Camera
Field review: Fujifilm XF 70-300 F4-5.6 R LM OIS WR
Introduction
The Fujifilm Fujinon XF 70-300mm F4-5.6 R LM OIS WR is a very versatile, compact telephoto zoom lens for the company’s APS-C X-mount, arguably filling a much needed gap in the company’s lineup.
The XF 70-300mm offers a 35mm-equivalent focal length range of 105-450mm after accounting for the APS-C sensor size.
Given its far-reaching telephoto, it’s well-suited to sports and nature photographers. Thanks to impressive close-focusing capabilities, it makes for a decent macro lens, too. And that ability to focus up close also means it’s better-suited to portraits with blurred backgrounds than you might otherwise expect, given its not-so-fast aperture. Its high performance, with good sharpness across the frame, lack of chromatic aberrations, fast autofocus, and very effective image stabilization make it a very versatile addition to Fujifilm’s XF lineup.
Available from March 2021, the Fujifilm Fujinon XF 70-300mmF4-5.6 R LM OIS WR carries a list price of $799.
Key specifications:
- Focal length: 70-300mm (105-450mm with APS-C crop)
- Aperture range: F4.0 wide / F5.6 tele – F22
- Stabilization: Yes, 5.5 stops
- Weather-sealed: Yes, seals throughout
- Filter thread: 67mm
- Close focus: 0.83m (32.7″) across zoom range
- Maximum magnification: 0.33x tele (0.5x equivalent for APS-C)
- Diaphragm blades: 9
- Hood: Included
- Weight: 580g (1.29 lb)
- Optical construction: 17 elements in 12 groups (1 aspherical, 2 ED elements)
 |
| ISO 160 | 1/200 sec | F8 | 287mm equiv. | Fujifilm X-S10 Photo by Chris Niccolls |
Although 70-300mm zooms are common on many mounts, there are no direct rivals to the XF 70-300mm F4-5.6 lens on Fujifilm’s X-mount. No third-party has yet released an X-mount zoom to compete with Fujifilm’s own glass. The nearest first-party alternatives, meanwhile, are the XF 55-200mm F3.5-4.8 R LM OIS and XF 100-400mm F4.5-5.6 R LM OIS WR.
The nearest of these alternatives is the XF 55-200mm, and compared to that lens, the 70-300mm is a far more attractive option. Sure, it’s just a little less bright, can’t shoot quite as widely, and is around $100 more expensive. And it’s also a fair bit bigger, starting from 15mm (0.6″) longer at wide-angle, and increasing to 29mm (1.1″) longer as you zoom in.
But for that, you get full weather-sealing, much better macro capabilities, more effective stabilization, a nine-bladed aperture and, of course, far more telephoto reach. And impressively, all of those extra capabilities have been achieved without adding a single gram above the weight of the 55-200mm.
 |
| ISO 160 | 1/125 sec | F5 | 248mm equiv. | Fujifilm X-S10 Photo by Chris Niccolls |
The 100-400mm, meanwhile, is pro-grade, and it shows. At $1899.95 and 1375g (3lb), cost and weight are both 2.4 times as much, and it’s also far larger in every dimension. Its barrel is 19.8mm (0.8″) wider, and even at wide-angle it’s a smidgen (5mm; 0.2″) longer than is the 70-300mm when fully extended. Zoom in and the 100-400mm grows to 65mm (2.5″) longer than the 70-300mm.
Of course, that size, weight and cost also brings pro-grade image quality thanks to a significantly more complex optical design. And the 100-400mm offers quite a bit more reach at the telephoto end of the range, although the 70-300mm counters that with an extra 30mm at the wide-angle end.
Compared to…
| Fujifilm XF 70-300mm F4-5.6 | Fujifilm XF 55-200mm F3.5-4.8 | Fujifilm XF100-400mm F4.5-5.6 | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Price (MSRP) | $799 | $699 | $1899 |
| Equiv. focal length | 105-450mm | 82.5-300mm | 150-600mm |
| Optical construction | 17 elements, 12 groups | 14 elements, 10 groups | 21 elements, 14 groups |
| Aperture blades | 9 | 7 | 9 |
| Weather sealed | Yes | No | Yes |
| Stabilized | Yes, 5.5 stops | Yes, 4.5 stops | Yes, 5 stops |
| Minimum focus distance | 0.83 m (2.72′) | 1.10m (3.61′) | 1.75m (5.74′) |
| Max magnification | 0.33x (0.5x equiv.) | 0.18x (0.27x equiv.) | 0.19x (0.29x equiv.) |
| Diameter x Length (no hood) |
75mm x 133mm (2.95″ x 5.22″) | 75mm x 118mm (2.95″ x 4.65″) | 94.8mm x 211mm (3.73″ x 8.29″) |
| Weight | 580g (20.5oz) | 580g (20.5oz) | 1375g (48.5oz) |
All images edited in Adobe Camera Raw 13 with adjustments limited to white balance, exposure, highlights, shadows, white and black levels. Sharpening and noise reduction at ACR defaults.
Handling
For a lens of this type, the XF 70-300mm is impressively compact, with a 75mm (2.95″) barrel diameter and a retracted length of just 133mm (5.2″). As you zoom in, its length increases by more than half again to a maximum of 206mm (8.1″).
 |
| ISO 160 | 1/160 sec | F5.6 | 450mm equiv. | Fujifilm X-S10 Photo by Chris Niccolls |
It’s also nice and light, tipping the scales at 580g (1.3lb). That’s doubtless been achieved in large part thanks to liberal use of plastic in the 70-300mm’s design. There’s no getting around the fact that it’s quite plasticky, with the bulk of its barrel constructed from polycarbonate.
But with that said, the lens mount is still made from metal and everything feels tightly-assembled, much as in Fujifilm’s other XF zoom lenses. And we found balance to be very nice both with the lighter X-S10 and heavier X-T3 bodies with which we did our testing.
As is typical for a Fujinon XF lens, there are quite a few controls to be found on the lens barrel. As well as manual focus and zoom rings, there’s also an aperture ring which can be overridden with an aperture mode switch, if you’d prefer that your camera take control of this variable. Dampening of the rings is fine, if a little loosey-goosey for our liking.
 |
Additionally, Fujifilm provides both a focus limiter switch and a zoom lock to prevent zoom creep when carrying the camera vertically. This latter control can only be locked at the 70mm wide-angle position.
A nice touch is that you don’t need to fuss with unlocking the zoom when an unexpected photo opportunity arises. Simply turn the zoom ring, and the zoom lock will be disabled automatically, which could make the difference between getting that spur-of-the-moment shot or winding up frustrated.
 |
Optical image stabilization is provided, which is always nice to see at longer focal lengths like those offered by the 70-300mm F4-5.6. Fujifilm tells us that the system has a corrective strength of 5.5 stops. That’s a full stop better than the system in the 55-200mm, all the more impressive given that with this lens’ more powerful telephoto, it has a tougher job to do in the first place.
If your camera body supports in-body image stabilization, it can work in concert with the lens’ own stabilization to pool the benefits of both systems. (In-lens stabilization typically corrects for pitch and yaw shifts, working better at longer focal lengths, while in-body stabilization can stabilize on five axes, compensating additionally for translation and roll.)
Another worthwhile improvement over the 70-300mm F4-5.6 is its weather-sealing, which keeps out dust and moisture not just at the lens mount, but at controls and other potential ingress points throughout the barrel. Fujifilm also rates this lens as freezeproof down to -10°C (14°F).
Up front, you’ll find 67mm filter threads. That’s a little larger than the 62mm threads on the 55-200mm, but a good bit smaller than the 77mm threads on the 100-400mm, which will put filter costs in between the two.
 |
| ISO 160 | 1/320 sec | F5.6 | 198mm equiv. | Fujifilm X-S10 Photo by Chris Niccolls |
Autofocus and focus breathing
The Fujifilm XF 70-300mm’s autofocus drive is based around a linear autofocus motor, the same type used in the earlier 55-200mm. (The higher-end 100-400mm, meanwhile, uses dual linear autofocus motors.)
Performance is nice and snappy, and that’s true even if you don’t use the focus limiter to abbreviate the focusing range. It takes less than a second for focus to rack from the minimum focus distance to infinity, but for shooting more distant subjects, it’s worth using the focus limiter to limit the minimum focus distance to 5.0m (16.4′) for even better performance.
 |
| ISO 160 | 1/60 sec | F8 | 450mm equiv. | Fujifilm X-S10 Photo by Chris Niccolls |
Unlike both the 55-200mm and 100-400mm lenses, the Fujifilm XF 70-300mm has pretty astounding close-focusing capabilities. At telephoto, it can provide a 35mm-equivalent 1:2 (0.5x) macro reproduction, which is significantly better than the 1:3.4-3.7 equivalents (0.27-0.29x) offered by the other two lenses.
That’s great news, because there aren’t a ton of macro lens options available in Fujifilm’s X-mount lineup, and it adds greatly to the versatility of this lens, letting you switch back and forth between wildlife and flowers with a single optic.
The 70-300mm F4-5.6 is also very well-suited to video capture. Not only does it include very effective 5.5-stop image stabilization, its autofocus drive is also silent, ensuring that AF operation won’t disrupt your audio. And you don’t need to worry about focus breathing, either. There’s just a little bit at the 70mm wide-angle, and it’s very minimal indeed by the 300mm telephoto.
 |
| ISO 160 | 1/160 sec | F5.6 | 298mm equiv. | Fujifilm X-S10 Photo by Chris Niccolls |
Image quality
In most respects, the Fujinon 70-300mm offers pretty good image quality. There are only a couple of weak spots, both of which will be of most concern for portrait shooters. Its bokeh suffers from quite strong onion ring and cat’s eye effect, both of which can lead to distracting backgrounds if specular highlights are present. Neither should be a big concern for sports and wildlife photographers, though.
Sharpness
At wide-angle and shooting with its F4 maximum aperture, the XF 70-300mm offers very nice sharpness in the center of the frame, and only minor softness in the corners which remains even if that’s where focus was set. There’s only a little bit of improvement to be gained in the center by stopping down to F8, but a little bit more improvement in the corners.
 |
| ISO 160 | 1/160 sec | F8 | 105mm equiv. | Fujifilm X-S10 Photo by Chris Niccolls |
Switching to telephoto, this lens remains nice and sharp in the center at its F5.6 maximum aperture, again with only minor softness in the corners. Much as at wide-angle, stopping down a bit helps in the corners a bit more than in the center.
Sharpness remains nice and consistent throughout the zoom range. It’s very good news that it remains strong all the way out to 300mm, as that’s likely where you’ll most want it on a telephoto zoom lens. The minor corner softness we saw across its range is typical of telephoto zooms of this nature, and won’t be an issue for most subjects.
 |
| The combination of a powerful telephoto and close focusing make it easy to get nicely-blurred backgrounds if your subject is relatively close to the camera. ISO 160 | 1/210 sec | F5.6 | 450mm equiv. | Fujifilm X-S10 Photo by Chris Niccolls |
Bokeh
Given that it doesn’t have a particularly fast maximum aperture, you might expect achieving a thin depth of field with this lens would be tricky. Thanks both to its extreme telephoto nature and its ability to focus very closely across its entire zoom range, however, you can actually get some nicely soft, blurry backgrounds if your subject is relatively close to the camera.
It also offers a very nice transition in bokeh from out-of-focus to in-focus areas and back again. Unfortunately, bokeh is a bit of a weak spot for the Fujifilm 70-300mm in a couple of respects. Portrait shooters in particular will want to choose their backgrounds carefully, or perhaps reach for a different lens instead.
 |
| The Fujifilm 70-300mm is prone to pretty strong onion ring effect, which can make its bokeh quite distracting when out-of-focus specular highlights are present. ISO 160 | 1/350 sec | F4 | 105mm equiv. | Fujifilm X-S10 Photo by Chris Niccolls |
The reasons for this are twofold: A pretty heavy cat’s-eye effect that yields football-shaped (or for non-Americans, rugby ball-shaped) bokeh towards the corners, and pretty strong onion ring effect as well.
The cat’s eye can be greatly minimized by stopping down a little bit, but unfortunately the onion ring can’t be dealt with so easily. Less defocused objects, particularly specular highlights, can appear quite busy due to the onion rings and patterns. Indeed, sometimes the 70-300mm’s bokeh has a very wild look to it that can be very distracting.
Near the corners, bokeh suffers from heavy cat’s eye effect when shooting wide-open. Stopping down just a little improves the situation significantly, however. Onion ring effect is visible even in diffuse specular highlights.
Photos by Chris Niccolls
The good news is that it’s most noticeable in strong specular highlights, which aren’t something sports and wildlife shooters will have to worry about as much. With grandstands in the background, the bokeh should look great. For portraits with blurred-out lights in the distance, or backlit trees, though, it may look pretty rough.
Flare, ghosting and sunstars
Thankfully, flare and ghosting really aren’t an issue for this lens. We didn’t see much of either, and a really big, quite effective lens hood is included with the product bundle to help keep the sun off the front of the lens.
 |
| ISO 6400 | 1/15 sec | F16 | 450mm equiv. | Fujifilm X-S10 Photo by Chris Niccolls |
And while we didn’t really expect much when it came to sunstars, in actual fact they turned out to be pretty good!
Lateral and longitudinal chromatic aberration (fringing)
We saw almost no longitudinal chromatic aberration with the XF70-300mm. This aberration typically shows up as magenta and green fringing in front of, and behind, the focus plane, respectively. It’s mostly problematic with fast aperture primes, so we weren’t too surprised to find that it was a non-issue here, even in situations where one might expect to see this aberration.
Lateral chromatic aberration, which shows as green/cyan and purple fringing around high contrast edges at image peripheries, is well-controlled. The tiny bit that is there is easily corrected for in post-processing and automatically by the camera in JPEGs.
Teleconverters
Fujifilm offers two optional, weather-sealed teleconverters that can be used with the 70-300mm F4-5.6, and we tested the lens with both of them.
The Fujinon XF1.4X TC WR teleconverter takes the telephoto reach to 420mm (630mm-equivalent) with an F8 maximum aperture. The XF 2X TC WR teleconverter, meanwhile, extends this to 600mm (900mm-equivalent) at a decidedly dim max. aperture of F11.
 |
| ISO 160 | 1/1000 sec | F5.6 | 450mm equiv. | Fujifilm X-S10 without teleconverter Photo by Chris Niccolls |
Balance is still good with the 1.4x TC mounted, but with the 2x version, the combination does start to feel a bit front-heavy with lighter bodies.
Even with the 1.4x TC attached, we still found autofocus performance to be quite snappy, and tracking continued to work well. Using the 2x TC, though, AF does slow down quite a bit even in bright sunlight. And while AF tracking still works with the 2x TC, it’s pretty slow.
 |
| ISO 160 | 1/320 sec | F8 | 630mm equiv. | Fujifilm X-S10 with 1.4x teleconverter Photo by Chris Niccolls |
Of course, either TC can also be used to increase the lens’ already impressive macro capabilities. With the 1.4x TC, the 35mm-equivalent macro is 1:1.44 (0.69x), and using the 2x TC it’s 1:1 (1.0x)-equivalent.
 |
| ISO 160 | 1/100 sec | F11 | 900mm equiv. | Fujifilm X-S10 with 2x teleconverter Photo by Chris Niccolls |
As you’d expect, there is some loss in image quality with either teleconverter, although it’s relatively minor with the less powerful 1.4x TC. With the 2x TC, there’s a very noticeable drop in sharpness, while chromatic aberrations are significantly magnified. Color fringing can remain even after corrections with this combination, as you can see in the example below. If you want better sharpness and a wider aperture, and you can justify its added cost, we’d recommend considering the XF100-400mm F4.5-5.6 R LM OIS WR lens instead.
If portability is your highest priority, however, the 1.4x TC and 70-300mm lens together will save you a worthwhile 665g (1.5lb) over the 100-400mm while just slightly besting its telephoto reach. The combination will also be 63mm shorter with the lens retracted, and will retain the 70-300mm’s 19.8mm (0.8″) advantage over the 100-400mm in barrel diameter.
Even the larger, heavier and more powerful 2x TC will still save you 625g (1.4lb) in weight and 48mm (1.9″) in length without increasing the barrel diameter of the 70-300mm lens. And with list prices of $450 apiece for either TC, you could buy both along with the 70-300mm lens and still save $200 over the cost of the 100-400mm lens alone.
Conclusion
| What we like | What we don’t |
|---|---|
|
|
In most respects, the Fujifilm XF 70-300mm F4-5.6 turns in a great performance given its compact, lightweight design and quite affordable pricetag. And it will prove doubly attractive to Fujifilm X-mount shooters given the paucity of compelling alternatives, either from third parties or Fujifilm itself.
Although it does feel a bit plasticky in-hand, it’s nevertheless quite well-constructed, and it’s easy to overlook the use of plastic given the significant weight saving it allows. Fujifilm has also done quite well on the control front, save for the overly-loose focus and zoom rings. We really appreciate the inclusion of a dedicated aperture ring, and the self-disabling zoom lock is a really nice touch.
In most respects, image quality also satisfies, especially for subjects like sports and wildlife. And thanks to its swift autofocus drive, it should handle both with aplomb. It’s also a surprisingly capable macro lens, which adds to its versatility and helps address a weakness of Fujifilm’s X-mount lineup. What’s more, very effective image stabilization help X-mount shooters, particularly those shooting with stabilized sensors, achieve better image quality across the wide range of use-cases this lens is expected to encounter. And it’s also quite well-suited to video capture.
 |
| ISO 400 | 1/200 sec | F4 | 105mm equiv. | Fujifilm X-S10 Photo by Chris Niccolls |
Our biggest concerns with the 70-300mm are its bokeh issues, both with onion ring and cat’s eye. These will be most troubling for portraits shot against a backdrop of strong specular highlights, but could lead to unnecessarily distracting bokeh in a variety of situations. They shouldn’t pose much problem for sports and nature shooters, however.
Given its strengths in most respects, and the relatively small step upwards in price, the 70-300mm has effectively replaced Fujifilm’s earlier 55-200mm for most purposes. We can see little reason to purchase that lens now, unless it’s offered at a significant discount.
 |
| ISO 160 | 1/200 sec | F6.4 | 450mm equiv. | Fujifilm X-S10 Photo by Chris Niccolls |
And that leaves only one real alternative: Fujifilm’s pro-grade 100-400mm. Given its much greater size, weight and cost, that lens will simply be overkill for most X-mount shooters.
If you’re expecting to shoot a lot of portraits and need the best possible bokeh, the 100-400mm is certainly a worthwhile upgrade. And that’s also true if you need its stronger telephoto, but can’t make do with the downsides of using a teleconverter.
But for most purposes, Fujifilm’s 70-300mm is now your best bet for an X-mount tele zoom. You might say that this reason alone is enough to garner the XF 70-300mm F4-5.6 LM WR OIS WR our Silver Award, but that would be selling it short. Aside from critical bokeh assessment, its optical and autofocus performance are excellent, so if you’re an X-mount shooter looking for a lot of reach, you have little reason to look elsewhere.
DPReview TV review
See what our team at DPReview TV has to say about the Fujifilm XF 70-300mm F4-5.6.
Wildlife Photographer of the Year winners
The 11th annual International Landscape Photographer of the Year competition has announced the winners of its 2024 awards, showcasing stunning imagery from around the world. Photographers competed in various categories, including the coveted Landscape Photographer of the Year, requiring a portfolio of at least four images, and Landscape Photograph of the Year, recognizing the power of a single captivating shot.
This year’s competition saw Canadian photographer Andrew Mielzynski, an amateur with a deep connection to the natural environment, claim the top prize for his portfolio of stark images with simple color palettes. Ryohei Irie from Japan captured the Landscape Photograph of the Year award with a mesmerizing image of fireflies illuminating a forest.
Beyond the overall winners, the competition presented awards in specific categories, including Black and White, Aerial, Snow and Ice, and Forest, along with at-large winners. In addition to the overall and category winners, we’ve included several of our favorite photos from the 202 photographs recognized this year. You can visit the competition’s website to see all the winning images or to download its 2024 eBook.
Landscape Photographer of the Year: 1st place
 |
Photographer: Andrew Mielzynski, Canada
Subject and location: Cono de Arita in the Salar de Arizaro, Atacama Desert in Argentina
Description: The Cono is a perfectly cone-shaped volcano at 3,690 meters above sea level. It’s very graphic due to the contrast between the dark, perfectly formed cone and the bed of white salt that is found at its base.
Copyright Andrew Mielzynski / The International Landscape Photographer of the Year
Landscape Photographer of the Year: 1st place
 |
Photographer: Andrew Mielzynski, Canada
Subject and location: Winter Cottonwoods, Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Description: During the pandemic, I went out for a walk at a local park during a fierce winter storm. I ran across this scene. It seemed very chaotic, with many layers of trees. I loved how the snow, driven by high winds, was embedded into the bark of the trunks. The snow on the bark created a textural contrast that adds detail and interest to the trees. I took a few frames, trying to simplify the scene in front of me and settled on this one, loving the tones, the depth, the order and the minimalism. Even in a chaotic scene, there seems to be a sense of balance that feels orderly and pleasing.
Copyright Andrew Mielzynski / The International Landscape Photographer of the Year
Landscape Photographer of the Year: 1st place
 |
Photographer: Andrew Mielzynski, Canada
Subject and location: Found in a roadside ditch near Heathcote, Ontario, Canada
Description: After a melt, we had a flash freeze with extremely cold temperatures and a clear blue sky. I was driving by a ditch on the side of a road that had been filled with water and had to stop and look (as we photographers do, can’t pass a ditch without investigating). This is what I found. Great textures and patterns, tones and flow, with lovely graphic lines creating a dynamic, abstract designs. I love this type of work – it’s so much fun, yet challenging to find just the right composition.
Copyright Andrew Mielzynski / The International Landscape Photographer of the Year
Landscape Photographer of the Year: 2nd place
 |
Photographer: Ignacio Palacios, Australia
Subject and location: Pumice Field, La Puna, Argentina
Copyright Ignacio Palacios / The International Landscape Photographer of the Year
Landscape Photographer of the Year: 2nd place
 |
Photographer: Ignacio Palacios, Australia
Subject and location: Seven Colors Mountain, Siloli Desert, Bolivian Altiplano
Copyright Ignacio Palacios / The International Landscape Photographer of the Year
Landscape Photographer of the Year: 2nd place
 |
Photographer: Ignacio Palacios, Australia
Subject and location: Arita Cone, La Puna, Argentina
Copyright Ignacio Palacios / The International Landscape Photographer of the Year
Landscape Photographer of the Year: 3rd place
 |
Photographer: Gheorghe Popa, Romania
Subject and location: Early Autumn, Vânători Neamț Natural Park, Romania
Copyright Gheorghe Popa / The International Landscape Photographer of the Year
Landscape Photographer of the Year: 3rd place
 |
Photographer: Gheorghe Popa, Romania
Subject and location: Poisoned Beauty, Geamăna, Apuseni Mountains, Romania
Copyright Gheorghe Popa / The International Landscape Photographer of the Year
Landscape Photographer of the Year: 3rd place
 |
Photographer: Gheorghe Popa, Romania
Subject and location: Whispers of the Sunken Trees Cuejdel Lake, Romania
Copyright Gheorghe Popa / The International Landscape Photographer of the Year
Landscape Photograph of the Year: 1st place
 |
Photographer: Ryohei Irie, Japan
Subject and location: Traces of Light, Ichinomata, Yamaguchi Prefecture, Japan
Description: The Landscape Photograph of the Year Award went to Ryohei Irie of Japan. He likes the mysterious atmosphere created by the standing dead trees and firefly light. “I have been visiting this Subject and location for several years during the firefly season, and it is an interesting place because the intensity and length of the firefly light and the Subject and location where the fireflies fly vary greatly, depending on the year and time of day, resulting in completely different works, even when photographed in the same way.”
Copyright Ryohei Irie / The International Landscape Photographer of the Year
Landscape Photograph of the Year: 2nd place
 |
Photographer: Justinus Sukotjo, Indonesia
Subject and location: Mother Care Framing, Walakiri Beach, Sumba Island, Indonesia
Copyright Justinus Sukotjo / The International Landscape Photographer of the Year
Landscape Photograph of the Year: 3rd place
 |
Photographer: Himadri Bhuyan, India
Subject and location: The Flow, Sohra, Meghalaya, India
Copyright Himadri Bhuyan / The International Landscape Photographer of the Year
The Black and White Award
 |
Photographer: J. Fritz Rumpf, United States
Award: The Black and White Award 2024
Subject and location: White Tie Affair. Death Valley National Park, California, USA
Copyright J. Fritz Rumpf / The International Landscape Photographer of the Year
The Aerial Award
 |
Photographer: Benjamin Barakat, Switzerland
Award: The Aerial Award 2024
Subject and location: The Final Dune, Namibia
Copyright Benjamin Barakat / The International Landscape Photographer of the Year
The Snow and Ice Award
 |
Photographer: Jeroen van Nieuwenhove, Iceland
Award: The Snow and Ice Award 2024
Subject and location: Isþyrlu – Ice Swirl, Scoresbysund, Greenland
Copyright Jeroen van Nieuwenhove / The International Landscape Photographer of the Year
The Forest Award
 |
Photographer: Shirley Wung, Taiwan
Award: The Forest Award 2024
Subject and location: Fireflies flying in the Misty Mountains, Wufeng Township, Hsinchu, Taiwan
Copyright Shirley Wung / The International Landscape Photographer of the Year
The Exciting Sky Award
 |
Photographer: Federico Delucchi, Italy
Award: The Exciting Sky Award 2024
Subject and location: Aurora, meteor shower and other cool stuff, Rocca la Meja, Italy
Copyright Federico Delucchi / The International Landscape Photographer of the Year
Other top entries
 |
Photographer: Laura Bennet, United States
Subject and location: Sumba Island, Indonesia
Copyright Laura Bennet / The International Landscape Photographer of the Year
Other top entries
 |
Photographer: William Preite, Italy
Subject and location: Pale di San Martino, Falcade, Dolomites, Italy
Copyright William Preite / The International Landscape Photographer of the Year
Other top entries
 |
Photographer: Siegfried Makedanz, Germany
Subject and location: Sandfellsjökull Glacier Lagoon, Southern Iceland
Copyright Siegfried Makedanz / The International Landscape Photographer of the Year
Other top entries
 |
Photographer: Sabine Weise, Germany
Subject and location: Moonscape Overlook, Utah Badlands, USA
Copyright Sabine Weise / The International Landscape Photographer of the Year
Other top entries
 |
Photographer: Yuriy Vantowski, United States
Subject and location: Mount Bromo, East Java, Indonesia
Copyright Yuriy Vantowski / The International Landscape Photographer of the Year
Other top entries
 |
Photographer: Tanay Das, India
Subject and location: Kistwa, Himalaya, Jammu and Kashmir, India
Copyright Tanay Das / The International Landscape Photographer of the Year
Other top entries
 |
Photographer: Rajesh Jyothiswaran, United States
Subject and location: Texas, United States
Copyright Rajesh Jyothiswaran / The International Landscape Photographer of the Year
| Images: Canon, Nikon |
It wasn’t long ago that many of our reviews of APS-C cameras had to come with a warning: no matter how good the body was, you were almost certainly going to be limited by lens selection. This was especially true with Nikon and Canon’s mirrorless cameras. Sony has followed its longstanding tradition of letting third parties build out a healthy selection of lenses, and the selection for Fujifilm’s APS-C-only X-mount is second to none, but Nikon’s Z mount and Canon’s RF mount appeared to be almost completely locked down. As a result, you could count the number of APS-C lens options available on your fingers.
But things are changing. Over the past year, we’ve seen several APS-C lenses announced and released for Canon and Nikon cameras, filling notable gaps in the first-party lens lineups. But while the situation is improving, it’s clear that the two companies are still in control.
This week, Sigma released four APS-C primes for Canon’s RF mount, making good on its promise to release six licensed lenses for the system – earlier this year, it released the 10-18mm F2.8 and 18-50mm F2.8. Meanwhile, Nikon has allowed Sigma to release select primes for Z-mount – a trio of F1.4 primes at 16, 30, and 56mm. It’s worth noting the company’s 23mm F1.4 is the only one of its APS-C primes that it hasn’t brought to Z-mount; it likely isn’t a coincidence that Nikon’s only first-party APS-C prime lens is a 24mm F1.7.
 |
|
Sigma’s APS-C prime lens lineup is quite good, and now most of them are available for almost any mirrorless APS-C camera.
Image: Sigma |
However, Nikon hasn’t stopped companies like Viltrox and Sirui from releasing a slew of Z-mount APS-C prime lenses, complete with autofocus. If you pick up a Nikon Zfc or Z50II, you can get anywhere from a 13mm F1.4 (20mm equiv.) to a 75mm F1.2 (113mm equiv.) to go with it, as well as most of the classic focal lengths in between.
Your choices are no longer limited to a few first-party options, manual-focus only lenses, or glass meant for full-frame bodies
This is an important change for APS-C shooters. Even going back to the DSLR days, it’s felt like many manufacturers have viewed the format as a stepping stone to full-frame rather than something enthusiasts and pros might consciously choose. Neither Canon nor Nikon have been particularly prolific when releasing new APS-C glass. But with the gates being slightly opened, you’re no longer limited to a few first-party options, manual-focus-only lenses from third parties, or heavier, more expensive full-frame lenses. Now, there’s at least some selection of third-party lenses with autofocus to choose from, alongside Canon and Nikon’s offerings.
This isn’t to say that you can now buy any APS-C camera you want and be assured that all the lenses you want will be available – you are still at the mercy of what Canon and Nikon wish to allow. While plenty of primes are available for Z-mount APS-C cameras, no fast zoom lenses are available; Nikon’s all start at F3.5 and end at F5.6 or F6.3.
In fact, there are currently no third-party APS-C zooms available for Nikon Z-mount at all, despite the fact that two have made the jump from E and X-mount to RF – it also goes without saying that there are many others more available on Fujifilm and Sony’s systems. That’s a bummer for anyone looking to step up from the kit lens or wanting to shoot sports or birds in anything but ideal lighting without having to shell out for and lug around a full-frame 70-200mm.
 |
|
Tamron has promised to bring its 11-20mm F2.8 APS-C lens to Canon RF mount this year as well – no word on Z-mount, despite Tamron bringing some of its full-frame lenses to Nikon.
Image: Tamron |
RF mount at least has the two constant F2.8 zooms thanks to Sigma, with one more on the way from Tamron, though those are all at the wide end. However, there are far fewer autofocus primes available for Canon, as manufacturers like Sirui and Viltrox aren’t producing them. That’s not surprising; a representative for the latter once said that Canon had told it to stop producing products for RF mount. The 85mm F1.4 lens that Samyang announced for the system in 2020 also disappeared from the market not long after.
In a perfect world, these problems wouldn’t exist. Canon and Nikon would make the lenses that their APS-C cameras needed to stand on their own feet as a real alternative to full-frame options, and there would be robust competition from third parties, which would be allowed to make whatever lenses they want.
None of that seems particularly likely. However, at least those who choose to shoot with a smaller sensor in a Canon or Nikon body have gotten a wider choice of lenses, even if they’re still bound by the companies’ rules.
At the end of the day, that’s better for everyone interested in APS-C, because it means that cameras like the EOS R7 and Z50II are competitive with the Sony a6700 and Fujifilm X-T5 in a way that they wouldn’t have been with an extremely limited lens selection. With any luck, this trend will continue, and the APS-C landscape will become more competitive – even if Canon and Nikon aren’t giving it their full attention.
The Sony Alpha 1 II is the company’s latest flagship full-frame mirrorless camera. It’s built around the same 50.1MP stacked CMOS sensor as the original but now includes an “AI processing unit,” which allows its autofocus system to recognize seven different subject types and to automatically select one based on what’s in the scene.
Key specifications
- 50.1MP stacked CMOS sensor
- In-body stabilization rated at up to 8.5EV
- Improved autofocus subject recognition with automatic selection
- Continuous shooting at up to 30fps with full AF tracking
- Pre-release capture from 0.03 to 1 second
- Fully-articulated rear screen on tilt-out cradle
- 8K 30p video downsampled from 8.6K / 4K 120fps
- 9.44M dot 240fps viewfinder – full res up to 120fps
The a1 II will retail for $6,499.99 – the same as its predecessor – and will be available in mid-December.
Index:
- What’s new?
- How it compares
- Body and handling
- Initial impressions
- Sample Gallery
- Specifications
- Press release
What’s new
 |
Despite using the same sensor as its predecessor, Sony claims the a1 II will have improved image quality at mid-to-high ISOs thanks to its improved image processing engine. Presumably, these improvements will only appear in the JPEGs.
Improved Autofocus
The original a1’s autofocus system could recognize humans when shooting stills and videos, and animals and birds when shooting stills. The a1 II, however, inherits the dedicated “AI processor” seen in cameras like the a7R V and a9 III and can now recognize even more subjects: it adds insects, cars, trains and airplanes. All the recognition modes are now available in movie mode as well, and the system can specifically target key parts of recognized subjects, such as a driver’s helmet.
The a1 II brings an ‘Auto’ subject recognition mode to the Alpha line
Sony also claims that human and animal eye recognition should be around 30% better than the a1 and that bird eye recognition should be 50% better. The Animal and Bird modes have also been merged, meaning you won’t have to switch between subject recognition modes if you want to go from shooting animals to birds or vice versa.
 |
| The a1 II’s Auto Subject Detection mode lets you narrow-down the types of subject it’ll search for, to help optimize the performance. |
Not that you would necessarily have to switch modes manually. The a1 II is Sony’s first Alpha camera to have an Auto subject recognition mode, where it can determine what type of subject it should be tracking and lock on to it. As with the similar system on Nikon’s cameras, this comes with a small speed penalty compared to having a specific subject recognition mode selected. However, it can be useful if you need to quickly go between shooting a variety of subject types.
You can also speed up the system by limiting which types of subjects the Auto mode selects between; for example, you can make it so it only looks for humans, animals, and birds if you’re not planning to shoot any insects or vehicles.
Finally, Sony’s also adding extra small and extra large spot focus area options.
Pre-Capture
One feature that’s become commonplace since the launch of the a1 is pre-capture – a way for the camera to save the moments before you press the shutter, helping you capture key moments beyond your ability to anticipate them. The a1 II adds it, recording up to 30 frames in the moments leading up to you pressing the shutter button, though if you want to go above 20fps, you will be limited to using lossy compressed Raws instead of lossless compressed ones. When enabled, the pre-capture is activated by a half-press of the shutter, the press of the AF button, or both, depending on your settings.
You can set the pre-record window to be as short as 0.03 seconds or as long as a second, with several options in between.
Better stabilization
The a1 II’s internal image stabilization is now rated for up to 8.5 stops in the center of the frame and 7 stops on the periphery (a new CIPA metric), up from a 5.5 stop rating on the a1.
Viewfinder tweaks
 |
Hardware-wise, the a1 II’s EVF seems largely unchanged from the a1’s: it’s the same resolution and can run at the same 240fps. However, Sony says you can now run in 120fps mode with display quality set to ‘high,’ though you will still see a drop in resolution if you go up to 240fps.
There’s also now a ‘deep’ viewfinder eyecup included in the box, alongside the standard one
Video
 |
The a1 II retains most of the original’s video specs. This means 8K capture at up to 30p, full-width 4K capture at up to 60p and up to 120p with a 1.13x crop. The 4K isn’t derived from the 8K footage, though, so you don’t gain the detail benefit of 2x oversampling.
The a1 II adds a few quality-of-life updates, though. The most impactful will probably be the aforementioned support for using all the subject tracking modes while shooting video, but you can also now import up to 16 custom LUTs that you can use to preview what your Log footage will look like when graded. You can also embed the LUT alongside your files, so that someone else editing your footage can match your intended look.
Just as we’ve seen with Sony’s other recent large-sensor cameras, the a1 II only shoots the S-Log3 profile, which captures a very wide dynamic range. It no longer offers the less expansive S-Log2 option. The a1 II also gains the attractive and flexible S-Cinetone profile if you don’t want to color grade in post.
The camera also has the Auto Framing feature found on some of Sony’s vlogging cameras, where it will crop in on the subject and move the frame around to make it seem like there’s a cameraperson tracking them. There’s also a ‘Dynamic active’ image stabilization mode, which Sony says will increase the stabilization by up to 20% compared to the standard ‘Active’ mode, and a ‘Framing Stabilizer’ mode that’s meant to ensure that your frame maintains the same composition as much as possible when shooting handheld.
Noise Reduction Composite Raw
Sony has expanded on the a1’s pixel shift multi-shot mode, adding a noise reduction mode that shoots between 4 and 32 Raw images that can be composited together using a desktop computer running the company’s Imaging Edge software. Sony pitches it as a mode for low-light portraiture.
It’s most easily understood as a multi-shot mode without the pixel-shift movement. Rather than trying to boost resolution it aligns and combines multiple images to boost the signal-to-noise ratio (ie: tonal quality) at each pixel position. As with pixel shift mode, it’ll work best when there’s little to no movement within your scene.
The a1 II also gains focus bracketing, which the original a1 lacked.
How it compares
The most direct competitor to the a1 II is Nikon’s Z9, its pro-focused high speed, high resolution model. Canon’s EOS R1 lower resolution makes it more of an a9 III competitor, but it’s these models primarily and explicitly made for professional shooting in the most demanding circumstances that Sony’s trying to target.
However, given how much of the Z9 and R1 Nikon and Canon have included in the Z8 and EOS R5 II, respectively, it’s also fair to include one of those models here, too. Sony doesn’t use the two-grip and larger battery design for its pro models, which makes the comparison even more inviting, despite them being a different class of camera.
| Sony a1 II | Nikon Z9 | Canon EOS R5 II | Sony a1 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| MSRP | $6,499 | $5,499 | $4,299 | $6,499 |
| Pixel count | 50MP | 45MP | 45MP | 50MP |
| Sensor type | Stacked CMOS | Stacked CMOS | Stacked CMOS | Stacked CMOS |
| Max frame rate | E: 30fps lossy compressed Raw / 20fps lossless compressed raw |
20fps 14-bit Raw
30fps JPEG |
E: 30fps
M: 12fps |
E: 30fps lossy compressed Raw / 20fps lossless compressed raw
M: 10fps |
| Flash sync speed | M: 1/400
E: 1/200 |
E: 1/200 |
M: 1/200
E: N/A |
M: 1/400
E: 1/200 |
| Stabilization | 8.5EV center, 7EV periphery | 6EV | 8.5EV | 5.5EV |
| Max video res / rate | 8K/30 | 8K/60 | 8K/60 | 8K/30 |
| Video formats |
|
|
|
|
| AF sensitivity | -5.33EV* | -5.0EV (-7.0 in Starlight AF mode) | -7.5EV | -5.33EV* |
| Viewfinder | 9.44M dots 0.90x | 3.69M dots 0.80x | 5.76M dots 0.76x | 9.44M dots 0.90x |
| Rear LCD | 3.2″ 2.1M dot, fully articulating with tilt | 3.2″ 2.1M dot, 4-axis tilting | 3.2″ 2.1M dot, fully articulated | 3.0″ 1.44M dot, tilting |
| Connectivity |
|
|
|
|
| Stills battery life EVF / LCD | 420 / 520 | 700 / 740 | 250 / 540 | 430 / 530 |
| Video battery life (LCD) Cont. / Actual | 150 min / 90 min | 170 min / – | 150 min / 95 min | |
| Dimensions | 136 x 97 x 83mm | 149 x 150 x 91mm | 138 x 98 x 88mm | 129 x 97 x 81mm |
| Weight | 743g | 1340g | 670g | 737g |
* – Sony rates its AF sensitivity using an F2 lens, while Nikon and Canon use an F1.2 lens. We’ve adjusted Sony’s rating by -1.33EV to account for the difference.
The a1 II has the joint fastest shooting rate here and its sensor readout is quicker than the roughly 1/160 that the EOS R5 II can achieve. Likewise it has a built-in Ethernet connection, which the Canon lacks and, unlike the EOS R5 II and Nikon Z8, has matched card slots so that pros can focus on a single type of media and never have to worry about an performance difference between slots.
It’s much more evenly-matched against the Z9, which has a much lower resolution viewfinder but a low-latency readout path from its sensor to make the viewfinder more responsive. The Z9 can only shoot at up to 20fps in Raw, dropping to 12-bit readout and JPEG-only mode to hit 30fps.
Body and handling
 |
Given that the a1’s audience is professionals who use it day in and day out, it’s no surprise that Sony has been conservative with changes to its magnesium body and controls – the a1 II’s tweaks are largely the same as the a9 III’s, with the grip getting deeper and the shutter button being angled forward towards your finger.
 |
The dials and buttons are largely in the same places, though the exposure compensation markings have been removed from the locking top-plate control dial. The stills / video / S&Q modes have also been moved to a sub-dial rather than being settings on the mode selector dial, and the drive select dial now has a disable setting that lets you control the camera’s drive mode purely through menus.
The a1 II also features an additional programmable button on the front next to the grip. By default, it acts as a ‘Speed Boost’ button, upping your shooting rate as you hold it down. For example, you could be shooting at 15fps and press the button to start shooting at 30fps for a few seconds when the action speeds up or when you want to be sure you’ll capture a specific moment. This option can be moved to another button and the boosted frame-rate can be tailored to suit your subject.
 |
The biggest physical change is the display. It’s a bit larger and higher resolution than the a1’s, and it can now tilt in addition to being fully articulated. It’s a design we saw with the a7RV, and one that should make both photographers and videographers happy. It also has the slightly updated menu system from the a7RV as well, with the interactive settings tab.
As discussed above, the viewfinder is largely still the same, with a large 0.9x magnification and 9.44M dots giving a resolution of 2048 x 1536px. Its 120fps mode is nicer to use now that it doesn’t come with a substantial drop in resolution.
Ports and slots
 |
The a1 II’s I/O is largely unchanged from its predecessor, though the ports have moved around a bit. It still has a headphone and microphone jack, a USB-C port that runs at 3.2 Gen 2 10Gbps speeds, a full-size HDMI port, Sony’s micro USB ‘Multi’ accessory port, and a flash sync port.
It also has dual-band 2.4 and 5GHz Wi-Fi with 2×2 MIMO and an upgraded Ethernet port that runs at 2.5Gbps instead of the 1Gbps speeds the port on the a1 was limited to. That should make transferring large videos and batches of photos over long distances faster – try finding a high-speed USB-C cable that’s more than a few meters long – and is another sign of the pro workflows this camera is designed to support. The Ethernet port also now has a Wake on LAN feture that can be used to remotely turn the a1 II on using Remote Camera Tool.
 |
On the other side, the a1 II features a pair of the combined CFexpress Type A / UHS-II SD card slots for storage that feature on many of Sony’s cameras.
Battery
 |
The a1 II uses Sony’s NP-FZ100 batteries, and includes a dual-battery charger in the box, which it claims will charge two batteries at once in around 155 minutes.
The camera is rated to give 420 shots per charge when using the rear screen. As always, CIPA figures tend to significantly underestimate the actual number of shots most people will get, and this discrepancy gets significantly larger when you’re shooting bursts. But, while we’d expect a camera rated at 420 shots per charge to actually be able to shoot multiple times this number in practice, it’s usually a good indicator of how its battery life compares with other cameras (ie: if it gets a rating 50% lower than another camera, it’s likely to capture around 50% fewer shots per charge).
Initial impressions
By Richard Butler
 |
|
The a1 II’s AF proved very effective at staying focused on the player we’d specified, in our testing so far.
Sony FE 400mm F2.8 GM OSS | F2.8 | 1/4000 sec | ISO 640 |
When the original a1 arrived, just shy of four years ago, it represented an unprecedented combination of high resolution and speed. Despite a 50MP sensor, its Stacked CMOS design with on-board RAM let it capture stills at up to 30fps with readout speeds of around 4ms (fast enough to allow flash sync at up to 1/200 sec). This was around four times faster readout than the 20fps Canon EOS R5, which had previously come closest to offering high-speed and high res.
However, in the time that’s passed, both Canon and Nikon have produced fast high-res bodies and done so at something closer to a consumer-reachable price, leaving Sony’s pro flagship looking expensive, rather than exemplary. Don’t let this or Sony’s single-grip approach fool you: the a1 II is designed to square-up against the Z9 and R1, not the Z8 and R5 II. But it goes to show how quickly things have been moving that these more affordable models can match so much of the of the original a1’s spec and offer more advanced subject recognition.
 |
|
A pro sports camera doesn’t have to be used solely for sports, and its impressive autofocus can help maintain a very high hit-rate even when scrutinizing all 60 million pixels.
Sony 28-70mm F2 GM @ 70mm | F8 | 1/200 sec | ISO 100 |
The a1 II helps redress this balance, somewhat, pairing the same processing capabilities as Sony’s other pro-focussed model, the a9 III, with the 50MP Stacked CMOS sensor. This includes the gain of subject recognition AF modes with the first ‘Auto’ option that lets you pare back the range of subjects it hunts for, to hit an optimal speed/convenience balance for your photography. We’ve been very impressed by the camera’s AF performance so far.
The a1 II also gains the pre-capture option that’s been becoming increasingly common on action-focused cameras. It still tops-out at 8K/30 on the video side though, and has no option for 4K derived from this 8K capture, leaving it behind both the R5 II and Z8 in this regard.
Interestingly, the a1 II still needs to drop to Sony’s damagingly lossy Raw format at 30 fps: it can only shoot lossless compressed Raw at 20fps. The difference only becomes apparent at high-contrast edges after significant editing pushes, so is unlikely to be a major issue for action shooting, but it’s a surprise that this couldn’t be addressed with the Mark II’s greater processing grunt.
“It’s these workflow features aimed at professionals that try to set the camera apart”
Critically, the a1 II also includes a series of features from both the a1 and the a9 III designed specifically for professionals trying to deliver images quickly that the less expensive rivals lack. This includes a variety of transfer options, including SFTP and several ways of marking files to be transferred. We’d also expect the a1 II to gain the ability to encode C2PA authentication metadata to its files.
Unsurprisingly, it’s the cumulative impact of these workflow features aimed at professionals working in high-intensity environments that try to set the camera apart. And if you’re not one of those people (and most of us aren’t), then the a1 II almost certainly isn’t worth so much more than the more consumer-priced models.
 |
| Details such as a high-speed Ethernet port and options like Start-on-LAN to enable a goal-line camera to be remotely activated and controlled are what help set the pro-tier products apart from the very high-end enthusiast/crossover models. |
But how can these small details, an Ethernet port, that huge, high-res viewfinder and details like matched media card slots really add up to justify a 50% premium over the enthusiast/pro crossover bodies, such as the Z8 and EOS R5 II? Ultimately, it may simply be a ‘Pro Tax’: that $6K is how much a pro-focused camera costs. It’s the amount the market has shown it will bear, and it’s likely to be how much companies (including single-photographer companies) will have budgeted.
If there’s any doubt in your mind about whether the a1 II is worth the extra $2000 over the Z8 or EOS R5 II, then you’re not its target audience, and consequently it almost certainly isn’t, But if you are a Sony-shooting pro, the a1 II adds significantly to the skill-set of the previous model. But against dramatically improved competition and with so much Z9 and R1 tech trickling down to the Z8 and R5 II, it’s not the game-changer its predecessor was. We’ll get a chance to test this assessment as we continue using the camera.
Sample gallery
Please do not reproduce any of these images on a website or any newsletter/magazine without prior permission (see our copyright page). We make the originals available for private users to download to their own machines for personal examination or printing (in conjunction with this review); we do so in good faith, so please don’t abuse it.
-
Solar Energy3 years agoDLR testing the use of molten salt in a solar power plant in Portugal
-
world news1 year ago
Gulf, France aid Gaza, Russia evacuates citizens
-
Camera1 year agoDJI Air 3 vs. Mini 4 Pro: which compact drone is best?
-
world news1 year ago
Strong majority of Americans support Israel-Hamas hostage deal
-
Camera4 years agoCharles ‘Chuck’ Geschke, co-founder of Adobe and inventor of the PDF, dies at 81
-
Camera1 year agoSony a9 III: what you need to know
-
Solar Energy12 months agoGlencore eyes options on battery recycling project
-
TOP SCEINCE7 months agoCan animals count?
