Hi all, am new to the forum and happy to be here. I'm fairly new to photography and currently have 50mm F2, 50-230mm and 15-45mm lenses but I'm wanting to get more involved in photographing wild birds. The 50-230mm unfortunately doesn't have good enough range on it so i'm looking at the 100-400mm.Does anyone have any experience or remarks about mounting a 100-400mm on an Xt20 body?My other questions are: i currently have a Peak Design leash strap and i'm thinking it might not be strong enough to take the weight.Would something like the Manfrotto XPRO Monopod be suitable?I have a physical issue which means i'd not be able to hand hold the camera with that lens on it all day so having a monopod might help me thinks.appreciate the help.

Fire_Bird123 wrote:Hi all, am new to the forum and happy to be here. I'm fairly new to photography and currently have 50mm F2, 50-230mm and 15-45mm lenses but I'm wanting to get more involved in photographing wild birds. The 50-230mm unfortunately doesn't have good enough range on it so i'm looking at the 100-400mm.Does anyone have any experience or remarks about mounting a 100-400mm on an Xt20 body?My other questions are: i currently have a Peak Design leash strap and i'm thinking it might not be strong enough to take the weight.Would something like the Manfrotto XPRO Monopod be suitable?I have a physical issue which means i'd not be able to hand hold the camera with that lens on it all day so having a monopod might help me thinks.appreciate the help.Hi there, I am on the same boat, new to Fuji, new to the forum and new with the 100-400my preferred way is not to have a strap, mount the camera to the monopod as soon as I am on location, and hike with the camera-monopod on my shoulder. That allows me for a quick deployment if I see a bird willing to collaborate.I have found straps have a tendency to tangle with branches when I am in the woods, or get wet when I am down close to the water.and when I am done for the day, the camera goes into my backpack.hope this helpsI am still trying to figure out the best camera settings, by the waycheersElian

I can’t comment on the strap but I have a Peak Design Slide with my XT3 and 100400 and it hasn’t let me down.  Works great for a hike.

I think the weight limit for Peak Design straps is listed for the anchors, not the actual strap, so the Leash should be fine. I believe the anchors are rated to carry 200 pounds. You might find the Leash is not padded enough to be comfortable with that lens attached, but you could move to the Slide Lite if it is more comfortable.I am not sure how the new XF 70-300mm with a 1.4x teleconverter would compare to the XF 100-400mm for your purposes, but consider that solution too.

Also consider the 70-300 with the 1.4X TC.

To get a good balance buy a grip for the XT20IMO the monopod is useful for landscape but for fast action it is not so well adapted.I have a Peak design neck strap that helps a lot

I have the X-E3 and the 100-400 zoom and I agree that it's best to use it on a tripod or monopod since, at 76, I find it hard to hold steady....it's a monster but sharp when you can keep it still. No way on earth would I carry it on it's strap. I have a Lowepro Toploader Zoom 55AW bag which will comfortably hold the camera with the lens together. I believe the XT20 is about the same size. It is very well balanced this way and, of course, I will have a tripod quick connect on the lens.https://www.amazon.com/Lowepro-Toploader-Zoom-Camera-Black/dp/B00K1FGFFII store the lens alone in a Lowepro Lens bag 4.Also agree that the 70-300+1.4X is a good, and lighter, alternative.

I used XF100-400 with X-T20 but only with MHG-XT10 grip (You can buy cheaper spare grip from meike, patona etc.). For me, grip is a must, especially for XF100-400.I had no problems with handling this combo, but when I used neck strap (standard Fuji with PeakDesign anchors) one anchor was mounted to lens tripod foot and the second one was on camera. Now, when I'm using Bigger lens (Sigma 150-600), my neck strap is connected to the lens only so my camera bayonet much safer.As the others said:- you may consider XF70-300 + 1.4xTC (due to the size) as a good companion for X-T20- buy a grip to improve handlingOn the other hand:X-T20 is a great small camera, but X-T3/X-T4 would be much better for birds due to significant AF improvements. I'm not sure If you should buy XF100-400 for X-T20. I had X-T20 with XF100-400 and bought X-T3 for better AF (birds), then finally got Sigma 150-600 and I must admit this is the best/cheapest setup you can get for birding now (if you really need long range).If I were you I would think about selling X-T20 and buying (used X-T3 + fringer + Canon EF mount lens 100-400 or 150-600). Of course XF100-400 is an excellent lens, but expensive. 600mm is much more comfortable for birds. It's also much easier to shot BIF with X-T3 than with X-T20 (I have both and X-T20 is perfect second body for smaller lenses).Cheers,Artur

DarnGoodPhotos wrote:Also consider the 70-300 with the 1.4X TC.This. I have both the 100-400 and the 70-300, and there is quite a significant difference in weight/size. I use both on my X-T30 (same size as X-T20). Like others have suggested, buy a grip for it. It will make a big difference in handling.If you have a physical limitation, get the smaller lens + 1.4x TC. You will be happy you did.

thanks for all your help. I didn't know about the 70-300mm. Would it be suitable for taking photos of birds, coupled with a 1.4TC. Would it focus fast enough with decent shallow DOF?

Do not use the leash with it attached to the camera body and 100-400.  I cracked the front plate on my xt30.  I think it was probably more to do with the weight of the 16-55 and the capture clip, but not real sure.   Attach it to what ever mount you choose and keep in mind that’s a lot of lens for a small body.  No experience with the 70-300 but the 100-400 IQ is great IMO.

Photography is full of trade offs.  When it comes to birds which are on of my specialties, longer focalength make it much easier as shorter lenses will require you to get very close which can scare them off or cause stressed behavior.  Capturing natural behavior will result in much nicer photos.  Longer lenses tend to be heavier and as you have a physical limitation with weight you are correct to think about support to address this.   It's actually a good idea for everyone as time with the lens pointing at the subject will increase and this means more images of special moments.  I'm a tripod fan yet a monopod can work.  It will mean some dexterity and I hope this is OK for you.  Planning to use a lens with a TC all the time is not the best choice as there is a bit of a loss in sharpens and focus speed and tracking is also affected.  If doing this makes the difference for being able to get to the needed focal length due to your limitations then do it.  Realize that even with the 100-400 there will be times when adding a teleconverter will be an advantage.  To give you an idea how much more reach 400mm will give you, look at your original photos at 230mm.  If the bird is filling 1/2 the  frame's width, then it will fill the 400mm frame.  If it's only filling 1/4 of the frame, then you will still be cropping with the resulting loss in quality.If you can visit a store and try the different setups that would be best.  Another option is to rent.I hope this helps,Morris

I put a Hejnar Photo Arca Type Low Profile Foot on my 100-400. I carry my XP 3 by the foot on the lens. I also keep the camera strap around my wrist just in case I drop the camera. I use a Kessler plate mounted to my Manfrotto monopod and the set up is super fast to mount and unmount my camera to the monopod. Very secure.

I did not like using the 100-400 on my XT20. -/+ grip was irrelevant, just did not balance well. Instead, used 100-400 on an XT3, which only worked well for me if the XT3 had the Meike grip. I note that I've got big hands..YMMV re XT20/100-400.

Fire_Bird123 wrote:thanks for all your help. I didn't know about the 70-300mm. Would it be suitable for taking photos of birds, coupled with a 1.4TC. Would it focus fast enough with decent shallow DOF?To be honest, I think you'll be disappointed with the reach. I do a lot of bird photography with a 100-400 lens, and even 400mm (or 560mm with TC) can often barely get you close enough to avoid heavy cropping. Many times, I find myself wishing for more reach, however, the IQ impact of the 2.0 TC is significant enough to make that a non option for me.If your primary intent is bird photography, and you don't have an issue with the additional weight or cost, it's my opinion that you'd be better off with the longer lens.

Jerry-astro wrote:Fire_Bird123 wrote:thanks for all your help. I didn't know about the 70-300mm. Would it be suitable for taking photos of birds, coupled with a 1.4TC. Would it focus fast enough with decent shallow DOF?To be honest, I think you'll be disappointed with the reach. I do a lot of bird photography with a 100-400 lens, and even 400mm (or 560mm with TC) can often barely get you close enough to avoid heavy cropping. Many times, I find myself wishing for more reach, however, the IQ impact of the 2.0 TC is significant enough to make that a non option for me.If your primary intent is bird photography, and you don't have an issue with the additional weight or cost, it's my opinion that you'd be better off with the longer lens.The 70-300 = 105-450 full frame equivalent, correct? Add the 1.4x TE and you've got 630mm. I assume the 70-300/1.4x TE should work fine if using AF-S..the problem undoubtedly will be how poor the AF-C will be, given how the 1.4xTE affects tracking when using other Fuji cameras. I didn't have any problems with my XT3/100-400/1.4xTE when using AF-S to take pictures of stationary birds.

Geekapoo wrote:Jerry-astro wrote:Fire_Bird123 wrote:thanks for all your help. I didn't know about the 70-300mm. Would it be suitable for taking photos of birds, coupled with a 1.4TC. Would it focus fast enough with decent shallow DOF?To be honest, I think you'll be disappointed with the reach. I do a lot of bird photography with a 100-400 lens, and even 400mm (or 560mm with TC) can often barely get you close enough to avoid heavy cropping. Many times, I find myself wishing for more reach, however, the IQ impact of the 2.0 TC is significant enough to make that a non option for me.If your primary intent is bird photography, and you don't have an issue with the additional weight or cost, it's my opinion that you'd be better off with the longer lens.The 70-300 = 105-450 full frame equivalent, correct? Add the 1.4x TE and you've got 630mm. I assume the 70-300/1.4x TE should work fine if using AF-S..the problem undoubtedly will be how poor the AF-C will be, given how the 1.4xTE affects tracking when using other Fuji cameras. I didn't have any problems with my XT3/100-400/1.4xTE when using AF-S to take pictures of stationary birds.I can only share my own experience with bird photography... YMMV.  Since I’ve never shot FF, I don’t really think in equivalencies.  I can only tell you that more often than not, my 100-400 at max FL with TC still only gives me barely adequate reach for smaller birds, at times still requiring some cropping.  If you’re OK with the loss of resolution when cropping with a shorter FL, then you should be fine.  I personally would not choose that lens over the 100-400 for photographing smaller birds.  And, as far as tracking goes... absolutely agree.  This is one area that Fuji absolutely has to address in their subsequent bodies... the X-H2 in particular.  It leaves a lot to be desired in current models.

Jerry-astro wrote:Geekapoo wrote:Jerry-astro wrote:Fire_Bird123 wrote:thanks for all your help. I didn't know about the 70-300mm. Would it be suitable for taking photos of birds, coupled with a 1.4TC. Would it focus fast enough with decent shallow DOF?To be honest, I think you'll be disappointed with the reach. I do a lot of bird photography with a 100-400 lens, and even 400mm (or 560mm with TC) can often barely get you close enough to avoid heavy cropping. Many times, I find myself wishing for more reach, however, the IQ impact of the 2.0 TC is significant enough to make that a non option for me.If your primary intent is bird photography, and you don't have an issue with the additional weight or cost, it's my opinion that you'd be better off with the longer lens.The 70-300 = 105-450 full frame equivalent, correct? Add the 1.4x TE and you've got 630mm. I assume the 70-300/1.4x TE should work fine if using AF-S..the problem undoubtedly will be how poor the AF-C will be, given how the 1.4xTE affects tracking when using other Fuji cameras. I didn't have any problems with my XT3/100-400/1.4xTE when using AF-S to take pictures of stationary birds.I can only share my own experience with bird photography... YMMV. Since I’ve never shot FF, I don’t really think in equivalencies.Well, it can get confusing! Just don't buy the Fuji 50mm f2 thinking you are purchasing a nifty fifty! 😁

Jerry-astro wrote:Geekapoo wrote:Jerry-astro wrote:Fire_Bird123 wrote:thanks for all your help. I didn't know about the 70-300mm. Would it be suitable for taking photos of birds, coupled with a 1.4TC. Would it focus fast enough with decent shallow DOF?To be honest, I think you'll be disappointed with the reach. I do a lot of bird photography with a 100-400 lens, and even 400mm (or 560mm with TC) can often barely get you close enough to avoid heavy cropping. Many times, I find myself wishing for more reach, however, the IQ impact of the 2.0 TC is significant enough to make that a non option for me.If your primary intent is bird photography, and you don't have an issue with the additional weight or cost, it's my opinion that you'd be better off with the longer lens.The 70-300 = 105-450 full frame equivalent, correct? Add the 1.4x TE and you've got 630mm. I assume the 70-300/1.4x TE should work fine if using AF-S..the problem undoubtedly will be how poor the AF-C will be, given how the 1.4xTE affects tracking when using other Fuji cameras. I didn't have any problems with my XT3/100-400/1.4xTE when using AF-S to take pictures of stationary birds.I can only share my own experience with bird photography... YMMV. Since I’ve never shot FF, I don’t really think in equivalencies. I can only tell you that more often than not, my 100-400 at max FL with TC still only gives me barely adequate reach for smaller birds, at times still requiring some cropping. If you’re OK with the loss of resolution when cropping with a shorter FL, then you should be fine. I personally would not choose that lens over the 100-400 for photographing smaller birds. And, as far as tracking goes... absolutely agree. This is one area that Fuji absolutely has to address in their subsequent bodies... the X-H2 in particular. It leaves a lot to be desired in current models.I fully agree that, for birds in general - the longer the better, and 300mm even + 1.4xTC is not enough in most cases (for small birds in home garden, shy birds in the wild or predators soaring on the sky).My first tele was 55-200 and I found it's definitely not enough for birds in most cases. After that I bought XF100-400 which has been found too short as well, so I bought 1.4xTC. Now I'm using Sigma 150-600 and I would really recommend this option for birding (the only drawback is lack of WR).New Sigma C150-600 + Fringer EF-Fx ProII and new XF70-300 + 1.4TC have similar prices. Bare XF100-400 is more expensive.As each option has pros&cons, If birding is priority then 150-600 is the best option - it works  perfectly. No doubts 70-300 is great lens and it would be okay for ocassional birding, but for those who really want  to focus on birds - it's just a toy.If I had to build my lens collection from scratch I would definitely take  70-300 as light all rounder + 150-600 for birds/wildlife.Cheers,Artur

Artur Darulewski wrote:Jerry-astro wrote:Geekapoo wrote:Jerry-astro wrote:Fire_Bird123 wrote:thanks for all your help. I didn't know about the 70-300mm. Would it be suitable for taking photos of birds, coupled with a 1.4TC. Would it focus fast enough with decent shallow DOF?To be honest, I think you'll be disappointed with the reach. I do a lot of bird photography with a 100-400 lens, and even 400mm (or 560mm with TC) can often barely get you close enough to avoid heavy cropping. Many times, I find myself wishing for more reach, however, the IQ impact of the 2.0 TC is significant enough to make that a non option for me.If your primary intent is bird photography, and you don't have an issue with the additional weight or cost, it's my opinion that you'd be better off with the longer lens.The 70-300 = 105-450 full frame equivalent, correct? Add the 1.4x TE and you've got 630mm. I assume the 70-300/1.4x TE should work fine if using AF-S..the problem undoubtedly will be how poor the AF-C will be, given how the 1.4xTE affects tracking when using other Fuji cameras. I didn't have any problems with my XT3/100-400/1.4xTE when using AF-S to take pictures of stationary birds.I can only share my own experience with bird photography... YMMV. Since I’ve never shot FF, I don’t really think in equivalencies. I can only tell you that more often than not, my 100-400 at max FL with TC still only gives me barely adequate reach for smaller birds, at times still requiring some cropping. If you’re OK with the loss of resolution when cropping with a shorter FL, then you should be fine. I personally would not choose that lens over the 100-400 for photographing smaller birds. And, as far as tracking goes... absolutely agree. This is one area that Fuji absolutely has to address in their subsequent bodies... the X-H2 in particular. It leaves a lot to be desired in current models.I fully agree that, for birds in general - the longer the better, and 300mm even + 1.4xTC is not enough in most cases (for small birds in home garden, shy birds in the wild or predators soaring on the sky).My first tele was 55-200 and I found it's definitely not enough for birds in most cases. After that I bought XF100-400 which has been found too short as well, so I bought 1.4xTC. Now I'm using Sigma 150-600 and I would really recommend this option for birding (the only drawback is lack of WR).New Sigma C150-600 + Fringer EF-Fx ProII and new XF70-300 + 1.4TC have similar prices. Bare XF100-400 is more expensive.As each option has pros&cons, If birding is priority then 150-600 is the best option - it works perfectly. No doubts 70-300 is great lens and it would be okay for ocassional birding, but for those who really want to focus on birds - it's just a toy.If I had to build my lens collection from scratch I would definitely take 70-300 as light all rounder + 150-600 for birds/wildlife.Cheers,ArturIf I were starting from scratch, I’d be giving a 150-600 some very serious consideration as well... no question about it.  The 100-400 with TC works well, but the additional reach — assuming reasonably similar IQ — would be more than welcome.