I’ve never clicked with zoom lenses. For the last—oh, geez, it’s approaching 30 years now, going back to the film days—I have been using prime lenses almost exclusively. I’ve dabbled with zooms here and there, but invariably they end up collecting dust, and oftentimes eventually sold. I love my primes.
The reasons why I prefer primes over zooms are 1) they’re almost always sharper, 2) they typically have more good character and less bad characteristics, 3) they usually have larger maximum apertures, 4) they’re often smaller, and 5) they force you to remain within the constraints of that focal length. Composer Igor Stravinsky famously stated, “The more constraints one imposes, the more one frees oneself of the chains that shackle the spirit.” Pablo Picasso said, “If you have five elements available, use only four; if you have four elements, use three.” For me, prime lenses help with that; however, it doesn’t mean I’m anti-zoom, only that most of the time I prefer primes. Ideally, I’d purchase two or three primes instead of a single zoom that covers those focal lengths.
Fujifilm has an obvious hole in the prime-lens lineup: long telephoto. There’s the wonderful Fujinon 90mm f/2, which is one of my favorite lenses. The 135mm full-frame equivalent focal-length used to be quite common, but it’s not nearly as popular nowadays. After that there’s the 200mm f/2 and the new 500mm f/5.6, both of which are bulky and expensive (although I’m sure they’re quite excellent). What’s missing are a couple of smaller, more affordable options. Something like a 135mm f/2.8 (or f/3.5) that’s not more than 20% larger and heavier than the 90mm f/2, and not more than $1,500—the smaller, lighter, and less expensive the better. I’d also like to see something around a 330mm (500mm full-frame equivalent) f/4 (or f/4.5) that’s maybe roughly around the same size of the 70-300mm zoom, and under $2,000. But those two lenses don’t exist.
I’m strongly considering purchasing something more telephoto than the 90mm f/2, and the 200mm f/2 and 500mm f/5.6 are not an option. So that leaves me with zooms. I used to own the 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6, and as much as I tried to like it because I spent a lot of money on it, I just couldn’t. It was a disappointment, so I sold it. Last weekend, at a local Fujifilm event, I was able to try out two zooms: Fujinon 70-300mm f/4-5.6 and Fujinon 150-600mm f/5.6-8. I want to briefly talk about those two, and at the end I’ll tell you what I decided.
The first lens that I tried was the 70-300mm f/4-5.6. It’s very lightweight for what it is. I was quite impressed with the image quality and overall performance. At the long end, there’s some obvious vignetting when wide open that seems to improve but not completely disappear as you stop down. I noticed some minor chromatic aberrations in a couple instances. It does seem slightly softer at 300mm than 200mm, but I didn’t use it enough to feel confident in that judgement, and it was still more than sufficiently sharp at 300mm. I feel like this lens isn’t perfect, but it significantly outpaced my expectations for a $950 zoom.
Above: Fujifilm X-T5 & Fujinon 70-300mm lens — BewareMyVelvia Recipe
The second lens that I tried was the 150-600mm f/5.6-8. This lens is much larger, heavier, and more expensive than the 70-300mm. I was impressed by the reach. I was able to photograph mountains that were far away. I wasn’t close to downtown, but I was able to photograph it nonetheless. It was definitely more difficult to use than the 70-300mm because oftentimes one doesn’t need 150mm, let alone 600mm. Still, the pictures are beautiful, and the overall sharpness and IQ seems to be just a little better than 70-300mm; however, at the longer end, say beyond 400mm and getting increasingly worse as you reach 600mm, the pictures become softer. Some reasons for this might be 1) atmospheric haze and heatwaves, 2) higher ISOs to compensate for the smaller maximum aperture and faster shutter speeds necessary, and 3) diffraction from the smaller apertures. I liked the image quality from the 70-300mm more at 300mm than the 150-600mm at 600mm; however, the 150-600mm seems to have slightly better IQ at 300mm than the 70-300mm has at 300mm. I also noticed some vignetting at 600mm.
Above: Fujifilm X-T5 & Fujinon 150-600mm lens — BewareMyVelvia Recipe
The lens that I decided on is the Fujinon 70-300mm. I’m also planning to purchase the 1.4x TC to occasionally give it just a little more reach when needed. I’ve heard good things about that combination. It seems like it will be more than good enough for what I need it for. If Fujifilm ever made that 135mm f/2.8 and 330mm f/4, I’d prefer that over the zoom. With the options available, the 70-300mm appears to be the best choice for me. It’s surprisingly good, and a bonus is that it’s reasonably affordable.
Have you considered using the 1.4x or 2.0x teleconverter with, say, the 90mm f/2? That would provide you with either a 190mm equivalent f/2.8 or 270mm equivalent f/4 lens.
It’s my understanding that those teleconverters are only compatible with a very small number of lenses. It has to do with where the rear glass element is. The 90mm is (unfortunately) not one of the compatible lenses.
Very nice yarn. I have owned both lenses but sold the 150-600. I didn’t quite like the build quality. I also own the 90. But the 70-300 is one of my favourites. I have enjoyed success with my Canon 200 mm f2.8 with a Fringer adapter.
I appreciate the input!
Interesting options:-
QBM fit Rolleinar 500mm mirror.
Decent QBM to M adapter, good to go. Fuji have their own M to X coupling.
Snags, dedicated lens cap falls off. Requires a rear (supplied) filter for optical completeness.
Missing, so used a UV in mine.
No boss for tripod / monopod.
Bonuses, no iris, MF, light and compact.
Good qualy for bird shots.
Top tip. Mirrors have volume. Thermal acclimatisation desirable to minimise internal convection currents.
Two excellent zooms.
Nikon F1 stabilized AF 100-300 zoom. A lightweight sweetie. Affordable.
Canon EOS full business 100-400 zoom. Altogether more expensive and bulky. Terrific rep.
Just get the appropriate Fringer adapter. Canon multipliers will fit. Work, haven’t tried.
Malcolm.
Thanks for the tips!
It’s a great story. I have wished for a couple of longer primes but am willing to accept a little slower lens in trade for the weight and bulk.
I have the 100-400mm still. It’s my wildlife lens until I can afford a 150-600mm. At that point I expect to sell the 100-400mm.
At the advice of Dan Bailey, I rented, then bought the 70-300mm zoom. I want a small kit to carry when not out for serious wildlife photography (a common event with my current dog, who is high-drive). The 300mm end of the zoom has enough reach for some birds (caught a kestral with it a couple of months ago). But, it’s light enough for daily carry as a possibles lens whereas the 100-400mm or 150-600mm is not.
Like you, I prefer primes and have since my film days (still shoot film, too). However, as an experiment I carried the 18-55mm “kit” lens on a trip late last year with the 70-300mm in reserve (and the 35/1.4 just because) and used the kit zoom for most of my captures.
One can do a lot with the kit zoom and the 70-300mm with maybe the 35/2 or 35/1.4 tossed into the mix for those “gotta-have-my-prime” moments.
Thanks for this!
I have the 18-55mm f/2.8-4… it’s actually my second time owning it. I almost never use it, though, but I do “like” it, the IQ is pretty darn good for a kit zoom. I also have the new 16-50mm (actually, it’s my wife’s…), and it’s really sharp for a kit zoom (sharper than the 18-55mm), but (again) I almost never use it; however, I might have a purpose for it on an upcoming project.
I think the XC 50-230 is an often overlooked telephoto option. Dirt cheap, OIS, rather light, image quality at least as good as the 55-200. Unless you KNOW you need the capabilities of a longer telephoto lens, I think this is probably the best pick.
Like, if someone needs what the 150-600 offers, that’s what you need and the 50-230 doesn’t get there. Same thing if WR on the 70-300 is important. But if someone isn’t really a telephoto shooter, just wants something for now and again and doesn’t need more, it’s a sleeper.
I have the 50-230mm (technically, it’s Amanda’s…), and I used it a few times many years ago, back when I still lived in Utah. I thought it was fine for 50-180mm-ish, but that last 50mm on the long end seemed noticeably soft, especially at 230mm. Maybe I should dust it off and retry.
If you decide to undertake that project, keep us posted.
Sure will 👍
While for most telephotos, the last 10-20% of the range does tend to be a bit less sharp than the rest, it’s certainly true that there are better telephoto lenses than the XC 50-230.
But not everyone needs to own a better telephoto than what it offers.
As Malcom Hayward points out, there were a lot of reasonable entry telephotos for Nikon and Canon SLRs that were fine, good enough for someone who just dabbles.
But if you don’t KNOW FOR SURE you need a Great White or equivalent, you probably don’t, and will be fine without one.
Actually, I was only recommending the Nikors and Canons that are so good they require no in body corrections. Some of the more more mundane primes, generally the slower choices are also suprisingly capable.
Beware the plastic. IA:- add a metal step up/down/straight on ring to protect the filter ring against inevitable impacts.
I’m going to give the 50-230mm a try on the first part of my project, staying below 200mm, and see how that goes. I don’t think it’s a critical part of this portion of the project, so if it doesn’t meet my standards, no big deal. I think that will be a good gauge.
Cheap Nikkors and Canons give surprisingly good results on their native hosts.
They are unreasonably sharp but at the expense of horrible distortions. This was completely unacceptable with film. Now we are digital, corrections are done within the body. I presume Fuji and Sony do the same with their lenses that require it. If you use Zeiss on your Sony, never necessary.
If a classic lens is both sharp and accurate as with certain Canons and Nikkors. You can use it successfully on just about anything, focal plane relief permitting. Truly great zooms, there still are a few, have geometrical integrity although this becomes a challenge.
So, the limiting factors should be driven by lots or not of straight lines, chromatic aberrations, how big do I want to take the shot of a lifetime and above all, will I carry it?
How well Fuji lenses dance in this ballroom, I do not know.
Not why I bought my T5.
Their top glass is terrific but still only for a C sensor.
My glass, Nikon, Canon, Voigtlander plus Fujinon Pro Large Format is of film calibre.
All will go 3ft x 4ft. Would need a GX or ‘Blad digital V back to go bigger.
All will accept, especially with my T5, minor shift and tilt.
How far do you feel the need to push it?
Canon’s 100-400 is a chunk.
With a Canon extender, even more. It does give the results.
How badly do you want it.
For me, if it won’t go 3ft x 4ft, I won’t use it, Minox excepted.
That means schlepp or not bother.
Best Rgds
Malcolm Hayward.
In general, I eschew the XC lenses and prefer the XF line. They are generally built to a higher standard and are optically superior. I’m not on a budget so that is not a concern. I can certainly understand if it though, been-there/done that.
Ritchie confirmed what I read about the XC 50-230. I have never handled one. I bought the 100-400mm at the time because the 150-600mm was not available. Had it been available, I would have bought it instead because the longer lens has the reach for wildlife (birds in particular). I’m not currently shooting much wildlife because my dog keeps me busy on hikes and I have enough contract work that my recreational time is limited.
That will change, eventually, and then I’ll pick up the 150-600mm and decide whether to hold on to the other telephoto or pass it to someone else who needs a good one but doesn’t want to pay full price.
I agree that the mission determines the loadout as well as the impact of budget. Remember that one can always rent any of the long zooms for a week or two for a particular project and not have to carry the capital cost of ownership.
Thanks for the comment.
Used to hire kit regularly.
Hasselblad, D-Vere and Novoflex mostly. My partner, Linhof specifics.
Press guys mainly Nikon and Canon. Olympus also pushed in as a snapper could carry 3 Olympus rigs for the bulk and weight of 2 F1s.
Hiring for the pro is a must. May well get the same item and develop the necessary familiarity with it.
For the punter off the street, a trading relationship will need to be built up.
In the UK I expect the Fuji GX suite would be freely available, T repertoire, less sure.
Nikon and Canon of course, especially for weddings, probably also Sony.
The Novoflex powered stacking bellows plus Novoflex Schneider Pyrite f4.5/90mm or even a Rodenstock 105mm f5.6 HR Digaron Macro Float, should also be listed in the major cities.
Can always hire a whopping great tripod. A bit handy with a 600mm.
A 600mm, needs to be the best you can find. Even if your rig stills the tiniest of vibrations (big if) atmospherics, especially thermal, can bite your bum. If you haven’t got originally!
Best Rgds.
Malcolm Hayward.
Renting is a good tip. I would need to do so multiple times for this particular project, so buying makes a little more sense (the lens rental would be about a third of the cost to buy, and at that point I might as well buy, and if I decide I don’t need the lens, I can sell it and I won’t be any worse off than if I had rented it). But, it I only needed it once or twice, renting would be a great option.
I think there are pretty much only two XC worth considering.
The 35/2 is the same optic as the XF, minus the nice metal build and WR (and maybe some better coatings), and it’s only $200. A thoroughly reasonable Nifty Fifty on a budget. There are some good 3rd party alternatives now, from Viltrox and TTArtisan, but the XF still holds up.
And the 50-230 is the other. It’s fine considering the price, and the better alternatives (the 50-140/2.8, 70-300, 100-400, and 150-600) are a LOT more expensive, and frankly more lens than a lot of folks need. Mostly, the XF 55-200 just isn’t a meaningful upgrade.
The rest? Fine for starting out if you got them dirt cheap in a bundle with the camera, but not really worth getting otherwise.
//
Renting is a great plan with this sort of more extreme lens. Getting a 150-600 for a trip when you’re going to be able to shoot a lot of birds makes a lot of sense for folks who probably don’t really need to OWN one every day of the year.
//
I suppose the other telephoto option is one of the Tamron or Sigma super zooms. I have the Tamron 18-300, would get the newer Sigma 16-300 instead probably, but it doesn’t seem worth the expense of a swap at this point in time. On the Tamron, it’s pretty good through 240mm or so, but it’s also got that standard range tacked on, plus some WR, so it’s a solid lens for travel and vacation. It trades off some IQ compared to a proper telephoto, but for me, it was a tradeoff that was worthwhile.
Always love your perspective, Ritchie. Thanks for sharing. I’ve often felt like “less than” a serious photographer because I love my zoom lenses and I’ve never understood the “primes are better” argument. I do love the Stravinsky argument above, and totally understand that primes are technically sharper and produce cleaner arguments. But in all honesty, I’ve never taken or seen a single image where the chromatic aberration or soft corners or purple fringing was so obvious that it took away from the image. (BTW, this isn’t an argument against or rebuttal of anything you said above.) As they say, there’s a time and place for everything. For my photography, zooms are essential. Even in my surf camera housing, I use an 18-105 zoom on my Sony alpha (sorry Fujifilm, but the Sony is smaller, lighter, and faster focusing). I can confirm your wise choice of the 70-300 above. I pre-ordered it when it came out and have lovingly used it extensively since. My long telephoto (used for wildlife or from the beach when the surf is too heavy for swimming) is Sigma’s 150-600 f5-6.3 Sports lens. This isn’t made for the x mount so I have it for my Canon system but use it on my x-t5 with an ef-fx fringer ii adapter with great success. It’s big and heavy but boy can it reach out and grab ya. Have fun with the 70-300!
Morning, Stephen… I understand your perspective and respect your opinion. Your choice of the 18-105mm zoom is perfectly logical for your application. “The mission determines the loadout.” I have been guilty of carrying much of my kit on my shoulder because I /might/ need a particular lens. I don’t do that anymore.
I have a couple of old primes in my inventory (err… collection) that can produce some purple fringing under harsh light. I keep a an old Vivitar Series 1 70-210mm (Komine build) in my film kit because it is relatively small (but not light) and makes solid images. There are a couple more samples in my inventory that are used as well.
So I’m not in the “primes only” group, although I seem to favor them. It is less about image quality (although that is important) than size and weight.
I have definitely noticed a trend in increasing zoom lens size over the years. My thought is that it is the price of improved image quality. The new zooms are very good indeed. I just don’t like to carry them!
Cheers!
That Vivitar is a famous old lens. A press mans favourite, particularly as expendible. Really dates back to the days when monochrome ruled. Mid ’70s. The first Zoom with mass acceptance.
Hey, thanks for your thoughts! Definitely agree on the size and weight argument in favor of primes. This is why my 150-600 spends a lot of time in its case 😉 Have a great day!
So glad people are admitting using Fringers. They have made the Frankincamera a proper pro tool rather than a bizarre experiment. Pre-mirrorless lenses from the old guard can be remakable.
Choose carefully. Fringer can couple the World.
Whether zooms will serve, depends on how critical the geometry and corners must be as well as how big you need to go.
If you are commercially archiving your approach has to be different, working from the tripod up.
Malcolm Hayward.
Indeed. I’ve had great success with my Fringer adapter. Autofocus is seamless and images come complete with EXIF data. These adapters open up a world of lens choices, especially if you’re an old Canon guy like me. The only drawback is the extra inch and a half it adds to the front of the camera, but that’s a small price to pay!
Rig will be no longer than with the camera intended to host your lens.
Granted, a modern pair may well have been more compact.
When you are mainly using bellows, not really an issue. LOL.
No corrections possible so check Rockers tables for lenses that require minimal in body corrections.
Works for me.
My quiver contains Nikor F1, Voigtlander with F1 mount, Canon EOS and the Tokina 100mm macro in EOS mount. My small stuff is Z or X-T. All works with all. Rgds.
My attraction to primes I think has more to do with it’s what I used exclusively for so long, I just don’t feel at home (so to speak) with zooms. I own zooms, I occasionally use them, but I recognize that they’re not the most fitting for me personally. I certainly don’t believe that it makes me better, and I don’t look down on those who use zooms (in fact, a couple of my favorite photographers use zooms extensively). It’s just whatever works for the photographer. We’re all different, and there’s no right or wrong approach. What’s good is finding what works best for you, and you definitely have found it. Thanks for sharing your perspective, Stephen!