i'm not questioning your mentor here but i'm questioning you. your mentor is right but also wrong. if you knew what to answer to your mentor when he asked "why do you need that for?" you have shut him up and probably not need him anymore. but you didn't. there is something else: you need a mentor to guide you not to tell you what to do or not. the simple answer to your mentor should be: i want (no need) a telephoto lens in order to experience a closed field of view together with a different separation regarding the depth of field compared with a normal 50mm lens.
a telephoto lens is not for everybody but it can be essential when it comes to certain things. it all depending on what the photographer is trying to do.
a photographer can't go to a rugby match with a 17mm lens and can't photograph interiors with a 300mm lens. if a photographer stick with one lens, the photographer is restricted to a certain type of photography and that can be good and bad. my suggestion? when invest in a lens, buy the best glass that money can buy, buy a 70-300 that is 2.8 for the whole focal lengths. thank me later.
Sorry for not replying sooner… I actually wrote a response and thought I’d sent it! :) Just in case I didn’t, here it is again.
I agree with what you said. I got the telephoto out of curiosity. I simply didn’t want $700 to be the thing that stops me from exploring it.
At the same time, I’m aware that versatility can be the enemy of specialization. I’ll see how it works for me — I can always sell it if it doesn’t fit my workflow.
By the way, Fuji doesn’t make a 70–300 f/2.8. There is a 50–140 f/2.8, but it weighs a full kilo and isn’t truly a telephoto. On top of that, it’s also 50% more expensive.
Anyway, thanks for your comment. I really appreciate you challenging me on my choices and thinking. I take it all in — I’m always looking for what helps me express myself in the most honest and authentic way possible. :)
Great pictures as usual Davor, but certainly different from what we normally see here. It’s interesting that you say you must now take two camera bodies and a wide lens as well as your new telephoto when you go out, leading to backache. I disagree, if you are in a telephoto frame of mind, leave the wide angle lens at home. Be prepared to let those images you would normally make slip away and get into the habit of searching for a different kind of photo. Thanks for sharing.
It's good to experiment, Davor. Even if you go back to the simpler option, you will have learned and enjoyed so much. But I like these photos and the story of your curiosity.
Thanks for the interesting post, Davor. I purchased a Fujifilm XF 70–300mm lens several months ago after debating with myself whether I “needed it.” Since then, I’ve really enjoyed using it and love seeking out new photographic possibilities in locations I had previously only shot with wide to medium focal lengths. I loathe carrying extra weight—which was one of the reasons I traded my Canon full-frame gear for Fuji over five years ago. So, when setting out for a longer walk, I typically make a conscious decision to bring only one lens with me. On one hand, that limits my choices during the outing, but on the other hand, it gives me the freedom to explore the world more fluidly without getting bogged down switching lenses.
Thanks for the detailed comment. When I read your line of thinking, it is a common sense to me. My problem is that when I go to some beautiful places of nature, I don’t know what to take. 70-300 may be too specific. 27mm may be too limited. 16-80 may be of inferior quality (although versatile). So maybe 16-55 2.8 would be the way to go. Btw, I’ve heard praises for your 16-50, however used 16-55 in excellent condition isn’t much more expensive, so I’d probably go with the red badge🤪
I don’t think that’s possible for the time being. New mk2 sells for 1350, so used one won’t be less than 1000, I suppose. I read that optics of mk2 and 1 are the same. Neither has OIS. Therefore, the only difference may be size and weight. Will see about it. I am always undecided regarding lenses. It can be distracting🙈
Thanks so much for reaching out! What do you think so far?
When you go out with just one lens, which one do you take?
Right now, I usually bring the 70–300 on the X-H2 and the 27mm on the X-E4.
Have you tried the 16–80 or the 16–55 f/2.8?
I haven’t been too happy with the 16–80 — even though it’s super versatile and lightweight, the image quality just doesn’t do it for me. Not sure if it’s the sharpness or the autofocus, but I’m thinking of selling it and picking up the 16–55 on mpb.com.
Thanks again for the link — I’m off to check it out now.
Absolutely, I've really enjoyed your work since I found you on Substack!
There are many factors I might consider when choosing which lens I take with me—including the location, what I’ve previously shot there, and whether the setting lends itself to one focal length over another. For example, if I’m hiking in a forest, I would rarely—if ever—bring the 70–300mm, and would opt for a much shorter focal length lens for my X-T4, or I might simply take my X100V. On the other hand, I may bring only the 70–300mm when heading to locations I’ve photographed many times with wider lenses, especially if I’ve previously thought it would be interesting to get a closer look at subjects in that environment. I’ve also found that the 70–300mm gives me some interesting macro possibilities that work well in certain places.
I had considered buying the 16–80mm, but I had read other reviews criticizing its image quality. As for the 16–55mm f/2.8, it’s both heavier and more expensive than I’d like. So for now, I’m using the relatively new XF16–50mm f/2.8–4.8 R LM WR, which is lightweight, affordable, and offers surprisingly good image quality. I thought I might miss having coverage from 50mm to 70mm, but so far that hasn’t been the case.
When travelling I swear by the Tamron 17-70mm (Fuji x mount). But the people who know say that I should stick to a prime. I didn't understand why until someone here on Substack said the focal length is like a tense in writing. Changing it too often is jarring, incoherent. Hmm. My answer is to use another Fuji camera with a fixed focal length for my main shots and to use the xt3 for those shots the other camera can't reach.
I was thinking about that Tamron since I was not so satisfied with Fuji 16-80. How do you like it? Btw, when I take 2 lenses, I take 2 bodies because I hate to change. Which prime do you have?
I know that primes are better, and I have 27mm and 56mm. However, sometimes I like to isolate the subject, or shoot at a distance, and that’s when telephoto comes to play.
Actually I hate shooting with primes. I am so out of my comfort zone. But I will get there.
The Tamron lens is excellent. It is sharp and at its widest is f2.8 all the way through the barrel. I bought it from a ‘grey’ importer so was about £500 at the time and I have used it every week.
The other Fuji camera is a GFX, so medium format. After some experimentation in Kurdistan I concluded that the 63mm suited me most. And, ha ha, it makes every photo very intentional because the file sizes are so big. BUT, even when on social media the images are noticeably better quality.
No, I haven’t I’m afraid. I’m not sure if you have such things in Zagreb but in London there are places that you can hire lenses for the weekend, to try them out
I am afraid there’s no such possibility here where I live. However, maybe I should start hanging out with photographers - some of them could have it. Anyway, it’s 600 euros on MPB, excellent condition; it’s not too much. Will see. Thanks🥂
Thanks for the comment and I completely agree with everything you said here. If you stick just to the one lens, you are good in specialization. If you have many of them, you have more options, but won’t be as good in any of them. Btw, there isn’t 70-300 f2.8 for Fuji. There is 50-140 2.8, which is not full telephoto, and has 1kg, which is probably too much. I am thinking about replacing 16-80 f4 with 16-55 f2.8. Regarding your advice to buy the best lens possible, that’s my line of thinking, since I don’t want to take photos of inferior quality. However, my mentor said that majority of modern lenses are good enough, and that sharpness is overrated. He mentioned how Koudelka and somebody else were taking impressive shots with inferior equipment.
i'm not questioning your mentor here but i'm questioning you. your mentor is right but also wrong. if you knew what to answer to your mentor when he asked "why do you need that for?" you have shut him up and probably not need him anymore. but you didn't. there is something else: you need a mentor to guide you not to tell you what to do or not. the simple answer to your mentor should be: i want (no need) a telephoto lens in order to experience a closed field of view together with a different separation regarding the depth of field compared with a normal 50mm lens.
a telephoto lens is not for everybody but it can be essential when it comes to certain things. it all depending on what the photographer is trying to do.
a photographer can't go to a rugby match with a 17mm lens and can't photograph interiors with a 300mm lens. if a photographer stick with one lens, the photographer is restricted to a certain type of photography and that can be good and bad. my suggestion? when invest in a lens, buy the best glass that money can buy, buy a 70-300 that is 2.8 for the whole focal lengths. thank me later.
Sorry for not replying sooner… I actually wrote a response and thought I’d sent it! :) Just in case I didn’t, here it is again.
I agree with what you said. I got the telephoto out of curiosity. I simply didn’t want $700 to be the thing that stops me from exploring it.
At the same time, I’m aware that versatility can be the enemy of specialization. I’ll see how it works for me — I can always sell it if it doesn’t fit my workflow.
By the way, Fuji doesn’t make a 70–300 f/2.8. There is a 50–140 f/2.8, but it weighs a full kilo and isn’t truly a telephoto. On top of that, it’s also 50% more expensive.
Anyway, thanks for your comment. I really appreciate you challenging me on my choices and thinking. I take it all in — I’m always looking for what helps me express myself in the most honest and authentic way possible. :)
Great pictures as usual Davor, but certainly different from what we normally see here. It’s interesting that you say you must now take two camera bodies and a wide lens as well as your new telephoto when you go out, leading to backache. I disagree, if you are in a telephoto frame of mind, leave the wide angle lens at home. Be prepared to let those images you would normally make slip away and get into the habit of searching for a different kind of photo. Thanks for sharing.
Thanks Dave for this wise comment. I feel that you are right, and I will do it next time.:)
It's good to experiment, Davor. Even if you go back to the simpler option, you will have learned and enjoyed so much. But I like these photos and the story of your curiosity.
Thanks Lisa for your support!
Thanks for the interesting post, Davor. I purchased a Fujifilm XF 70–300mm lens several months ago after debating with myself whether I “needed it.” Since then, I’ve really enjoyed using it and love seeking out new photographic possibilities in locations I had previously only shot with wide to medium focal lengths. I loathe carrying extra weight—which was one of the reasons I traded my Canon full-frame gear for Fuji over five years ago. So, when setting out for a longer walk, I typically make a conscious decision to bring only one lens with me. On one hand, that limits my choices during the outing, but on the other hand, it gives me the freedom to explore the world more fluidly without getting bogged down switching lenses.
I shared a Note in March with a few photos from my recent trip to Death Valley, where I found myself mostly using the 70–300mm. If you’re interested, you can see the images here: https://substack.com/@toddhaughton/note/c-99987317?r=1a315o&utm_medium=ios&utm_source=notes-share-action
Thanks for the detailed comment. When I read your line of thinking, it is a common sense to me. My problem is that when I go to some beautiful places of nature, I don’t know what to take. 70-300 may be too specific. 27mm may be too limited. 16-80 may be of inferior quality (although versatile). So maybe 16-55 2.8 would be the way to go. Btw, I’ve heard praises for your 16-50, however used 16-55 in excellent condition isn’t much more expensive, so I’d probably go with the red badge🤪
Agreed, the red badge would be a great option, especially if you can get a used “Mark II” version of that lens for a good deal.
I don’t think that’s possible for the time being. New mk2 sells for 1350, so used one won’t be less than 1000, I suppose. I read that optics of mk2 and 1 are the same. Neither has OIS. Therefore, the only difference may be size and weight. Will see about it. I am always undecided regarding lenses. It can be distracting🙈
Thanks so much for reaching out! What do you think so far?
When you go out with just one lens, which one do you take?
Right now, I usually bring the 70–300 on the X-H2 and the 27mm on the X-E4.
Have you tried the 16–80 or the 16–55 f/2.8?
I haven’t been too happy with the 16–80 — even though it’s super versatile and lightweight, the image quality just doesn’t do it for me. Not sure if it’s the sharpness or the autofocus, but I’m thinking of selling it and picking up the 16–55 on mpb.com.
Thanks again for the link — I’m off to check it out now.
See you over there! :)
Absolutely, I've really enjoyed your work since I found you on Substack!
There are many factors I might consider when choosing which lens I take with me—including the location, what I’ve previously shot there, and whether the setting lends itself to one focal length over another. For example, if I’m hiking in a forest, I would rarely—if ever—bring the 70–300mm, and would opt for a much shorter focal length lens for my X-T4, or I might simply take my X100V. On the other hand, I may bring only the 70–300mm when heading to locations I’ve photographed many times with wider lenses, especially if I’ve previously thought it would be interesting to get a closer look at subjects in that environment. I’ve also found that the 70–300mm gives me some interesting macro possibilities that work well in certain places.
I had considered buying the 16–80mm, but I had read other reviews criticizing its image quality. As for the 16–55mm f/2.8, it’s both heavier and more expensive than I’d like. So for now, I’m using the relatively new XF16–50mm f/2.8–4.8 R LM WR, which is lightweight, affordable, and offers surprisingly good image quality. I thought I might miss having coverage from 50mm to 70mm, but so far that hasn’t been the case.
When travelling I swear by the Tamron 17-70mm (Fuji x mount). But the people who know say that I should stick to a prime. I didn't understand why until someone here on Substack said the focal length is like a tense in writing. Changing it too often is jarring, incoherent. Hmm. My answer is to use another Fuji camera with a fixed focal length for my main shots and to use the xt3 for those shots the other camera can't reach.
I was thinking about that Tamron since I was not so satisfied with Fuji 16-80. How do you like it? Btw, when I take 2 lenses, I take 2 bodies because I hate to change. Which prime do you have?
I know that primes are better, and I have 27mm and 56mm. However, sometimes I like to isolate the subject, or shoot at a distance, and that’s when telephoto comes to play.
Thanks for your comment🤗
Actually I hate shooting with primes. I am so out of my comfort zone. But I will get there.
The Tamron lens is excellent. It is sharp and at its widest is f2.8 all the way through the barrel. I bought it from a ‘grey’ importer so was about £500 at the time and I have used it every week.
The other Fuji camera is a GFX, so medium format. After some experimentation in Kurdistan I concluded that the 63mm suited me most. And, ha ha, it makes every photo very intentional because the file sizes are so big. BUT, even when on social media the images are noticeably better quality.
Did you try Fuji 16-55 f2.8? I am thinking to replace 16-80 f4 with that one.
No, I haven’t I’m afraid. I’m not sure if you have such things in Zagreb but in London there are places that you can hire lenses for the weekend, to try them out
I am afraid there’s no such possibility here where I live. However, maybe I should start hanging out with photographers - some of them could have it. Anyway, it’s 600 euros on MPB, excellent condition; it’s not too much. Will see. Thanks🥂
Thanks for the comment and I completely agree with everything you said here. If you stick just to the one lens, you are good in specialization. If you have many of them, you have more options, but won’t be as good in any of them. Btw, there isn’t 70-300 f2.8 for Fuji. There is 50-140 2.8, which is not full telephoto, and has 1kg, which is probably too much. I am thinking about replacing 16-80 f4 with 16-55 f2.8. Regarding your advice to buy the best lens possible, that’s my line of thinking, since I don’t want to take photos of inferior quality. However, my mentor said that majority of modern lenses are good enough, and that sharpness is overrated. He mentioned how Koudelka and somebody else were taking impressive shots with inferior equipment.