I haven’t had masses of opportunities to use it yet – I only recently moved to FujiFilm from Canon and haven’t felt the urge to do much wildlife. I’ve made a couple of nice photos with it, and I guess the main advantage is that both the 70-300 and the extender are pretty lightweight. I’ve tried the 100-400mm and it’s too heavy for me.
I’m more likely to use the 70-300 on its own, with the extender in my pocket just in case.
Sorry to jump in on a two-person exchange, but this has been my experience also, albeit with a different lens altogether: My “holiday” lens is a Tamron AF 18-200mm f/3.5-6.3 Di II VC. I had been wary of a compromise lens, and this one has plenty of faults in terms of chromatic aberration, distortion near the edges, and overall sharpness is only moderate.
Since I was needing to replace a kit lens (18-55 mm) whose plastic gears were making the zoom mechanism something I couldn’t depend upon, I found this one used but as new online and have been very happy with it for the reason you gave @europlatus.
A recent overseas holiday had me take this lens and my 150-600 big glass (higher quality) only. Granted I have culled some images, but of the 2320 remaining, 1925 were taken with the “holiday” lens and 377 with the big glass.
However I have also made several work trips requiring air travel in recent months, and for these I have taken only the “holiday” lens.
No apology necessary, it’s a forum for open discussion and I’ll geek out with anyone who wants to join in! My wife and kids couldn’t care less about lenses and focal lengths 
I had looked at the Tamron 18-300mm f3.5-6.3 Di III-A VC VXD for the same reasons. For pure versatility, it’s hard to beat such a focal range. You need to make a compromise ultimately, so it’s a matter of whether image quality trumps versatility, or vice versa. I’ll probably get a bunch of primes and a super zoom one day, then sell what I use least. Or keep them all, which is probably what I’ll do!
Ok, an update to my scratch problem:
I hesitated for a while to see how much the scratch bothered me, but I decided that it did bother me, especially as I was considering selling the lens and I didn’t want to sell damaged hardware. So I sent the lens off to Fuji to get a quote for the repair. If I decided not to sell the lens, at least I’d have a pristine lens back.
I just received the quote today: CAD $500!
I don’t know what everyone else thinks, but to me this is really disappointing news for me considering the lens can be bought new for about $900. I’ve already spent $90 sending the lens in, so a repair is going to be over $600 once it’s returned to me.
Looks like if I refuse the repair, it will only cost me $25 if I understood the quote properly, so then the whole ordeal will only have cost me just over $100. But then I still have a scratched lens that won’t sell for very much.
What would you all do?
Here’s the quote if anyone is interested:
Also, I just noticed that they’ve listed the lens as XF16mm F1.4, which is not the correct lens. I doubt this would affect the quote, but still sloppy on their part.
$600 is less than $900, but it’s also about the cost of a used lens that may be in better shape than yours.
For what it’s worth, I’d probably pay for the repair. Save $300, and keep your lens out of the landfill. And maybe invest in a lens filter 
I’ll definitely be keeping it out of the landfill because it’s still very usable. But what do you mean by “save $300”? I got the lens as a bundle with the camera body, so I probably spent about $700 on it initially. Repairing it will put the total price spent on it at about $1200. Not sure how much I could sell it for, but maybe $600? So that would be a loss of about $600 overall if I went with the repair.
Not sure how much someone would pay for it with the scratch. It’s in mint condition other than the scratch, and the scratch itself is only noticeable at the wide end stopped down. But obviously it’s a flaw and would probably knock a lot off the price.
I just mean starting from now. All the money you’ve already spent is already spent, can’t change that now. So either you spend $900 on a new lens, or $600 (ie, $300 less) on the repair. Yes, that’s not the total cost of the lens including everything since the initial purchase. But absent a time machine, you’re not getting that money back no matter what you choose to do now.
I suppose there is the option of not getting the repair and cutting your losses. But it sounds like this is your main lens, and the scratch will impact your work in a noticeable way. Which makes that a sad outcome.
Just my opinion, and I have the benefit of not being the one who will be spending the money.
Back in the film days I dropped my Tamron 28-300, which was my main lens at the time, destroying it. Literally as I was packing up to go to the airport for a two week vacation! Had to stop and buy a replacement en route. That was a similarly expensive mishap, so I can understand where you’re at!
Depending on how much someone is willing to pay for a scratched lens, the cutting-my-losses route might get me about $200-300 towards a new lens, which would mean losing about $500 on the original lens, plus the cost of a new lens. If I went with the Sigma 18-55, for example, which is $700, that could be $1200 spent in total… about the same total cost of the initial outlay and getting my current lens repaired!
So, the math suggests it really comes down to which lens I want. I was originally thinking of getting a more compact walkabout lens, like the Sigma, but the Fuji is a more valuable lens.
Thanks! Yes, it’s turned out to be expensive and frustrating, voiding the savings I made on buying the lens as part of a kit in the first place. I tend to baby my gear and I have never scratched a lens before. That’s half the reason why I never bother with protective lens filters anymore. But I was just clumsy this one time and that’s all it takes.
It’s also very frustrating that I had to spend almost $100 in shipping just to get the lens evaluated and a quote made. I appreciate that they need to see it, but couldn’t they provide a fee guide or at least give an approximate quote based on pictures? If I don’t go with the repair, that’s $100 to give my lens a holiday without me tagging along!
Thanks for your thoughts. It’s good to get the opinions of others.
The quote comes with 6 Months warranty.
This maybe a factor when it comes to the choice - if the second lens has a better warranty.
Lens hood have saved me many times. Very good investment. Also - you may want to consider a uv filter. Sometimes you can find very good deals - like 20 CAD for Tiffen - USA made on Amazon.ca Also you can search for sets (if you want).
The UV does not affect the quality in a negative way. This is both from what I have read about it and from what I am seeing on my lenses.
On the grand schema - I don’t think they would repair the element (like re polishing it) - more likely would be a replacement.
Thanks to all who chatted with me on this.
I decided to go with the repair. It didn’t seem the right choice to get the lens returned, having spent $150 on shipping there and back, and still be left with a scratched lens.
So, at least I’ll have a like-new lens that I can sell down the road if I decide to get rid of it.
I’m not sure if the service still operates in this way, or even if I’m recalling correctly, but I think Fuji places standard repair costs to each of their products — in other words, for example, the cost of replacing a scratched hotshoe mount on my little X-T10 would be charged the same as a replacement of the image sensor.
