Ive started filming the deer in my backyard recently via phone/binocular combo. Not ideal. I typically am into macro, long exposure, portrait and landscape photography. I've never really shot wildlife. I want to buy a lens suited for this, but looking for advice. I am a Fuji XF shooter so keep that in mind. The thing with deer specifically, is they like to be out in low light. From where I film at my garage, I'm about 150 yards from the deer. I want to make sure I have enough focal length but also be fast enough for good lighting. This will be for stills and video. I currently use the Fuji X-S20 body. Of the ones most talked about (Fuji) 200 f/2, 70-300 4.5/5.6, 100-400 4.5/5.6, 500 5.6, 150-600 5.6/8, it seems the 100-400 might fit this range and use case best? Thoughts from you experts out there?
A deer at 150 yards is probably going to take almost all of the range from the 150-600 to fill up the frame, then it’s optically slow so you’ll need at least iso 1600 and probably 3200. Point here is high magnification and low light are not a great pair for quality imagery. That said now to glass. I’ve owned all 3 and the 70-300 and 150-600 are a step above the 100-400, especially at the long end. So unless you can set up a blind and get closer, the 150-600 is probably your best option while the 70-300 might be fine if you can cut the distance in half. And a good portable photo blind is probably a lot less expensive than the gap between the 70-300 and 150-600 — just saying
Posting this to give you an approximate reference using the 70-300. This is a juvenile elk so depending on your deer, about the same size. I estimate this is about 100-150 yards. My lighting was the opposite of what you describe, harsh and backlit. I find this adequate for this range but if you want a close-up, I can see needing something more like the 500mm or 600mm focal length.
All this is very helpful. Thank you. It seems that the 500mm 5.6 would probably be my best bet here. Trying to decide if the juice is worth the squeeze for me. It's a very niche situation, but I am capturing some very cool fights between bucks in the evenings with my bino/phone combo, and I wish they were shot on my Fuji. Just not sure I would use the lens for anything else, any other time of the year.
I was thinking about it yesterday, I'm not sure buying a 600/4 gets you much past 100 yards. That's a ways.
You could measure using your odometer, 0.1 miles is 528ft vs 450ft of 150 yards if you can drive through the pasture or something, or a 100ft tape could be good. Or just use the lenses you already have and crop to 500mm and see
I know digiscoping gets some pretty crazy amounts of reach might not be quite as extreme using binoculars
200 f2 is too short, even if you add a TC.
150-600 is awesome, but f8 at the long end.
100-400 is good, but at that price I'd rather pick up a 150-600.
Your best bet is 500 5.6. I'd love to buy one actually, if I can spot one at the B&S
Oct 09, 2025 at 02:53 PM
Steve Spencer Offline • • • • • • • Upload & Sell: On
Burdy wrote:
Ive started filming the deer in my backyard recently via phone/binocular combo. Not ideal. I typically am into macro, long exposure, portrait and landscape photography. I've never really shot wildlife. I want to buy a lens suited for this, but looking for advice. I am a Fuji XF shooter so keep that in mind. The thing with deer specifically, is they like to be out in low light. From where I film at my garage, I'm about 150 yards from the deer. I want to make sure I have enough focal length but also be fast enough for good lighting. This will be for stills and video. I currently use the Fuji X-S20 body. Of the ones most talked about (Fuji) 200 f/2, 70-300 4.5/5.6, 100-400 4.5/5.6, 500 5.6, 150-600 5.6/8, it seems the 100-400 might fit this range and use case best? Thoughts from you experts out there?...Show more →
Having lots of experience with deer, I think trying to film them from 150 yards is very challenging and probably not necessary. It is typically quite possible to get closer. Have you considered building a simple blind 40 yards or so from where they hang out? If you arrive at the blind an hour before they typically are in the area, you ought to be able to get that close and that will provide you with a lot more options. It is totally true that they are more active at twilight, but if you arrive before them you ought to be able to use a shorter lens with a smaller f/number and get good shots. Ideally you would use the 200 f/2 from 40 yards or so, but if that is to expensive, and it certainly isn't cheap, then consider the 50-140 f/2.8 or maybe even the 70-300 f/4-5.6 if you need a bit more reach and you have enough light for that lens. I do think the key, however, is getting a lot closer and I think that should be possible.
Yeah, I am going to check out some other options. I would prefer to offload my 50mm f/1 first, but for some reason that has proven to be a challenge here. The bino/phone combo is getting the proper reach, but I am sure you can understand all the image issues there. It's not terrible, but not ideal. I can certainly get closer to the deer if I wanted with no problem. I just like to shoot them up here undisturbed from my office door at any time of day they come out with little setup involved. That was my reason for wanting the much longer reach.
Burdy wrote:
Yeah, I am going to check out some other options. I would prefer to offload my 50mm f/1 first, but for some reason that has proven to be a challenge here. The bino/phone combo is getting the proper reach, but I am sure you can understand all the image issues there. It's not terrible, but not ideal. I can certainly get closer to the deer if I wanted with no problem. I just like to shoot them up here undisturbed from my office door at any time of day they come out with little setup involved. That was my reason for wanting the much longer reach. ...Show more →
Okay, given everything you've said, I think your best bet is going to be the 150-600 -- the 500 fixed is too limited in its flexibility. You can also add the 1.4x for even more reach when needed, although that means living with the bit of extra noise from higher ISO 3200 or even 6400 -- which aren't horrible. Another alternative is also adding one of the 40MP bodies and do a 1.4x-2x digital crop -- this cuts resolution down to 28 to 20mp but saves ISO. Upside of all this listed equipment is it's relatively easy to acquire in this site's B&S forum, and equally easy to sell there at not too much loss if bought used to begin with. My .02...
Burdy wrote:
Yeah, I am going to check out some other options. I would prefer to offload my 50mm f/1 first, but for some reason that has proven to be a challenge here. The bino/phone combo is getting the proper reach, but I am sure you can understand all the image issues there. It's not terrible, but not ideal. I can certainly get closer to the deer if I wanted with no problem. I just like to shoot them up here undisturbed from my office door at any time of day they come out with little setup involved. That was my reason for wanting the much longer reach. ...Show more →
Take a photo of the deer with 50mm, crop to 624x416 to see 500mm framing.
Another option would be upgrading to a 40 MP camera, which would effectively increase the focal length of a given lens by 1.24x compared to your existing 26 MP camera.
It really depends on what you're using these photos/videos for. If it's just for low resolution viewing and social media, you could crop quite a bit in and still get a decent result. If you really want to print it, you could invest in some AI-based upscaling software.
mdude85 wrote:
Another option would be upgrading to a 40 MP camera, which would effectively increase the focal length of a given lens by 1.24x compared to your existing 26 MP camera.
It really depends on what you're using these photos/videos for. If it's just for low resolution viewing and social media, you could crop quite a bit in and still get a decent result. If you really want to print it, you could invest in some AI-based upscaling software.
That is the first time I’ve heard someone say that increasing your photosite density would “effectively increase your focal length!”
I see what you are getting at, but it isn’t quite that simple since other factors come into play when cropping. I do appreciate that you do decrease potential image quality.
- - -
Not directed at you, but in general I’m a bit perplexed by the (seemingly now) notion that cropping into higher resolution images is a substitute for using longer lenses. In fact, sometimes we do end up having to do that and we can get good enough results — though they won’t be as potentially good as putting the appropriate lens on the camera and using the full image area.
- - -
Also, to the thread in general…
While at 500mm prime is reportedly quite a good lens, there are some potential advantages to using a long zoom instead of— mainly that unless you always need that 500mm focal length or you have other lenses that fill in some pretty big gaps, the 500mm angle of view is pretty narrow.
One of the big pluses of the telephoto zoom lenses is their flexibility. I use such lenses on both of my systems, and I shoot at the short end just as often as at the long end, and frequently need those in-between focal lengths.
Also, for some people the size matters — both while in se and while stowed in a bag. The 100-400 is an extending zoom design, so it is relatively compact when stowed. I _think_ that the 150-600 is an internal zoom, so it is always large, like the 500.
The 150-600 has one other potential issue. It can only open to f/8 at the long (500mm) end. For subjects like wildlife, where we are often photographing in poor light (early and late in the day) and need to keep the shutter speed up, this necessarily means shooting at quite high ISO. In addition, f/8 on APS-C is roughly like f/11 on full frame, and we’re already into diffraction territory, and if we stop down to f/11 (or smaller) diffraction begins to amplify the other causes of softness with very. long focal lengths.
Going to 40MP already mentioned and explained above that it keeps more MP after the crop, and even what that MP crop range would be for the 1.4x to 2x crop.
We've also discussed the relative merits of the 150-600 vs the 100-400, the notable one being superior performance especially after about the 360 point on the 100-400...
Going to 40MP already mentioned and explained above that it keeps more MP after the crop, and even what that MP crop range would be for the 1.4x to 2x crop.
We've also discussed the relative merits of the 150-600 vs the 100-400, the notable one being superior performance especially after about the 360 point on the 100-400...
Cropping a higher MP sensor does keep as many MPs as starting with a lower MP sensor, but it doesn’t make lens performance improve as you take the smaller section of the image. The part of resolution dependent on lens capability declines when you crop.
My sense of the three long-lens options for APS-C from Fujifilm is that each of them has pluses and minuses compared to the others. It isn’t that one option is generically better or worse than another, but more a matter of picking the one that works best for your particular use. On that basis there’s a case to be made any of the three that aligns best.
gdanmitchell wrote:
Cropping a higher MP sensor does keep as many MPs as starting with a lower MP sensor, but it doesn’t make lens performance improve as you take the smaller section of the image. The part of resolution dependent on lens capability declines when you crop.
My sense of the three long-lens options for APS-C from Fujifilm is that each of them has pluses and minuses compared to the others. It isn’t that one option is generically better or worse than another, but more a matter of picking the one that works best for your particular use. On that basis there’s a case to be made any of the three that aligns best....Show more →
Well I have actually owned and used all 3 of them. It’s fine to sit back in an academic arm chair and claim they all work similarly. But at the end of the day, my opinion after owning and using all 3 is that the newer ones, meaning the 70-300 and 150-600, are a visible notch above those they replaced. Can one make nice images with the older ones? Sure. But especially when you’re going to be cropping, choosing the newer two will be to one’s advantage. And please don’t try and dump that confirmation bias crap on me, I’m sick of hearing it over and over any time anyone disagrees with you…
Jack Flesher wrote:
Well I have actually owned and used all 3 of them. It’s fine to sit back in an academic arm chair and claim they all work similarly. But at the end of the day, my opinion after owning and using all 3 is that the newer ones, meaning the 70-300 and 150-600, are a visible notch above those they replaced. Can one make nice images with the older ones? Sure. But especially when you’re going to be cropping, choosing the newer two will be to one’s advantage. And please don’t try and dump that confirmation bias crap on me, I’m sick of hearing it over and over any time anyone disagrees with you… ...Show more →
OK, then…
Oct 10, 2025 at 06:52 PM
Steve Spencer Offline • • • • • • • Upload & Sell: On
gdanmitchell wrote:
That is the first time I’ve heard someone say that increasing your photosite density would “effectively increase your focal length!”
I see what you are getting at, but it isn’t quite that simple since other factors come into play when cropping. I do appreciate that you do decrease potential image quality.
- - -
Not directed at you, but in general I’m a bit perplexed by the (seemingly now) notion that cropping into higher resolution images is a substitute for using longer lenses. In fact, sometimes we do end up having to do that and we can get good enough results — though they won’t be as potentially good as putting the appropriate lens on the camera and using the full image area.
- - -
Also, to the thread in general…
While at 500mm prime is reportedly quite a good lens, there are some potential advantages to using a long zoom instead of— mainly that unless you always need that 500mm focal length or you have other lenses that fill in some pretty big gaps, the 500mm angle of view is pretty narrow.
One of the big pluses of the telephoto zoom lenses is their flexibility. I use such lenses on both of my systems, and I shoot at the short end just as often as at the long end, and frequently need those in-between focal lengths.
Also, for some people the size matters — both while in se and while stowed in a bag. The 100-400 is an extending zoom design, so it is relatively compact when stowed. I _think_ that the 150-600 is an internal zoom, so it is always large, like the 500.
The 150-600 has one other potential issue. It can only open to f/8 at the long (500mm) end. For subjects like wildlife, where we are often photographing in poor light (early and late in the day) and need to keep the shutter speed up, this necessarily means shooting at quite high ISO. In addition, f/8 on APS-C is roughly like f/11 on full frame, and we’re already into diffraction territory, and if we stop down to f/11 (or smaller) diffraction begins to amplify the other causes of softness with very. long focal lengths. ...Show more →
All true, but the OP is 150 yards away from the deer he is photographing. He will always need 500mm and still end up cropping at 150 yards. In fact if he uses the 500mm and a 2X TC, I doubt he will fill the frame at 150 yards. He is shooting from a very long way away, so it is exactly one of those times when he will always need the longest focal length on any zoom and the flexibility of the zoom will be irrelevant. If he has the budget, I would recommend the 500 for its faster maximum aperture and if he has enough light I would recommend adding the 1.4X TC. If he is willing to make a blind and get closer, which I raised earlier, then his lens choice surely could change, but given his preference to shoot from a really long distance he needs as much reach as he can get.
