Open menu
  • Subscriptions
  • Photo Tours
  • Photo Books
  • Menu
  • Login
    • Better Photography Education Website Info

      If you are already a subscriber to Better Photography or one of our many other courses, you'll need to login at our sister website, www.betterphotographyeducation.com. Yes, it's a little confusing - and you should complain bitterly to our editor about it! However, in the meantime, click on any of the links in this panel to be taken directly to the Better Photography Education website where your reading and viewing material is awaiting your return!

      Click here to visit the Better Photography Education Website

  • Home

Weddell Seal, Paradise Harbour, Antarctica
Fujifilm X-H2, 150-600mm, f8 @ 1/2000 second, ISO 800

What would you use? A 200mm f2.0 or a 150-600mm (300mm or a 225-900mm in full-frame format)?

The advantage of the prime lens is a maximum aperture of f2.0 (or f2.8) which throws the background beautifully out-of-focus. Add to this the optics' stellar, super sharp image quality. However, you're stuck with a 200mm (or 280mm with a 1.4x extender), so if your subject is distant, you might not fill the frame.

Compare this with a 150-600mm which gives you a choice of focal lengths, but it doesn't produce the same bokeh (out-of-focus blur) and doesn't have quite the same image sharpness. Don't mis-read this: the latest 150-600mm and similar zooms (whether Fujifilm, Canon, Nikon, Sigma etc) are incredibly sharp, but there is a difference. The primes are sharper still (and at the price, so they should be). Is this difference important?

The photo above was shot on a 150-600mm zoom at 600mm (900mm equivalent), so if I had been using the 200mm, I'd have to crop a lot to get this framing. And after using the 150-600mm for a month down in Antarctica, I have to say I have really enjoyed the zoom and how close I have been able to get to my subject. One specification worth considering is the minimum focusing distance because very often you've only a few metres distance - just a little more than five metres in this situation.

So, in terms of framing, the 150-600mm is a winner. I'm probably never going to get quite the same depth-of-field quality, but what about the sharpness? This is an area where technology has changed the rules. Using Topaz Sharpener AI, I can take what is a very acceptable image and turn it into a super sharp, super clear, perfectly focused photograph. The software really does a great job, so if you haven't played with it, it comes highly recommended.

So, for wildlife, I think I'm beginning to favour the 150-600mm and, if necessary, adding a little critical sharpness with Topaz!