Considering reach on a compact: Canon EOS-M vs. Fuji X

Discussion in 'Canon' started by wt21, Oct 14, 2013.

  1. wt21

    wt21 Hall of Famer Subscribing Member

    Aug 15, 2010
    I've been thinking about a Fuji system for a while. Was planning on getting a used XM1 until the whole XM1/XA1 controversy kicked up.

    Now I'm thinking maybe I'll just still with my little EOS-M a while.

    I compared the Fuji 55-200 vs. the Canon 55-250 STM (3rd gen of this lens). I think I could do quite well with this lens.

    Attribute: Fuji vs Canon
    • Focal length equivalent: 84-305 vs 88-400: Canon gets more reach on the long end, same on the wide end
    • Aperture: 3.5-4.8 vs. 4.0-5.6: Fuji has a brighter aperture by 1/2 stop+
    • Min Focus Distance: 1.1m vs. .85m: for me, closer is always better, so the Canon wins here
    • Max Mag: .18x vs. .29x: Again, nicer on the Canon
    • Ap. blades: 7 vs. 7: Of course, that doesn't really tell you the bokeh. I'll have to look for samples
    • Filter size: 62mm vs. 58mm: for me, personally, I already have 58mm filters, as my other canon lenses are mostly 58mm
    • Size (DXL): 75X188mm vs. 70X111mm. That's a pretty sizable difference on length. Also, if I remember the Canon 55-250, there is minimal zoom creep because the front element isn't that heavy
    • Weight: 580g vs 375g: that's a huge difference for walking about in the Canon's favor
    • Price: $699 vs $349. That's a lot of savings.

    Fuji has a more "consumer" oriented zoom lens on their roadmap, but it's not out yet, and it has an even smaller aperture.
  2. rbelyell

    rbelyell All-Pro

    May 14, 2013
    NY Mtns
    everyones different, but for me only three things are important in extreme telephoto: IBIS, a good viewfinder, and cutting down on size AMAP without discernibly sacrificing IQ. that led me to m4/3 for this purpose. i say 'keep it simple'. YVMV!