• Log in with Facebook Log in with Twitter
Photo

next PZ lens test report: Fujinon XF 16mm f/1.4 R WR


  • Please log in to reply
23 replies to this topic

#1 Klaus

Klaus

    Chief Editor

  • Moderators
  • 5,353 posts
  • LocationSydney, Australia

Posted 13 August 2016 - 04:37 AM

Quite nice for such a fast ultra-wide lens.

 

http://www.photozone...x/984-fuji16f14


Chief Editor
photozone.de

#2 Rover

Rover

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1,470 posts
  • LocationRussia

Posted 13 August 2016 - 07:34 AM

Wowsers. An extra incentive to buy into this system (at the expense of the Canons that I have, notably the 24/1.4 as this one would replace it squarely).



#3 Klaus

Klaus

    Chief Editor

  • Moderators
  • 5,353 posts
  • LocationSydney, Australia

Posted 13 August 2016 - 08:03 AM

The charts are actually not all that great compared to the next review ;-)


Chief Editor
photozone.de

#4 Brightcolours

Brightcolours

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 4,656 posts
  • LocationThe Netherlands

Posted 13 August 2016 - 08:15 AM

Wowsers. An extra incentive to buy into this system (at the expense of the Canons that I have, notably the 24/1.4 as this one would replace it squarely).

You use 1.3x crop. Your 24mm f1.4 is a 31mm f1.8 FF equivalent.

The 16mm f1.4 is a 24mm f2  FF equivalent, not sure how that is "squarely" a replacement (but sure, it is fine to want this Fuji lens, just not sure about the similarity).

 

On comparing the charts for the 24mm f1.4 on FF, and this Fuji, the Canon outperforms the Fuji sharpness wide even wide open on your APS-H camera.



#5 goran h

goran h

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 87 posts
  • LocationStockholm, Sweden

Posted 13 August 2016 - 10:01 AM

The next review will be Fuji 35 f2?



#6 Sahib7

Sahib7

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 37 posts
  • LocationGermany

Posted 13 August 2016 - 10:31 AM

The charts are actually not all that great compared to the next review ;-)


I guess it will be the 35mm f2.0.
I'm looking forward to your review!
Most sites state that the old 35mm f1.4 is optically the better lens, but looking at the complete package (smaller, lighter, WR, much faster AF) the new one might be favored. I own the old 35mm f1.4 which is optically fantastic but it's AF is really slow.
I would be interested if you think that an "upgrade" would be worth it.

#7 you2

you2

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 983 posts

Posted 13 August 2016 - 02:30 PM

My gueess is the 40-150 fuji.



#8 Klaus

Klaus

    Chief Editor

  • Moderators
  • 5,353 posts
  • LocationSydney, Australia

Posted 13 August 2016 - 02:52 PM

My gueess is the 40-150 fuji.

 

That is unlike ... I tested this one earlier this year.


Chief Editor
photozone.de

#9 Sahib7

Sahib7

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 37 posts
  • LocationGermany

Posted 13 August 2016 - 08:57 PM

It's the 35mm f2.0, isn't it?
Another - more unlikely guess - would be the 100-400mm, but I guess that this should have worse charts ;)

#10 Rover

Rover

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1,470 posts
  • LocationRussia

Posted 13 August 2016 - 10:57 PM

The Fuji 100-400 was mentioned a short time ago as "bloody awesome", innit?



#11 Klaus

Klaus

    Chief Editor

  • Moderators
  • 5,353 posts
  • LocationSydney, Australia

Posted 14 August 2016 - 07:23 AM

Life is like a box of chocolate ...


Chief Editor
photozone.de

#12 JoJu

JoJu

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 2,425 posts
  • LocationSwitzerland

Posted 14 August 2016 - 12:34 PM

Because there was another "Canon outperforms Fuji wide open" comment above, I wanted to see if this guessing has substance. However, I don't have a Canon 24/1.4 L II at hand, only a Sigma 24/1.4 Art which - according to various testers - "outperforms" the Canon, at least in center sharpness. Somewhere the 4 ½ ★ rating compared to the 3 ½ in PZ must be coming from...

 

However, the only thing I see outperforming is: I can use the Fuji with AF and focus is spot on, not matter if it's a border or center, while I have to use the Sigma with a manual adapter and need maybe more than one shot to get the focus right. At least wide open.

 

Here is the 100% crop from center

 

i-VSswPQT-L.jpg

 

and her front he right border

 

i-8Nvcpqr-L.jpg

 

Ignore the "50 mm" - I can choose one FL when using an adapter or manual lens without chip and I didn't change the setting - it's only for EXIF. All pictures @ f/1.4

 

I don't see a huge difference between those two lenses. That is kind of a relief to me because I thought the smaller wide-angle lenses could cause more problems, but since it's designers didn't need to leave space for a mirror, they somehow managed to bring a "half-the-weight" lens to shine as good as a very good DSLR lens.  :)

 

Oh, and I discovered an advantage of the focus ring clutch: No matter if the camera is powered ON or OFF, the distance remains visible on the lens.

 

But a lens without that clutch keeps it's focus position as well. So it's not always after a lens change lost.



#13 obican

obican

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 334 posts

Posted 14 August 2016 - 11:19 PM

Honesly, I don't care if Canon's 24/1.4 is better than this lens on APS-C. It weighs almost twice as much and that's without putting the camera body on to the scale. From a practical standpoint, Fuji is a much more sane solution if all you want is a reasonably sharp 24mm equivalent prime for practical photography. Zeiss Batis visually produces very comparable results and is even lighter by miracle. However, it demands more expensive FF bodies to be practical whereas you can simply pop the Fujinon on any Fuji X series body and have the same result.



#14 JoJu

JoJu

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 2,425 posts
  • LocationSwitzerland

Posted 15 August 2016 - 12:36 AM

Zeiss only delivers two (Touit) lenses for Fuji bodies. Two it enuff, or something like that  :P 

While the 12/2.8 keeps on impressing me, I also see some limits. Sharpness is less great than with a Sigma dp 0 quattro which has only 2 mm longer FL.



#15 walter_g

walter_g

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 38 posts

Posted 15 August 2016 - 03:46 AM

There are three (3) Touit lenses for X mount from Zeiss: 2.8/12, 1.8/32 and 2.8/50M

 

Threeit? Throwit? :P



#16 JoJu

JoJu

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 2,425 posts
  • LocationSwitzerland

Posted 15 August 2016 - 10:21 AM

Blime, I forgot the Macro  :o This magic thing, with which you can go as close as 12 cm to insects and they don't fly or jump away, if I want to believe the flickr stream of the Zeiss group.  ^_^



#17 Sahib7

Sahib7

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 37 posts
  • LocationGermany

Posted 17 August 2016 - 02:49 PM

Life is like a box of chocolate ...

I'm really looking forward to your next review!
Just to be sure I've ordered an XF 35mm f2.0 as long as the cash back deals are active ;-)

#18 Rover

Rover

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1,470 posts
  • LocationRussia

Posted 20 August 2016 - 10:32 AM

Oh yes, I forgot to answer to this.

You use 1.3x crop. Your 24mm f1.4 is a 31mm f1.8 FF equivalent.

The 16mm f1.4 is a 24mm f2  FF equivalent, not sure how that is "squarely" a replacement (but sure, it is fine to want this Fuji lens, just not sure about the similarity).

 

On comparing the charts for the 24mm f1.4 on FF, and this Fuji, the Canon outperforms the Fuji sharpness wide even wide open on your APS-H camera.

I'm not chasing the precise FL/FOV and aperture figures (especially since the former are so fluid due to crop factors). I just have a need for a wide and fast lens (not only for astro), so this Fuji being effectively wider than the Canon is a good bonus for me. In the end, however, it looks like my kit will stay the way it is for a while, because even if the Fuji lens is cheaper than the Canon, the body is most definitely rather expensive. And I'm not ready to ditch the entire Canon system for good just yet.

 

Suppose I could just swap the L for the Sigma and pocket the difference though... :)



#19 JoJu

JoJu

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 2,425 posts
  • LocationSwitzerland

Posted 20 August 2016 - 11:05 AM

Suppose I could just swap the L for the Sigma and pocket the difference though... :)

 

That's what I did. You just need to bare in mind, the price difference is also because both Canon and Nikon 24/1.4 have a pretty solid body with a couple of seals. Optically, the Sigma is the best choice.



#20 Rover

Rover

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1,470 posts
  • LocationRussia

Posted 20 August 2016 - 01:12 PM

That's what I did. You just need to bare in mind, the price difference is also because both Canon and Nikon 24/1.4 have a pretty solid body with a couple of seals. Optically, the Sigma is the best choice.

Yeah, the lack of a weather sealing on the Sigma is giving me a pause. What were they thinking when they left that out.  :wacko:






0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users



© by photozone.de