Contents
Image Quality
Fuji has built a reputation for optical excellence with the X-Series, and I was curious to see if they could continue with their first supertelephoto zoom lens. As you’ll see, the answer is certainly yes.
Sharpness
The XF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6 covers a wide range of telephoto coverage, and is one of the few 100-400mm zoom lenses designed solely for APS-C, so the angle of view goes from a moderately long 150mm equivalent to an extremely long 600mm equivalent. Supertelephoto zooms often have a few compromises when it comes to image sharpness, and thankfully Fuji’s effort shows very few. The 100-400mm is sharp over most of the frame from wide open over the entire focal range. Even shots at 400mm and f/5.6 show excellent sharpness over almost the entire frame, especially in the range from around 2m to 20m. Targets closer to infinity show a small amount of softening that disappears upon stopping down just one stop. As an example, click on this shot of the moon below. Because 400mm still isn’t long enough to fill the frame on APS-C, I had to heavily crop this shot of the moon, which I simply took handheld in my back yard. In fact, the image below is a 100% crop from the frame, and shows some of the detail you can expect at 400mm, even when shooting through our atmosphere.
In all, you really can choose your focal length and aperture for the depth of field you want, and the sharpness will be there. Stopping down to f/8 or f/11 increases sharpness at the edges to provide very good cross-frame resolution. While it’s not going to match the very best telephoto primes in the Fuji lineup, I did find the resolution on-par with the outstanding 50-140mm f/2.8. An excellent showing.
Bokeh
While many manufacturers leave bokeh as an afterthought with their zoom lenses, Fuji has generally given this characteristic very high priority with its lenses and the 100-400mm is no different. Overall quality of the out of focus areas is excellent, with a smooth creamy look and even illumination of highlights. At some distances, a minor bright ring outline can start to show, but this doesn’t distract very much. I was very impressed with the backgrounds this lens produced.
Color, Contrast and Chromatic Aberration
The XF 100-400mm fits in nicely with the rest of the Fujifilm X lenses, which all tend to show a similar rendering. Contrast is strong without being overly punchy, and has a nice tonal rolloff to the background. Colors are excellent and neutral, and take post-processing well. There are no surprises here, which is a very good thing.
The lens does show a bit of lateral chromatic aberration, which can be corrected with most RAW processing programs, and is autocorrected in the JPEG images. Longitudinal CA didn’t prove to be a problem in field use.
Distortion, Flare and Vignetting
Like many (but not all) Fuji lenses, the 100-400mm shows some distortion that is then corrected digitally with a built-in profile that can be read by most RAW converters and is automatically applied in the JPEG engine. If you turn off the distortion profile, the 100-400mm displays moderate pincushion distortion at all focal lengths. The distortion profile doesn’t appear to affect resolution in any meaningful way, so it’s a tradeoff worth making in almost all cases. The profile applied is essentially perfect, as final images show no visible distortion.
Being a supertelephoto lens, the 100-400mm isn’t likely to encounter too many sources of flare due to the narrow angle of view. One of the few cases is in shooting the sun when it’s lower in the sky, and in these situations, the lens shows good resistance to flare, with minimal loss in contrast and no visible ghosts in the few shots that I’ve tried. The deep lens hood should prevent any issues with oblique light rays as well.
While it’s also somewhat digitally corrected, the lens shows only minimal vignetting when turning the profile off. In corrected images, there’s none to speak of.
Overall, I found the 100-400mm to be a seriously impressive optic. It’s an extremely sharp zoom with great bokeh and very few lens aberrations. It’s an impressive feat for Fuji, though not one that’s entirely unexpected given their excellent track record with the XF glass.
This is a beautiful review, thanks for taking the time to make it, are you planning on testing the X-PRO 2? and if so could you include some focus thoughts with varying lenses such as this one?
I won’t have this lens when my XPro 2 sample gets here, but I will test with many lenses.
This is an excellent review of this lens plus excellent images to support it. Well done! Keep the reviews coming Jordan.
Another excellent review Jordan. I think that your reviews are well balanced, fair, and informative. None of the fan boy gushing that makes me question the objectivity of some reviewers.
Since I have the 100-400 on preorder, l am REALLY looking forward to getting it now!
Thanks for the review Jordan. Very nice pictures, too. Is there a way to see the images in full size (i.e., 100%)? The few 100% photos taken at 400mm, that I’ve seen, look pretty soft when zoomed in.
Well, the shot of the moon, when enlarged (page 2) is a 100% crop at 400mm. Here’s a 100% crop of the duck shot at the top of the image samples, which is at 400mm f/5.6: http://admiringlight.com/2016/duck_crop.jpg
I don’t generally share full size samples of my work, as I sometimes sell prints or other usage from time to time.
Thanks, Jordan. I’m a butterfly/dragonfly photographer looking to start with birds. Can’t afford, or justify, a big prime, so am looking at various high-end zooms (e.g., Sigma 150-600mm Sports). The Fuji intrigues me because I have an X-T1 and really like it, though even with a superb lens, I’m guessing a mirrorless could not do as well as a DSLR for birds in flight. I posed the question because, over the years, I’ve become very particular about the clarity/sharpness of my photos at the pixel level (I’m kind of anal about it :). Shooting a 36MP Nikon D810 with a very sharp Sigma 180 macro makes that all the more challenging. Here’s an downscaled (13MP) photo of an Acmon Blue butterfly. The full size image has even more detail (hopefully I did the HTML right). —
I tried my hand at BIF with this lens, but I have very little practice. It did OK, but often, if I couldn’t get the bird perfectly in frame right away, it would try to rack through the whole focus range, which can take a few seconds even with the focus limiter set, so you’ll want to be prefix used close to where the bird is, then it’s up to your skill. At longer distances there’s a bit of softness wide open, but it sharpens up a fair bit by f/8.
Could you please take some night images so we can see how lights react to the lens, as well as the bokeh. Thanks for your review
Unfortunately, I didn’t get to test at night, aside from a handful of terrible throwaway snaps. I can tell you that flare isn’t an issue with streetlights and that bokeh looks as smooth with lights in the background as it does with other detail. No visible onion rings, which is to be expected given that the lens doesn’t use aspherical elements.
Nice Review, thanks.
But … 1/25s or 1/50s … much too fast 😀
I have no experience with Long Range Telezooms, but I was able to hold 1/8s at 400mm f5.6 and it was sharp. A more experienced Photographer could hold a longer shutter time … maybe. I was standing, the Lens laying on my elbow. Nothing more. The OIS is great!
Ups … I was too fast by scrolling down 😀 I’ve just seen that you also were able to hold much slower shutter times than 1/25s.
I’m really impressed by Fujis OIS!
Question:
There is one thing I would like to know because I didn’t try … how many focus points are usable at 400mm? All of them or just a few in the middle?
Thanks in advance!
All of them are usable (in good light), though in dim light or for fastest speed, the PDAF points in the central area will focus faster and more surely.
Thank you!
Excellent review Jordan. Which tripod do you use?
I use an Induro CX-213 (the current equivalent model is the CT-213) with. Really Right Stuff BH-40 ball head.
Jordan, another excellent review which I enjoyed reading very much. I have this lens pre-ordered including the TC 1.4, to use on birding tours, such as the New Mexico sanctuary, could you comment on how that might impact sharpness ? On tripod shots did you have OIS turned off or leaving it on ? Thanks very much.
I generally turned off the OIS on a tripod. I didn’t really get a chance to test with a TC, but the few shots I took indoors with it at my Fuji hands on showed a bit of softness wide open with the 1.4x, though still likely usable. There wasn’t really enough light to test it stopped down.
Thanks for the review, Jordan. I trust your reviews.
I am a former Columbus resident and have been friends with Stu and Jimmy since the CCG days.
Just moved from Nikon D3s’s to Fuji, (wrist and back injuries were making shooting an exercise in pain!).
I am looking forward to your review of the X-Pro2. I have an X-T1 and an X-E1-don’t know that I care about the OVF, but everything else looks amazing!
Hope to get to meet you on one of my pilgrimages to Midwest.
Roddy
Thanks for an interesting and useful write-up on this lens, as always.
Unfortunately I had a copy that showed a weak left side and even weaker upper corner with smeary blur, that only got worse when adding the TC, so it is on its way back to the seller for a replacement. I can see the potential of this lens and really want one but just hope Fuji can assemble them reliably. I agree with your comments that the build is decent enough but a step down from the likes of the best primes and the 50-140. I too can understand the use of plastics to reduce the weight and retain some of the size/weight advantage that makes a CSC system so nice to handle.
From the performance I saw at 400mm f5.6 in the centre and right side, I think the IQ should be very good indeed on a decent copy. With the TC, IQ did soften a bit but was very usable and improved clearly 1 stop down from max.
I presume your copy seemed free of asymmetry or other issues in the optics? I also noted that mine had a few greasy smears and scuff marks on the body, plus more dust than I have seen before on a new lens, which seemed a bit sloppy. The condition of the packaging/bags suggested it had never been opened so came like that from the factory. Looking at the Fuji lens assembly video doing the rounds recently, it all looked like precision and clean-room standard in the factory, but I managed to package it cleaner in my study when I sent it back!!
I love the Fuji system and have used it since the start, but was disappointed with this experience. Hopefully lens number 2 will make me feel better.
Thanks again,
Cliff
As always good review, but so great great pictures. There´s no many review sites to do both of that.
Thaks a lot!
I own a Fuji XT1 as well as a Nikon D800. I am looking to buy a telephoto. I have owed the 50-140 but it didn’t give me the reach needed for my sons soccer games. I have identified this Fuji 100-400 as well as the Nikon 200-500 that might work for soccer games as well as taking architecture photos/Landscapes.. I understand the weight of the nikon is greater but optically, is the fuji superior than the nikon? are the images sharper?
Thanks,
James
I have no experience with the Nikon , so I can’t really help here.
Bagging the lens is easier if you dedicate a camera body to it, then use a Think Tank holster. V2 fits an XT-1 and this lens easily, and comfortably with a 1.4x attached.
Thanks for the great review, Jordan.
Which lens plate is pictured?
It’s just a generic RRS plate. I can’t remember what lens it was originally specified for.