• Log in with Facebook Log in with Twitter
Photo

Fujinon 16mm f/1.4 and 100-400mm


  • Please log in to reply
19 replies to this topic

#1 Klaus

Klaus

    Chief Editor

  • Moderators
  • 5,354 posts
  • LocationSydney, Australia

Posted 03 August 2016 - 02:03 PM

...arrived in da lab.


Chief Editor
photozone.de

#2 thxbb12

thxbb12

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 550 posts
  • LocationGeneva, Switzerland

Posted 03 August 2016 - 02:25 PM

...arrived in da lab.

 

Woohooo!!  :D

Any ETA yet?


--Florent

Flickr Page


#3 Klaus

Klaus

    Chief Editor

  • Moderators
  • 5,354 posts
  • LocationSydney, Australia

Posted 03 August 2016 - 03:12 PM

ETAs are there to be broken ... ;-)

 

The 100-400mm is really a brick. And it has probably the worst tripod mount ever (tiny).


Chief Editor
photozone.de

#4 JoJu

JoJu

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 2,432 posts
  • LocationSwitzerland

Posted 03 August 2016 - 10:47 PM

Hold a 150-600 Sports, then get back to your "brick". Makes me laugh, your complaint... Tripod mount is good, especially that I can remove it completely. And I can tell you, this lens with its tripod mount is more stable on a tripod than a Nikkor 70-200/4 or 300/4 PF with their plastic barrels! I would have appreciated and Arca compatible foot, though.

#5 Klaus

Klaus

    Chief Editor

  • Moderators
  • 5,354 posts
  • LocationSydney, Australia

Posted 03 August 2016 - 11:00 PM

The Fuji 100-400mm is longer than the Canon 100-400mm/Sony 70-400mm/Nikkor 80-400mm and just slightly less heavy.

In terms of "brickness" we really have to compare the physical focal length & speed, not the equivalent one.

The Leica 100-400mm is almost tiny in this comparison just to mention. Makes me wonder whether the Fuji is actually a full format lens ...

 

And I was talking about the size of the foot of the tripod mount, not about the ring or something.


Chief Editor
photozone.de

#6 obican

obican

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 335 posts

Posted 04 August 2016 - 08:51 AM

Do you have the teleconverters too? I made a few shots with the 100-400@400mm with the 2.0x TC, the results were not really pleasing but that might be due to the fact I had no tripod at that time.



#7 Rover

Rover

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1,471 posts
  • LocationRussia

Posted 04 August 2016 - 10:00 AM

The Fuji 100-400mm is longer than the Canon 100-400mm/Sony 70-400mm/Nikkor 80-400mm and just slightly less heavy.

In terms of "brickness" we really have to compare the physical focal length & speed, not the equivalent one.

The Leica 100-400mm is almost tiny in this comparison just to mention. Makes me wonder whether the Fuji is actually a full format lens ...

 

And I was talking about the size of the foot of the tripod mount, not about the ring or something.

Bad as in "Nikkor 70-180 bad"? :)

http://www.photozone...ab-test-report 



#8 Klaus

Klaus

    Chief Editor

  • Moderators
  • 5,354 posts
  • LocationSydney, Australia

Posted 04 August 2016 - 10:08 AM

You remembered this one?  :lol:

 

Yes, almost that bad. Makes me really wonder why ?
I mean - just an extra cm cannot make much of a difference in terms of costs.


Chief Editor
photozone.de

#9 thxbb12

thxbb12

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 550 posts
  • LocationGeneva, Switzerland

Posted 04 August 2016 - 12:27 PM

Bad as in "Nikkor 70-180 bad"? :)

http://www.photozone...ab-test-report 

 

In that review, the "next" link is broken: it goes back to the home page.

Instead it should be "http://www.photozone...report?start=1"


--Florent

Flickr Page


#10 Rover

Rover

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1,471 posts
  • LocationRussia

Posted 04 August 2016 - 02:14 PM

You remembered this one?  :lol:

 

Yes, almost that bad. Makes me really wonder why ?
I mean - just an extra cm cannot make much of a difference in terms of costs.

I remembered the line about "the mechanical designers smoking some really hard weed" or something, and then I looked it up. Wasn't sure it was that lens specifically - but yes, I've been reading PZ since those times.

 

It really looks like both the photographic fads and design errors inevitably return sooner or later.



#11 chrismiller

chrismiller

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 208 posts
  • LocationGlasgow, UK

Posted 04 August 2016 - 03:00 PM

The Fuji 100-400mm is longer than the Canon 100-400mm/Sony 70-400mm/Nikkor 80-400mm and just slightly less heavy.

In terms of "brickness" we really have to compare the physical focal length & speed, not the equivalent one.

The Leica 100-400mm is almost tiny in this comparison just to mention. Makes me wonder whether the Fuji is actually a full format lens ...

 

And I was talking about the size of the foot of the tripod mount, not about the ring or something.

Wouldn't the shorter flange length of the fuji body result in a longer lens (for the same optical design)?

 

It is a little disappointing they couldn't have kept the size and weight down. Pushes me towards the Leica.



#12 JoJu

JoJu

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 2,432 posts
  • LocationSwitzerland

Posted 04 August 2016 - 11:55 PM

In terms of "brickness" we really have to compare the physical focal length & speed, not the equivalent one.

Aaaah, suddenly we do and the holy equivalence is less important? ;) I still don't get what's the problem, it's 200 gram lighter than the Nikon?

And I was talking about the size of the foot of the tripod mount, not about the ring or something.

Yes, I was also surprised about that short foot, but with an Arca plate it does quite week and is less flimsy than the Nikon stuff. What annoys me with this lens is the OIS (or aperture?) motor which is just constantly running. And what annoys me as well is that I need 10 minutes to post something on an iPad. On iOS PZ still sucks.

#13 Klaus

Klaus

    Chief Editor

  • Moderators
  • 5,354 posts
  • LocationSydney, Australia

Posted 05 August 2016 - 12:23 AM

A "proper" 100-400mm APS-C format lens should be smaller because of smaller diameter elements.

As mentioned the physical dimensions feel more like a full format lens. Again - the Leica 100-400mm is smaller thus they have tried at least. Technically "a brick" is certainly not a bad indicator in terms of optical quality - bigger tends to be better.


Chief Editor
photozone.de

#14 Klaus

Klaus

    Chief Editor

  • Moderators
  • 5,354 posts
  • LocationSydney, Australia

Posted 05 August 2016 - 12:25 AM

In that review, the "next" link is broken: it goes back to the home page.

Instead it should be "http://www.photozone...report?start=1"

 

Hmmh, this link seems to be invalid.

This is the "official" one:
http://www.photozone...lab-test-report


Chief Editor
photozone.de

#15 Klaus

Klaus

    Chief Editor

  • Moderators
  • 5,354 posts
  • LocationSydney, Australia

Posted 05 August 2016 - 12:28 AM

Do you have the teleconverters too? I made a few shots with the 100-400@400mm with the 2.0x TC, the results were not really pleasing but that might be due to the fact I had no tripod at that time.

 

No, never ever. ;-)

 

800mm APS-C ? I would have to set up the chart on the other side of the Sydney harbour bridge ...


  • Rover and JoJu like this
Chief Editor
photozone.de

#16 thxbb12

thxbb12

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 550 posts
  • LocationGeneva, Switzerland

Posted 05 August 2016 - 07:59 AM

Hmmh, this link seems to be invalid.

This is the "official" one:
http://www.photozone...lab-test-report

 

The first page was fine, it was the second one that was broken. The link I provided works for me btw.


--Florent

Flickr Page


#17 Klaus

Klaus

    Chief Editor

  • Moderators
  • 5,354 posts
  • LocationSydney, Australia

Posted 06 August 2016 - 10:19 AM

Valid samples it seems ...


Chief Editor
photozone.de

#18 Rover

Rover

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1,471 posts
  • LocationRussia

Posted 06 August 2016 - 11:23 AM

No, never ever. ;-)

So no APS-C test of the Canon 100-400? :)



#19 obican

obican

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 335 posts

Posted 08 August 2016 - 12:37 AM

No, never ever. ;-)

 

800mm APS-C ? I would have to set up the chart on the other side of the Sydney harbour bridge ...

 

Tried that once. Either IS couldn't really hold it still at 1/1000 or image quality was robbed by the high ISO that I had to use or the 400mm+2.0x teleconverter is straight up a bad idea as far as IQ goes.

 

It is fun though.



#20 Klaus

Klaus

    Chief Editor

  • Moderators
  • 5,354 posts
  • LocationSydney, Australia

Posted 08 August 2016 - 04:12 AM

On the MTF charts, a 2x goes down by roughly 1-1.5 marks (lanes), a 1.4x takes 0.5-0.75 off.
Chief Editor
photozone.de




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users



© by photozone.de