Zoom lens for Fuji XT 5 camera

M

msapex

Suspended / Banned
Messages
8
Edit My Images
Yes
I am a newbie to photography and to Fujiworld. I travel a lot for fun and enjoy wildlife and nature. After several years of taking photos with iphones, I bought a Fuji XT5 a few months back. I currently own only these two lenses: Fuji 23 mm F2 R and a Sigma 18-50. For an upcoming fall foliage trip and also Austalia/SE Asia trip, I would love to get a good telephoto lens especially since I am hoping to go on a African safari next year. I am looking at Sigma 16 -300 or a Fuji 70 to 300. What would be your choice? Is there any other versatile lens I could buy for my trips?
Appreciate your thoughts
 
It's all about trade offs and compromise.

A lens with a range like the 16-300 is a convenient one lens solution to travelling, But it will be more compromised in performance because of that range.

If you are likely to carry the 18-50 then a longer zoom would be an option.

The Fuji 70-300 is a reasonable option - and it is compatible with a Fuji teleconverter to extend its reach.

The Sigma 100-400 and Tamron 150-500 are longer zoom options (Fuji have their 100-400 which is heavier and more expensive than the Sigma, and they have the 150 to 600 which is quite large and expensive).

Questions are what are your shooting priories, how much are you willing to carry, and how much you are willing to spend? Also it is worth bearing in mind that using a long zoom typically requires some practice to develop technique and get right. Would a tripod be worth considering. If this is a holiday just about photography then the burden of hauling and looking after a heavier lens or more kit isn't the same as if you are on a holiday with some photography. Also bear in mind that airline cabin baggage limits - 7kg in economy is quite normal with many airlines (others may allow 10kg or more - and then the limits in higher class of travel))- a robust camera bag may way 1.5kg or more of that.

If I was trying to navigate this - then I might think about carrying the Sigma 18-50 plus acquiring the 100-400 or the Fuji 70-300 and possibly a teleconverter. My view on tripods when travelling for leisure is to leave my heavy tripod at home and use a cheap lightweight carbon fibre one - sacrificing solid tripod performance for just having a tripod that is convenient to carry and expendable if it gets lost in checked baggage or forgotten.
 
I would (and did!) go for the Fuji 100-400 and maybe the 1.4x teleconverter. Not a cheap option but the best rarely is.
 
Thanks Nod! Does the teleconverter make a significant difference? It looks pricey but will get it if recommended
Mike
 
Dryce said:
It's all about trade offs and compromise.

A lens with a range like the 16-300 is a convenient one lens solution to travelling, But it will be more compromised in performance because of that range.

If you are likely to carry the 18-50 then a longer zoom would be an option.

The Fuji 70-300 is a reasonable option - and it is compatible with a Fuji teleconverter to extend its reach.

The Sigma 100-400 and Tamron 150-500 are longer zoom options (Fuji have their 100-400 which is heavier and more expensive than the Sigma, and they have the 150 to 600 which is quite large and expensive).

Questions are what are your shooting priories, how much are you willing to carry, and how much you are willing to spend? Also it is worth bearing in mind that using a long zoom typically requires some practice to develop technique and get right. Would a tripod be worth considering. If this is a holiday just about photography then the burden of hauling and looking after a heavier lens or more kit isn't the same as if you are on a holiday with some photography. Also bear in mind that airline cabin baggage limits - 7kg in economy is quite normal with many airlines (others may allow 10kg or more - and then the limits in higher class of travel))- a robust camera bag may way 1.5kg or more of that.

If I was trying to navigate this - then I might think about carrying the Sigma 18-50 plus acquiring the 100-400 or the Fuji 70-300 and possibly a teleconverter. My view on tripods when travelling for leisure is to leave my heavy tripod at home and use a cheap lightweight carbon fibre one - sacrificing solid tripod performance for just having a tripod that is convenient to carry and expendable if it gets lost in checked baggage or forgotten.
Click to expand...
Thanks Dryce! Weight is indeed a big factor for me as I like to travel as light as possible. Hope to get the 70-300 with a teleconverter
Mike
 
I have the Fuji 100-400. It's an absolutely fantastic lens, but it's not light. Having said that, I have carried out round all day before without any problems. With the 40MP on the X-T5 you've got plenty of scope for cropping as well, so you might not need a teleconverter. Something to bear in mind is that when you start getting to really long focal lengths, heat and atmospheric haze will start to affect the quality of the picture no matter how good your lens is.
 
skullfunkerry said:
I have the Fuji 100-400. It's an absolutely fantastic lens, but it's not light. Having said that, I have carried out round all day before without any problems. With the 40MP on the X-T5 you've got plenty of scope for cropping as well, so you might not need a teleconverter. Something to bear in mind is that when you start getting to really long focal lengths, heat and atmospheric haze will start to affect the quality of the picture no matter how good your lens is.
Click to expand...
Thanks! I did not realize that teleconverter does affect the quality of the image. You are making a good point about humidity as I will be traveling in SE Asia. Hope I can do most of the important shots at dawn or dusk
 
My travel kit is a Tamron 17-70 and Fuji 70-300. Both weather sealed, both have OIS, both relatively small and light for what they are.

I have a bunch of primes for when I know what I want to shoot etc, but when overseas I value minimal kit with maximum flexibility. The 100-400 is a better telephoto, but it is considerably larger and heavier.
For me, the 70-300 has always been enough, even more so now I have the 40mp sensor. Even at 300mm I've found myself limited by heat haze in the atmosphere.

Edit: Regarding the TC - Tried one out when I got the XT5, and was underwhelmed. I had read that the 1.4x showed no degradation in IQ, but it was fairly obvious to me. Perhaps the 40mp sensor is a little more discerning, since most of the reviews were on older bodies. I sent it back in the end, as I found I got better images just cropping than using the 1.4x.
 
Last edited:
The 70-300 or 100-400 will have the best image quality, as above I would leave out the TC and just crop.

One thing to note that on a Safari you won't want to change lens due to dust. The 16-300 would obviously cover that scenario but I'd be tempted to pick up a cheap second body for the 18-50 if you want that range as well. Then you also have a second body if something goes wrong.
 
jimmyjamjojo said:
My travel kit is a Tamron 17-70 and Fuji 70-300. Both weather sealed, both have OIS, both relatively small and light for what they are.

I have a bunch of primes for when I know what I want to shoot etc, but when overseas I value minimal kit with maximum flexibility. The 100-400 is a better telephoto, but it is considerably larger and heavier.
For me, the 70-300 has always been enough, even more so now I have the 40mp sensor. Even at 300mm I've found myself limited by heat haze in the atmosphere.

Edit: Regarding the TC - Tried one out when I got the XT5, and was underwhelmed. I had read that the 1.4x showed no degradation in IQ, but it was fairly obvious to me. Perhaps the 40mp sensor is a little more discerning, since most of the reviews were on older bodies. I sent it back in the end, as I found I got better images just cropping than using the 1.4x.
Click to expand...
Thanks Jimmyjamjojo! I agree 100 -400 is a lot bigger and may not be good for me especdially in SE Asia. Really tempted to buy the Fuji 70 to 300 but Sigma 16 to 300 also looks good. Hope somebody can tell me if the latter is good or not
 
I've not got any experience of the Sigma, but this chap seems very pleased with it:

www.paulthomsonphotography.co.uk

One Lens, Endless Possibilities: Sigma 16-300mm Review for Fujifilm X Shooters

Discover why the Sigma 16-300mm F3.5-6.7 DC OS Contemporary is the ultimate all-in-one lens for Fujifilm X shooters. Real-world review with sample images, handling impressions, and travel-ready performance insights
www.paulthomsonphotography.co.uk www.paulthomsonphotography.co.uk
 
skullfunkerry said:
I've not got any experience of the Sigma, but this chap seems very pleased with it:

www.paulthomsonphotography.co.uk

One Lens, Endless Possibilities: Sigma 16-300mm Review for Fujifilm X Shooters

Discover why the Sigma 16-300mm F3.5-6.7 DC OS Contemporary is the ultimate all-in-one lens for Fujifilm X shooters. Real-world review with sample images, handling impressions, and travel-ready performance insights
www.paulthomsonphotography.co.uk www.paulthomsonphotography.co.uk
Click to expand...
Thanks! Hope someone else in this forum would agree with this guy's glowing endorsement
 
msapex said:
Thanks Nod! Does the teleconverter make a significant difference? It looks pricey but will get it if recommended
Mike
Click to expand...

Yes, it does make enough difference (IMO) to be worth using. (Again, IMO) the 2x converter is a step too far and I reckon that I get better results cropping into the 1.4x converter files to get the extra apparent reach. I was lucky in that the 1.4x telecon came in a bundle with the 100-400 lens as a freebie but I bought it brand new and as a relatively early adopter so paid for the privilege!
 
I had a 100-400mm until recently and now have the 70-300mm, The 100-400mm is fabulous, and would be great on a safari or very much dedicated wildlife trips or similar. When I bought it, it was specifically to take to the Le Mans 24 hour race. For that, it was excellent but... it's very big and heavy and it meant that I just didn't take it unless I knew I was going to be shooting something that justified it which was almost never for my normal type of photography. The 70-300mm is tiny in comparison and IQ appears to be on a par but of course you lose 100mm of reach (300mm is still quite a lot of reach on an APSC camera though). For me, it makes far more sense, and I can take it anywhere but I have to admit, if I were going on a safari, I might have tried to get hold of a 100-400mm temporarily or even a Tamron 500mm or Fuji 600mm zoom which are even bigger! Worth mentioning that you can use the 1.4x with the 70-300mm as well and it works okay in my experience.

I haven't used the Sigma 16-300mm. but I did give the Tamron 18-300mm a try which is a similar proposition. Really impressive in many ways as it delivered quite good IQ throughout the zoom range which is perhaps not expected with such a huge zoom range. AF wasn't that impressive though. I used it for a weekend in the Scottish hills and it was nice not having to change lenses in that environment but again, for a lens that you might wish to carry all day, it's quite big. I would assume the sigma is slightly bigger still. Interesting lenses but quite a compromise in my opinion.
 
Last edited:
gad-westy said:
I had a 100-400mm until recently and now have the 70-300mm, The 100-400mm is fabulous, and would be great on a safari or very much dedicated wildlife trips or similar. When I bought it, it was specifically to take to the Le Mans 24 hour race. For that, it was excellent but... it's very big and heavy and it meant that I just didn't take it unless I knew I was going to be shooting something that justified it which was almost never for my normal type of photography. The 70-300mm is tiny in comparison and IQ appears to be on a par but of course you lose 100mm of reach (300mm is still quite a lot of reach on an APSC camera though). For me, it makes far more sense, and I can take it anywhere but I have to admit, if I were going on a safari, I might have tried to get hold of a 100-400mm temporarily or even a Tamron 500mm or Fuji 600mm zoom which are even bigger! Worth mentioning that you can use the 1.4x with the 70-300mm as well and it works okay in my experience.

I haven't used the Sigma 16-300mm. but I did give the Tamron 18-300mm a try which is a similar proposition. Really impressive in many ways as it delivered quite good IQ throughout the zoom range which is perhaps not expected with such a huge zoom range. AF wasn't that impressive though. I used it for a weekend in the Scottish hills and it was nice not having to change lenses in that environment but again, for a lens that you might wish to carry all day, it's quite big. I would assume the sigma is slightly bigger still. Interesting lenses but quite a compromise in my opinion.
Click to expand...
Thanks gad-westy! Glad to know you like 70-300 mm. I really do not like a very heavy lens on travel. Might consider renting a bigger zoom when I do go on a wildlife safari
Mike
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top