• Log in with Facebook Log in with Twitter
Photo

next PZ lens test report: Fujinon XF 16-55mm f/2.8 R LM WR


  • Please log in to reply
23 replies to this topic

#1 Klaus

Klaus

    Chief Editor

  • Moderators
  • 5,036 posts
  • LocationSydney, Australia

Posted 07 February 2016 - 10:37 AM

Hmmh, I am slightly disappointed given the high pricing ...

 

http://www.photozone...971-fuji1655f28


Chief Editor
photozone.de

#2 you2

you2

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 918 posts

Posted 07 February 2016 - 02:00 PM

But think on the positive side: Three fuji lenses without a major centering issue !!!



#3 joachim

joachim

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 598 posts
  • Locationon a diverging trajectory

Posted 08 February 2016 - 12:03 AM

Hmmh, I am slightly disappointed given the high pricing ...

 

http://www.photozone...971-fuji1655f28

 

Minor correction: That 18-55 you recommend in the conclusion is an f/2.8-4.0 and not an f/2.8 (unless I am missing a thing).

 

Considering your measurements, it seems many of the Fuji lenses are not as high resolving in the corners as one would hope.  That includes the 35/1.4 in my view.


enjoy

#4 Rover

Rover

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1,333 posts
  • LocationRussia

Posted 08 February 2016 - 12:04 AM

"Some of you may hate the equivalence game by now"

That we do!

I'm a little baffled by this lens though... no IS??? ZOMG the distortion too. I would've probably just used the 18-55/2.8-4 if I had been into the Fuji system.



#5 Klaus

Klaus

    Chief Editor

  • Moderators
  • 5,036 posts
  • LocationSydney, Australia

Posted 08 February 2016 - 09:39 AM

"Some of you may hate the equivalence game by now"

That we do!

I'm a little baffled by this lens though... no IS??? ZOMG the distortion too. I would've probably just used the 18-55/2.8-4 if I had been into the Fuji system.

 

Thank god that it has no IS if you ask me.


Minor correction: That 18-55 you recommend in the conclusion is an f/2.8-4.0 and not an f/2.8 (unless I am missing a thing).

 

Considering your measurements, it seems many of the Fuji lenses are not as high resolving in the corners as one would hope.  That includes the 35/1.4 in my view.

 

Fixed the bug. Thx.


Chief Editor
photozone.de

#6 toni-a

toni-a

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 905 posts
  • LocationLebanon

Posted 08 February 2016 - 10:09 AM

Liked the obective (as usual) review, fuji guys should be disappointed.

Every manufacturer has a fast standard lens, this one seems one of the  worst and one of the  most expensive



#7 JoJu

JoJu

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1,938 posts
  • LocationSwitzerland

Posted 08 February 2016 - 10:50 AM

Liked the obective (as usual) review, fuji guys should be disappointed.
Every manufacturer has a fast standard lens, this one seems one of the  worst and one of the  most expensive


Only those should be disappointed for who a 16-55 is a must have. I don't know, I'm not interested much in zoom offerings in APS-C. Others like their primes as well. It is no cheap lens given the offerings for normal APS-C DSLRs. But then, even when looking at contemporary 24-70/2.8 zooms: how much of them are flawless although some come at double the price? Buying a zoom is very often living with a mixed bag, and buying a prime or a lot of, will fill up the real bag. No matter which way you go, there are some drawbacks. I simply don't expect a zoom to be super great. "Versatile" is enough as long as the pictures are acceptable. And honestly people how many of you are always happy with what's coming out of your standard zoom? Wide open corners as well?

One could say "but it's weather resistant". Please don't get me wrong I don't want to defend Fuji or this lens. I'm still at the stage how surprisingly well they are doing, but seeing what's happening when I import pictures made within the 35/2, there are massive corrections done in Aperture, like correcting corners. Fuji is relying on software manipulation of the original picture, so to say. If you switched that off, they cook with water like everybody else.

#8 Rover

Rover

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1,333 posts
  • LocationRussia

Posted 08 February 2016 - 03:12 PM

Thank god that it has no IS if you ask me.

I can understand the reviewer's point of view. But from the practical standpoint... WTF?

Come to think of it; the Canon 17-55 was the reason I've chosen the Canon system back in the day... I did so just because the Canon 17-55 was stabilized whereas the Nikon one was/is not (for the same price). I haven't been disappointed since. :) So this Fuji 16-55 is bucking the trend.



#9 dave's clichés

dave's clichés

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1,317 posts

Posted 08 February 2016 - 05:02 PM

At the last Fuji review  I asked if my Sigma 50-150 EX MKII wasn't it's sharpness equal..........

 

 

 ......this time I'm asking if the Tamron 17-50mm 2.8 hasn't better sharpness?  

 

  If the review had.......... "tested on the so and so full format sensor"........  written above it, it would maybe explain the distortion, edge sharpness, vignetting, size and weight...........

 

   Hélas..........no

 

     .........looks great however......



#10 JoJu

JoJu

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1,938 posts
  • LocationSwitzerland

Posted 08 February 2016 - 07:16 PM

A minor thing: I was wondering why in several tests of the Fujinons with weather resistance you wrote "-10C" - correct is -10 °C (or 14 °F or 263.15 K) Only with Kelvin as unit you don't need the ° character. If YOU get on my equivalence-allergy trigger nerves, I gonna start counting peas :P  



#11 toni-a

toni-a

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 905 posts
  • LocationLebanon

Posted 08 February 2016 - 09:02 PM

Well compared to offerings from Canon, Nikon, Sigma, Pentax, Tamron, and Tokina  this lens doesn't seem up to their level and IMHO a standard fast zoom is the lens I use the most



#12 JoJu

JoJu

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1,938 posts
  • LocationSwitzerland

Posted 08 February 2016 - 10:54 PM

To put things a little into proportion:

 

Nikon 17-55/2.8: 30% more than the Fujinon

Canon 17-55/2.8: 33% less than the Fujinon

Pentax 16-50/2.8 DA: 4% more than the Fujinon 

 

bean-counting: None of them covers the same FL-range and 1 mm shorter does make a difference at 17 mm

 

Did you check out the verdicts from Photozone? The Canon being the big exception, but the other two are not shining so much more.

 

Sigma, Tokina and Tamron all have some major differences: The turning focus-ring. It's obvious, therefore they can be cheap, but it's also obvious, they are not worse than the Fujinon. And none of them is weather resisting for those who care.



#13 Klaus

Klaus

    Chief Editor

  • Moderators
  • 5,036 posts
  • LocationSydney, Australia

Posted 08 February 2016 - 10:55 PM

I can understand the reviewer's point of view. But from the practical standpoint... WTF?

Come to think of it; the Canon 17-55 was the reason I've chosen the Canon system back in the day... I did so just because the Canon 17-55 was stabilized whereas the Nikon one was/is not (for the same price). I haven't been disappointed since. :) So this Fuji 16-55 is bucking the trend.

 

In-body IS is the future, in-lens IS is the past except maybe for extremely long tele lenses.

I remember the days not long ago when everybody was joking about the measly 2 f-stop efficiency of in-body IS. Today the outdated 3 f-stop gain of the Canon 17-55mm IS is the joke really. The spread between in-body IS and in-lens IS will continue to rise simply because it's so much easier to move the sensor in multiple dimensions.

Sure, Fuji has no IBIS but it's inevitable that they'll include it soon. Till then I prefer not to have that useless IS group in the lens that does not contribute to the optical performance at all.


Chief Editor
photozone.de

#14 Klaus

Klaus

    Chief Editor

  • Moderators
  • 5,036 posts
  • LocationSydney, Australia

Posted 08 February 2016 - 11:04 PM

To put things a little into proportion:

 

Nikon 17-55/2.8: 30% more than the Fujinon

Canon 17-55/2.8: 33% less than the Fujinon

Pentax 16-50/2.8 DA: 4% more than the Fujinon 

 

bean-counting: None of them covers the same FL-range and 1 mm shorter does make a difference at 17 mm

 

Did you check out the verdicts from Photozone? The Canon being the big exception, but the other two are not shining so much more.

 

Sigma, Tokina and Tamron all have some major differences: The turning focus-ring. It's obvious, therefore they can be cheap, but it's also obvious, they are not worse than the Fujinon. And none of them is weather resisting for those who care.

 

Nikkor: 85.5x110.5mm • Weight: 755g

Fuji: 83.5x110.6mm • Weight: 645g

Canon : 83.3x106mm • Weight: 655g

Pentax: 84x98.5mm • Weight: 565g

 

The Pentax is actually the most compact and light-weight of the bunch.

Not sure what you want to tell us with those % figures.

Chief Editor
photozone.de

#15 JoJu

JoJu

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1,938 posts
  • LocationSwitzerland

Posted 08 February 2016 - 11:16 PM

Not sure what you want to tell us with those % figures.

 

Oh sorry, that are the price differences (at least here in CH)

 

And the Pentax was rated also only 3 stars...

 

 

 

The pricing of the Pentax 16-50mm f/2.8 is fair relative to its performance and build quality.

 

The pricing is about the same as the Fujinon...



#16 JoJu

JoJu

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1,938 posts
  • LocationSwitzerland

Posted 08 February 2016 - 11:24 PM

In-body IS is the future, in-lens IS is the past except maybe for extremely long tele lenses.

I remember the days not long ago when everybody was joking about the measly 2 f-stop efficiency of in-body IS. Today the outdated 3 f-stop gain of the Canon 17-55mm IS is the joke really. The spread between in-body IS and in-lens IS will continue to rise simply because it's so much easier to move the sensor in multiple dimensions.

Sure, Fuji has no IBIS but it's inevitable that they'll include it soon. Till then I prefer not to have that useless IS group in the lens that does not contribute to the optical performance at all.

 

Hmmm, let's see if your prediction might happen. I'm a little bit more careful about IBIS: The two Pentax I once had (K-m and K-x) both had that feature and I always suspected this the reason why some lenses were not sharp wide open. One of them was the Tamron 17-50/2.8, even after I sent it in with the body. My explanation was like "if the sensor can move, how's the position defined without IBIS?" Since I know about the field curvature of that lens, I'm not that sure about this theory but after all, who guarantees the correct position if switched OFF?

 

However I found a demonstration from the Olympus sensor shift pretty convincing,



#17 Klaus

Klaus

    Chief Editor

  • Moderators
  • 5,036 posts
  • LocationSydney, Australia

Posted 08 February 2016 - 11:57 PM

Oh sorry, that are the price differences (at least here in CH)

 

And the Pentax was rated also only 3 stars...

 

 

The pricing is about the same as the Fujinon...

 

I find it difficult to come up with ratings for lenses that rely on auto-correction.

 

Honestly I just can't ignore the raw performance when it comes to the pricing.

Under-designed lenses maximize the profits for the manufacturers but they just don't deliver the value to the customers that is suggested by the high price.


  • JoJu likes this
Chief Editor
photozone.de

#18 Klaus

Klaus

    Chief Editor

  • Moderators
  • 5,036 posts
  • LocationSydney, Australia

Posted 08 February 2016 - 11:59 PM

Hmmm, let's see if your prediction might happen. I'm a little bit more careful about IBIS: The two Pentax I once had (K-m and K-x) both had that feature and I always suspected this the reason why some lenses were not sharp wide open. One of them was the Tamron 17-50/2.8, even after I sent it in with the body. My explanation was like "if the sensor can move, how's the position defined without IBIS?" Since I know about the field curvature of that lens, I'm not that sure about this theory but after all, who guarantees the correct position if switched OFF?

 

However I found a demonstration from the Olympus sensor shift pretty convincing,

 

I'm afraid that we can already see what will happen - the combination of IBIS and ILIS.

But with IBIS in place there's at least less pressure on the manufacturers to use ILIS.


Chief Editor
photozone.de

#19 JoJu

JoJu

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1,938 posts
  • LocationSwitzerland

Posted 09 February 2016 - 07:14 AM

IBIS will become (more) interesting with more EVF-cameras. OVF benefit of ILIS very much, but for mirrorless cameras it would be much more adequate to move the sensor - or make the sensor bigger and do the IS electronically which I prefer somehow. No moving parts = no wearing parts. And somehow I'm not convinced if a 5- or 6-axis movement is necessary as well as if the sensors are sensitive enough and the motors reactive enough to do the effect completely.

 

Although reduced vibration is still better than full vibration. Just not as good as no vibration at all. IBIS can also be the better system because bodies are changed more often than lenses, so a fresh system with the latest tech plays against some elder lens models / modules. A bit of that effect I saw when comparing the VR of Nikkors to the OS of Sigmas with maybe 3 years technology difference between.

 

 

Under-designed lenses maximize the profits for the manufacturers but they just don't deliver the value to the customers that is suggested by the high price.

 

I agree, I just don't find much of these kind of lenses starting at 16 mm and performing better.

 

Basically that's what I meant when I ranted against downsizing: if the tolerances remain as they are for FF, and the assembly tolerances included as well, the outcome is predictable: A worse lens.



#20 Rover

Rover

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1,333 posts
  • LocationRussia

Posted 09 February 2016 - 08:16 AM

In-body IS is the future, in-lens IS is the past except maybe for extremely long tele lenses.

I remember the days not long ago when everybody was joking about the measly 2 f-stop efficiency of in-body IS. Today the outdated 3 f-stop gain of the Canon 17-55mm IS is the joke really. The spread between in-body IS and in-lens IS will continue to rise simply because it's so much easier to move the sensor in multiple dimensions.

Sure, Fuji has no IBIS but it's inevitable that they'll include it soon. Till then I prefer not to have that useless IS group in the lens that does not contribute to the optical performance at all.

Well, no argument from me about the merits of IBIS - I loved it on my old Minolta 7D - but I can't see most of the manufacturers (Canon and Nikon most importantly) switching to it any time soon. Remember it must be a patented invention so Fuji (and whoever else) can't probably just copy it from Sony/Olympus and slap it into their cameras. I wish they would, however.

3 stops of assistance is alright by me, though. Not long ago it was "as good as it gets". :) Still very helpful if you ask me. My Canon 70-200 is rated like that (though the IS in the 16-35/4 is probably better?)






0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users



© by photozone.de