While on assignment in Japan, Chris and Jordan had a couple days to shoot with the Fujifilm XF 200mm F2 telephoto lens, which Chris nicknamed 'The Big White Sharp'. To make things more interesting, Jordan filmed this entire episode using the new Fujifilm GFX 100 medium format camera.
Fuji f2, 200 is a big mistake, nobody wants a short fast tele for this sort of money, if it was 2.5k maybe they would but at over 5k ain’t going to happen! It’s also big and bulky. Fuji did not need to make this lens, a cheaper option that complimented the 50-140 2.8 was required, a 140-300 2.8 would of made so much more sense and provided a 600 5.6 option with the 2x tc. As it is Sony’s 70-200. 2.8 makes far more sense on an a6400/a7/a9 than the 200 f2 on the Fuji body!
WAY TO GO FUJI... nobody's gonna put that rediculously overpriced and very limited usage (no farther than a prototype) lens on a camera body that is NOT selling. I can see your obituary being drafted as type this... and DPReview's article here will NOT save you. Congratulations on your self-destruct.
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?
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:
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.
Yeah I think your mostly right. I pushed this routine too far I guess. Sorry. Just thought it was amusing as a mFt user to take play this game for once. Can't say I enjoyed myself wondered how others who do this feel. But I still have no clue what is so funny. So in short: I think choice is great andthis lens though for very few has a purpouse for some.
Photos looks great, definitely a sharp lens. Fuji makes very good lenses. This coming from someone who recently ditched his Fuji travel camera and 16-55 f2.8 when I bought a Sony a9 to bring with me to my daughters horse shows. I quickly realized it wasn’t any bigger and heavier than the Fuji and the 24-105 f4 gave me more range, faster AF and better tracking. Still love Fuji design and lenses over Sony but damn for its size the a9 really performs so well it makes sense to use it for traveling as well, leaving me no real need for the Fuji.
If you’re referring to the Sony lens being “slower”, the Fuji 16-55 F2.8 is equivalent in FF to 24-82.5 F4.2, verse the Sony 24-105 F4 which is also very sharp and has good bokeh at its upper range. The Sony a9 doesn’t have as good of a menu set up but once the custom buttons on the Sony are set up it’s comfortable to use. There’s nothing wrong with the Fuji I enjoyed using a few different models for a couple years, for my needs the Sony a9 was able overlap where I previously used two different cameras. For family uses both for sports and travel the a9 works very well, I no longer use my D5 for family sports or Fuji xpro2 for family travel. The D5 I still use for pro sports but the Fuji was never a pro camera for me. Doesn’t mean it’s not a great camera just no longer suits my needs.
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.
@Wade Marks: nonsense about the A7 II? sorry but I owned one for a while and I couldn't see much difference in noise at ISO 6400 with X-T2. The X-T2 was around 1/3 EV less with the same settings, I'm guessing this is the difference in ISO norms, and the DR at ISO 100 (no native ISO 100 on X-T2). Even taking into account the X-H1 and A7 III, over it was not $1799 vs $1999 but 1799€ vs 2299€. For that kind of money you can buy a decent lens.
The benefits of a bigger sensor, in all those talks, often refers to shallow DoF. But if you don't use it, like for instance when shooting mostly landscape, what good is it? Also, you're saying the equivalent lens is cheaper. Ok, but then again if you pick a f1.2 lens for mft you'll get something that is sharp corner to corner, and already quite above the average wide open. Not to mention the durable and wr build.
I don't have a sensor format to defend, as I'm using them all from smartphone to FF, but what was true yesterday is still true today, even though price-wise things are looking better for FF. If you are upgrading from a smaller sensor to FF, you have to consider which lenses are giving you something you don't currently have, which means that it's pointless for someone who has already high quality lenses to buy their equivalent for FF just to get some of the sensor benefits. And if you think about moving to a higher mp sensor later, it makes sense to buy the better lenses anyway. If you don't already have a system or just some camera kit with a few cheap lenses, I agree, it makes sense to invest into the bigger sensor, and there's always time to pick up some very small/light kit later one, if needed.
Oh please educate me on sensor metrics... (yeah, that's the part where you can say 'google it' instead of actually answering)
Sorry, if I had to read a double post giving a sales pitch for FF the least I could do it is answer in kind. But we can end this now and say FF=1.5xAPS-C and everyone's happy.
"You seem confused by the discussion that is taking place"
You started the whole thing saying A7 III is cheaper than A9 and practically the same price as APS-C. You're the one saying there is no advantage to APS-C earlier. So yes, I'm confused, when I answer your arguments you just tell me to get back on topic? a little too easy...
"we are talking about a $6000 lens that ‘simulates’ full frame"
where's your point here? they have no right to release a lens that expensive? you'll save the world by telling people what morons they are if they buy that lens?
" it only gets ridiculous when one is trying to pretend it’s something else"
Yes and no. Maybe you don't understand how it works. They don't care about you and what you think, you know. If the lens gets good reviews and publicity, it will reflect on Fuji's sales, it will tell people the prices are right for the quality, even if they don't sell a lot of those 200mm f2. That wouldn't work with a $1500 lens. Marketing 101...
Correct me if I am wrong, but doesn't the MC-11 and A6300 limit what you can do with the lens? IIRC, only Sigma's "global vision" lenses are allowed to shoot at faster than 3 FPS while autofocusing. Has that changed? The Canon EF-S 55-250 is otherwise a fine lens, but not as sharp as a good prime. At least you didn't post about how the A7000 is as good as the XT3. Those loonies are getting tiresome.
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.
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.
I think Fuji are definitely the cuddliest and most lovable brand around at the moment. All these galleries from whatever equipment look so similar I think that this probably is the most important factor to take in to account at the moment.
Seems to me Chris is looking a little green. I really don’t think the the camera is ready yet. Colors don’t compare well with the 50 or with the small sensor Fuji cameras.
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.
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.
I know you compare it to a 300mm f2.8 on full frame because of the depth of field characteristic and the crop factor, but I actually would compare it to the only 300mm f2 on full frame due to the crop factor and the light gathering ability. Now since there are not too many of those around, and they are not autofocus I would love to see someone compare the Nikon 200/2 and Canon 200/2 on a Fuji body with adapters versus this new Fuji 200/2 just to see how it compares optically, apples to apples. I am sure AF would suffer with either the Nikon or Canon, but their advantage is that they can also be used on full frame if required.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
300/2.8 is prefect FF counterpart because setting higher ISO on FF leads to the most equivalent image available. Other practical comparison is using crop camera with FF 200/2 which produce the second most comparable result - but crop cameras made by manufacturers also producing FF cameras are not usually as good in terms of speed (handling / af), VF, durability, ... What a pity Fuji did not make bigger size/weight difference between MILC and DSLR version of 200/2.
@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.
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.'
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.
Your article is great! I didn't know about it. Sorry if I made you waste time reading the other article, but to a newbie like me it made some sort of sense.. well until I read yours and read Badi's comments.
Why are these forums still full of people who don't understand equivalence. Or is it some kind of weird defense mechanism because they use a system with a smaller format sensor? It is really not that complicated. There are articles about it right here!
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.
I sort of noticed through the first part of the video that it looked good. They always do. But different. Then the last scene was striking. I went back and saw that it was filmed with a different camera than normal.
The images are very good, the lens is very very sharp. When compared Fuji's colors, they are joy to look at.
Kudos to Fuji for creating this gem. Personally I love how Fuji's X-System is progressing and improving. I would not return to APS-C from FF but, I really like Fuji all-round.
I personally find Fuji's yellows and magentas are much more vivid when compared to other cameras. Also the general vividness of images a little higher when compared to other camera makers. JPG's are easier to spot for me due to baked in film emulations, but I think can also spot a Fuji RAW file if it's developed without too much color tuning. Also I think Fuji's overall perceived contrast is a bit higher.
This may be due to X-Trans characteristics, color science or both.
Nevertheless, I'd love to be debunked with a good blind test, and tune my eyes and biases much better.
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.
@spaceman - you are perfectly correct. However there are more factors at play. I was a long time canon shooter, and while the colors are ok (many people will say the best), i never really enjoyed the profiles for jpgs, and made a few custom starting points in LR. After that i moved to Fuji, Olympus and Fuji again. For my taste, the most pleasant colors out of the camera, were for the olympus when it manages to guess the WB (especially in outoor pleasant light. It was not super reliable, and as always i shoot jpg+raw - but when it did, it was exactly to my taste). The fuji is also close, but usually i like them as a good default starting point, and do some minor tweaking.
Of course i wouldn't guess in a blind test which is which ... it's just that working a long time with different cameras you do a certain processing to your taste, and each camera is more or less close to it.
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.
I'm aware of the picture profiles of the A7III, however I'm happy with the colors it produces out of the camera, so I didn't play with them yet.
However, this morning I was thinking about creating challenges for myself to push myself further and thought about maybe I can lock myself to monochrome or some emulation in-camera and complete a photo walk.
it may be different/ better today but i get a XE-2 this was before the 24mp was available and i had LR 5.7 the results was terrible...cut a long story short i take a test photo (raw tripod sharp prime stopped down etc) asked for folk to edit in different software on the fuji forum which they did in about every software going ...most was better than my attempt ...but what they didn't know i had a control photo taken at the same time with the SAME lens on a 18mp canon 100D/SL1 then when i posted the canon image which was clearly better and resolved more detail in a nicer way the thread was promptly deleted (happy to say this not happen now on the fuji forem) this happens again some weeks later ,,thread deleted however the 3ed time is was not deleted and the best fuji edits are still on their but they are not as good as the posted cannon shot i never see another test using same lens on both bodys...... ho the best fuji edits was buy the same guy ...continued
the best when pixpeping was in photo ninja the best at normal viewing size was in LR 6. somethin (surprise!!!!) ......what this told me over 3 treads and several weeks was it was not which software was used but who was using it the made most difference and when it came down to it the then very outdated canon 18mp sensor produced more fine detail in a nicer way than the 16mp X-trans ...the more detail is irrefutable as their is more or less ...the nicer way bit is subjective .... ... i do note over time the X-trans traits have got less but i still see them ....the Fuji XE-2 was the nicest camera i have EVER used.. just couldn't live with its output
From the Interwebs, specs say is is 50mm shorter than the Canon 300mm F/2.8, a little thinner, and a little lighter. I am glad to see it is a really sharp lens too.
I can see why some say APSC is better option than FF. There is no FF camera like the Xt3 in OVERALL specs (video and stills combined), and almost all retail for hundreds or thousands more, except that RP. Maybe the new Panny comes close?
Didn't I just read Fujifilm is the only camera company in Japan to sell more cameras this year compared to last? Like a LOT more cameras - and they still made a little more money too! Way to go Fujifilm. Taking over the world.
Guys, I was just kidding. Those numbers were for Japan only. ...Although, "Only Fujifilm has been able to increase the number of units sold—by an impressive 19.4 percent." (Everyone else declined!) It sure sounds like the are taking over Japan!
Lovely lens. At that price point, I'm guessing they're targeting the affluent leisure/travel photographer that wants something lighter than the typical FF 300mm setup to their next safari.
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.
As a Proud owner of a Nikkor 200mm F2.0 VR let me tell you something, You don't buy a 200mm F2.0 to use it at f2.8 or F4. You buy it ti use it at F2.0. otherwise get a 70-200mm F2.8
I buy lenses with 1.4 not with the intent to use it just so I can close it down 2 stops because that is where it is the sharpest and less aberrations. If I buy 2.8 I'd be stopping it down to 5.6 or 6.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Yes, if you compare this 200/2 to FF 300/2.8 on a FF camera, they will give you same results at high ISO wide open. But what about base ISO? FF will be a little bit better. And I don't think anyone will use his camera with one if this lenses only. That way, if you'll add 35, 50 and 85mm eq. lenses, you'll see a big difference. Fuji as a system costs about the same as FF system. But wont give you same IQ, separation, ISO performance, etc. That's what I don't get about Fuji
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.
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.
@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.
And you Guys do realize don’t you that you can get a FF 200mm f2 lens such as the Nikon version right. Shoot that on a Nikon D850 or Z7 in full frame goodness or go into crop mode if you want the apsc reach. Try that with a T3.
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.
@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?
If you can afford a $6000 apsc lens buying a 45+MP FF kit isn’t an issue. APSC is end of line nowhere to upgrade to down the road except up to FF. That $6000 Fuji lens is a bad investment. Buy FF now and start building your kit. Newer faster higher megapixel FF cameras are coming.
Tomz there have been 1.4 and higher teleconverters available decades before apsc or digital even existed. So yes if you want a 1.4 teleconverter for a 300mm FF lens they do make them.
Ok, let's leave you with your need to update, no matter the costs. This is like school, do you want to be with the cool guys who have FF cameras, or the ones who will be left aside with their crop sensors... buying cameras or lenses like this is no investment, sorry, it's only managing your money loss and/or anticipating your future needs or GAS. If you're perfectly happy with your gear, I don't see why you should sell it but ok...
Yeah the results don't seem to be very different from a 35mm sensor camera with a 70-200mm f2.8 zoom lens. Sure they are probably a bit sharper but they don't pop like the Nikon and Canon 200mm f2 lenses.
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.
Eh... for 6k. Hmmm, what can one do with that? How about getting the sigma 300mm f2.8 for €2650 and the 5DIV for €3k? Or even the 850D for €3.3k, depending on your preference. Oh well, for those who insist on using a fuji camera I guess this is for them.
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.
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?
@lawny13: except that good lenses might look average on the D850, you have to be careful what lens you pick when you have a FF sensor with 45mp.
I mean your comment makes sense, and sometimes people forget that we can own multiple systems if we want to take advantage of their strengths, instead of trying to use a system for what it is not. It's just that it opens the door to more and more GAS and impossible choices.
Everyone needs to choose what is best for them. I was just offering another way to look at it. Rather than spend the money on a lens for 6k. I for one would rather get the sigma equivalent and the 5DIV, since if gives me that added FF option in a more expanded point of view. For example, the 5DIV coupled with certain primes will give me something I can't have on the fuji in terms of DOF. It also gives me what I believe to be a more balanced setup. I could take this further and even say... you know what?? I can get a 5DIII instead and save myself a few $$ and still expand my options due to FF. DSLRS are so refined that you can easily get great results with bodies 1-2 generations back. For example, why a 5DIV when I could get a 1DX body? Sure there are other considerations like DR, but with AF... they are all solid.
And for sports... I may still prefer an OVF experience, since our eyes have better DR, and you don't have to be distracted from the EVF exposure changes. Just IMO.
@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.
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.
Notchy, FF and apsc basically use the same lenses. Medium format is another matter. It has better IQ until you can’t get a lens you need. Try shooting sports or wildlife with a medium format for example. Good luck finding a medium format 600mm lens.
GN Whenever Pentax, Canikon, Olypan, Sigma, Fuji, Leica & Sony release a new camera, I don't take to the comments section and highlight everything that doesn't suit my needs.
Just sayin
Also, Sony has created a monster with the Sony f*n***s, for whom it all goes wrong for them the moment they start to think.
Gorgeous performing lens. The included TC takes some of the sting out of the price as camera brand TCs tend to be an expensive option. Yeah, it's a pro grade lens and important to get more pros to look at the Fujifilm system.
It appears to me that renting lenses in the States is quite convenient. In my city (I live in Italy) they rent a Canon 85 1.2 for €90 per day plus a deposit equal to 60% of its price. I don't even want to know what they would ask for this.
Every glowing Fuji review is full of jealous comments from Sony fan boys who spend all day trying to justify their purchase on internet forums instead of actually bringing themselves to use it.
Not jealous, they just found the holy and undeniable truth, and all the humanity must accept it. Even it will take another crusade war to enlighten the unbelievers :)
Me watching this till autofocus part "I would twisted this lens from macro to infinity........ ( Sleepping for a while) ....there, infinity, LOL. If someone using this lens, manual focus just used for fine tune autofocus, everything seem excelent except price but you get what you pay for.
Interesting that this lens costs the same as the FF variants designed to cover a much larger image circle. I'm sure it's a great lens, it just doesn't seem to be priced appropriately. I guess it does include a 1.4TC which helps the value propositon.
In general all tele lenses have a much larger image circle than they need anyway. So there is really no size or price advantage compared to both the same focal length and aperture or the equivalent focal length and aperture on larger sensors.
Just look at the M43 telephoto primes. Olympus 300mm F4 -2499$, Panasonic 200mm F2.8 -2999$
Not really. Telephoto lenses are large regardless of the format they're made for. That's also why the Fuji 100-400 is about the same size and weight as other brands' 80/100-400 lenses.
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.
Yes, but as shigzeo said, Fuji's system is best APCS. If you want a pro APSC system, you pretty much don't have any other choice (except maybe sony with a combination of APSC & FF lenses, because the APSC options are limited ... but then again, you'll go full for the FF system and maybe add an APSC body to the kit). Also Fuji knows their market is small, but the fact that in that niche market they are dominant, would probably make a more steady and sure income than competing directly with sony/canon/nikon.
I'm sure this lens is a tour-de-force, but about as relevant/useful to me -- and I'd wager to 99.99% of DPR readers -- as Elvis' Cadillac, or Air Force One. And to anticipate (and counter) a potential point, I'll also say that I doubt that any of its technology is likely to at all influence or trickle-down to more affordable and smaller lenses.
I'm actually much more impressed by what Nikon has delivered in some of its new lenses for the Z mount, such as the 35mm and 50mm f/1.8. That's high optical performance that will be relevant to far more photographers.
Well the Fuji X Mount lens system is more mature than the Z mount, Fuji also started with 35mm & 50mm equivalent (high performing) lenses all those years ago. As a system matures then it's the turn of the niche lenses like this 200mm that get released.
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.
@dscobie62 - For now you are right. However Nikon has planned 21 S-Lenses for the Z-Mount to be released within a 24 month time span. It took Fujifilm 9 years (109 month since january 2012) to pull off to now 27 lenses including 2 tele extenders....
Take your pyrus victory for now, let's see how well the X-Series will do in 2024 and how many lenses the system will have by then. The fact that you scamp over the Nikon Z is showing your true fear that this system is actually what you wanted to have.
Even Sony now starts to pull away from Fujifilm with their e-mount.
Fujifilm has a good system, but many of these Fujifilm fanboys always seem to have some calimero behaviour.
Flange distance of G mount is larger than X mount, but its diameter is also larger so it might be possible. As this is a telephoto lens it might cover the sensor.
@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.
I understand that, but, when the mount diameter is large enough you can (at least in theory) create an adapter that's inset into the mount. This has been done for some adapters (I have seen a custom C mount adapter for NX mount which does exactly that). That said, I'm not sure a smart adapter would be feasible (simple pass-through like EF-EFM might, don't know enough about G and X).
Yikes, those Youngtimers! "Big in Japan" is originally from Alphaville into 1984 - but not my kind of Music. But you couldn't escape that track from all Radios, like so many others, during the 80s. :D Nu Metal isn't my thing, and these kind of things, but atmospheric DSBM, atmospheric and/or -melodic Black, and melodic Doom-Death.
Many unknown Underground Bands, 1 Man Armies, thanks to Bandcamp for many years, also Bands like Ellende (outstanding, this Austria Guys - check the Lyrics), Forgotten Tomb, Thy Light, Immortal, Emperor, Agalloch (RIP), Austere, MGLA, October Tide, Swallow The Sun, Saturnus, old Katatonia...etc...and way much more...too many, to notice hereby...this keeps me running over the day, into this cruel world...these days....years, and nights...
@marc petzold - mmm... Katatonia. :) But nu metal or alternative aren't my things either, not by a long shot - however there are tracks which simply cannot be avoided. Even if you don't spin them, someone else within earshot inevitably will.
The 200mm F2 is a fast telephoto lens for Fujifilm's APS-C cameras. We took it out to photograph the US Navy's Blue Angels and hydroplanes screaming across the water at over 300 km/h.
Fujifilm has announced the XF 200mm F2 R LM OIS WR telephoto lens along with a matching 1.4x teleconverter. This weather-sealed lens - 'matte silver' in color with a bold green hood - has a total of 19 elements, a nine-blade aperture and five stops of shake reduction according to Fujifilm. The lens and teleconverter kit will be available in late October for $6000.
Sony has just released a trio of impressively small, light, ultrawide lenses for APS-C. These lenses are designed for vloggers, so Chris decided to film himself and find out how they perform.
The Fujifilm X-H2S is the company's latest APS-C flagship, using a 26MP Stacked CMOS sensor to deliver the fastest shooting, best autofocus and most extensive video specs of any X-series camera yet. Here's what's new and what we think so far...
How do you make weird lens even weirder? Put a periscope on it! We check out the new Laowa Periprobe 24mm F14 2X and explore some of the creative things you can do with such a bizarre lens.
What’s the best camera for around $2000? These capable cameras should be solid and well-built, have both speed and focus for capturing fast action and offer professional-level image quality. In this buying guide we’ve rounded up all the current interchangeable lens cameras costing around $2000 and recommended the best.
What's the best camera for shooting landscapes? High resolution, weather-sealed bodies and wide dynamic range are all important. In this buying guide we've rounded-up several great cameras for shooting landscapes, and recommended the best.
Most modern cameras will shoot video to one degree or another, but these are the ones we’d look at if you plan to shoot some video alongside your photos. We’ve chosen cameras that can take great photos and make it easy to get great looking video, rather than being the ones you’d choose as a committed videographer.
Although a lot of people only upload images to Instagram from their smartphones, the app is much more than just a mobile photography platform. In this guide we've chosen a selection of cameras that make it easy to shoot compelling lifestyle images, ideal for sharing on social media.
NASA and the University of Minnesota are working on a citizen scientist initiative alongside the Juno Mission and need your help. Volunteers are tasked with identifying atmospheric vortices on Jupiter, as captured by the Juno spacecraft.
The PROII CPL-VND 2-in-1 Filter offers a variable neutral density filter with between 3-7 stops of compensation as well as a circular polarizer filter. Independent control means you can dial in the exact type of compensation you want in a single filter.
Joining its diverse lineup of ONE R and RS action cameras, Insta360 has announced the 1-inch 360 Edition camera, co-engineered with Leica. The camera sports dual 1"-type image sensors and records 21MP still photos and 6K/30p video with a full 360-degree field of view.
Capture One Mobile bring Raw photo editing to iPadOS devices. While it's a familiar look and feel, it's clear Capture One has focused on providing a touch-first interface, designed for quick and easy culling and editing on-the-go.
Godox has announced the R200 ring flash for its AD200 and AD200Pro pocket flashes. The new add-on is a lightweight ring flash that works with numerous new light modifiers, promising portable and controllable ring light.
Even sophisticated microphones can't eliminate ambient noise and the effect of acoustics. But researchers at Carnegie Mellon University have developed a camera system that can see sound vibrations and reconstruct the music of a single instrument in an orchestra.
Do you want to shape and create content for the largest audience of photography and video enthusiasts in the world? DPReview is hiring a Reviews Editor to join our Seattle-based team.
In our continuing series about each camera manufacturer's strengths and weakness, we turn our judgemental gaze to Leica. Cherished and derided in equal measure, what does Leica get right, and where can it improve?
A dental office, based in Germany, had a team of pilots create a mesmerizing FPV drone video to give prospective clients a behind-the-scenes look at the inner workings of their office.
Samsung has announced the ISOCELL HP3, a 200MP sensor with smaller pixels than Samsung's original HP1 sensor, resulting in an approximately 20 percent reduction in the size of the smartphone camera module.
Street photography enthusiast Rajat Srivastava was looking for a 75mm prime lens for his Leica M3. He found a rare SOM Berthiot cinema lens that had been converted from C mount to M mount, and after a day out shooting, Srivastava was hooked.
The lens comes in at an incredibly reasonable price point, complete with a stepping motor autofocus system and an onboard Micro USB port for updating firmware.
The new version of the Blackmagic Design Pocket Cinema Camera 6K brings it much closer to the 6K Pro model, with the same battery, EVF but a new rear screen. New firmware for the whole PPC series brings enhanced image stabilization for Resolve users
The OM System 12-40mm F2.8 PRO II is an updated version of one of our favorite Olympus zoom lenses. Check out this ensemble gallery from our team, stretching from Washington's North Cascades National Park to rural England, to see how it performs.
The first preset, called 'Katen' or 'Summer Sky,' is designed to accentuate the summer weather for Pentax K-1, K-1 Mark II and K-3 Mark III DSLR cameras with the HD Pentax-D FA 21mm F2.4 ED Limited DC WR and HD Pentax-DA 15mm F4 ED AL Limited lenses attached.
As we continue to update our Buying Guides with the cameras we've recently reviewed, we've selected the Sony a7 IV as our pick for the best video camera for photographers. It's not the best video camera we've tested but it offers the strongest balance of video and stills capabilities.
For the next several weeks, many observers will be able to see Mercury, Venus, Mars, Jupiter and Saturn in the predawn sky with the naked eye. Of course, a camera with a telephoto lens or telescope attached will get you an even closer look.
The June 2022 Premiere Pro update adds a collection of new and improved features and performance upgrades, including a new Vertical Video workspace, improved H.264/HEVC encoding on Apple silicon and more.
Researchers at NVIDIA have created a new inverse rendering pipeline, 3D MoMa. It turns a series of images of a 2D object into a 3D object built upon a triangular mesh, allowing it to be used with a wide range of modeling tools and engines.
Light Lens Lab is a rather obscure optics company, but their manual lenses for Leica M-mount camera systems tend to offer a unique aesthetic at what usually ends up being reasonable price points.
We've updated our 'around $2000' buying guide, to include cameras such as the Sony a7 IV and OM System OM-1. We've concluded that the Sony does enough to edge-out our previous pick, the Canon EOS R6.
This compact shotgun microphone will convert the analog audio signal to digital internally before sending it as a digital signal to compatible MI Shoe cameras, such as the ZV-E10 and a7C.
In addition to the Amber and Blue versions, which give flares and highlights warm and cool tones, respectively, the new Silver Nanomorph option offers a more neutral flare that changes with the color temperature of the lights being used.
The organizers of the Bird Photographer of the Year competition have revealed the top finalists, showcasing the incredible photography of avian photographers from around the globe.
Comments