When I first got into wildlife photography with my Fujifilm system, I faced a dilemma that many Fuji shooters encounter: choosing between the XF 70-300mm f/4-5.6 and the XF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6. Both lenses have their loyal fans, and I’ve spent countless hours with each of them in the field. In this comprehensive comparison, I’ll break down every aspect you need to consider before making your investment.
Quick Specs Comparison
| Feature | Fujifilm XF 70-300mm f/4-5.6 | Fujifilm XF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6 |
|---|---|---|
| Focal Length | 70-300mm | 100-400mm |
| Aperture Range | f/4-5.6 | f/4.5-5.6 |
| Optical Stabilization | 5.5 stops | 5 stops |
| Minimum Focus Distance | 0.83m (2.7ft) | 1.75m (5.7ft) |
| Max Magnification | 0.33x | 0.19x |
| Filter Size | 67mm | 77mm |
| Weight | 580g (1.3lb) | 1395g (3.1lb) |
| Dimensions | 130 x 75mm (5.1 x 3.0in) | 157 x 94mm (6.2 x 3.7in) |
| Weather Sealing | Yes | Yes |
| Launch Price | $799 | $1899 |
Focal Length Range: Versatility vs. Reach
The most obvious difference between these two lenses is their focal length range. The 70-300mm gives you that wider 70mm starting point, which I’ve found incredibly useful when I need to quickly switch from telephoto to a medium shot without changing lenses. During my trip to Yellowstone last spring, I was photographing elk when some bison unexpectedly wandered closer. Being able to zoom back to 70mm without changing lenses saved me from missing some incredible shots.
The 100-400mm, on the other hand, provides that extra 100mm of reach that can be crucial for wildlife and sports photography. I discovered this difference dramatically when photographing birds. With the 100-400mm, I could fill the frame with small songbirds that would have been mere specks with the 70-300mm. That extra reach often means the difference between a snapshot and a frame-filling portrait.
Physical Characteristics: Size, Weight, and Handling
This is where the two lenses diverge significantly. The 70-300mm is a relatively compact telephoto that I’ve carried for entire days without fatigue. At 580g, it’s well-balanced on bodies like the X-T4 or X-S10. I’ve used it for street photography in cities, and it doesn’t draw the kind of attention that a massive telephoto would.
The 100-400mm is in a different league entirely. At nearly 1.4kg, it’s a substantial piece of glass that demands respect. When I first mounted it on my X-T4, I immediately understood why many photographers use a monopod or tripod with this lens. During a wildlife safari in Kenya, I found that after about three hours of handheld shooting, my arms were noticeably fatigued.
That said, the 100-400mm has a more premium feel with its metal mount and robust construction. Both lenses feature weather sealing, but the 100-400mm feels like it could withstand more abuse. I’ve used both in light rain without issues, but I’d trust the 100-400mm more in challenging conditions.
Optical Performance: Sharpness and Image Quality
This is where things get interesting. When I first tested both lenses side by side, I was surprised to find that the 70-300mm holds its own remarkably well against its more expensive sibling.
At the shorter end (70-100mm), the 70-300mm produces impressively sharp images wide open. I’ve printed landscape shots taken at 70mm at 24×36 inches, and the detail is stunning. Corner-to-corner sharpness is excellent, even at f/4.
The 100-400mm, while slightly softer at 100mm when compared directly, quickly catches up and produces exceptional sharpness throughout its range. At 300mm, where both lenses overlap, I found the 100-400mm to have a slight edge in center sharpness, especially when stopped down to f/8.
Where the 100-400mm really shines is in its control of chromatic aberration. During high-contrast situations—like backlit birds or wildlife in harsh midday sun—I noticed significantly less purple fringing with the 100-400mm. The 70-300mm isn’t bad in this regard, but the 100-400mm is clearly superior.
Both lenses exhibit some vignetting, especially at the widest apertures, but it’s easily correctable in post-processing. Distortion is well-controlled on both, with the 70-300mm showing slight barrel distortion at the wide end and the 100-400mm having minimal distortion throughout its range.
Autofocus Performance: Speed and Accuracy
Fujifilm’s linear motor technology shines in both lenses, but there are differences worth noting. The 70-300mm focuses quickly and quietly, making it suitable for both stills and video work. I’ve used it for events where silence was important, and its performance was impressive.
The 100-400mm, while not as whisper-quiet, focuses with authority and precision. During a motorsports event, I found it locked onto fast-moving subjects with slightly more consistency than the 70-300mm. The focus limiter switch on the 100-400mm is also more sophisticated, allowing you to restrict the focusing range for faster acquisition.
In low-light conditions, both lenses hunt a bit, but the 100-400mm seems to maintain focus lock slightly better. When photographing owls at dusk, I noticed the 100-400mm acquired focus more reliably, though the difference wasn’t dramatic.
Image Stabilization: Handheld Shooting Capabilities
Both lenses feature optical image stabilization, but Fujifilm has implemented different systems. The 70-300mm boasts 5.5 stops of stabilization, while the 100-400mm offers 5 stops. In practice, I found the 70-300mm’s system slightly more effective at shorter focal lengths.
At 300mm, I could consistently get sharp shots at 1/60s with the 70-300mm, a remarkable feat. The 100-400mm required about 1/125s for similar consistency at the same focal length.
However, at 400mm, the 100-400mm’s stabilization comes into its own. I’ve managed sharp shots at 1/160s handheld at 400mm, which is nothing short of miraculous. During a hike where I couldn’t bring a tripod, this capability saved me from missing countless wildlife opportunities.
Close-Up Performance: Macro Capabilities
One area where the 70-300mm clearly outperforms its bigger sibling is in close focusing. With a minimum focus distance of 0.83m and a maximum magnification of 0.33x, it’s practically a macro lens at the 300mm setting.
I discovered this capability by accident when photographing flowers in my garden. The 70-300mm allowed me to fill the frame with small blossoms while maintaining a comfortable working distance. The resulting images had beautiful background separation and impressive detail.
The 100-400mm, with its 1.75m minimum focus distance and 0.19x magnification, can’t compete in this regard. While it’s capable of decent close-up shots, it lacks the true macro capabilities of the 70-300mm.
Value Proposition: Price-to-Performance Ratio
At $799, the 70-300mm represents one of the best values in the Fujifilm lens lineup. For the price, you get weather sealing, excellent optics, and versatile focal lengths. It’s the lens I recommend most often to new Fuji shooters looking to explore telephoto photography.
The 100-400mm, at $1899, is a significant investment. However, for professionals and serious enthusiasts who need the extra reach and build quality, it’s worth every penny. I’ve seen used copies in excellent condition for around $1400, which makes it somewhat more accessible.
When considering value, it’s important to think about your specific needs. If you primarily shoot wildlife and sports, the 100-400mm’s extra reach justifies its higher price. If you’re a generalist who needs a telephoto for occasional use, the 70-300mm offers tremendous value.
Also Read: Fujifilm X100 vs X100S vs X100T
Real-World Performance: Field Test Results
Wildlife Photography
For wildlife, both lenses have their strengths. The 70-300mm’s lighter weight makes it ideal for hiking and extended handheld use. During a week-long trip to the Rocky Mountains, I carried the 70-300mm all day without fatigue and captured some stunning images of elk, bighorn sheep, and smaller mammals.
However, when it came to birds and more distant wildlife, the 100-400mm proved its worth. At a local bird sanctuary, I was able to capture detailed images of small warblers and flycatchers that would have been impossible with the 70-300mm. The extra 100mm makes a significant difference in these situations.
Sports Photography
For sports, the 100-400mm’s faster autofocus and extra reach give it the edge. While photographing my nephew’s soccer games, I found the 100-400mm locked onto players more quickly and maintained focus better during rapid movement.
The 70-300mm performed admirably, especially in good light, but I missed some critical shots due to its slightly slower autofocus and lesser reach. That said, for casual sports photography, it’s more than capable.
Landscape Photography
This is where the 70-300mm truly shines. Its wider starting point makes it more versatile for landscape work, and its lighter weight encourages carrying it on long hikes. I’ve captured some stunning compressed landscape shots with both lenses, but the 70-300mm’s portability means it’s more likely to be with me when the opportunity arises.
The 100-400mm can produce breathtaking landscape images, especially when you need to isolate distant elements, but its weight makes it less appealing for all-day landscape excursions.
Pros and Cons
Fujifilm XF 70-300mm f/4-5.6 R LM OIS WR
Pros:
- Lightweight and portable
- Excellent value for money
- Superior close-up capabilities
- Wider starting focal length (70mm)
- More effective image stabilization at shorter focal lengths
- Quieter autofocus operation
Cons:
- Less reach for distant subjects
- Slightly less premium build quality
- More noticeable chromatic aberration in high-contrast situations
- Not as suitable for professional wildlife work
Fujifilm XF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6 R LM OIS WR
Pros:
- Superior reach for wildlife and sports
- Excellent build quality and weather sealing
- Better control of chromatic aberration
- More sophisticated autofocus system with focus limiter
- Better performance at the long end
- More suitable for professional applications
Cons:
- Significantly heavier and bulkier
- Higher price point
- Limited close-up capabilities
- Narrower starting focal length (100mm)
- More noticeable vignetting at wider apertures
Final Verdict: Which Lens Should You Choose?
After extensive use of both lenses in various conditions, I’ve come to some clear conclusions about who each lens is best for:
Choose the 70-300mm if:
- You’re a generalist photographer who needs a versatile telephoto
- Weight and portability are priorities
- You’re on a tighter budget
- You enjoy macro and close-up photography
- You primarily shoot in good light
- You value having a wider starting focal length
Choose the 100-400mm if:
- Wildlife or sports photography is your primary focus
- You need the absolute best image quality
- You frequently shoot in challenging conditions
- You have the budget for a premium lens
- You’re willing to carry extra weight for extra reach
- You’re a professional or serious enthusiast
Also Read: Canon G1X Mark II vs Canon G5X
Pro Photography Tips for Telephoto Shooting
Regardless of which lens you choose, here are some tips I’ve learned that will help you get the most out of your telephoto lens:
- Use a monopod for stability: For extended shooting sessions with the 100-400mm, a monopod provides stability without the bulk of a tripod.
- Master your shutter speeds: As a general rule, use a shutter speed at least equal to your focal length (1/300s for 300mm). With image stabilization, you can often go slower, but this is a good starting point.
- Stop down for sharpness: Both lenses perform best when stopped down by 1-2 stops from wide open. For critical sharpness, try f/8-f/11.
- Use back-button focus: This technique separates focus from shutter release, giving you more control and reducing focus hunting.
- Practice good handholding technique: Tuck your elbows into your body, control your breathing, and gently squeeze the shutter release.
FAQ
Is the 70-300mm weather-sealed like the 100-400mm?
Yes, both lenses feature Fujifilm’s WR (Weather Resistant) sealing. However, the 100-400mm has more robust sealing and feels more durable in challenging conditions. I’ve used both in light rain without issues, but for extended use in harsh weather, I’d trust the 100-400mm more.
Can I use teleconverters with these lenses?
The 100-400mm is compatible with Fujifilm’s XF1.4X TC WR and XF2X TC WR teleconverters, extending its reach to 560mm and 800mm respectively. The 70-300mm unfortunately doesn’t support teleconverters, which is one of its limitations compared to the 100-400mm.
Which lens is better for video work?
For video, the 70-300mm is generally the better choice. Its lighter weight makes it easier to handle, and its quieter autofocus operation is less likely to be picked up by microphones. The 5.5-stop image stabilization also provides smoother handheld footage at shorter focal lengths.
Do these lenses work well with Fujifilm’s smaller bodies like the X-E4?
Both lenses work with all Fujifilm X-mount cameras, but the balance is better with larger bodies. The 70-300mm feels reasonably comfortable on smaller bodies like the X-E4, though it’s a bit front-heavy. The 100-400mm feels quite unwieldy on smaller bodies and is best paired with larger cameras like the X-T4 or X-H2.
How do these lenses compare to third-party options like the Tamron 150-500mm?
The Tamron 150-500mm offers even more reach than the 100-400mm but at the cost of size and weight. While I haven’t used it extensively, initial tests show it’s competitive optically but larger than both Fuji options. The native Fuji lenses have the advantage of better integration with Fuji cameras and autofocus systems.
Conclusion
Choosing between the Fuji 70-300mm and 100-400mm ultimately comes down to your specific needs as a photographer. After spending significant time with both lenses, I can confidently say that you can’t go wrong with either—they’re both excellent lenses that serve different purposes.
The 70-300mm is the perfect all-rounder, offering incredible value and versatility in a portable package. It’s the lens I recommend to most photographers looking to explore telephoto photography without breaking the bank or their back.
The 100-400mm is the specialist’s choice, delivering exceptional performance for wildlife and sports photographers who need maximum reach and quality. It’s a significant investment, but for those who need its capabilities, it’s worth every penny.
Before making your decision, I’d recommend renting both lenses if possible. There’s no substitute for hands-on experience, and you might discover that one feels more natural to you than the other.