70-300mm Versus 100-400mm | FujiX-Forum

• Home
• What's new Unread posts New media New media comments Latest activity
• Forums Latest posts Forum list Search forums
• Media New media New comments Search media
• Buy/Sell

Log in Register Back What's new Search

Search

Everywhere Threads This forum This thread Search titles only By: Search Advanced search…

• Latest posts
• Forum list
• Search forums

Menu Log in Register Install the app Install

• Forums
• X Camera Gear & Lens discussions
• Native X-Mount Lens Forum

You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.You should upgrade or use an alternative browser. 70-300mm versus 100-400mm

• Thread starter Phil_ATL
• Start date Mar 31, 2021

• 1
• 2

Next 1 of 2

Go to page

Go Next Last

Phil_ATL

Well-Known Member

I bought the 70-300 for an upcoming trip to some western national parks to mitigate the weight of my beloved 100-400 while hiking. It came yesterday - I liked it even before I put it on my X-T3. So then I thought to do some comparisons between the two lenses under similar conditions. The results surprised me. I took the same picture with both lenses at the same focal length and f-stop and compared them side-by-side under various magnifications. In the examples below (more in the comments) the images from the 70-300 are in the left column and from the 100-400 in the right column. In the overlapping focal length region (100-300 mm) the results were often virtually indistinguishable; differences only become discernible at high magnification. At 300 mm f5.6 the 100-400 certainly has the edge, but at f11 both become similar. Which brings up an intriguing question: If I zoom both to full range (300 mm or 400 mm) then magnify the 300 to the same size as the 400 how do they compare? The answer is that they are similar (at least at f11). This is obviously not completely scientific (and I await your comments with trepidation) but my tentative conclusion is that the 70-300 mm is a remarkable lens and could be a worthy replacement for the 100 – 400 mm. Only under the most demanding conditions and closest inspection does the 100-400 mm exceed it. I haven’t tested focusing times, but it seems to be very fast, and logic would dictate that it should be, due to its lighter lenses. I also haven’t compared IS but may try that next. So now I have a quandary. With its other obvious attributes (size, weight, cost) should I just use the 100–300 and sell the 100-400? My other unanswered question is the 1.4TC. My experience with that on the 100-400 wasn’t good, but others seem to report favorable results with the 70-300. If so, that would probably be the last nail in the coffin! Phil

Phil_ATL

Well-Known Member

Thread starter 100 mm @ f4

Phil_ATL

Well-Known Member

Thread starter 200 mm

Phil_ATL

Well-Known Member

Thread starter 300 mm @ f5.6

Phil_ATL

Well-Known Member

Thread starter 70 -300 at 300 mm versus 100-400 at 400 mm (f11)

Irene McC

Bohemian Media

Admin/Moderation Team Very nice comparison. Thank you taking the time to set it up and shoot those

streetsntravel

Well-Known Member

@Phil_ATL , you've done great diligence in comparing these lenses as they are important to your use. If most of you photography is at the f/11 mark then you may have your answer. I typically test my lenses in a similar fashion especially in the ranges that I'm likely to use them alot. Mine are often tested at maximum aperture and at f/5.6 to f/8 as these are my working apertures (with shorter focal lengths obviously). I typically avoid f/11 if possible as many crop sensors start showing the effects of diffraction limiting above f/8 (f/11-f/16). However, if DOF is paramount over critical acuitance, the the higher aperture wins. So what happens to any image as the lens transitions from around f/8 to that f/11-16 range is an important part of understanding the lens rendering. Keep us posted, and you might want to try a different TC on the 100-400. I have a 55-200 that I ran a whole series of tests and eventually was ready to send it back, especially after reviewing many images on this site. I took it for one last outing and it gave a totally different result, so I tested it again. Whole different result. It's working beautifully three years later. So somehow I managed to get something wrong the first time, had a dirty contact somewhere that I didn't recognize, of just plain muffed it. Still don't know. Roger

Pobert58

Well-Known Member

Thank you for this comparison! The 100-400 is a great lens, but now I'm tempted to pick up a 70-300 because it will be easier to carry in the field.

Dan Hillier

Well-Known Member

Thanks for posting. Stopped down, for general use, they seem very similar. There's enough of a difference at 300/5,6 for that to be relevant for many wildlife situations, but as long as you know about it, you can change the settings appropriately. Otherwise, it looks great. J

Jfw

Active Member

Thank you for the comparison, the 70-300 does quite well. I have the 100-400 but don't plan on getting rid of it. For me, it just checks all the right boxes. I may have opted for the 70-300 had it been out out that time, but no regrets about the 100-400. Great to see Fuji offering some good, high quality options. If you don't need, or want to go longer than 300, the 70-300 looks great. 5

59152

Well-Known Member

So the 100-400 wins at the long end? 300-400mm? And the new 70-300mm wins at the short end 100mm-200mm. At least that's what I'm seeing. So that still looks like a win for the 100-400 IF you're using the lens at the long end. If the 70-300mm is $799 and the 1.4 TC is $449 then you're at about $1,250. The 100-400 can be purchased at $1,399 on sale. So unless compactness is what you're after then the Fuji 100-400mm is the logical choice. N

Neil Jefferies

Well-Known Member

I saw somewhere (can't find it now), and you comparison seems to confirm, that the 100-400 is more contrasty wide open and that the 70-300 benefits from a slight contrast boost to bring it closer to visual parity.

mcdesign

Well-Known Member

Thanks you for this, I am just about to sell my 100-400 as it is too heavy for me now, the 70-300 has good reviews so I am going to replace the 100-400 with this one plus a TC, your post has certainly helped in my decision! G

gyoung

Well-Known Member

Thanks for doing that. I dont have the 100-400, have always felt it too specialised and heavy for the occasional use I would give it, still rely on older Nikon mount stuff for that. Next question for me is, I wonder if it is at least as good as the 55-200 at the common focal lengths, if so then the extra reach might be worth having, at no weight penalty. Gerry

Barry G

Well-Known Member

Whatever happened to the 2 picture rule in the original post?

Irene McC

Bohemian Media

Admin/Moderation Team

beegeeuk said: Whatever happened to the 2 picture rule in the original post? Click to expand...

They ARE two prictures - on each one of those are various views - check it out for yourself Probably Screen grabs or such G

GregWard

Well-Known Member

Admin/Moderation Team I thought most of the bad experiences with teleconverters and the 100-400mm were based on the x2 and not the x1.4? I think the x2 (in common with most x2's) is a step too far in terms of quality anyway. It can be useful but IQ suffers in my experience. Whereas I find x1.4's (not just Fuji but other systems too) have minimal/non-existent IQ impact. However, on top of that, losing two stops of light on the 100-400 has a bad impact on focusing in many situations - eg in comparison to losing 2 stops on the 50-140. Back on the main point of your post. It does look like the 70-300 is a fine lens. But doesn't it really come down, as is often the case, to the trade-offs each of us is prepared to make? That extra 100mm "reach" can be pretty significant. Sure you can add the TC - but you can do that on both lenses. Sure you can crop in more tightly in post - but you can do that on both lenses. For some the extra reach will offset the extra weight. For others it won't. It's great to have choices as Fuji hasn't had many at the long tele end of the range.

Gethyn Clothier

Well-Known Member

I did some casual testing a while ago with the zoom lenses and both teleconverters. I concluded that IQ was better when cropping than using the 2xtc so I sold it. However, I found better IQ with the 1.4xtc on the 100-400mm than cropping to the equivalent focal length. I agree with GregWard that it all comes down to what trade-off you're prepared to make. I have the XC50-230mm and it is excellent for a light-weight, but versatile lens (in good light). I considered the 70-300mm, but decided that the extra 70mm over the 50-230mm wasn't worth it. I also have the 100-400mm and that will always have 100mm more than the 70-300mm and 140mm more with the 1.4xtc on each lens. For me that extra reach is worth the trade-off in weight and size. If I didn't already have the 100-400mm it might be a different story though! L

Lumens

Well-Known Member

Thanks for the review. Definitely very enlightening. My 70-300 is scheduled to arrive today. I hesitated on it, but this confirms my reason for purchase, something I can put in a shoulder bag and carry with my 16-80 without dragging my shoulder in the process. I enjoy taking simple hikes and shooting what catches my eye. The 16-80 is sometimes way too short and the 100-400 (although what is needed) is a lead weight. This combo should be excellent for my hikes! I do believe the 100-400 will still be the lens when I decide to chase birds & wildlife. D

Deleted

Guest

I Just purchased the 70-300 and considering the TC...is the general consensus still that the 1.4 is the way to go? I have always been a bit mystified by the fact that they are both the same price when it seemed to me that it would be a no brainer to go with the 2X....but then I keep hearing that people chose and are happy with the 1.4X . I too had the 100-400 and it is an amazing lens but the weight and size of it were just too much for me. I also had the 55-200 and recently sold it in order to afford the 70-300. It was a great lens but just was not long enough to shoot surfers, one of my passions. I am leaning towards the 1.4 TC for that sole reason as well.

sebas1430

Active Member

Thanks for the review! Seems to be a really nice lens. I sold the 100-400 last year when I heard rumors of this lens and pre-ordered it. I'll get my 70-300 this weekend and can't wait to carry it everywhere, unlike the big 100-400. And I yesterday I decided to order the 1.4TC, so I'll I won't miss the reach of my old 100-400. From what I've read, the stabilization of the 70-300 seems really performant. Have you been able to do a comparison between both lenses, both around 300mm ? G

GregWard

Well-Known Member

Admin/Moderation Team Personally I'd say go for the x1.4 first and always put the x2 in second place. That's obviously the opposite of your "no brainer". But my rationale would be: 1. There's a noticeable drop in image quality when using most (and probably all) x2 converters. You don't get a "free lunch" and that focal length doubling costs you a noticeable impact on image quality. I do have the x2, and do use it on occasion, but when I use one it is of necessity and I remove it as soon as possible. For me that's because I notice the impact. Obviously your mileage may vary. Again, for me, the same simply isn't true of the x1.4. In terms of IQ I can't really notice if it's in the optical path or not. I would happily keep shooting with the x1.4 and (for example) the 50-140 even if I was at (say) 100mm on the lens. I mean that 100 x 1.4 is WITHIN what the lens can do on its own - so I don't need the extra reach of the TC - but I still wouldn't care. This simply isn't true of the x2 converter. Again - this is as far as I'm concerned. Net the x1.4 is simply better in my view. 2. You lose one stop with the x1.4 and two stops of light with the x2. That extra stop can really matter - particularly with a slower lens. The 70-300 is becoming an f8 with the x1.4 but an F11 with the x2. That's out of what was the range of AF capabilities in the past. Some X cameras have been firmware updated and can now manage AF even at F11 - but you're really pushing the limits of the AF and then the shutter speed will obviously be lower as well.

mnscott

Well-Known Member

Phil, I appreciate your write-up and tests. I've been trying out my new XF 70-300 also, but not directly with my 100-400. I posted some sample dog portraits with the 70-300, both without and with the 1.4x. Please take a look when you have a little time - I'd appreciate your thoughts. One thing I think I did differently was to run the .raf files through Iridient X-Transformer for the initial conversion. I then did whatever little tweaking in Capture One 21. I am finding that converting in Iridient X-Transformer helps with sharpness.

mikegee

High Tax Refugee

Thank you for taking the time to do this, very helpful.

mikegee

High Tax Refugee

beegeeuk said: Whatever happened to the 2 picture rule in the original post? Click to expand...

You can post as many images as you want within reason as an reply.

Jakob Evers

Well-Known Member

I need to ask: Why is it always about the weight and not about the photo where 300mm wasn't enough. There are some physic you cannot get around - longer lens weigh more. BTW: To all of you who doesn't feel that the 2x TC is sharp. Pls. stop down 1-2 stop. There are a big different in sharpness. And pls. keep in mind the weather condition - when you are at 800mm. It has an impact on the image. Personally I have great result with the 2x at F13. for BIF.

Dan Bailey

Well-Known Member

yeitervision said: I Just purchased the 70-300 and considering the TC...is the general consensus still that the 1.4 is the way to go? I have always been a bit mystified by the fact that they are both the same price when it seemed to me that it would be a no brainer to go with the 2X....but then I keep hearing that people chose and are happy with the 1.4X . I too had the 100-400 and it is an amazing lens but the weight and size of it were just too much for me. I also had the 55-200 and recently sold it in order to afford the 70-300. It was a great lens but just was not long enough to shoot surfers, one of my passions. I am leaning towards the 1.4 TC for that sole reason as well. Click to expand...

@yeitervision, I'm a huge fan of the 1.4X TC, it's a great performer. It gives you that nice extension, with no compromises. The 2X is a great extender, but the 1.4X is just so small, it's like a free tele "plus" that really doesn't add any size or weight, and with the excellent ISO performance on the Fujis, one stop is nothing. Again, they're both great, but if you're only getting one, I'd recommend the 1.4.

Dan Bailey

Well-Known Member

Thanks for posting these examples. I love the 100-400, but the 70-300 does look really promising, and it will certainly fit in a wider range of carrying possibilities, especially when you're trying to pack light. I'm really looking forward to trying it myself. D

Deleted

Guest

Dan Bailey said: @yeitervision, I'm a huge fan of the 1.4X TC, it's a great performer. It gives you that nice extension, with no compromises. The 2X is a great extender, but the 1.4X is just so small, it's like a free tele "plus" that really doesn't add any size or weight, and with the excellent ISO performance on the Fujis, one stop is nothing. Again, they're both great, but if you're only getting one, I'd recommend the 1.4. Click to expand...

Thanks...I am leaning in that direction from all that I have taken in...appreciate your encouragement!!!

Phil_ATL

Well-Known Member

Thread starter Thanks to all for your comments that have added greatly to the discussion! As I mentioned, I bought this lens for an upcoming trip to National parks in Utah and Arizona that will involve hiking and didn’t want to lug my 100-400mm around. Then I started comparing the lenses and found the results surprising and thought they might be of general interest, especially considering the level of interest in the 70-300mm. I dearly love my 100-400 and have it used it often, especially for wildlife on our trips to Yellowstone, so am quite familiar with it. I almost always shoot handheld, and it is quite a handful! I was just able to make more comparisons that may answer the reluctance some have to forgo the extra 100mm that the 100-400 affords. A bird graciously alighted this evening on our suet pole in the garden, so I took photos with the 100-400 at 400 mm and the 70-300 at 300 mm. Both are handheld at 1/250 sec, ISO 200, f9. The bird is about 40 ft away. I cropped to make the bird approximately the same size and compared the results below. I find the comparison to be quite astonishing. If I hadn’t labeled them, could you guess which lens was which? So I am again drawn to the conclusion that the 70-300 could essentially replace the 100-400. The ergonomics are also strongly in its favor. When I took off the 100-400 and replaced it with the 70-300 it was like taking a huge weight off my shoulders (literally!) And it handles so nicely. From the discussion on the 1.4TC I ordered one today. (Thanks Dan Bailey; I’m a big fan of your videos, book, and blog). I should get it in a week or so which will trigger more testing. It seems that I can sell the 100-400 for about the same combined price, however sad it would make me to do so. Best, Phil

• 1
• 2

Next 1 of 2

Go to page

Go Next Last Post reply Insert quotes… Share: Facebook Twitter Email Share Link

• Forums
• X Camera Gear & Lens discussions
• Native X-Mount Lens Forum

Top Bottom