150-600mm: O, Fuji, wherefore doest thou tempt me?

[Karim Ghantous]

The recently announced 150-600mm Fujinon captured my attention in a big way. I'm an Olympus shooter, and one of the lenses I'll eventually add to my kit is the excellent 100-400. Fuji has always tempted me. But up until now, the Fuji system didn't have anything to compare with Olympus in the telephoto superzoom category. This new lens makes things much more interesting.

 

But it's not that simple. The Fuji costs more, to start with. It's slightly longer and about 40% heavier. It offers a slightly narrower AOV at the long end, but it's an f/8 compared to the Olympus's f/6.3. But 2/3 of a stop isn't a huge deal, and just within the diffraction limit (approximately, anyway).

 

Let's get real though. I don't think it's worth moving to Fuji, as good as they are, from Olympus. Not yet, anyway. Perhaps the next generation of high res sensors might tip me over the edge? These lenses are too close to one another to tempt me to move. But new cameras by Fuji might change that.

[q.g._de_bakker]

Too long, too heavy.

[Robin Smith]

Fuji is the only dedicated APS system. I was interested once, but went m43 instead because I was looking to save weight, and m43 is better in that regard. There were also more lenses and more choice. In general they were less expensive. The retro aspect of Fuji I found unhelpful, although they look cool. Olympus had converged in style and substance to Sony ( a case of convergent evolution), which I found much more appealing than the quirky style of Fuji (or Canon at the time). Nikon were mirrorless non-starters 5 years ago.

[q.g._de_bakker]

M43 cannot convince with image quality, so M43 manufacturers decided they would go with 'retro' as a selling point. Pen F even persuaded me to part with money. But image quality still is lacking.

If you want to shell out for a long lens, put it in front of a better sensor. The 'reach' of a 150-600 mm on M43 is not something you will, or be able to, use.

[rodeo_joe1]

Leaving aside sensor quality. Depending where in the world you live, the number of days/hours per month when the weather allows you to use a 2.26 degree horizontal angle-of-view lens optimally, might probably be counted on one hand.

 

Mist, pollution, poor light, heat turbulence, high wind, they'll all knock the IQ of your 2000 buck lens down to that of a 10 buck CU filter meniscus stuck on the end of a cardboard tube.

 

Here's what a slight heat-shimmer can do to your IQ.

First, a lucky sharp shot -

 

And a few seconds later -

 

And those crops were taken from a modest 400mm lens with only a few metres of air between the camera and subject. Same hefty Manfrotto #028 tripod, same focus. Only difference was the heat shimmer that kept coming and going at random.

Make that tens of metres subject distance, and you have about 1/10th of the chance of getting an unaffected shot.

[Robin Smith]

And yet, great wildlife pictures with long lenses are being taken every day and even with the "unconvincing' m43 sensors...I guess I must be imagining it all.

[Karim Ghantous]

And those crops were taken from a modest 400mm lens with only a few metres of air between the camera and subject.

What affects a 400mm lens at 10m will also affect pretty much any lens at 10m. True or not true? What I think you're actually showing is that sharp telephoto lenses won't always have their sharpness realized, depending on the distance to the subject as well as ambient temperature. That is pretty much a well understood phenomenon.

[q.g._de_bakker]

You have to consider angle of view as well, Karim. Not distance alone. That also is a well understood thingy.

So heat shimmer is indeed a much greater problem using a 600 mm lens compared to a 6 mm lens at the same distance. Unless you crop the 6 mm image to the same angle of view.

 

But it is not just heat shimmer. In fact, keeping a lens with that small angle of view (about 2 degrees) still is nearly impossible unless you use a very sturdy tripod and rig the thing much better than a tripod screw/foot can do. And even with it is difficult. So you will not be using the long end much, if at all (with success).

[Ken Katz]

Not sure if 400mm on m43 or 600mm on APSC makes sense unless you plan on taking images of birds (or lions, tigers, and bears oh my). Do you want to carry around 3.5 lb / 12.5" lens, or even the 2.5lb / 8" m43 lens?

 

I simply don't understand the comments ascribing the almost impossibility of getting sharp images with FF equivalent lenses of 800 or 900mm respectively (3.1 / 2.7 degree FOV). PN's weekly nature forums are full of sharp, beautiful images shot with similar photographic artillery, not to mention the decades of images published by NG and others, notwithstanding the obvious challenges of stability and atmospheric distortions. There are plenty of folks doing quite well shooting hand held with these lenses, aided by IBIS/IS ect.

[rodeo_joe1]

I simply don't understand the comments ascribing the almost impossibility of getting sharp images with FF equivalent lenses of 800 or 900mm respectively (3.1 / 2.7 degree FOV). PN's weekly nature forums are full of sharp, beautiful images shot with similar photographic artillery

That wasn't really the point. Of course, with the weather, and luck and skill on your side, you can get sharp and beautiful pictures with a long lens.

 

The real points are: That spending 2K on the zoom lens coveted by the OP is no guarantee of getting good IQ, and having the 'reach' of an excessively long lens is no substitute for honing the stalking skill to actually get close to wildlife, or understanding their behaviour patterns in order to predict their location or path of travel. Nor is the use of many hundreds of dollars of RRS gimbal, Gitzo CF legs, Arca-Swiss L bracket or whatever a necessity or guarantee of success.

 

FWIW the heat turbulance examples above were taken with an old and by no means top quality (by today's standard) manual focus IF-ED f/5.6 Nikkor. A lens that can be bought relatively cheaply these days, and if used at f/8 or f/11 can hold its own quite well. It also easily loses what small claim to quality it has, if weather conditions aren't favourable, or if it's fitted to a shaky support.

[Robin Smith]

Heat turbulence is an issue, of course, but that is one of the first things you learn about longer lenses. You must pick your shooting distance and season. It's just something else to learn. Modern IS systems are also wonderful for eliminating camera shake allowing handheld shooting with 600mm equivalent lenses in m43 with 1/60th or 1/125. It's always nicer to have a tripod, but they are not essential, although having something to lean the lens on is best for help with aiming. Burst shooting helps. The 100-400mm Oly lens Karim mentions is $1500, so not terrible.

[Karim Ghantous]

Supertelephoto lenses are used all the time with great success. Even in the old days of K25 and manual focus and manual metering. Sometimes by choice, sometimes by necessity. The point of owning them is to use them.

[q.g._de_bakker]

Supertelephoto lenses are used all the time with great success. Even in the old days of K25 and manual focus and manual metering. Sometimes by choice, sometimes by necessity. The point of owning them is to use them.

The point is that you cannot use a 600 mm lens on m43 (1200 mm equivalent) much. It is very difficult, and takes a lot of ancillary equipment to even approach it being something that can produce acceptable results. IBIS? Not a chance...

[Robin Smith]

https://www.sulasula.com/en/home/

[httpwww.photo.netbarry]

My longest lens is the Fuji 70-300 that I I got for taking photos off the ship in Alaska and for whale watching. It turned out to be a fun lens to use for that sort of thing. Its, light, weather sealed and has a decent range. Not near what you're talking about, but then, it's light and well stabilized and the IQ is quite nice on a Fuji X camera. I can understand the fascination for wanting to have a 600 lens on a M4/3 but it sounds like it's an iffy proposition.

[Robin Smith]

It's no worse than an equivalent lens on any other camera and in fact due to superb IBIS and smaller size is probably better.

[q.g._de_bakker]

It's no worse than an equivalent lens on any other camera and in fact due to superb IBIS and smaller size is probably better.

What the 1200 mm 'equivalent' is concerned: Please do give it a try, and report back.

Half of that is already quite a test, but a huge difference.