Oldest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

Always great to see good quality images, it makes the whole review trustworthy.

Frank Lonyai

Thanks Elizabeth for the great review. As you might imagine I checked a few reviews before committing to one more Fujifilm lens what it’s quite expensive. I think I enjoyed your review the most. Since I want to use my 100-400 mm lens for birding you had a perspective that fit quite well with my plans. I liked the detailed real life observations you made about the lens that showed you enjoyed using it what it is the most important thing. I don’t care too much about those pixel peepers. I missed a bit the charts but they are not that essential. I also read your birding tips article. Again, thanks for the comprehensive review.

Jacobus De Wet

I mover from Nikon to Fuji after 32 yrs and spend many hours shooting wildlife with film and DSLR. using all the big Nikon lenses from the 800 f5.6 to working for years with the 300 f2.8 with TC’s as a lighter more flexible lens. I also used and owned the 200-400f4 and the 80-400 VR2G. So I know the system well and shot some amazing images. I however, got to a point where I needed to travel light in many respects, not only in weight but after every 2 week safari I would pixel peep the hell out of the images to get to justify owning the top Dxxx or Dx bodies with these expensive lenses. My images became one dimensional. A Camera store offered me the opportunity to test the XH1 and some lenses. Including the 100-400. Few days later I sold all my big heavy gear. Yes the IQ when you pixel peep is not as sharp, however, the zoom flexibility, the beautiful colors and the process of using the system is a joy. I now take one of the XT4’s with me every day. Like most telephoto zoom lenses, the Fuji 100-400 is very sharp at closer distances, the amount of glass especially in worm conditions show the effect of heat distortion faster then a prime lens. However in cold or cool conditions the lens is very sharp over longer distances as well. The Nikon 200-400 f4 is well known for this and yet used by many pros for many years. Over longer distances I shoot context and wider. I print and sell prints, and like the printer told me many times, These images are sharp enough and there is more than enough detail to make top quality prints. Two points, the world does not need more sharp images, it needs more art. Carry less shoot more.

Chris Bradley

Hi Elizabeth, I just purchased this lens a few days ago and initially was delighted with the performance.…5642430878 Not being an expert and this the biggest lens in my XPrO-2 kit. However, I fitted a Kenko 77mm UV filter and things changed drastically. Focus was blurred out at 400mm. Fujifim say they have had no issues and recommend trying a protection filter? Are you using a filter and is it problem free?


Been there, done that. Don’t use cheap filters especially on long lenses it may end up just like you describe.


This does not hold the record for the most expensive Fuji X line up. That record goes to the Fujifilm XF 200mm f/2 by a massive amount!

mike phillips

I just received my fuji 100-400 and it was a steal, 1200 us dollars brand new, no tax and free shipping, There wasn’t any other choices in this zoom range as an adapter works but the lockups and hunting made it unusable. as far as build quality its durable, not same as canons 100-400 but none the less a good build, its optics compares to canons mkii version just in a lighter form factor. was pleased to find out its front end is 77mm as I have some left over from my canons. all in all am very happy with it, it focuses fast and is sharp at all zooms, it may not be as fast as canons in focus but its doing a fantastic job. Now with this lens I can get back to birding and planes. (air shows).

Saranathan Asuri

I recently tested this lens with XT-3 and i must say the performance is quite good. However. i see barrel distortion at 400 mm , which can easily be corrected in post processing. Otherwise the sharpness is ok and the quality of this lens throughout the 100-400 mm range is pretty good.

Alan R

I’m going to pair this lens with the new XT3. I think the 20fps or even 30fps cropped along with great EVF for proper exposure will provide optimal bird in flight possibilities. At least that is the plan. I hope this will be a great hand held setup.


To all who want to improve the tripod foot of the XF 100-400, this might be of interest (technical drawing for DIY included):…400.66520/


I think these images and many other reviews on the web show that this lens is just not particularly sharp. It is “ok” but nothing special in its zoom category, and it is expensive. A full score for optical quality surely is not justified.


I for one always wondered why web images of the XF100-400 often look mediocre (even with advertising material; they should have a look at Sony’s recent FF-lens promotion stuff). I have the XF100-400, with X-T2, and a colleague the EF 100-400 II on 5DIV. They are on par (taking into account the implications of different sensors, and using Iridient for X-trans demosaicing!!!). I have quite a few pictures of the XF here that excel those from Nikon’s AF-S 80-400 G VR on D810, a combo I had before. (to prevent misunderstandings, I know how to effectively support long lenses. I learnt my (tripod) lessons long before the advent of IS/VR/OS/OIS/OSS…, with Leica-R Apo Telyt glass)
What seems true, however, is that the XF 100-400 doesn’t have much microcontrast, esp. at the long end. In even light (i.e. low contrast illumination), it cannot keep up with the EF 100-400 II, easily visible with, e.g., feathers or fur. I’d love to test some day what Sony’s new FE 100-400 GM can deliver in my hands. DxO seems quite impressed. For now I’m pretty happy with the XF.

My 0.02