DPReview TV: Shooting with the Fujifilm 200mm F2 in Japan

SpeedyNeo: I can't see how it makes sense to pair one of the worst sensors in a mirrorless cam with such a an expensive and good lens. It is like putting a Ferrari motor in a typical American car. Sure it will be faster etc but it won't be even close to a Ferrari. But oke: if people want this, why not?

"...will not get any better by putting a 6000 dollar lens in front of it."

It doesn't need to get any better. The following were shot by Benjamin Kanarek using the X-T3 and the 16mm, 23mm, 35mm and 56mm primes.

https://thebkmag.com/2019/06/15/hazel-graye-whos-that-girl-wearing-chanel-coco-mademoiselle-grazia-benjamin-kanarek/

Perhaps the shots you've done for Paris Vogue and Grazia knock Benjamin's into a cocked hat, but personally I'm happy with the IQ from Fuji's "tiny" sensor.

For good portait photography most pro's use Medium Format. Not because of details per se, but also tonality and colours. Just a fact. Not even FF suffices.

So let's just recap. You claimed that Fujifilm APS-C delivers poor image quality. I give you the name and a link to the work of a photographer who shoots for clients like Paris Vogue and Grazia using predominantly Fujifilm APS-C. Vogue is of course one of the oldest and most prestigious fashion and glamour magazines in the world, whose editors know a good photograph when they see one.

Instead of conceding the point you change tack, writing:

"For good portait photography most pro's use Medium Format. Not because of details per se, but also tonality and colours. Just a fact. Not even FF suffices."

You used the unquantifiable phrase "good portrait photographers" and the unverifiable "most pros" and then made an assertion about these amorphous, categories which you claimed was a "fact" -- a fact you can't support with figures.

Instead of making stuff up, how about explaining why Hugh Brownstone is wrong about the X-Pro2 in this video:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uV7-wzEfsXY

I wonder why you are so insecure about your system and feel the need to defend it against the obvious. While it is fine with me if anyone buys any lens I think it is absurd to make it for such a small sensor. But to each their own of course.

Oh I agree with you about the lens. It's a highly questionable bit of showboating. I find it hard to believe it's been done purely to meet any demand from Fuji's APS-C users and am wondering what its true purpose is.

But you can dispense with the "I'm just talking here, you're overacting" routine. "Inferior quality", "tiny sensor", "one of the worst sensors in a mirrorless cam"? You're not here to discuss, or to learn, or teach, or debate, you're just another griefer, winding people up, presumably for no better reason than to alleviate his own boredom.

You wanted a reaction, you got one. I'm done here. You're not wasting any more of my time.

Well, I'm guessing more people can afford the Fuji 16-55mm with a Fuji body than Sony A9 + 24-105mm... of course it makes sense if you want to replace both your system, but otherwise it's an unfair comparison, in my opinion.

@Wade Marks: well, in Europe it's about 60% more expensive than a X-T3, in the US more like 40%. You can also have a cheaper X-T30 and add a grip. Or grab a bargain with older cameras.
It's the same with A7 II, but then IQ is not making that much a difference with APS-C, while size and weight are the close to the A7 III.

And once again, those 1 body 1 lens comparison are less relevant if one already has invested a lot in a system. I'm guessing that's why Fuji is making those crazy lenses: it's better to have a few non-Fuji owner who will complain the lens doesn't make sense at the same price as FF than to have existing customers who will feel Fuji can't answer their needs.

Look at the example pictures above: do you really need more that 3 fps for that?
For sports there is nothing better than a proper DSLR.

If you are happy with 3 FPS, then really the Canon T7 is for you. The Canon lens you mentioned will work better (naively) with it, you won't have to pay $300 for a silly adapter and you'll get that glorious 3.0 fps you crave. Even better, it is a proper DSLR so you can shoot sports (As you said)!

I have a few Canon DSLR at home so don't worry ;) But I like using my A6300 for other reasons like the far superior sensor. At least a 6300 is comparable to what a Fuji sensor is capable of.

How's your 55-250 at f2?

If you never shoot brighter than 5.6 it would be a waste of money. But if you need high shutter speeds in dim light then your cheap Canon will stay in the bag.

Or if you want strong compression and extremely shallow dof then your Canon has to stay in the bag also.

But you know all that, don't you?

Did you know that you can adjust that in camera. Or make a profile in LR for you RAW files.
But on my monitor there is no green shift or tint. Jordan has nice skin tones and the rest have the expected nice Fujifilm colors.

As specifical mentioned at the start of the video. It's a pre-production camera with non-final firmware.

Alvin Tostig: It’s interesting that you are seeing no green tint and you see the terrific fugi colors.
I wonder what that’s all about several others have mentioned they like what they are seeing. I really like the color from other fugi cameras, this one looks terrible to me. I wonder if it’s a computer system issue. I have a fairly recent Mac.

No comparing it to a 300mm f2.8 is the only correct thing one can do.

200 / 2 = 100mm pupil size of the XF200mm
300 / 2.8 = 107mm pupil size of the FF equivalent lenses.

So it is not and will never become a 300mm f2.0 as light gathering is just NOT the same as a 300mm f2.0 it would then have to result in a pupil size of 150mm which of course the XF200 is not capable off.

The XF200 only has the reach of a 300mm lens, but its light gathering does not equal that of a true 300mm f2.0 lens.

Duncan M,

I suggest you read this resource in detail:

https://photographylife.com/sensor-crop-factors-and-equivalence

I was just like you, thinking the crop factor applies to f number. But it does not.

In terms of brightness, the f2 will gather the exact same amount of light per square mm, whether it's FF or APSC, regardless of the actual aperture size.

The crop factor for f number only works for DOF.

Not my opinion, but laws of physics.

Thanks. (Please read the link)

Duncan M wrote: "No comparing it to a 300mm f2.8 is the only correct thing one can do."

You forgot that there is something like pixel size with digital, and that larger format sensors easily can be cropped to match the angle of view of a smaller sensor. So no, crop factor is for sure NOT the only way to compare!

For much wildlife, sports and other action, there is a given minimum working distance. You lose a lot of image quality if you compensate for lack of focal length with smaller sensor/heavy cropping.

@Speedy

Actually it is a bit more tricky, and that is why there is much confusion. Your affirmation is exactly spot on and key to understanding the thing: "In terms of brightness, the f2 will gather the exact same amount of light per square mm, whether it's FF or APSC, regardless of the actual aperture size."

So, F2 is F2 for amount of light per surface unit. Thus, for example the AF will benefit of the brighter image, and all that.
But the FF sensor is larger, for about a stop of light :) ... that is if you take into account the light captured by the whole sensor.

So, while the brightness of the lens is the same and doesn't matter the sensor you use it on, the whole image shot with a 200/F2 on a 1.5x sensor is perfectly identical with one shot with 300/F3 on a FF.
And the cropped system benefits of more brightness per square millimeter, usually allowing better AF performance.

Hi Badi,

Thanks for your reply. But I respectfully disagree.

Let's use a more extreme example.

For a 1/2.3" cell phone sensor the crop factor is 5.6.
If I shoot with that phone with its 5mm lens (which is the norm for cell phones) that will translate to about 28mm in FF terms.

But the IQ can't be equivalent to 28/f22 in FF terms.
What I get at F22 with FF is too dim of an image compared with what I get at F4 with my cell. Maybe for the DOF, but not for the overall image brightness.

That's why I think we should not convert f numbers. Please correct me if I am wrong.

@Speedy - well, actually yes, again, taking the whole picture into account (not pixel-level-brightness) a 5mm/F2 lens on a 1/2.5" sensor would produce a image exactly the same (in terms of total light gathered per entire photo) as a 28mm/F12 lens on a FF sensor.
Also to note here that most phone lenses are around F2 and even much brighter.
And also to note, that due to the small pixel size and lens performance on that pixel level, there are a few factors that induce other problems on the phone image, but that is offtopic.

And the fun part about it, is that exactly that "F2 is a really F2" thing that makes this possible. The very fact that you have F2 brightness on that small sensor makes it possible to have a reasonable quality image on it.

Thanks for your clarification. Much appreciated @badi.

there are a few more things to consider when comparing vastly different systems.
For example, in photography we often use the F number to state things like the one i've written above, but actually what really matters is the light transmittance (the T number). For example am FF F2.8 lens usually is a T3.0-3.2. There are a lot of cheap fast lenses that between F1.4 - 2 show very little transmittance difference :). I would think the tiny plastic lenses on the phone can have the T number closer to the F one (just a guess here) so ... it is tricky indeed to compare.

Also sharpness and detail resolving is another topic entirely.

But I've done tests comparing different FF/APSC/M43 that me or my friends have, and i can say with confidence that what i said above hold true in reality.

Oh I wish I could get back the time I spent reading that article, but you could sum it up with the sentence 'I'm only interested in a per-unit-area perspective on photography, and I think you should, too.'

Equivalence tells you about the behaviour of lens on a normalized, per-image basis. That's all. It doesn't tell you what system is right for you, or tell you the exact performance of a specific camera, it's just a way of understanding the impact of format sizes.

It's mathematically rigorous and can be demonstrated in the real world. If you want to ignore it. But I don't understand why you'd try to write almost 9000 words (intentionally?) missing the point.

Maybe the issue is not so much the equivalence thing but that people keep comparing lenses/systems based only on equivalence without ever caring about the lens properties, the output it can deliver, etc... It reminds of people who would rate lenses according to their aperture, like saying f2.8 > f4 so the f2.8 should be a better lens...

To give another example, FF should absolutely be great with low light because of its light gathering capabilities, better ISO, etc... yet, my Nikon Z7 is struggling to give good results with IBIS at slow speeds while my E-M1 II can easily go 1-2 stops further with a 100%. And again, this will be useless when shooting people (although I haven't tried a portrait at 1s yet) or anything that might move.
So it seems to me this is more like a right tool for the right job kind of talk.

That's why I was asking. I've started few blind tests and no one was able to guess which camera is where. You can search for Tony Northrup's similar test. According to his test, people like Sony's colors most of all. I also saw few latest test of color reproduction and newest Sony cameras (a6400, a7 III) are excellent in color reproduction, just like newest Fuji's (X-T3, X-T30). So, if you're looking for a camera with "true color" it doesn't really matter, which one of these you'll choose. The only situation when you'll be able to notice difference is when in-camera presets applied (cleverly named "film simulations" by Fuji). But that's not because they are better for color, it's exactly the opposite: those presets screw color, but it becomes recognizeable.

For natural / neutral colors I also like Sony A7III, which I personally use. I'm aware of the Tony's test and I've also chosen Sony. On the other hand I've shot film for a long time when I got my first SLR, so I have a soft spot for analog photography and film dynamics.

This is why I also like Fuji's JPEG colors and emulations. They do not fit to the situation all the time, But they can help adding the emotion that I want to reflect in the picture. It's also pure, pointless nostalgia. :) I sometimes play with curves and color response to see what can be screwed up to create a more aesthetically pleasing image.

bayindirh
That's why I said "cleverly named". I owned X-T20 for a year and played with those "sims", but didn't find them anywhere close to real films. They're playing on nostalgia and modern "Instagram filters" trend. Another funny thibg is that Sony cameras have way better customisation for picture profiles. But since it doesn't have any fancy name and not marketed as one of the main advantages, no one cares about it :)
For me, "film sims" weren't ab advantage because I had to adjust it every time to get the best I could, but it's way easier and fail-proof to do in LR/C1, etc.

Then GFX100 is your choice.

0.7% extra turnover, that is not a lot...

If Fujifilm X is your system of choice and you have the money and a good use case for this lens, why not?

Lens Rental companies would buy a few of them to rent out at around $200 USD a week. If you were going on Safari and had an existing Fuji camera setup... than paying a $300 for a 300mm f2.8 FF equivalent WITH a 1.4 teleconverter as well doesn't seem too bad an option.

Me (I have one).

Kind of like buying a sports car, but that handling at 200mph is not well implemented, so you can never drive it above the same speed your sedan Kia goes. Hey, but at least other drivers know you are serious.

I say this for a smile... ;-)

Eh, yes and no. Sometimes the DOF is just too thin so you need to stop down, with crazy sharpness as a side benefit. I'd agree that if you NEVER need the f/2, there's no sense buying it.

less money (hardly), the Sony 300 f2.8 in A mount is $7500.

The Canon equivalent (ef 300mm f2.8) costs about the same. Both should be stellar..

Comment made no sense. ..

I’m not sure how FF lenses could provide « better performance ».

This lens is literally and priced as a FF 300mm 2.8.

Remember the X-T3 shoots 20fps with no crop and 30fps with 1.25crop. You have to step up to the A9 with a 300mm 2.8 to get equivalent performance to the X-T3 with this lens.

Steelhead3 The Nikon 300mm f 2.8 is $5,496.

FF lenses provide better performance because the FF sensors have higher image quality. Such as better dynamic range and especially at higher iso settings. Simple truth

You can buy this Fuji 200 and XT3. Or buy a Nikon Z6 and 300mm f 2.8 for roughly the same money. With the Nikon you get better image quality. Better dynamic range better iso better separation. And when you upgrade to a new camera the lens stay with you. The Fuji is a dead end apsc lens.

My friend, you lack basic knowledge. If you're shooting at f2 on the APS-C and f2.8 on FF, you're not getting better high ISO performance or separation, simply because you're shooting one stop brighter on APS-C. You'd be at, say, 6400 ISO on FF and 3200 on APS-C. There, they'll perform equally. Same with the F Stop.

So yes, for all practical purposes, an APS-C camera with this lens performs just as well as a FF with 300mm 2.8. The exception would be if you're comparing them both at base ISO, where FF would have some advantage in dynamic range and SNR.

For those of you saying this is comparable to 300mm/f2.8 in FF terms:

This is incorrect, because crop factor does not apply to f number. So, from the aperture size perspective and amount of light (i.e. brightness) this lens is comparable to 300mm/f2.

From the DOF perspective, yes it's equivalent to f2.8. But DOF is not everything to an image.

What people don't get in those equivalence talks is that unless it's your first serious camera, it's not always evaluating the cost of APS-C + one lens vs FF + one lens, it's sometimes one APS-C lens vs reselling all your APS-C gear and buy the FF gear plus the equivalent lens. That's why manufacturers make those lenses and some people buy them.

Yes, Larkhon.

If someone is already invested in APSC with its awesome performing primes (e.g. 16/1.4, 56/1.2, 90/2) or even some of the great zoom lenses, I can't imagine why they would sacrifice all of that to move to FF just for the sake of one telephoto lens.

If you are a dedicated sports photographer, I may understand why. But other than that, APSC is a fantastic system for the enthusiast and professional photographer who wants to preserve his back health and his bank account.

@GoodKnight: well, if you update your X-T20 to X-T3... your lens also stay with you.

You actually get the same "separation" using 200mm f2 apsc or 300mm f2.8 ff..

"Simple truth"
I guess not.. maybe some stuff have been misunderstanded...

Nikon Z6? How many FPS does that do again?

The extra iso performance in the FF sensor will more than make up for the F2 aperture.

Well if you want to spend $6000 to shoot on a Xt20 whatever have at it LOL

@Goodnight - No, it won't. A one stop difference between the two is earased and at base iso, they will appear identical. I've compared side by side landscape and portrait shots between fullframe and APS-C and with the faster APS-c lens, the difference is negated. Go spout off your garbage someplace else.

No they will not appear identical. Go take a look at the comparison images here on DPR. Sorry but the Fuji is a distant second not even close. Plus if you want to go high resolution sorry Fuji but the XT3 is end of the line. While the FF shooter can get to 45 and higher megapixels. Your $6000 lens isn’t looking like such a good investment.

Goodknight,

Man, what's wrong with you?

Comparing a $3400 body + $5700 lens to a $1300 body + $6000 lens? What's the point? The Z7 is an awesome camera, but this article is about something else completely. It's a niche lens for people invested in the X mount system.

It may be better for you to stay away from APSC forums and news articles.

We Fuji users love the system. It's not just about 1 expensive lens. The whole experience is different. If you don't like it then so be it but leave us alone man.

I am trying to help people. Buy a Z6 and a 300mm f 2.8 or any similar FF kit for about the same money as the Fuji XT3 and 200mm f2. Get better image quality and a better upgrade path later. Spend your money wisely.

The trouble with the Z6 is that it can't focus he he he

GoodKnight. Do you get a 1.4 x converter with the FF 300mm f2.8? Probably not.

@GoodKnight
"I am trying to help people. Buy a Z6 and a 300mm f 2.8 or any similar FF kit for about the same money as the Fuji XT3 and 200mm f2. Get better image quality and a better upgrade path later. Spend your money wisely."

People buying such equipment probably knows that they are doing.. And you seems to miss some basic technical knowledge.

In this particular case, the ff won't give you much advantages.. or none.

@goodknight: you keep missing the point. Unless you invested in neither system or sensor size, you can't just compare prices of the systems without considering the money lost in reselling you old gear.

Then, you were saying "yeah but you can always use a 47mp sensor with FF but you can't with APS-C". Obviously that's true. But using a 47mp comes with a price. I recently observed with going from 24mp to 42mp that the corners of my sharpest lens were not sharp at all anymore. It means one will have to spend again lots of money to buy the highest quality lenses, so it's not a cheap upgrade path. If you know you won't be able to afford it, you should consider carefully before going for a high mp sensor. Besides, the cameras with the fastest AF are not the ones that have 47mp, are they?

This is more comparable to a 300mm f2.8. And those can get pricey..

The FF 300mm f2.8 are about $500 less than this Fuji

This lense is like a 300/F2.8. The canon 300 F2.8 IS II USM is at the exact same price on amazon. And with the Fuji you have 1stop more light and a 1.4 converter.

Plus the FF set up will give you better image quality.

Goodnight, maybe, maybe not. Same number of photons. Same signal to noise ratio. Optical resolution theoretically should be similar. In practice it comes down to how well the lenses were designed and manufactured.

"Plus the FF set up will give you better image quality."

Well, in which regards ? Shutter lag ? Iq?..

This combo looks very competitive and well priced

FF format is overrated.

Tomasz, not really. The difference is much wider availability of high quality, wide aperture (with equivalence) lenses for crop and MFT formats. This and few other lenses are exceptions.

My point was not about FF being better IQ or anything like that.

You can A. Spend 6k on this lens to place on your X-Tx (cause for the X-Txx the combo would be way way unbalanced), or B. you can spend the same amount of money for a FF camera AND an equivalent 300 f2.8). You can then use your fuji for its smaller form factor and other nice fuji lenses, while having a dedicated 300mm setup with back which is lauded as one of the best DSLRs ever made (850D), which is very rugid, extremely well weather poof, and above all well balanced. Not to mention it opens up the advantages that FF provides, such as shallow DOF with fast primes (like a nifty fify). Not to mention it opens up the whole line up of cheap and good 2nd hand nikon or canon lenses.

A. Fuji system AND XF 200 f2 lens.
B. Fuji system AND (850D or 5DIV) + sigma 300 f2.8

To me at least, the duel system can be nice. Especially for those with a X-Txx or smaller body B. seems to be a better fit. No?

Waiting for comparison :)

@GoodKnight So full frame cameras produce great results until someone pulls out a medium format camera? Come on, this is just playground nonsense. Good is good, regardless of what other systems/formats are capable of producing.

GoodKnight

Go away with your fullframe advertising.

Nobody's interested.

Sorry little snowflake aren’t you. I don’t shoot full fame but I am not a wimpy little boy and I can handle the truth. Man up Snowflake maybe you aren’t mature enough to participate in a forum on technology. Go see mommy now run off.

@GoodKnight wrote:

"Good luck finding a medium format 600mm lens."

Having seen your reply to webber15, good luck finding any further professional work if your alter ego here ever leaks out into the wild.

Just reporting the facts fanboys

Thats a dull comment dansclic and it shows Jake was right from the beginning ;)

Well, it must be similar to equivalent lenses for FF. Rationalised the same way. One thing must be noted by even Fujifilm's most ardent of haters and critics (I'm in the latter camp): no one holds a candle to their system in APS-C. Yes, better lenses exist, but no system exists which can better canvass everything from super wide to moderate tele.

@shigzeo, The difference with a FF 200mm F/2 is that is has a much larger potential market, both because that market is entrenched with market-share leaders (Canikon), and because there are more pro and commercial shooters on those systems who can justify the purchase of a tele-exotic.

I always observe that the camera industry mirrors the car industry. Just like any one car brand sells more of its entry level cars than their high end cars, so too does the camera market. Car makers often have a concept car or super high end car that is made in very low quantities and only expected to attract a small, select market of customer. Same with cameras and lenses. Nikon sells (or used to) sell way more D3000 and D5000 level cameras than they would a D5. Canon Rebels/1Dx too. And there is a reason why the fast telephoto lenses are called exotics. High performance, low volume, high cost. Why would Fuji make a 200 f/2 for APS-C? Because they can. And they don’t have one. And there are Fuji enthusiasts who will gobble this up.

"That's high optical performance that will be relevant to far more photographers."

Do you mean the 50 or so members of the Z forum by that? Based on the anemic sales numbers for Z, hardly anyone else seems to have spent good money on them.

@otto k That's not how it works. The lens is projecting the image at a very specific distance, so if you use it on a body that has a shorter flange distance than what the lens was designed for, then it's possible to add extra distance, however it's not possible to remove distance. The mount diameter doesn't matter here.