Suspended
- Joined
- 18 Oct 2002
- Posts
- 9,480
Out of curiosity, is there a reason the Fuji don't make constant aperture zooms? I may have missed something when I looked at their site, but I can't see any. Fast primes yes.
Fuji X Series
- Thread starter nolimit
- Start date
Suspended
- Joined
- 18 Oct 2002
- Posts
- 9,480
Thanks Ricky. I did miss them then.
I am definitely considering a Fuxi X-T2 and migrating away from Nikon (I was also considering the D500 but now going off the idea)... the size and weight savings are immenses, and I just love the IQ I have seen from the Fuji X-series. Lenses seem quite pricy, but I guess that is to be expected for a system like this.
I really am struggling to understand why the 16-55 does not have OIS... I mean I have read what people say on the forums etc ("It's not the purpose of the lens" and all that guff), but imo this is a clear omission on the main mid-range zoom in a time when ALL premium mid-range zooms have OIS.
I really am struggling to understand why the 16-55 does not have OIS... I mean I have read what people say on the forums etc ("It's not the purpose of the lens" and all that guff), but imo this is a clear omission on the main mid-range zoom in a time when ALL premium mid-range zooms have OIS.
Fuji make some good decisions and some bad ones, the lack of OIS on that lens falls in the WTF category in my opinion. The 10-24 has it and so do the 50-140 and 100-400 so it makes no sense to skip the 16-55 especially when Fuji's implementation is actually pretty darn good. The 100-400 benefits to the tune of 4-5 stops during my testing which really broadens the usefulness of the lens.
I was told by Fuji reps that the reason it doesn't have OIS is because it degraded the image quality on that particular lens.
Yes I read that also, care to explain the logic of why adding it would harm the IQ? Does it also happen on every other lens they add OIS to?
Don't know, but for some reason on this particular lens that's what they found. I haven't found OIS to be an issue on my other Fuji lenses ; it's superb on my 50-140mm for example.
Well, as long as the X-T2 gets good reviews I have pretty much sold myself on this. I really want the kit with 18-55 f2.8-f4 and would also buy the the 50-140mm, and add a 1.4x or 2.0x TC to give it real range and avoid me having to buy the 100-400 for my intended safari trip next year.
To add to that I'll get one of the primes, likely the 23mm 1.4, though the lack of WR is a bit annoying.
I think that would be a well balanced lens set, disregarding an ultra wide which I would look at later as I'm not 100% sold on the current 10-24..
...allegedly. Personally I don't believe that answer as it doesn't make so much sense. It's probably a case that finding out why was too much time and expense.
To add to that I'll get one of the primes, likely the 23mm 1.4, though the lack of WR is a bit annoying.
I think that would be a well balanced lens set, disregarding an ultra wide which I would look at later as I'm not 100% sold on the current 10-24..
...allegedly. Personally I don't believe that answer as it doesn't make so much sense. It's probably a case that finding out why was too much time and expense.
You could be right, but I have owned other lenses/cameras where image stabilisation can be detrimental to the image quality. So, I think I believe Fuji on this one. And, because the 16-55mm is an f2.8 lens, not having OIS is less of an issue because it's easier to obtain higher shutter speeds to mitigate camera shake. I'm more concerned about lack of WR when I'm out in the field, which is why I never picked up the 10-24mm lens either ( plus I tend not to shoot ultra wide ).
Yeah the lack of WR on some lenses is baffling. It should certainly be standard on their premier ultra wide and prime lenses. They are bringing out a 23mm f2 with WR but the 23mm f1.4 should also get an update if it's aimed at the pro(sumer) market.
Last edited:
Associate
- Joined
- 20 Jan 2003
- Posts
- 413
Is it, I thought Fuji simply made the move to WR and subsequent lenses had the feature.
What bugs me is the hike in lens prices the day after the current cashback went live, not Fuji's fault of course. I think some actually went up in real terms!
Agh the more I have read about the Fuji 50-140 the more I don't think I would buy it. The bokeh is absolutely ghastly on some photos I have seen, worse than my Nikon 24-120. 
In fact there doesn't look like a single high performance zoom without sacrifices. The 16-55 2.8 has no OIS (whatever Fuji say their reasons are) and seems to be a very bloated lens in terms of size. The 18-55 is meant to be very good for a kit lens but not really cutting it as a prosumer fast zoom.
The 55-200 is the only zoom that I think I would buy without reservation based on the reviews, feedback and photos I have seen, and that is also not a high-tier lens.
I hope they make some good updates in 2017...
In fact there doesn't look like a single high performance zoom without sacrifices. The 16-55 2.8 has no OIS (whatever Fuji say their reasons are) and seems to be a very bloated lens in terms of size. The 18-55 is meant to be very good for a kit lens but not really cutting it as a prosumer fast zoom.
The 55-200 is the only zoom that I think I would buy without reservation based on the reviews, feedback and photos I have seen, and that is also not a high-tier lens.
I hope they make some good updates in 2017...
Last edited:
Agh the more I have read about the Fuji 50-140 the more I don't think I would buy it. The bokeh is absolutely ghastly on some photos I have seen, worse than my Nikon 24-120.
In fact there doesn't look like a single high performance zoom without sacrifices. The 16-55 2.8 has no OIS (whatever Fuji say their reasons are) and seems to be a very bloated lens in terms of size. The 18-55 is meant to be very good for a kit lens but not really cutting it as a prosumer fast zoom.
The 55-200 is the only zoom that I think I would buy without reservation based on the reviews, feedback and photos I have seen, and that is also not a high-tier lens.
I hope they make some good updates in 2017...
Nothing wrong with the bokeh on the 50-140mm .... almost any lens can be made to look bad under certain circumstances. The onus is on the photographer to ensure that the background doesn't have any undesirable elements. In general, Fuji lenses are excellent across the board. That is one of their strengths, a viewpoint shared by many.
Last edited:
Sorry, but are you saying that some lenses do not have better bokeh than others? That all lenses are in effect equal in terms of bokeh and the quality of it is defined by both the user and the background? If so... hmm.
The bokeh of the 50-140 has a reputation for being bad, there are numerous forum threads and a few youtube videos dedicated to it, Here are a couple:
Fuji 50-140/2.8 the ugliest bokeh ever? http://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/1333170
Even a Google image search yields a ton of photos where the bokeh is at best displeasing. It's just does not seem to be aesthetically pleasing on any consistent basis. https://www.google.ch/search?q=fuji...Ewj85aSe-6bNAhVEthQKHZInBy0Q_AUIBigB&dpr=1.25
Hell, even the lower-tier Fuji 55-200 seems to have consistently better bokeh than the 50-140 https://www.google.ch/search?q=fuji...hUKEwjYs_LLiafNAhUCwBQKHf89AykQsAQIKQ#imgrc=_
Last edited:
No, of course I'm not saying that all lenses are equal when it comes to producing creamy bokeh. But, as someone who does own the 50-140mm I can tell you I have not had any issues. That thread you've linked on fredmiranda is quite old, and if you read it more closely many of the contributors go on to state they were not able to replicate the same issues as the OP following receipt of their own copy. In that thread the photos with the "unpleasant" bokeh actually look like a post-processing problem to me ( the Fuji X-trans sensor doesn't get on well with some RAW converters which can produce artifacts on images with lots of fine detail, especially landscapes with foliage ).
ps. I should add that if portraiture is your main interest then the Fuji 56mm f1.2 or the 90mm f2 would be a better choice. The reviewer in that linked video clearly doesn't grasp that a full frame 70-200mm f2.8 lens will not produce a similar DOF to the 50-140mm f2.8 on an APS-C format camera. Unrealistic expectations will provide disappointing results.
Last edited:
Some interesting news on the X-T2, it's looks pretty damn nice with 8fps normally and 11fps burst with the battery grip... which takes two batteries too. 100fps refresh rate too. http://www.fujirumors.com/
I'm well aware of the lens lineup, having studied it in detail like anyone considering a change to the system would. That doesn't change that the busy bokeh on the 50-140 is imo still rather disappointing and displeasing judging from what I have seen online (and many people seem to use it for portraits too as with any high-end 70-200 style lens).
If I gef an X-T2 I may rent one and give it a try so I can either confirm what I see, or even better change my tune.
I'm well aware of the lens lineup, having studied it in detail like anyone considering a change to the system would. That doesn't change that the busy bokeh on the 50-140 is imo still rather disappointing and displeasing judging from what I have seen online (and many people seem to use it for portraits too as with any high-end 70-200 style lens).
If I gef an X-T2 I may rent one and give it a try so I can either confirm what I see, or even better change my tune.
Last edited:
I picked up my X-T10 yesterday (coming from a Canon SLR) and I'm absolutely gobsmacked. I had a Nikon J1 a few years ago which was dreadful but the X-T10 is just astonishing. I've got the kit lens on it at the moment.
I'm going to buy a 12mm Samyang for night stuff/wide angle but I'm really struggling to decide which prime lens to put on it for daily use.
Narrowed it down to XF 35mm F1.4R, XF 27mm F2.8 (pancake) and the XF 23mm 1.4R. Which of these would you guys recommend for day to day use? Want something which is going to give beautiful bokeh but still wide another to be able to sit on the camera 90% of the time.
I'm wondering if I should just buy two, one for street photography and a wider one for family stuff/indoors/parties etc.
I'm going to buy a 12mm Samyang for night stuff/wide angle but I'm really struggling to decide which prime lens to put on it for daily use.
Narrowed it down to XF 35mm F1.4R, XF 27mm F2.8 (pancake) and the XF 23mm 1.4R. Which of these would you guys recommend for day to day use? Want something which is going to give beautiful bokeh but still wide another to be able to sit on the camera 90% of the time.
I'm wondering if I should just buy two, one for street photography and a wider one for family stuff/indoors/parties etc.