Fuji 70-300 Vs 100-400: Which One You Should Get?

Introduction to the Lenses

The Fujifilm 70-300mm and 100-400mm are telephoto zooms designed for APS-C X-mount cameras, offering distinct advantages. The 70-300mm provides a 35mm-equivalent focal length of 105-450mm, making it versatile for various genres. The 100-400mm extends to 152-609mm, ideal for distant subjects. I’ll compare their performance across key aspects to help you decide which lens fits your needs.

Both lenses are weather-sealed and built to high standards, but they cater to different shooting scenarios. Whether you’re a travel photographer or a wildlife enthusiast, understanding their strengths is key. Let’s dive into the details!

Key Points:

• The Fujifilm 70-300mm seems ideal for travel and general photography due to its compact size and versatility.
• The 100-400mm appears better for wildlife and sports, offering greater reach and sharper images.
• Both lenses likely deliver excellent image quality, but your choice depends on portability versus reach.
• User reviews suggest the 70-300mm is a cost-effective alternative, while the 100-400mm excels for specialized needs.

Fuji 70-300 Vs 100-400 Comparison

Overview

As a seasoned photographer, I’ve used both the Fujifilm 70-300mm and 100-400mm lenses extensively. These telephoto zooms cater to different needs: the 70-300mm is compact and versatile, while the 100-400mm offers superior reach for distant subjects. This comparison will help you decide which lens fits your photography style.

Sharpness and Image Quality

The 100-400mm generally produces sharper images, especially at longer focal lengths, making it great for detailed wildlife shots. The 70-300mm is still sharp but may soften slightly at 300mm. Both lenses handle distortion and chromatic aberration well, ensuring high-quality images.

Portability and Design

If you’re hiking or traveling, the 70-300mm’s lighter weight and smaller size are a big plus. The 100-400mm, though heavier, is manageable for handheld shooting. Both are weather-sealed, so they’re durable in tough conditions.

Reach and Teleconverters

The 100-400mm’s 152-609mm equivalent range is perfect for distant subjects, and it supports teleconverters for even more reach. The 70-300mm’s 105-450mm range is more versatile for closer subjects but doesn’t work with teleconverters. Your shooting style will dictate which range suits you best.

Which Should You Choose?

If you prioritize portability and shoot a variety of subjects, the 70-300mm is likely the better pick. For specialized photography like wildlife or sports, the 100-400mm’s reach and sharpness make it the stronger choice. Consider your needs and how often you’ll need the extra zoom.

---

In-Depth Comparison of Fujifilm’s 70-300mm and 100-400mm Lenses

Hey there, fellow photographers! Today, I’m excited to dive into a topic that’s been a hot discussion among Fujifilm shooters: the Fuji 70-300 Vs 100-400 comparison. As a seasoned photographer who’s spent over a decade with Fujifilm’s X-series cameras, I’ve had the chance to use both the XF 70-300mm f/4-5.6 R LM OIS WR and the XF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6 R LM OIS WR extensively. Whether you’re capturing wildlife, sports, or just need a versatile telephoto lens, I’ll share my hands-on insights to help you choose the right one. Let’s get started!

In this article, I’ll cover sharpness, design, aperture, stabilization, teleconverter compatibility, and more, with personal anecdotes and a comparison table for clarity. I’ve also gathered insights from user reviews and authoritative sources like Fujifilm’s official website to ensure a comprehensive guide. By the end, you’ll have a clear decision-making framework to pick the lens that suits your style.

Sharpness: A Clear Edge for the 100-400mm

When comparing the Fuji 70-300 Vs 100-400 in terms of sharpness, the 100-400mm stands out, especially at longer focal lengths. I’ve shot bird portraits with the 100-400mm, and the feather details at 400mm were razor-sharp. The 70-300mm is sharp, particularly in the mid-range, but it softens slightly at 300mm. For wildlife or sports where detail is critical, the 100-400mm is my go-to.

The 100-400mm maintains sharpness across the frame, especially when stopped down to f/8, while the 70-300mm shows slight corner fall-off at wider apertures. A FujiX-Forum user noted that in the overlapping 100-300mm range, images are often indistinguishable, suggesting the 70-300mm is a strong contender for less demanding scenarios.

Design and Ease of Use: Portability vs. Robustness

Both lenses are well-crafted, but their size and weight differ significantly. The 70-300mm, at 1.3 lbs and 5.2 inches, is compact and perfect for travel. I’ve carried it on hikes in Japan, and its portability was a game-changer. The 100-400mm, at 3.0 lbs and 8.3 inches, is heavier but balances well for handheld shooting, especially on larger bodies like the X-H1.

The 70-300mm’s plastic barrel keeps it light, while the 100-400mm’s metal components add robustness. Both have smooth zoom and focus rings, ensuring a premium feel. If you prioritize portability, the 70-300mm is ideal; for extended shoots, the 100-400mm’s build is reassuring.

Aperture: Small Differences, Big Impact

The 70-300mm has a variable aperture of f/4-5.6, while the 100-400mm ranges from f/4.5-5.6. At the wide end, the 70-300mm lets in slightly more light, but at the telephoto end, the 100-400mm’s f/5.6 is brighter than the 70-300mm’s f/5.6 at 300mm. This gives the 100-400mm an edge in low-light conditions at longer distances.

During a sunset shoot, the 100-400mm allowed faster shutter speeds at 400mm, preserving image quality in dim light. The 70-300mm performed well but needed a higher ISO at 300mm. The 70-300mm at 70mm f/4 offers nice bokeh for portraits, while the 100-400mm’s longer focal length creates smoother backgrounds at 400mm.

Image Stabilization: Keeping It Steady

Both lenses feature optical image stabilization (OIS), essential for handheld telephoto shooting. The 100-400mm offers 5-stop stabilization, which I’ve found incredibly effective for sharp images at slower shutter speeds. The 70-300mm’s OIS is also strong, though its rating isn’t specified, and it performs well in most scenarios. Both work with in-body stabilization (IBIS) on cameras like the X-T4, providing up to 6-7 stops.

I’ve shot handheld with both in low-light conditions, and the 100-400mm’s extra stabilization gave me confidence at 400mm. The 70-300mm was equally impressive for shorter focal lengths, ensuring blur-free images. DPReview’s field review praises the 70-300mm’s stabilization for its effectiveness.

Teleconverter Compatibility: Extending the 100-400mm’s Reach

The 100-400mm’s compatibility with 1.4x and 2x teleconverters is a major advantage, extending its range to 560mm or 800mm (equivalent). This is a game-changer for wildlife photographers. Teleconverters reduce sharpness and slow autofocus, so they’re best for static subjects on a tripod. The 70-300mm doesn’t support teleconverters, limiting its reach.

I’ve used the 1.4x teleconverter with the 100-400mm to photograph distant birds, achieving a 560mm reach with decent results. This feature, noted in Mirrorless Comparison, makes the 100-400mm a top choice for extreme telephoto needs.

Focal Length: Versatility vs. Specialization

The 70-300mm’s 105-450mm equivalent range is versatile, covering portraits, events, and some wildlife. The 100-400mm’s 152-609mm range is tailored for distant subjects, like sports or birds in flight. Your choice depends on whether you need broad versatility or specialized reach. WorldEmbark highlights the 100-400mm’s value for wildlife and landscapes.

The 70-300mm was my go-to for street photography in Japan, capturing everything from portraits to distant landmarks. For a wildlife workshop, the 100-400mm’s longer reach was essential for detailed animal shots.

Comparison Table: Key Differences

Aspect	70-300mm	100-400mm
Sharpness	Good, softer at 300mm	Sharper, especially at 400mm
Size and Weight	5.2 inches, 1.3 lbs	8.3 inches, 3.0 lbs
Aperture	f/4-5.6	f/4.5-5.6
Image Stabilization	Effective, rating unspecified	5-stop stabilization
Teleconverter Compatibility	Not compatible	Compatible with 1.4x and 2x
Focal Length (35mm equiv.)	105-450mm	152-609mm

Build Quality: Durable and Reliable

Both lenses feature weather-sealed construction, making them suitable for harsh conditions. The 100-400mm’s metal components and tripod collar add robustness, while the 70-300mm’s plastic barrel keeps it light yet durable. Their smooth controls make them a joy to use in the field.

I’ve shot with both in light rain and dusty environments, and their weather-sealing never let me down. The 100-400mm’s tripod collar is a nice touch for long shoots, as noted in PetaPixel’s comparison.

Autofocus Performance: Speed and Precision

Both lenses use linear motors for fast, quiet autofocus, ideal for action photography. The 100-400mm has a slight edge in speed, especially when tracking moving subjects, but the difference is minimal. I’ve found both reliable for capturing fast-paced scenes, like sports or wildlife.

At a soccer game, the 100-400mm’s autofocus kept up with players effortlessly. The 70-300mm was nearly as good, though it occasionally lagged in low light. 5050 Travelog praises the 70-300mm’s snappy autofocus.

Image Quality: Color and Contrast

Both lenses produce excellent images with minimal distortion and chromatic aberration, thanks to advanced optics (17 elements in 12 groups for the 70-300mm, 21 elements in 14 groups for the 100-400mm). Their special coatings reduce flare and ghosting, ensuring vibrant colors. The 100-400mm’s edge in clarity is noticeable in critical applications.

I’ve been amazed by the lack of distortion in both lenses, even at their maximum zooms. The 100-400mm’s contrast shines in backlit situations, as noted in Fuji Addict’s comparison.

Real-World Usage: From Travel to Wildlife

The 70-300mm shines for travel and general photography due to its portability. On a trip to Japan, it was perfect for street scenes and distant landmarks, fitting easily in my bag. The 100-400mm is my choice for wildlife, as its reach captured detailed shots of birds during a workshop. Each lens excels in its niche.

Imagine you’re on a safari, needing to capture distant elephants. The 100-400mm gets detailed shots without disturbing the animals, while the 70-300mm might require closer proximity. For weddings, the 70-300mm is handy for candid shots, while the 100-400mm suits large venues.

Portrait Photography: A Versatile Option

The 70-300mm’s 70mm (105mm equivalent) is ideal for portraits, offering background compression and pleasing bokeh. I’ve taken stunning headshots with it, rivaling dedicated portrait lenses. The 100-400mm’s 100mm (150mm equivalent) is better for environmental portraits but less suited for tight headshots. Both serve portrait photographers, depending on style.

Macro Capabilities: Close-Up Potential

The 70-300mm offers a 0.33x magnification, focusing as close as 0.6 meters at 70mm, making it decent for macro shots like flowers or insects. The 100-400mm’s 0.23x magnification and 1.0-meter minimum focus distance are less versatile for close-ups. Neither is a true macro lens, but the 70-300mm has an edge, as noted in DPReview’s forum.

I’ve captured detailed insect shots with the 70-300mm, which surprised me for a telephoto zoom. The 100-400mm can manage close-ups, but it’s not its strength.

Weather Resistance: Ready for the Elements

Both lenses are weather-sealed, rated to -10°C (14°F), ensuring reliability in rain, dust, or cold. I’ve used them in light rain without issues, and their seals held up. The 100-400mm’s larger size might offer more extensive sealing, but both are robust for outdoor shooting. Regular seal checks are wise to maintain performance.

Lens Hoods: Protection and Flare Reduction

Both lenses include petal-shaped hoods to protect the front element and reduce flare. The 70-300mm’s smaller hood matches its compact design, while the 100-400mm’s larger hood suits its size. I always use the hood outdoors to minimize flare and enhance image quality.

Filters: Compatibility and Usage

Both lenses accept 77mm filters, convenient for polarizers or neutral density filters. Adding filters to the 100-400mm increases weight, potentially causing vignetting at wider angles. Polarizers enhance colors for landscapes, while ND filters enable long exposures. Consider filter weight when planning shoots.

Tripod Use: Stability for Precision

The 100-400mm includes a rotating tripod collar, perfect for long exposures or teleconverter use. The 70-300mm lacks a collar, but its lighter weight reduces the need. For tripod-heavy shoots, the 100-400mm’s collar is a significant advantage, as noted in DPReview’s safari discussion.

I rely on the 100-400mm’s collar for wildlife shoots on a tripod. The 70-300mm is stable enough handheld, but a tripod helps for precise compositions.

Video Performance: Smooth and Silent

For videography, both lenses excel with quiet autofocus and smooth zoom rings. The 100-400mm’s reach is ideal for wildlife documentaries or sports, while the 70-300mm’s portability suits general video work. Handheld video with the 100-400mm may require stabilization due to its weight.

User Experiences: Community Insights

Photographers on forums like FujiX-Forum praise the 70-300mm’s portability and image quality, noting its value for travel. The 100-400mm is favored for wildlife and sports, though some find it heavy for hiking. A DPReview user highlighted the 70-300mm’s macro capabilities, while another preferred the 100-400mm’s reach for golf tournaments. These insights align with my experiences, reinforcing the lenses’ distinct strengths.

Tips for Using Each Lens

70-300mm:

• Perfect for travel and street photography with its versatile zoom.
• Use its light weight for all-day shooting without fatigue.
• Shoot portraits at 70mm for classic looks with nice bokeh.

100-400mm:

• Ideal for wildlife and sports needing extra reach.
• Use a tripod for maximum sharpness with teleconverters.
• Experiment with apertures to control depth of field.

Decision-Making: Choosing Your Lens

Choosing between the Fujifilm 70-300mm and 100-400mm depends on your photography goals. The 70-300mm is ideal for portability and versatility, perfect for travel, events, or general shooting. Its compact size and 105-450mm range make it a great all-rounder. The 100-400mm excels for wildlife or sports, where its 152-609mm range, sharper optics, and teleconverter compatibility shine.

Ask yourself:

• Do I need extreme reach? The 100-400mm is better for distant subjects.
• Is portability key? The 70-300mm is lighter and easier to carry.
• Will I use teleconverters? Only the 100-400mm supports them.
• What’s my main focus? Wildlife/sports favor the 100-400mm; travel/general favor the 70-300mm.

Both lenses are exceptional, and your decision hinges on your shooting style. If you’re torn, consider how often you need the extra reach versus the convenience of a lighter lens. For most photographers, the 70-300mm offers great value, but the 100-400mm is unmatched for specialized telephoto work. Happy shooting!

FAQ Section

1. Which lens is sharper, the 70-300mm or the 100-400mm?

The 100-400mm is generally sharper, especially at longer focal lengths like 400mm, making it ideal for detailed shots in wildlife or sports photography. However, the 70-300mm is still very sharp, particularly in the mid-range (around 100-200mm), and is more than sufficient for general photography. In the overlapping focal range (100-300mm), the two lenses often produce indistinguishable results.

2. Which lens is better for wildlife photography?

The 100-400mm is better for wildlife photography due to its longer reach (up to 609mm equivalent) and superior sharpness at extreme distances. It also supports teleconverters (1.4x and 2x), allowing you to extend the range to 560mm or 800mm equivalent, which is crucial for capturing distant animals or birds. The 70-300mm, while Versatile, lacks this extra reach and teleconverter compatibility.

3. Which lens is more portable?

The 70-300mm is significantly more portable, weighing just 1.3 lbs and measuring 5.2 inches, compared to the 100-400mm’s 3.0 lbs and 8.3 inches. Its compact size makes it ideal for travel, hiking, or any situation where you need to carry your gear for extended periods. The 100-400mm, while manageable, is bulkier and better suited for stationary or tripod-based shooting.

4. Can the 70-300mm replace the 100-400mm?

For many photographers, yes, especially if you don’t frequently need extreme telephoto reach. The 70-300mm is versatile, sharp enough for most scenarios, and much lighter, making it a great all-rounder for travel, events, or general photography. However, if you often shoot wildlife, sports, or need the extra reach, the 100-400mm is the better choice.

5. How do they perform with teleconverters?

Only the 100-400mm is compatible with Fujifilm’s 1.4x and 2x teleconverters, allowing you to extend its range to 560mm or 800mm equivalent. This makes it a game-changer for wildlife or sports photographers who need that extra reach. The 70-300mm does not support teleconverters, so if you need extended range, it’s not an option.

6. What are the differences in build quality?

Both lenses are weather-sealed and built to high standards, but they differ in materials and design. The 100-400mm has a more robust build with metal components and a tripod collar for stability, making it feel premium and durable. The 70-300mm uses high-grade plastic to keep it lightweight, which is perfect for portability but may feel less premium in hand.

7. Is the 100-400mm worth the extra weight?

It depends on your photography needs. If you frequently shoot wildlife, sports, or need the extra reach and sharpness, the 100-400mm is worth it. Its teleconverter compatibility and superior performance at longer distances make it a top choice for specialized photography. For general or travel photography, the 70-300mm is lighter, more versatile, and often sufficient.

8. What are the aperture differences between the two lenses?

The 70-300mm has a maximum aperture of f/4-5.6, while the 100-400mm has f/4.5-5.6. At the wide end, the 70-300mm lets in slightly more light (f/4 vs. f/4.5), which can be helpful for low-light conditions. However, at the telephoto end, both lenses have the same maximum aperture of f/5.6, so there’s no difference there.

9. Do both lenses have image stabilization?

Yes, both lenses feature optical image stabilization (OIS). The 100-400mm offers 5-stop stabilization, which is highly effective for handheld shooting at longer focal lengths. The 70-300mm also has strong stabilization, though its exact rating isn’t specified. Both perform well in reducing camera shake, making them reliable for low-light or action shots.

10. Can both lenses be used on all Fujifilm X-mount cameras?

Yes, both lenses are designed for Fujifilm’s X-mount system and are compatible with all X-mount cameras, from the compact X-T series to the more advanced X-H series. They work seamlessly with all Fujifilm APS-C bodies, ensuring consistent performance across the board.