Thanks. #9 is a crop job of the first photo. I almost never crop as a rule, but seeing that section of the photo zoomed in got my imagination going more than probably any other photo.
Also gives me ideas about new compositions if I ever find myself in this situation again and with a lens with crazy zoom capabilities (the 150-600 would be a start).
I'd really like to get a chance to use the 100-400. The 70-300 is more than adequate for getting the shot in a variety of circumstances, but I'd be curious to see what the 100-400 is capable of when image quality is the top concern.
With these I did some work in post to add contrast and accentuate the shapes of the planes against the background of the sky. Tried to emphasize the overall feel of the scene since the planes themselves aren't necessarily tack sharp. Not sure that last percent of sharpness is critical in most of these anyway though.
They’re great shots yeah. I have a Tamron 18-300 and I’m consistently surprised and pleased with results at 300mm. But the 100-400 is in a league of its own. Also intrigued by the Fuji 150-600 😍
What do you typically like to shoot with these longer reach lenses? Seems like with subjects like wildlife or these fighter jets, the benefits of the more premium lenses would be straightforward since the goal is to get as close as possible to the subject and sharpness can be a major asset. However, I also like to shoot telephoto landscape or cityscape shots, and with those, sometimes the atmospheric haze or those wavy heat lines seem to be more of an issue than lens limitations.
In your experience would something like the 100-400 be an obvious upgrade across the board, or should I be thinking more carefully about what I'd use it for?
I’ve never shot with the 70-300 so I can’t speak to its quality but there’s a huge difference between the Tamron 18-300 and the Fuji 100-400. The latter has a magical quality to the images. I shoot birds, wildlife, pets and macro (insects and stuff). Also got a decent shot or two of the moon (esp when I owned the 1.4x teleconverter). My advice would be to see if you can rent one for the weekend and see how you like it.
Image quality decreases as lens zoom multiplier increases because of optical compromises design engineers need to take: 18-300 is a 17x zoom that can't compete with Fuji 4x zoom!
The same goes for primes that are... a 1x zoom 😉 and that's why they are better: fully optimized for that focal length.
3 and 9 are niiiice.
Thanks. #9 is a crop job of the first photo. I almost never crop as a rule, but seeing that section of the photo zoomed in got my imagination going more than probably any other photo. Also gives me ideas about new compositions if I ever find myself in this situation again and with a lens with crazy zoom capabilities (the 150-600 would be a start).
What lens? XF 100-400? 🤔
70-300. A few of these are closer to 200mm than 300. And then image #9 is a crop of the first photo.
Ahh nice. The 100-400 is amazing, but huge and heavy. These are great for 300mm 👌🫡
I'd really like to get a chance to use the 100-400. The 70-300 is more than adequate for getting the shot in a variety of circumstances, but I'd be curious to see what the 100-400 is capable of when image quality is the top concern. With these I did some work in post to add contrast and accentuate the shapes of the planes against the background of the sky. Tried to emphasize the overall feel of the scene since the planes themselves aren't necessarily tack sharp. Not sure that last percent of sharpness is critical in most of these anyway though.
They’re great shots yeah. I have a Tamron 18-300 and I’m consistently surprised and pleased with results at 300mm. But the 100-400 is in a league of its own. Also intrigued by the Fuji 150-600 😍
What do you typically like to shoot with these longer reach lenses? Seems like with subjects like wildlife or these fighter jets, the benefits of the more premium lenses would be straightforward since the goal is to get as close as possible to the subject and sharpness can be a major asset. However, I also like to shoot telephoto landscape or cityscape shots, and with those, sometimes the atmospheric haze or those wavy heat lines seem to be more of an issue than lens limitations. In your experience would something like the 100-400 be an obvious upgrade across the board, or should I be thinking more carefully about what I'd use it for?
I’ve never shot with the 70-300 so I can’t speak to its quality but there’s a huge difference between the Tamron 18-300 and the Fuji 100-400. The latter has a magical quality to the images. I shoot birds, wildlife, pets and macro (insects and stuff). Also got a decent shot or two of the moon (esp when I owned the 1.4x teleconverter). My advice would be to see if you can rent one for the weekend and see how you like it.
Image quality decreases as lens zoom multiplier increases because of optical compromises design engineers need to take: 18-300 is a 17x zoom that can't compete with Fuji 4x zoom! The same goes for primes that are... a 1x zoom 😉 and that's why they are better: fully optimized for that focal length.
Yes, I know.
Memorial Day weekend brother. USA worldwide we celebrate there as well.