When I was transitioning between Nikon DSLRs into Fujifilm gear, I needed a long lens for a specific event, but unfortunately could not buy what I wanted because of supply issues (as usual), but I needed something immediately. I bought the 55-200mm zoom with the intention of using it as a stop gap until I could get the more "professional" lens that I really wanted. That was many years ago and that "low end" 55-200mm lens is still my only long zoom... it's that good! If we curb our ego and use good technique, most modern lenses will give great results in the real world.
Albert - I have to say when I retired and sold all my Canon f2.8 pro gear I felt the same way. I wanted a longer zoom but could not afford the red badge zooms. I bought a used 55-300 and did an assignment with it five minutes after I pulled it out of the box. The results amazed me! So until the 70-300 came out I used it a lot!.
Some beautiful images Kirk. Thank you for sharing. I am fortunate to have quite a few Fuji lenses. I recently used the Fuji 100mm-400mm lens to take a picture of a squirrel that was eating a nut while sitting on a branch of a tree. It was shot at ISO 800 at F5.6 zoomed all the way out to 400mm. It was tac sharp at 1/20 of a second. The OIS on this lens is excellent. The focal length is versatile & great to shoot sailboats, jet ski action, kayaking, surfing, etc. The lens is “heavy” but I enjoy the images that I can get using this lens. Best wishes for your channel.😊
Thanks Jeffrey! I have to say the 100-400 is a beautiful lens! I use it mostly for field sports in daylight. At 5-5.6 at the long end it’s too slow for night sports. I have also got some great landscape images over the years with it!
I love my 70-300mm lens and it is the lens most likey to be attached to my X-T5. I rented the Fuji XF 100-400mm but did not enjoy it as much. I haven't been thrilled by the 18-55mm so I purchased the 16-55mm. Thank you for the video!
Kate - I feel the same way about my 70-300. The 16-55 is a stunning lens but it’s much larger than my 16-80 which I’m going to stick with because it gives me more length and less weight.
Correction: I don't own a TC from Fuji and for the 70-300 I probably won't get one because of its aperture. I have a single TC in my collection for my Panasonic Leica 200mm f/2.8 lens and it works great but that is an extraordinary lens and with a relatively fast aperture for a 400mm FF equivalent.
I have both zooms and prime lenses for my x-T5 and they all produce great images. I have no preference for red vs black lenses and I do own one red badge lens (16-55mm). Also own the 10-24 and 70-300 mm zooms. All three zooms travel with me to limit kit size. The Fujifilm XF33mm F1.4 R LM WR and 56mm f 1.2 are exceptional for portraits.
I purchased the 50-140mm and 100-400mm lenses used and have no regrets, while there are now 3rd party options for the 100-400mm the 50-140mm remains unmatched. The premium comes from the 2.8 aperture, being able to shoot that wide at up to 140mm makes it a portrait lens option. The autofocus superiority of these lenses over black badge is most evident when doing video, particularly sports.
Yes I do agree they are superb lenses. I use the 100-400 and the 50-140 for sports a lot. I ‘ve started using the 70-300 for sports as well but just for certain things like tennis where I don’t zoom much as the af does not work well zooming.
Thanks Kirk! Another good topic. I actually have some of each because I've rarely met a Fuji lens I didn't like. No doubt the images coming from the black badge lenses are stellar. That said, perhaps my favorite red badge lens is the 50-140 f2.8. I used it to capture World Cup Cyclocross bike races and was very happy with the results.
Well, I thoroughly enjoyed that Kirk. I started with the 18-55 kit and bought the 55-200 to supplement my reach. I then bought the 100-400 before the 75-300 came out. Then I bought the 75-300mm and the 1.4tc. I love the red badge 100-400 but it's a beast. I find myself using the 75-300 more than the 100-400 and cropping in instead of using the 1.4tc because of loss of light and what seems to be slightly slower/less snappy autofocus. I have too much overlap but I can't seem to part with any of them. Oh yeah and my fifth and favorite of the 5? My 35mm f2. JUST LOVE THAT PRIME.
I love my 55-200 and it would stay on my xt3 almost all the time. I also love my 100-400 and it works great for my wildlife days. Recently I got the xt5 and I am besides myself with what I get from my primes, 14, 23 and 56 (all early lenses). Essentially I have a lens for every situation but I’m trying to go out with just one lens. It works great with my 56 when I’m hiking but if I’m in a city the 23 is best for my style of street. Keep up the good work, and thankyou for sharing 🍷🍷🍷
Fabulous photos! I use my Tamron 17-70mm 2.8 with my favorite Fuji lens, the 70-300mm with my X-T5 and it works quite well (both lenses use the 67mm filter). I purchased the Tamron over the Fuji 16-80mm due to the massive 40 megapixel sensor in the X-T5. I am very curious about Fuji's rumored 16-50 2.8-4.8mm replacement for the long-in-the-tooth 18-55mm 2.8-4. If it resolves 40 megapixels as good as I expect it to, I will purchase this lens.
I have most of the Fuji lenses from the10-24 to the 55-200. Most of my images are in the mid range so I like the 16-55 or 16-80. I bought a used XC 15-45. It surprised me with the sharpness and performance although the zoom is quirky but it is small and lightweight. Great shots and video, Kirk. You live in a picture rich area!
Thanks Ed, Sometimes I do wish I owned the 16-55 but then when I pick up my fairly light 16-80 I know why I don’t own it. I had heard that about the 15-45.
@@KirkWilliamsonphotography Thanks for the excellent video, wonder why some expensive zoom lens do not come with OIS? A must for hybrid shooter like me, maybe they plan for the next one with OIS?
You have some amazing photos sir, nice job. Are you using sharpening software and are they jpegs? I’m in a dilemma here. I bought the Fuji xh2 with the 16-80 and absolutely love the camera body itself but I’m having a hard time getting the image quality even close to my Canon R5. That being said I’m very unhappy with the lens choices and cost of the Canon lens lineup like the 70-200 not being able to use a teleconverter and the 100-500 being a slow aperture lens and not being able to zoom the lens back to 100mm with a teleconverter etc etc. When I bought it they said they were going to open the RF mount to 3rd party… and we all know what happened with that 🤦🏻♂️ I have heard that Lightroom has problems with Fuji raw files and I definitely can see some of those issues when I’ve shot in raw and uploaded them to Lightroom. I am wondering what your editing process and camera settings are to get these great images thanks in advance.
First - The XH2 is not an R5 by any stretch. One is full frame and one is aps-c. Big difference. The photo sites on the Fuji are way smaller than they are on the Canon full frame. Second - The 16-80 is a great lens but at the long end, 80, it can be soft in the corners. Also some copies are real lemons. Some say that C1 is better for Fuji raw files I disagree since I use LR. I have both programs and since all my catalogs are in LR from the very beginning I’ve decided to stick with it. My editing is very straight forward for raw files. I pick a Fuji profile, usually Astia, then I’ll either use one of my pre sets or auto tone. Auto tone only affects your basic sliders plus luminance and saturation not the contrast slider clarity, dehaze, etc. from there I just adjust to taste with exposure, highlight and shadow. Be very careful with dehaze, clarity, presence etc. As far as jpgs go great shoot as many film sim recipes as you like but remember ALL JPGS NEED TO BE TONED. So you still have to do an auto tone. You setup a LR preset to do just that to all of them you just shot. Then if you want to do some manual exposure adjustment you can
Thanks I appreciate it. BTW I’m going to compare an old friend of ours the Canon 1D MK2 and the 300 2.8 and 1.4x to my XT5 with the 100-400 and see what happens. Should be a hoot.
My Setup is 10-24 16-55 50-140 23LM 33LM 75/1.2 and I tried nearly every Fuji lens....these are the lenses that have special rendering and I can even tell on my Phone which Lens I used for the image without looking in der Exif Data....every of these lenses has a special rendering...the red badge are huge....but I do really love the special pop....next level are the LM Primes...and in the same category is the 75 1.2....really amazing....mostly shot people
In time the 150-600 will be legendary. The images I’ve gotten from it are just incredible-color, contrast, etc. … long but easy to carry and fun to use.
Nice video, I own the 23, 33, and 56mm new WR's, thinking of getting a wide angle zoom, maybe the Sigma 10-18mm or the fuji 10-24mm. Also had the 100-400mm was to heavy, so I sold it, to replace it I'm thinking of the 90mm f2 or the 50-140mm. What are your recommendations. Thanks in advance.
I would stick with the Fuji 10-24 WR the new one. As far as the zoom or the prime it depends on your own style of shooting. I love the 90 which I bought for sports and news because it’s fast at f2 and fast focusing with the linear motor. The zoom gives you more options but is very heavy like all 70-200 f2.8 internal zooms are. The 90 is nice and light and sharp as hell.
Hi Kirk, My wife and I are going to Alaska in August 2024 and I'm planning on bringing my Xt5 and an XT20/30 (have yet to purchase) to minimize dust/moisture inside the cameras form lens switching. I am bringing my 16-55mm for one camera and the 70-300 for the other. I have the 15-140 as well. In your opinion, if weight were not an issue, should I bring it at all or do you think the 70-300 is going to be sufficient? I know it's a very subjective question but I've come to value your impressions. Thanks so much! Kevin
Hi Kevin, In Alaska you will need some length so the 70-300 is a must. I would buy the X-T30 instead of the X-T20. Btw my X-T30 will be for sale soon send me an email if interested. If weight is not an issue the 50-140 is a great focal length range but a little redundant. If I were you I would just bring the 16-55 and the 70-300 because of the extra focal length. The 50-140 is a beautiful lens but a little short at 210 FF equivalent at the long end. For me having that extra lens along is just a pain. If it were me I would also have my 10-24 along.
After leaving the Nikon FF world for something lighter and cheaper I settled on the X-T5 with the 16-80 and 70-300. My back and wallet couldn’t be happier. I even borrowed the 1.4tc for a few days and that is next on the list. Finally, bring a native Mainiah your images make me homesick. (In a good wayway)
David - Great setup! Yes the 1,4 x is a great addition but look for it used. Love Maine! I went to a small college in southwest Maine not far from Wells.
There's something special about the colour and contrast for the 50-140mm. I know these can be bumped up in post, but what can come straight out of that lens can be special. With a polarising filter, the word "spectacular" has been returned. I presume it's due to the Nano-GI coating. I wish Fuji would sell a Red Badge TC1.4× (or a TC1.7×) with Nano-GI coating. For your lists at the beginning, note the Red Badge 150-600mm has lots of plastic too to make it light, unfortunately one bit creaks. It's also internal zoom.
I haven't used a Fuji lens I did not like - they are all built beautifully and all have excellent image quality or are capable of excellent image quality. They all seem to have slightly different "looks". Even the lowly and "old" 18-55 has a beautiful render, IMO, and is so sharp at times it rivals the best lenses I own. The differentiator for me is autofocus performance. Missed focus, and not image quality per se, is the #1 thing I fight with on my Fuji (chasing dynamic subjects most of the time call it event photography, or sports/action/wildlife indoors and out). In that sense all the Red Badge lenses have been worth it for the AF performance alone. Same goes with the new Fuji "lux" primes-they're expensive, but also stellar performers with excellent hit rates. Of all the XF lenses out presently, I'd be most stoked about getting the "plastic fantastic" 70-300mm, which I would choose over the 100-400 as a "walk around" lightweight stealth zoom. I was in line to buy a new one years ago but got tired of waiting. Picked up a used 150-600 instead for about $1400, and couldn't be happier. The render of that lens is awesome, it is sharp as hell (closer to my best primes than the 16-55 seems to be) and it is fun to shoot with. No, the Red Badge lineup isn't going to be for everyone, and the AF performance and optics aren't flawless in all possible shooting scenarios. But the used pricing makes them accessible and they hold their value if you want to sell. The size, weight, and cost are for sure the drawbacks. But that has never once mattered once I've gotten home and started checking out the images, because they're gorgeous. Lucky for us Fuji shooters, the XF lenses are still generally excellent lenses for those that want lighter, cheaper options.
I agree with everything you say! I need to get my hands on the 150-600 just to try it out. My problem is at this point I really don’t have any need for some thing of that length. If I do I can still drag out the 100-400 with the 1.4x for that special situation.
@@KirkWilliamsonphotography The 150-600mm has been on sale for $1,600 for quite a while. If I hadn't snapped and bought my copy used (for barely less money!), I'd have snatched one at that price with 0 hesitation - I think it is a steal at that price. I'd pair it with a 70-300 and call it a day, since I am not into teleconvertors, and it seems that the 100-400 needs to be stopped down for best results (f/8-ish) - negating some of the extra "speed" it offers (maybe I am wrong, I haven't done the direct comparison myself). I think the 150-600mm has a huge "sweet spot" also - bigger than the 70-300 or 100-400, which means flexibility composing. It is at peak sharpness already wide-open, which also helps. Admittedly I didn't "need" that focal length either. But it opened the door to shooting small birds, insects, other wildlife, outdoor sports, whatever, stuff that I enjoy a lot especially when I can do it with my brother, who also shoots. I took it to the coast on a gorgeous clear day and, with no wildlife around (I was looking for seals/Osprey), ended up shooting my friends' family and my own for most of the afternoon instead. Yup - I turned the 150-600 into a portrait/candid lens and often had to back way, way up, at times. Using the lens that way sealed it for me however - the quality of portraits it was producing was stunning - even small groups of kids where the frame went edge-to-edge. Just a gorgeous lens. Yes, it introduces some new challenges, like atmospeheric haze/heat spoiling image quality, and you still need to get as close as you can for best results, but the feel of the rings, the balance of it etc. is just beautiful IMO. The OIS is solid down to 1/125 and near silent. Can you tell I love it?
What camera were these images shot with? Now that you have an X-T5, do you see any difference in mage quality between the red and black badge lenses? TBH, for the price of the black badge lens, you probably have to really nit-pick to find objectionable differences. Lighter on the wallet is paramount these days.
Bruce - actually I used both cameras and did not see any real difference between the two cameras. Nice catch though. I never thought about too much. The only Red badge lens I have thought about besides the two I have is the 16-55 but its pertty big and pricey. I did use it for a week and decided it was not for me even though the image quality was beautiful.
When buying a lens I never look if the lens is a red or black label, the reach is important for me because wrt optics Fuji lenses a great. Moreover I’m just an amateur……
Being 100% honest, I have never been happy with any Fuji Zoom lens (I can't compare to other modern systems, but they were better than my APSC Sony lenses, but that was 8 years+ ago) I work with primes, and I'm not it has to be fuji, as I love my Sigma 56mm and 23mm. I picked up the 16-80 in a kit with an X-T3 4 years ago, and took some great photos with it, but I was never happy when I took portraits with it, the lens was never sharp enough out of the mid frame, so full body portraits (using studio lighting) just never felt right. (I sold it) Having said that, as a walkaround lens it always performed well outside. I've used the 18-135 and 18-55 and again was never happy. I will admit I have never used any of the Red badge lenses apart from the 100-400 (which performed well) I have the original 10-24 which I mostly use for video work, and love it for that. A College picked up the Tamron 18-300 to pair with his X-T5 as a single lens travel solution and he is loving it. It is not the sharpest or brightest lens. but the compromises are worth it to him. He now leaves the 100-400 at home and can travel with a single lens (or 1 body) and with the 40MP there is lots of cropping potential. I'm not sure I'd ever buy a zoom lens again for my work, I am mostly studio based and the 23mm, 35mm 56mm F/1.4s cover all i need to do... If I was to pick up any lens, it would probably be a macro lens Thanks for the video, always enjoy watching them
I've never used it, but it lacks the wide end for my college (and we still have the 100-400), getting that would require a second body and lens. So for the use case it is worth having a lens that is maybe not as sharp, and half a stop slower.
The 80mm macro lens is incredible and king of the macros, but I'd have been interested in playing with the 30mm macro lens recently released as well if I didn't already have the very close-focusing 23mm LM WR. In my opinion, the 50-140mm is the best zoom lens Fuji currently makes. The image quality is beautiful end to end and the portraits I've gotten with it satisfy me greatly. I had hoped the 16-55mm would be a bit better for portrait work, but it really doesn't beat the new 23mm LM WR or 56mm f/1.2 WR in terms of rendering or maximum image quality - both beat it in different ways. Both have better contrast in more strongly backlit shooting. That said, the render of the 16-55mm is beautiful for situations where sunstars and bokeh balls, for example, aren't meant to be critical parts of the composition.
The direct comparisons are in a playlist labeled just for you. You need to watch to the end which you didn’t or you would not have made such a stupid statement
When I was transitioning between Nikon DSLRs into Fujifilm gear, I needed a long lens for a specific event, but unfortunately could not buy what I wanted because of supply issues (as usual), but I needed something immediately. I bought the 55-200mm zoom with the intention of using it as a stop gap until I could get the more "professional" lens that I really wanted.
That was many years ago and that "low end" 55-200mm lens is still my only long zoom... it's that good!
If we curb our ego and use good technique, most modern lenses will give great results in the real world.
Albert - I have to say when I retired and sold all my Canon f2.8 pro gear I felt the same way. I wanted a longer zoom but could not afford the red badge zooms. I bought a used 55-300 and did an assignment with it five minutes after I pulled it out of the box. The results amazed me! So until the 70-300 came out I used it a lot!.
Some beautiful images Kirk. Thank you for sharing. I am fortunate to have quite a few Fuji lenses. I recently used the Fuji 100mm-400mm lens to take a picture of a squirrel that was eating a nut while sitting on a branch of a tree. It was shot at ISO 800 at F5.6 zoomed all the way out to 400mm. It was tac sharp at 1/20 of a second. The OIS on this lens is excellent. The focal length is versatile & great to shoot sailboats, jet ski action, kayaking, surfing, etc. The lens is “heavy” but I enjoy the images that I can get using this lens. Best wishes for your channel.😊
Thanks Jeffrey! I have to say the 100-400 is a beautiful lens! I use it mostly for field sports in daylight. At 5-5.6 at the long end it’s too slow for night sports. I have also got some great landscape images over the years with it!
I love my 70-300mm lens and it is the lens most likey to be attached to my X-T5. I rented the Fuji XF 100-400mm but did not enjoy it as much. I haven't been thrilled by the 18-55mm so I purchased the 16-55mm. Thank you for the video!
Kate - I feel the same way about my 70-300. The 16-55 is a stunning lens but it’s much larger than my 16-80 which I’m going to stick with because it gives me more length and less weight.
@@KirkWilliamsonphotography Do you use the 16-80 on one of the 40 MP bodies?
Do you use 70-300 with tc? I use that lens with tc and results are not sharp. Do you recommend using it without tc?
Correction: I don't own a TC from Fuji and for the 70-300 I probably won't get one because of its aperture. I have a single TC in my collection for my Panasonic Leica 200mm f/2.8 lens and it works great but that is an extraordinary lens and with a relatively fast aperture for a 400mm FF equivalent.
I have both zooms and prime lenses for my x-T5 and they all produce great images. I have no preference for red vs black lenses and I do own one red badge lens (16-55mm). Also own the 10-24 and 70-300 mm zooms. All three zooms travel with me to limit kit size. The Fujifilm XF33mm F1.4 R LM WR and 56mm f 1.2 are exceptional for portraits.
I do wish I had the 16-55 as an option but don’t want to spend the money. Sounds like you have a good setup.
I purchased the 50-140mm and 100-400mm lenses used and have no regrets, while there are now 3rd party options for the 100-400mm the 50-140mm remains unmatched. The premium comes from the 2.8 aperture, being able to shoot that wide at up to 140mm makes it a portrait lens option. The autofocus superiority of these lenses over black badge is most evident when doing video, particularly sports.
Yes I do agree they are superb lenses. I use the 100-400 and the 50-140 for sports a lot. I ‘ve started using the 70-300 for sports as well but just for certain things like tennis where I don’t zoom much as the af does not work well zooming.
I’ve had a mix of both. I’ve been happy with them all.
Same here, can't complain Bob.
Thanks Kirk! Another good topic. I actually have some of each because I've rarely met a Fuji lens I didn't like. No doubt the images coming from the black badge lenses are stellar. That said, perhaps my favorite red badge lens is the 50-140 f2.8. I used it to capture World Cup Cyclocross bike races and was very happy with the results.
A great lens for cyclocross!
Well, I thoroughly enjoyed that Kirk. I started with the 18-55 kit and bought the 55-200 to supplement my reach. I then bought the 100-400 before the 75-300 came out. Then I bought the 75-300mm and the 1.4tc. I love the red badge 100-400 but it's a beast. I find myself using the 75-300 more than the 100-400 and cropping in instead of using the 1.4tc because of loss of light and what seems to be slightly slower/less snappy autofocus. I have too much overlap but I can't seem to part with any of them. Oh yeah and my fifth and favorite of the 5? My 35mm f2. JUST LOVE THAT PRIME.
Bill you sound like me. I use the 100-400 to shoot field sports and the 70-300 is my landscape lens. Yes the 35 f2 is nice.
@@KirkWilliamsonphotography Kirk,
I appreciate the personal touch with your replies and feedback.. Keep up the great content.
Bill Ladas Newburyport
👍
Thanks for another great video. I went with black badge lenses.
My main reason for switching from Canon, the weight. Second, the size and then cost.
Mark for all the hiking you do the black badge lenses are key. Nice and light and sharp.
I love my 55-200 and it would stay on my xt3 almost all the time. I also love my 100-400 and it works great for my wildlife days. Recently I got the xt5 and I am besides myself with what I get from my primes, 14, 23 and 56 (all early lenses). Essentially I have a lens for every situation but I’m trying to go out with just one lens. It works great with my 56 when I’m hiking but if I’m in a city the 23 is best for my style of street. Keep up the good work, and thankyou for sharing 🍷🍷🍷
I feel the same way! All great lenses.
Fabulous photos! I use my Tamron 17-70mm 2.8 with my favorite Fuji lens, the 70-300mm with my X-T5 and it works quite well (both lenses use the 67mm filter). I purchased the Tamron over the Fuji 16-80mm due to the massive 40 megapixel sensor in the X-T5. I am very curious about Fuji's rumored 16-50 2.8-4.8mm replacement for the long-in-the-tooth 18-55mm 2.8-4. If it resolves 40 megapixels as good as I expect it to, I will purchase this lens.
Stan I am going to talk about the X-T50 and the 16-50 in my next video.
@@KirkWilliamsonphotography Depending of the specs of the X-T50, I may or may not buy the kit.
I have most of the Fuji lenses from the10-24 to the 55-200. Most of my images are in the mid range so I like the 16-55 or 16-80. I bought a used XC 15-45. It surprised me with the sharpness and performance although the zoom is quirky but it is small and lightweight. Great shots and video, Kirk. You live in a picture rich area!
Thanks Ed, Sometimes I do wish I owned the 16-55 but then when I pick up my fairly light 16-80 I know why I don’t own it. I had heard that about the 15-45.
@@KirkWilliamsonphotography Thanks for the excellent video, wonder why some expensive zoom lens do not come with OIS? A must for hybrid shooter like me, maybe they plan for the next one with OIS?
I,ve used the 55-200 before and it was a great lens, I'm looking to get either another one of these or the 70-300 for my XT5
Would suggest the 70-300 has it has more reach and can take the 1.4x extender.
You have some amazing photos sir, nice job. Are you using sharpening software and are they jpegs? I’m in a dilemma here. I bought the Fuji xh2 with the 16-80 and absolutely love the camera body itself but I’m having a hard time getting the image quality even close to my Canon R5. That being said I’m very unhappy with the lens choices and cost of the Canon lens lineup like the 70-200 not being able to use a teleconverter and the 100-500 being a slow aperture lens and not being able to zoom the lens back to 100mm with a teleconverter etc etc. When I bought it they said they were going to open the RF mount to 3rd party… and we all know what happened with that 🤦🏻♂️ I have heard that Lightroom has problems with Fuji raw files and I definitely can see some of those issues when I’ve shot in raw and uploaded them to Lightroom. I am wondering what your editing process and camera settings are to get these great images thanks in advance.
First - The XH2 is not an R5 by any stretch. One is full frame and one is aps-c. Big difference. The photo sites on the Fuji are way smaller than they are on the Canon full frame. Second - The 16-80 is a great lens but at the long end, 80, it can be soft in the corners. Also some copies are real lemons. Some say that C1 is better for Fuji raw files I disagree since I use LR. I have both programs and since all my catalogs are in LR from the very beginning I’ve decided to stick with it. My editing is very straight forward for raw files. I pick a Fuji profile, usually Astia, then I’ll either use one of my pre sets or auto tone. Auto tone only affects your basic sliders plus luminance and saturation not the contrast slider clarity, dehaze, etc. from there I just adjust to taste with exposure, highlight and shadow. Be very careful with dehaze, clarity, presence etc. As far as jpgs go great shoot as many film sim recipes as you like but remember ALL JPGS NEED TO BE TONED. So you still have to do an auto tone. You setup a LR preset to do just that to all of them you just shot. Then if you want to do some manual exposure adjustment you can
Forgot to mention, fantastic images. Love the black and whites.
Thanks I appreciate it. BTW I’m going to compare an old friend of ours the Canon 1D MK2 and the 300 2.8 and 1.4x to my XT5 with the 100-400 and see what happens. Should be a hoot.
My Setup is 10-24 16-55 50-140 23LM 33LM 75/1.2 and I tried nearly every Fuji lens....these are the lenses that have special rendering and I can even tell on my Phone which Lens I used for the image without looking in der Exif Data....every of these lenses has a special rendering...the red badge are huge....but I do really love the special pop....next level are the LM Primes...and in the same category is the 75 1.2....really amazing....mostly shot people
I agree there is a certain something about the Red Badge lenses but for me it’s not significant enough to warrant the size and cost for what I do.
I absolutely love my 150-600. It’s the best lens I have ever used telephoto wise. Light as hell and still has great IQ
In time the 150-600 will be legendary. The images I’ve gotten from it are just incredible-color, contrast, etc. … long but easy to carry and fun to use.
hope to get my hands on one to review. But I’m at the bottom of the list at Fuji. The X folks get the good stuff first. I hear it is an awesome lens.
Fantastic images Kirk.........
Many thanks!
Nice video, I own the 23, 33, and 56mm new WR's, thinking of getting a wide angle zoom, maybe the Sigma 10-18mm or the fuji 10-24mm. Also had the 100-400mm was to heavy, so I sold it, to replace it I'm thinking of the 90mm f2 or the 50-140mm. What are your recommendations. Thanks in advance.
I would stick with the Fuji 10-24 WR the new one. As far as the zoom or the prime it depends on your own style of shooting. I love the 90 which I bought for sports and news because it’s fast at f2 and fast focusing with the linear motor. The zoom gives you more options but is very heavy like all 70-200 f2.8 internal zooms are. The 90 is nice and light and sharp as hell.
Yes they are
Hi Kirk,
My wife and I are going to Alaska in August 2024 and I'm planning on bringing my Xt5 and an XT20/30 (have yet to purchase) to minimize dust/moisture inside the cameras form lens switching. I am bringing my 16-55mm for one camera and the 70-300 for the other. I have the 15-140 as well. In your opinion, if weight were not an issue, should I bring it at all or do you think the 70-300 is going to be sufficient? I know it's a very subjective question but I've come to value your impressions. Thanks so much!
Kevin
Hi Kevin, In Alaska you will need some length so the 70-300 is a must. I would buy the X-T30 instead of the X-T20. Btw my X-T30 will be for sale soon send me an email if interested. If weight is not an issue the 50-140 is a great focal length range but a little redundant. If I were you I would just bring the 16-55 and the 70-300 because of the extra focal length. The 50-140 is a beautiful lens but a little short at 210 FF equivalent at the long end. For me having that extra lens along is just a pain. If it were me I would also have my 10-24 along.
After leaving the Nikon FF world for something lighter and cheaper I settled on the X-T5 with the 16-80 and 70-300. My back and wallet couldn’t be happier. I even borrowed the 1.4tc for a few days and that is next on the list. Finally, bring a native Mainiah your images make me homesick. (In a good wayway)
David - Great setup! Yes the 1,4 x is a great addition but look for it used. Love Maine! I went to a small college in southwest Maine not far from Wells.
There's something special about the colour and contrast for the 50-140mm. I know these can be bumped up in post, but what can come straight out of that lens can be special. With a polarising filter, the word "spectacular" has been returned. I presume it's due to the Nano-GI coating. I wish Fuji would sell a Red Badge TC1.4× (or a TC1.7×) with Nano-GI coating. For your lists at the beginning, note the Red Badge 150-600mm has lots of plastic too to make it light, unfortunately one bit creaks. It's also internal zoom.
I do agree the 50-140 is a special lens. I have not got my hands on the the 150-600 but have heard some great reviews on it.
I haven't used a Fuji lens I did not like - they are all built beautifully and all have excellent image quality or are capable of excellent image quality. They all seem to have slightly different "looks". Even the lowly and "old" 18-55 has a beautiful render, IMO, and is so sharp at times it rivals the best lenses I own. The differentiator for me is autofocus performance. Missed focus, and not image quality per se, is the #1 thing I fight with on my Fuji (chasing dynamic subjects most of the time call it event photography, or sports/action/wildlife indoors and out). In that sense all the Red Badge lenses have been worth it for the AF performance alone. Same goes with the new Fuji "lux" primes-they're expensive, but also stellar performers with excellent hit rates. Of all the XF lenses out presently, I'd be most stoked about getting the "plastic fantastic" 70-300mm, which I would choose over the 100-400 as a "walk around" lightweight stealth zoom. I was in line to buy a new one years ago but got tired of waiting. Picked up a used 150-600 instead for about $1400, and couldn't be happier. The render of that lens is awesome, it is sharp as hell (closer to my best primes than the 16-55 seems to be) and it is fun to shoot with. No, the Red Badge lineup isn't going to be for everyone, and the AF performance and optics aren't flawless in all possible shooting scenarios. But the used pricing makes them accessible and they hold their value if you want to sell. The size, weight, and cost are for sure the drawbacks. But that has never once mattered once I've gotten home and started checking out the images, because they're gorgeous. Lucky for us Fuji shooters, the XF lenses are still generally excellent lenses for those that want lighter, cheaper options.
I agree with everything you say! I need to get my hands on the 150-600 just to try it out. My problem is at this point I really don’t have any need for some thing of that length. If I do I can still drag out the 100-400 with the 1.4x for that special situation.
@@KirkWilliamsonphotography The 150-600mm has been on sale for $1,600 for quite a while. If I hadn't snapped and bought my copy used (for barely less money!), I'd have snatched one at that price with 0 hesitation - I think it is a steal at that price. I'd pair it with a 70-300 and call it a day, since I am not into teleconvertors, and it seems that the 100-400 needs to be stopped down for best results (f/8-ish) - negating some of the extra "speed" it offers (maybe I am wrong, I haven't done the direct comparison myself). I think the 150-600mm has a huge "sweet spot" also - bigger than the 70-300 or 100-400, which means flexibility composing. It is at peak sharpness already wide-open, which also helps.
Admittedly I didn't "need" that focal length either. But it opened the door to shooting small birds, insects, other wildlife, outdoor sports, whatever, stuff that I enjoy a lot especially when I can do it with my brother, who also shoots. I took it to the coast on a gorgeous clear day and, with no wildlife around (I was looking for seals/Osprey), ended up shooting my friends' family and my own for most of the afternoon instead. Yup - I turned the 150-600 into a portrait/candid lens and often had to back way, way up, at times. Using the lens that way sealed it for me however - the quality of portraits it was producing was stunning - even small groups of kids where the frame went edge-to-edge. Just a gorgeous lens. Yes, it introduces some new challenges, like atmospeheric haze/heat spoiling image quality, and you still need to get as close as you can for best results, but the feel of the rings, the balance of it etc. is just beautiful IMO. The OIS is solid down to 1/125 and near silent. Can you tell I love it?
I have both and the image quality are very close. That being said, on a rainy day red badge is a safer bet.
I feel about the same but then again I have taken my 70-300 out in a driving rain storm and had no issues with it.
5:10 that looks like a black-crowned night-heron!
Awesome thanks for letting me know what the heck that bird is.
What camera were these images shot with? Now that you have an X-T5, do you see any difference in mage quality between the red and black badge lenses? TBH, for the price of the black badge lens, you probably have to really nit-pick to find objectionable differences. Lighter on the wallet is paramount these days.
Bruce - actually I used both cameras and did not see any real difference between the two cameras. Nice catch though. I never thought about too much. The only Red badge lens I have thought about besides the two I have is the 16-55 but its pertty big and pricey. I did use it for a week and decided it was not for me even though the image quality was beautiful.
When buying a lens I never look if the lens is a red or black label, the reach is important for me because wrt optics Fuji lenses a great. Moreover I’m just an amateur……
I have to say I have always been a straight f stop snob. Always felt that variable aperture lenses were not for pro work. I now feel differently.
Being 100% honest, I have never been happy with any Fuji Zoom lens (I can't compare to other modern systems, but they were better than my APSC Sony lenses, but that was 8 years+ ago)
I work with primes, and I'm not it has to be fuji, as I love my Sigma 56mm and 23mm.
I picked up the 16-80 in a kit with an X-T3 4 years ago, and took some great photos with it, but I was never happy when I took portraits with it, the lens was never sharp enough out of the mid frame, so full body portraits (using studio lighting) just never felt right. (I sold it)
Having said that, as a walkaround lens it always performed well outside.
I've used the 18-135 and 18-55 and again was never happy.
I will admit I have never used any of the Red badge lenses apart from the 100-400 (which performed well)
I have the original 10-24 which I mostly use for video work, and love it for that.
A College picked up the Tamron 18-300 to pair with his X-T5 as a single lens travel solution and he is loving it. It is not the sharpest or brightest lens. but the compromises are worth it to him.
He now leaves the 100-400 at home and can travel with a single lens (or 1 body) and with the 40MP there is lots of cropping potential.
I'm not sure I'd ever buy a zoom lens again for my work, I am mostly studio based and the 23mm, 35mm 56mm F/1.4s cover all i need to do... If I was to pick up any lens, it would probably be a macro lens
Thanks for the video, always enjoy watching them
Have you tried 70-300? Ken at theoria gave it 10/10. I also give it 10/10. Its just amazing!!
I've never used it, but it lacks the wide end for my college (and we still have the 100-400), getting that would require a second body and lens. So for the use case it is worth having a lens that is maybe not as sharp, and half a stop slower.
Sounds to me like you have everything covered. If you go with a macro try the 80 mm f 2.8 macro lens.
The 80mm macro lens is incredible and king of the macros, but I'd have been interested in playing with the 30mm macro lens recently released as well if I didn't already have the very close-focusing 23mm LM WR. In my opinion, the 50-140mm is the best zoom lens Fuji currently makes. The image quality is beautiful end to end and the portraits I've gotten with it satisfy me greatly. I had hoped the 16-55mm would be a bit better for portrait work, but it really doesn't beat the new 23mm LM WR or 56mm f/1.2 WR in terms of rendering or maximum image quality - both beat it in different ways. Both have better contrast in more strongly backlit shooting. That said, the render of the 16-55mm is beautiful for situations where sunstars and bokeh balls, for example, aren't meant to be critical parts of the composition.
@@KirkWilliamsonphotography Would you get the 80mm over the cheaper new 30mm?
Can’t tell the difference without a direct comparison!!!!! Why bother doing these comparisons!!!!!
The direct comparisons are in a playlist labeled just for you. You need to watch to the end which you didn’t or you would not have made such a stupid statement