, not the ROI of resale. I mean, not counting specialist collector gear such as Leica limited editions. (That's not meant as a sleight, just an observation as they tend to hold or go up in value).

Mar 3, 2021permalink

Ishiido

The list price for Germany was set to 799 Euros.

Lots of owners seem to think like you in Germany. I saw lots of offers for the 55-200. A German dealer offered my 370 Euros for the 55-200 if I buy a new 70-300 . The price for the 55-200 dropped here to about 600 euros. I guess it will fall again when there are more lenses from Tamron and Sigma.

Mar 6, 2021*permalink

I know it isn't quite as sharp as a modern day camera, that that little K-01 is doing quite nicely overall. Jordan, great work! I know it's no Panasonic S1H, but maybe don't feel so bad about having to shoot the hip-to-hate-on-it Pentax which, from a company not known for its video chops, seems to be rising to the task as well as or better than a lot of similar era cameras from companies better known for video.

Mar 3, 2021permalink

JNR

I'm curious how it happened that the K-01 was selected for the video shoot. The camera has some nice qualities for stills, but even my K-3 is miles ahead of it. Jordan did indeed coax the most out of it - luckily no serious tracking necessary. I'm keeping my K-01, but most likely it could end up getting an infrared conversion for more (still occasional) use. Pretty much I'm a Fuji guy now.

Mar 4, 2021*permalink

It was a dare, IIRC. The challenge was if the channel got up to 300K subscribers by Valentine's Day then Jordan had to shoot a camera picked by the crowd to be clowned, in this case the K-01. But the plucky Pentax is pullin' up tough.

Mar 4, 2021permalink

DarnGoodPhotos

I know people like to bag not he K-01, but I love it in all its 90's design glory.

Mar 4, 2021permalink

And I'm sorry, but the Pentax's actual physical control dials and sturdy build is just exactly how much ergonomically worse than the dial-less, plasticky, button festooned, non-WR Sony everyone compares it to..?

Mar 4, 2021permalink

lecoupdejarnac

They should've picked a Pentax Q ;-)

Mar 6, 2021permalink

toomix

thank you for great review. I'm trading this lens for my 55-200, I like extra reach in almost same size. 50-200 is great lens, sharpness is excellent if you get a good copy, I hope 70-300 will be same with every copy :)

Mar 3, 2021permalink

(unknown member)

The video looks great on my phone.

It’s good to see a 70-300 that’s sharp at 300mm. Not all are.

Mar 3, 2021permalink

chse

Can you please make a thorough review of this lens with both teleconverters?

I hate reading to loose image quality without showing exactly how much.

Mar 3, 2021permalink

Anthony Mueller

At which focal length does the XF70-300 give "1:2 macro reproduction, half of life size" (4:12 min)? This Fujifilm document lists the maximum magnification as 0.33x (i.e., 1:3) at the tele end (0.40x with MCEX-11, 0.43x with MCEX-16 extension tubes): https://dl.fujifilm-x.com/global/products/accessories/mcex/pdf/macro-extension-x-global.pdf
Still not bad and the highest magnification (without extension tubes) of all Fuji XF lenses, save the two macros. But not 1:2, if correct. This dpreview overview also gives 0.33x: https://www.dpreview.com/articles/0383141902/hands-on-with-fujifilm-s-new-xf-27mm-xf-70-300-and-gf-80mm-lenses?slide=10.

Mar 3, 2021permalink

They were probably confused by the recently reviewed Panasonic 70-300 specs which offers 0.5x max. magnification. Either that, or they multiplied by 1.5x to calculate the equivalent FF result.

Mar 3, 2021*permalink

pifilos

Thank you for the charts. I didn't know they have updated it. I got a used MCEX-11 today so I was looking for such a chart.

Mar 3, 2021permalink

Anthony Mueller

I might be missing something here, but will a lens that projects a 0,5x magnified image on an APS-C sensor not project the same 0,5x magnified image on a FF sensor, too? That image will just fill less of the FF than of the APS-C frame (so, if anything, less, not more, "apparent" magnification in relation to sensor size), but shouldn't this be besides the point, as the APS-C lens will only be useful on an APS-C crop anyway?

Mar 3, 2021*permalink

@Anthony Mueller, indeed, the magnification factor is about physical dimensions, unrelated to the sensor size. However, the frame coverage is not the same, and the same magnification factor results in a larger image coverage on apsc (larger apparent magnification)

However, I believe the number is just a mistake due to the Panasonic 70-300 lens review they have been doing a few days back. Too many new 70-300 lenses for a single week ;-)

Mar 3, 2021*permalink

ibd

Great stuff! Now all Fuji needs is a travel zoom that starts at 24mm equiv. and is decent across the frame and zoom range.

Mar 3, 2021permalink

If the 16-80 travel zoom (24-120 equiv) isn't "decent" enough for you, then you need to look outside the "travel" category and look for higher quality like 16-55 F2.8.

Mar 3, 2021permalink

ibd

I like the range on the 16-80, but the optical results are disappointing. The 16-55 is better, of course, but at a weight and price premium. Olympus 12-100 and Nikon 24-200 are my winners in that category, both great compromises of weight, features, price, and optical quality.

Mar 3, 2021permalink

CarlosLopezES

Nikkon has a 18-300 on DX that it's ideal for that. Maybe not the top notch quality, but enough.

Mar 3, 2021permalink

io_bg

@CarlosLopezES

Still not a 24mm FF equivalent.

Mar 3, 2021permalink

Ibd since you seem to have gathered some experience across brands, what are the qualities that most stand out to you about the Oly and Nikon travel lenses? We hear a lot about "can't cheat physics" in these forums but every now and then there are lenses that earn praise in spite of it. Where do you perceive the sweet spot is for travel - in favor of sharpness at a cost of CA or bokeh, or maybe F stop?

Mar 4, 2021permalink

What i almost never read about in fuji telephoto reviews is low/lower light performance. And specifically does the ibis mitigate this telephoto issue to what extent? At what f/stop can i can a low light pic with Fuji ibis? /2.8? /4? /4.8? thks, j

Mar 3, 2021permalink

Michael Berg

Well. At what shutter speed are you comfortable hand holding a lens?

If you are comfortable hand holding a shot at 1/50, then IBIS will add about 5 stops to that. This means you will be able to hand hold 2/3rd of a second if my math is right :-)

If you meter a scene to 1/50 at F/2.8 then you can shoot at 2/3 at F/16 for a similar exposure. Again the exact math may be off but the point is add 5 stops of exposure time and close down the aperture by 5 stops to get the same overall exposure of your scene.

Mar 3, 2021permalink

I appreciate your helpful reply. What i was getting at however was that i would like to hear from more Fuji users about how there real world low light shots come out using various zooms. I rarely hear much commentary about using fuji zooms in low light, as i assume most of their zooms (except for the very heavy 2.8's) are not made for low light. It would be nice to see Fuji make a light 2.8 or maybe even 3.5 zoom. j

Mar 3, 2021permalink

The XF 55-200 is F3.5-4.8 and has lens IS that collaborate with IBIS but don't expect any miracles. I can comfortably hand hold at 1/30 or 1/15 at the long end. The F stop doesn't really matter for IBIS, what matters is focal length and shutter speed (and resolution if you're looking for pixel sharpness).

Mar 3, 2021permalink

Drew, thanks. Can you get low light shots using built in lens and in body stabilization with that lens? With the in body ibis being pretty new to fiji, i have not heard about, nor have I seen many good low light examples of this. Low light able zooms seem to be a hole in the Fuji lens lineup. j

Mar 3, 2021permalink

jl123, if you want good wider apertures, you have 8-16f2.8, 16-55 f2.8, 50-140f2.8. But you seem to want go cheap instead.

If you want go cheap you get all IS zooms. But you don't trust IS. You haven't found reviews on IS? Seriously?

Are you worried about stability, or image quality? Or you want shallow DoF of a landscape? ;-))

Anybody seriously worried about quality on their shots, especially in low light, should go prime in any brands. But something is telling me you are just trying to justify why you bought your camera, instead of a Fuji.

Mar 3, 2021*permalink

yayatosorus

Hi,
In the X system, lens IS and IBIS work in conjunction - i.e. if you shut one off, the other shuts off as well. As far as samples go, there's a weekly thread on the Fuji X forum, so you'll definitely find what you're looking for there.

As you said Fuji has standard f/2.8 zooms, which work great in low light, as far AF goes. As far as light transmission goes, (T-stop), Fuji's small 18-55 f/2.8-4 is actually brighter at the wide-end when compared to the 16-55, so there you go. It goes without saying that we'd all want light f/2.8 trinity zooms, but you can't beat physics, which means you're have to have substantial compromises on some front.

Mar 3, 2021*permalink

I'm a Fuji user and although I don't have this lens, I do have the much maligned 16-80. I guess I got a good copy, because zoomed out or in, you can see every leaf on every tree.. and as for the IBIS, I'm getting consistent half second handheld shots out of this and my X-H1.

Based on this review and images, the 70-300 is going to complete my two lens travel kit, for just under 4 lbs. 16-300 stabilized mm+Fuji film sims=I can live with that on my next trip!

Mar 3, 2021permalink

DarnGoodPhotos

...

Mar 3, 2021*permalink

DarnGoodPhotos

It depends on the focal length and how low the light is, but you can get a feel for it by using any of your lenses. To simulate the long end of this zoom set it to f5.6 and subtract four stops from the ISO and/or SS and you will see how stabilization helps this zoom.

Mar 3, 2021*permalink

It appears to me that fuji should follow tamron and cannon and make lightweight 2.8 zooms. j

Mar 3, 2021permalink

@DarnGoodPhotos then it sounds like I'll get a minimum of four stops real world IBIS from this lens, as the longer FLs become tougher to stabilize. I'm getting five stops out of the 16-80.

Mar 3, 2021permalink

@jl123, you should buy a Canon camera instead. You'll be happier.

Mar 3, 2021permalink

yayatosorus

@jl123 Can you please point out to me the Tamron and Canon f/2.8 mirrorless lenses that cover the 8mm-140mm range, while retaining optimum sharpness, good AF performance and being lighter? If you're referring to their FF lenses, then I'm sorry to say it like this, but as much as they are a technical feat for FF users, they're also hardly relevant to the X system.

Mar 3, 2021*permalink

FuhTeng

Nicely done. I like using the Ursa 12K for this footage. Oh wait, that was the K01? Huh, looked just like the Ursa to me.

This lens makes the X mount ever more appealing to me. The 55-200 has always struck me as overpriced but this seems reasonable.

Mar 3, 2021permalink

BillMassNBPT ILC

Thanks for the review and for including the teleconverters. I am thinking the 70-300mm with the 1.4tx gives you comparable reach and more versatility versus the 100-400mm. (Less pounds and dollars too)

Mar 3, 2021permalink

Michael Berg

It's a very attractive alternative if you can live with the effective aperture of that combo. For landscape photographers it would be a no brainer I think.

Mar 3, 2021permalink

For bright light conditions it would also work for birds in flight. I was on vacation on a boat and my camera switched to electronic shutter because it was so bright, I could have stopped way down.

Mar 3, 2021permalink

@BillMassNBPT, for birding, which is mostly early in the morning with not much light available, I already struggle with the 100-400 apertures. It forces me to push the ISO up to be able to shoot 1/1000 - 1/2000. Especially when I attach the 1.4 TC. So with this one it may be even worse. Depending on the location, even a 400mm can end up being short for the purpose.

The obvious advantage to this one is weight. Carrying the 100-400 when going uphill is good muscle training ;-) Sometimes I just cannot afford to carry the 100-400 on demanding routes, and then I regret not having a longer lens at hand.

I am also curious to know if this one could have an edge with focusing speed, due to the lower weight.

Mar 3, 2021*permalink

BillMassNBPT ILC

@Txoni, I have the 100-400mm and just bought the 1.4TC. I agree with your assessment. I love the 100-400mm but if you are going to be moving around a lot, the 70-300mm with the 1.4TC gives you the reach of the 100-400mm and a lighter load at the expense of a little less reach. I didn't think of the autofocus speed. The 70-300mm is slightly brighter than the 100-400 and the distance to the sensor from the end of the lens will be shorter.

Mar 5, 2021permalink