Is the Fuji 70-200mm the biggest hole in the Fuji system?
As I mentioned in my latest Fuji reviews, the biggest hole in the Fuji system currently is fast telephoto lenses, and at the top of that list is a 70-200mm lens.
Why are 70-200mm lenses so popular?
That’s the point! 70-200mm lenses were designed to perform certain roles (on full frame). I’m arguing that, if you shoot APS-C, then a 50-150mm F2.8 performs a wider variety of those roles than a 70-200mm F2.8 does on APS-C (and offers a size/weight/cost benefit).
What is the aperture diameter of the Panasonic 70-200 full frame lens?
However, as soon as you think of the lens as behaving like a 70-200 on full frame (which Panasonic does, on its website), then that same 12.5-35.7mm aperture diameter range would be 1/5.6th of 70-200. And the physics works as if it were, too (depth-of-field, diffraction, total light etc).
Is a 70-300mm lens worth it?
Otherwise the 70-300mm certainly hits the sweet-spot behind between the cheaper, more casual 55-200mm and the more expensive, professional 100-400mm.
What do you use a 70 200 for?
A 70-200mm lens is a versatile optic with uses for wildlife, wedding, sports, landscape and even portrait photographers. The option of having short, medium and long telephoto focal lengths in one lens with a fast constant aperture gives photographers so many creative options.
Does Fuji fit Tamron?
Perhaps the biggest news, though, is the arrival of the Tamron 18-300mm F/3.5-6.3 Di III-A VC VXD for Fujifilm X-mount cameras – Tamron’s first ever Fujifilm fit lens, and also the first superzoom lens for that camera.
Is 70 200 worth it?
For many portrait photographers, the 70-200mm f/2.8 lens is considered the key to great results. This lens seems like it covers all the bases that any portrait photographer would want: wide aperture, a range of good focal lengths, and excellent build quality.
Is 70 200 long enough?
A 70-200mm focal length is perfect for so many situations. It allows you to focus on key subjects, crop out distracting elements in your frame, and just get closer to the action. At 70mm, you can capture: Full- and half-body portraits.
What lenses are compatible with Fuji?
List Of Fujifilm Zoom LensesLens Names35mm EquivFast C AFXF 8-16mm f2.8 R LM WR12-24mmYesXF 10-24mm f4 R OIS WR Review15-36mmYesXF 16-55mm f2.8 R LM WR24-84mmYesXF 16-80mm f4 OIS WR24-120mmYes8 more rows
How far can 70-200mm lens reach?
On top of that, many lenses of that length will not perform well in low light and you may end up with a blurry image and poor composition. At 50ft from the subject, about 8 rows back, the 70-200mm range still works. The only shots you won’t get with that length are an ultra-wide of the stage and a close-up of a face.
Is 70-200mm good for street photography?
I mainly use 24-70/2.8 for street photography. The 70-200 is good if you want to sneak in shots from afar. If you have 24-105/4 then it should be good enough. I like the 2.8 as I like shooting in low light so I need all the speed I can get.
Which lens is best for wildlife photography?
The Best Lenses for Wildlife PhotographySigma 150-600mm f/5-6.3 DG OS HSM. … Sony FE 200-600mm f/5.6-6.3 G OSS. … Canon 200-400mm f/4L IS USM Extender 1.4x. … Nikon 200-400mm f/4 VR II. … Canon 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS II. … Nikon 300mm f/2.8 VR II. … Fujifilm XF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6 R LM OIS WR. … Nikon 400mm f/2.8E.More items…
Is f 2.8 good for portraits?
The right aperture also puts your viewer’s attention squarely on your subject and regulates your depth of field to get just the right amount of background blur. Now, the best portrait lenses have wide apertures of f/2.8 to f/1.2.
Is 70 200 good for sports?
If the choice is between a 70-200mm f/4 with IS and a 70-200mm f/2.8 without IS, you’re far better off with the f/2.8 lens and the ‘faster’ shutter speed that allows when shooting most sports. For high school football, IS is not that useful.
Are 2.8 lenses worth it?
If you’re going to need the camera for photography gigs, you need to consider what you’ll be shooting. If you need a faster shutter speed, you’ll definitely need the f/2.8 to capture your subjects. For example, if you’re shooting sports, you’ll need a fast shutter to get the athlete while they move.
Is 70 200 good for sports?
If the choice is between a 70-200mm f/4 with IS and a 70-200mm f/2.8 without IS, you’re far better off with the f/2.8 lens and the ‘faster’ shutter speed that allows when shooting most sports. For high school football, IS is not that useful.
Do you need is on Canon 70 200?
I say outdoor sports because f/2.0 or higher is often required to achieve a high enough shutter speed to stop indoor sports action. If the 70-200 f/2.8L IS is what you have, definitely use it for indoors sports….Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS USM Lens Review.ModelCanon EF 70-200mm f/2.8L USM LensWeight42.2 oz(1310g)Dimensions w/o Hood3.3 x 7.6″(85 x 194mm)5 more columns
Is F2 8 good enough for portraits?
Hands-down, the mood, quality, and separation of f/1.4 were preferable to f/5.6. But when comparing f/1.4 to f/2.8, there was less difference. The f/2.8 version had a little more detail, but what I really noticed was the bokeh quality. The f/1.4 image looked softer and a better choice for a flattering portrait.
Are 2.8 lenses worth it?
If you’re going to need the camera for photography gigs, you need to consider what you’ll be shooting. If you need a faster shutter speed, you’ll definitely need the f/2.8 to capture your subjects. For example, if you’re shooting sports, you’ll need a fast shutter to get the athlete while they move.
What is the difference between 50-150mm and 70-200mm?
The other advantage of 50-150mm lenses is that they can be less expensive than 70-200s. The latest, pro-grade 70-200mm F2.8s from Canon and Nikon will set you back $2300 and $2400, respectively, whereas both Fujifilm and Samsung are looking for $1600 for their lenses. Both lenses are image stabilized and, based on our experiences with pre-production models seem to focus very rapidly. The complexity of the designs suggests both brands are taking images quality seriously (though, of course, we’ll need to spend time shooting with them to know for sure).
What are the advantages of a 70-200mm lens?
Two of the great advantages of 70-200mm equivalents are that they can be smaller and lighter than actual 70-200s. What you lose in reach is made up for in terms of portability. Fujifilm and Samsung aren’t the first companies to offer 70-200mm equivalent lenses (Pentax and Tokina both introduced 50-135mm F2.8 zooms in 2007, while Sigma has produced two distinct models over the years), but I think they’re right to do so.
What is the best APS C for a 70-200mm F/2.8?
The main reason 70-200 F/2.8 is so popular is the F/2.8, F/4.2 won’t be as useful. So the Sigma 50-100mm F/1.8 is the best APS-C option as a 70-200mm F/2.8 (it will be 75-150mm F/2.8).
Is a 50-150mm lens good for portraits?
Not only are 50-150mm lenses easier to carry around, they can also be small and light enough that you can more readily swing your camera around when shooting portraits. As an example, the original Sigma 50-150mm was around two-thirds the length and around half the weight of the company’s current 70-200mm F2.8 (though it should be noted that smaller lens was not stabilized).
Is the F2.8 cheaper than the F4?
I’d argue no. While they are similarly sized, sometimes lighter and usually a little cheaper than the Fujifilm and Samsung, they’re also less bright. Personally I think the extra low-light capability and control over depth-of-field that the 50-150mm F2.8s offer is probably more valuable than the extra reach and slight cost saving of using a 70-200mm F4 on APS-C.
Is a 70-200mm F4 a full frame camera?
If you’ve already got a full frame camera, then a 70-200mm F4 offers a very similar set of capabilities to a 50-150mm F2.8 on APS-C (same zoom range, similar light capture and depth-of-field). But any cost benefit of buying a 70-200mm F4 rather than an equivalent zoom is lost if you have to buy a full frame camera to gain access to that capability.
Is a 105-300mm equivalent F2.8 better than a 70-200mm equivalent?
There’s a school of thought that says that, if you’re going to buy a telephoto lens, then you probably want as much reach as possible. And there’s certainly a logic to that: telephotos are probably the class of lens that best continues to serve its intended function when mounted on a smaller sensor size. However, while you can argue that a 105-300mm equivalent F2.8 is better than a 70-200mm equivalent, by dint of offering more reach, there’s also a counter-argument to be made.
What is the best zoom lens for Fuji X?
There are now four excellent telephoto zoom lenses to choose from for Fuji X-series camera owners, ranging from the 55-200mm up to the 100-400mm, with the 70-300mm positioned between them in terms of size and price.
Does Fuji 1.4x work with 2x teleconverters?
One key consideration is that this is the only lens that doesn ‘t work with Fuji’s 1.4x and 2x teleconverters, so you can’t extend the focal range like you can with the others.
Can you mount a 100-400mm on a tripod?
You don’t get the same excellent build quality as the 100-400mm and there’s no way to mount it on a tripod, but it’s still fully weather-proof, also compatible with the 1.4x and 2x teleconverters, and crucially optically excellent throughout the aperture and zoom ranges, whilst being much easier to carry around all day long.
Is a 50-140mm telephoto lens a good zoom lens?
As you’d expect from a pro-level 70-200mm equivalent lens, the 50-140 mm excels in almost every department, and is therefore well worth considering as both a standard telephoto zoom and also a super-zoom thanks to its tele-converter compatibility.
Easy as APS-C
Isn’t More Zoom Better?
-
There’s a school of thought that says that, if you’re going to buy a telephoto lens, then you probably want as much reach as possible. And there’s certainly a logic to that: telephotos are probably the class of lens that best continues to serve its intended function when mounted on a smaller sensor size. However, while you can argue that a 105-300mm equivalent F2.8 is better t…
Size and Weight
-
Two of the great advantages of 70-200mm equivalents are that they can be smaller and lighter than actual 70-200s. What you lose in reach is made up for in terms of portability. Fujifilm and Samsung aren’t the first companies to offer 70-200mm equivalent lenses (Pentax and Tokina both introduced 50-135mm F2.8 zooms in 2007, while Sigma has produced …
Cutting Costs
-
The other advantage of 50-150mm lenses is that they can be less expensive than 70-200s. The latest, pro-grade 70-200mm F2.8s from Canon and Nikon will set you back $2300 and $2400, respectively, whereas both Fujifilm and Samsung are looking for $1600 for their lenses. Both lenses are image stabilized and, based on our experiences with pre-production models seem to …
But What About The F/4S?
-
If the size, weight and price of a 70-200mm equivalent seems appealing, then wouldn’t Fujifilm and Samsung be better-off making 70-200mm F4 lenses like those that Canon, Nikon and Sony offer? I’d argue no. While they are similarly sized, sometimes lighter and usually a little cheaper than the Fujifilm and Samsung, they’re also less bright. Personally I think the extra low-light cap…
Making Sense with Mirrorless
-
The increasing ambitions of mirrorless cameras are clearly what’s driving the latest announcements. Both Fujifilm’s X-T1 and Samsung’s NX1 aim to offer effective continuous autofocus in smaller-than-DSLR packages. These 70-200mm equivalentlenses fit well with that ‘more portable’ ethos, while still incorporating image stabilization, environmental sealing and all t…