The best Fuji-X body for supertele is X-H1 and I hope X-H2 will be worthy succesor.X-T20 works very nice with smaller lenses for me.Cheers,Artur

Jerry-astro wrote: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.Both my lenses (150-600 and 100-400) have comparable IQ. The biggest advantage of Sigma isF6.3@600mm vsF8@540mm. It really makes a difference for me in dim light. It's a bit bigger and heavier than XF100-400 but I got used to carry it.My advice for all wannabe birders is to buy 150-600 (for the same/similar price as XF70-300 + 1.4TC) and skip XF100-400 even if it's stellar lens.I walked this road and (from 200mm to 600mm) and think I could save some money...I think new XF150-600 will have similar IQ weight and size but I expect ~2k$ price tag.Cheers,Artur