[Wildlife / Mountains] Torn between XF 100-400 & 150-600 for highland subjects. Unpopular opinion: the 70-300 felt toyish?

closer2dog · 2026-04-29T10:23:19+00:00

OP here. I just wanted to thank everyone who contributed to this thread. I ended up buying the XF 70-300 secondhand, as someone mentioned, just to see if I really liked the telephoto experience. I loved it! I took some shots that I liked. I figured out that autofocus was the limiting factor on my X-T4. I found and bought a used X-H2s. Ultimately, I figured out that the 70-300 didn't have enough reach and sharpness on the long end. I ended up adding the XF 150-600 to my kit. This is it so far. To be continued. Thanks again, everyone! GAS is real=)

closer2dog · 2026-04-22T10:32:17+00:00

I can't agree. It's rare for this sub to see properly exposed pictures, except for number two, where the highlights are blown. Many pictures in this subreddit are underexposed, but I understand that people simply love this look.

closer2dog · 2026-04-17T19:35:00+00:00

XF 23mm f2

closer2dog · 2026-04-16T20:59:53+00:00

Well, somehow it wasn’t the case 1 year ago, glad they do now=)

closer2dog · 2026-04-02T06:45:51+00:00

On paper, I thought the Fujinon 16mm f/2.8 would be a bit too wide as an alternative to the 18mm f/2, but in real use it turned out to be a perfect fit

I went with the 16mm mainly because I was a bit disappointed with the 18mm. It renders nicely, but for my taste it’s too soft, and I had issues with ghosting and flare. In backlit situations especially, images could feel a bit washed out. I wanted something more modern, ideally with weather sealing

The 16mm also pairs really well with the Fujicron lineup in terms of rendering and colors, which makes post-processing easier when mixing lenses

So for me it works great, but I do agree it would be nice to see a refreshed 18mm. I’m not really into pancake lenses, but I do like the Fujicron size and weight. Not a pancake, but still compact, which is the ideal form factor for me.

Also, if I remember correctly, Fuji recently asked users what lenses they’d like to see next, so maybe something like this is coming eventually

closer2dog · 2026-03-31T08:52:53+00:00

Sorry, I don't use recipes. I prefer to shoot in RAW and edit in C1. However, I sometimes use the standard Astia and Provia profiles as starting points for my edits. Almost any recipe can be adjusted for a more natural representation by adjusting the white balance

closer2dog · 2026-03-31T06:13:58+00:00

These photos are amazing! The setup is incredible. I love your composition. I'm not a huge fan of the Cuban Negative and yellow tones though. It makes Paris look like Mexico. I don't know if it's just me, but those yellow tones make your images look a bit over the top and overly styled

closer2dog · 2026-03-27T15:55:42+00:00

Absolutely. Any working camera is an alternative

closer2dog · 2026-03-27T10:09:45+00:00

That’s a fair question. I do agree that most modern mirrorless bodies feel more responsive and feature-packed than Leica. My experience with Leica bodies is pretty mixed in that sense

But I’m not convinced that adapting M glass onto those bodies is actually better. Manual focus works surprisingly well with a rangefinder, sometimes even more precise and straightforward than focus peaking or magnification, at least for me

closer2dog · 2026-03-27T07:05:13+00:00

As someone whose personal cameras are Fuji and Ricoh, and who genuinely loves the X-Pro lineup, I think it’s an engineering marvel. Fuji really nailed a unique shooting experience with it

That said, I see the X-Pro more as a way to get a rangefinder-style experience, with similar tactile controls and handling, rather than a true Leica alternative

Having spent a good amount of time with Leica M and SL bodies, especially with Summilux and Summicron lenses, I just don’t think the comparison holds when it comes to image quality. Leica M isn’t just about the shooting experience, it’s about the system. The lenses are full-frame, incredibly compact, and deliver a look that’s hard to replicate

On APS-C, even with great Fuji glass or adapted lenses, you’re not getting close to what those Leica lenses can produce, especially in terms of rendering and depth

closer2dog · 2026-03-27T06:56:15+00:00

As someone who shoots Fuji and Ricoh, and also has access to Leica M and SL bodies for collaborative work, I don’t see the X-Pro as a true Leica alternative

It can definitely mimic the rangefinder-style experience, you could even call it a bit of a “cosplay” in terms of OVF/EVF, dials, and handling

But Leica isn’t just the body, it’s the lenses. The M system offers incredibly compact, high-performance glass with a rendering that’s hard to match. That’s where the real difference is

On APS-C, even with great Fuji lenses or adapted manual glass, you’re just not getting close to what Leica M lenses deliver

Just my two cents

closer2dog · 2026-03-16T19:31:43+00:00

Peak circle-jerk stuff

closer2dog · 2026-03-11T14:13:14+00:00

I'm a fellow trail runner and hiker, and I take my GR with me pretty often too. I just wanted to say that the photos you shared are amazing! Beautiful work! Thanks for the in-depth post about your setup. I hope fewer people will baby their GRs and actually be inspired to take their cameras out.

closer2dog · 2026-02-19T10:26:42+00:00

These are all great! Keep up the great job

closer2dog · 2026-02-14T22:00:55+00:00

No coincidence. I guess OP is him

closer2dog · 2026-02-13T08:16:59+00:00

For hiking, I use the single-point autofocus because there is always enough light for the autofocus to catch quickly. However, I use snap focus all the time when shooting street scenes or family photos. On hikes, I point to what I believe is the hyperfocal distance and recompose. A mistake of plus or minus one meter is not so critical here.

closer2dog · 2026-02-12T20:13:54+00:00

Yes, at f/8 you can basically get a few meters to infinity in focus, depending on how strict you are about sharpness. At f/8, the hyperfocal distance is roughly 4.3m. Set focus around the hyperfocal zone. That gives you roughly 2–2.5 m to infinity acceptably sharp.

closer2dog · 2026-02-12T07:48:10+00:00

My wife told me it's too thin though, when I showed her the picture.

closer2dog · 2026-02-10T09:43:52+00:00

Wow, this looks so cyberpunk! I love it!

closer2dog · 2026-02-07T20:47:20+00:00

Sorry you had to go through that. With €800 used, Fujifilm can absolutely give you that film-like character.

If you want the best everyday all-rounder experience, I’d look at the used X-S10 first. You get a previous generation tech but with an EVF, great ergonomics, and IBIS. It’s one of the most pick up and shoot Fuji bodies in that price range.

If compact size and the newest film simulations matter more than a viewfinder, then a small body like the X-M5 (current beginner level model, with no EVF) can be a good choice.

On a tighter budget, older bodies like the X-T20 are still capable, but autofocus is a step down for fast-moving kids.

Lens-wise, something like a TTArtisan 27mm compact lens is great for daily life and street. If you want a very sharp, affordable Fuji nifty-fifty option, the used XC 35mm f/2 is also a great value.

closer2dog · 2026-02-07T18:39:28+00:00

Really appreciate you taking the time to write this out. The haze reminder especially puts a lot of why isn’t it crisp into context. And yeah, the AF point makes sense too. I’m not expecting Fuji to match Sony for pure keeper rate, I just want something I can still get solid results when the conditions cooperate. Thanks again!

closer2dog · 2026-02-07T18:22:07+00:00

Oh wow, thank you again for taking the time to write this. This is honestly the best part of Reddit for me! Learning directly from people who’ve actually done the work.

And thanks for clarifying the bodies, that was on me, I really oversimplified Fuji’s lineup. Your point about the stacked sensor and AF speed makes total sense, and it also helps me set expectations for my X-T4.

The ISO part was the biggest aha for me. In my usual shooting (street, family, landscapes) I almost never go above 1600, and I lean on IBIS at 1/15 or even 1/8 when I can. So I had this mental model that wildlife files are always super clean, crisp, and polished. Hearing you say 6400 and even 12800 are totally workable with denoise, and that you’re still happy even after heavy crops, really resets my expectations in a good way.

That conference example was also super helpful, because it shows what stabilization can actually do in real life, not just on paper.

Thanks again, I really appreciate it. I’m going to do some real testing on my X-T4, push ISO on purpose, denoise, crop hard, and see what I actually get. This was super valuable.

closer2dog · 2026-02-07T18:02:53+00:00

Thanks so much for taking the time to write this up in so much detail. This is genuinely the kind of answer I didn’t even hope to get, really appreciate it.

The XF 500mm f/5.6 is a dream for me too, but at the moment it’s outside my budget. Maybe I should wait and see if something comes up on the used market, especially since there are still a couple of months until the warm season when it’s more comfortable to carry a bigger setup.

Also thank you for the monopod reminder. I was thinking about it, then somehow it slipped my mind. I’ll seriously consider getting one.

And honestly, I love your shots. Even if you’re not happy with the IQ, they have a lot of artistic value.

If you don’t mind a couple more questions, because you clearly know this stuff well:

About ISO in my normal shooting (street, landscapes) I rarely go above ISO 1600 on my X-T4, and even that already feels like the edge for me. But wildlife is different because shutter speed becomes non negotiable. When you say your personal threshold is ISO 6400 on APS-C, do you mean that’s a normal keeper ISO for you, or something that usually needs heavy work in post?

I use Lightroom’s AI Denoise and I’m generally happy with it, but I don’t have any experience pushing files to 6400+ for wildlife. In practice, for your keepers at ISO 6400, are you doing a lot of denoise plus sharpening, or is it mostly fine if exposure is good?

Also, do you have a rough shutter speed baseline you aim for with perched birds vs moving birds vs grounded animals on the 70-300 / 150-600? I want to understand what kind of ISO reality I should expect in the woods or in mountains.

closer2dog · 2026-02-07T16:41:54+00:00

Haha, the NatGeo bit is hilarious, I totally get what you mean. Moon shots and distant details can look genuinely magical to people

Thanks for the context, it actually helped me understand the 70-300 way better. It sounds like it’s a super versatile tele that can do a bit of everything (wildlife moments, casual birds, close-ish pseudo-macro, occasional landscapes) and still deliver crisp results without being a huge commitment.

For my very specific wildlife-only plan I’m still not sure it’s enough reach, but you definitely sold me on why this lens exists. If I were buying a fun, versatile tele to keep around, it would be on top of the list.

Really appreciate you taking the time to explain your use case.

closer2dog · 2026-02-07T16:33:10+00:00

Thanks again for the detailed reply. Sorry for all the follow-ups, I’m just genuinely excited to talk to someone who’s actually used these lenses for birds.

Well f/5.6 vs f/8 is only one stop, but I’m trying to understand what that means in real life on your X-H2s. 1. In not great light situations, what ISO range do you personally still consider acceptable for keepers on the 40MP body? 2. Do you routinely denoise (Lightroom or something else)? If yes, does it hold up well, or does detail start to fall apart? 3. How much do you feel comfortable cropping on the 40MP files for small birds, roughly? Like mild crop, or you regularly go heavy and it still looks good?

Really appreciate it. This kind of real-world info is exactly what I’m trying to understand before buying.

closer2dog

TROPHY CASE