• Log in with Facebook Log in with Twitter
Photo

Fujifilm announcements ...


  • Please log in to reply
35 replies to this topic

#21 JoJu

JoJu

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 2,719 posts
  • LocationSwitzerland

Posted 08 September 2017 - 10:15 AM

I disagree with the claim that's the wrong concept for UWA. The 14mm is stellar and quite compact. The Fuji 10-24 f4 is pretty damn good compared to what's available elsewhere (DSLR or mirrorless).

 

Can't tell for myself about the 14mm - I checked PZ before and went for the Zeiss Touit, also because the 14 is too close to the 16/1.4 which I like very much and use very often.

 

It's alright you're disagreeing, but UWA to me is not something equivalent to 21 on FF. On APSC I'd call 8-12 UWA, longer is more or less normal WA. And I still think, it's very tough to put too much details on a small sensor (which APS-C fpr me still is. If I look on prints, I'm less happy about the Zeiss 12 / X-T2 combination than I am on the ones I made with Nikkor 14-24 at 18 mm and of course even more so at 14. And what I saw from Sony's 12-24 on FF mirrorless is just confirming my opinion for me.



#22 Brightcolours

Brightcolours

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 4,787 posts
  • LocationThe Netherlands

Posted 08 September 2017 - 11:07 AM

I disagree with the claim that's the wrong concept for UWA. The 14mm is stellar and quite compact. The Fuji 10-24 f4 is pretty damn good compared to what's available elsewhere (DSLR or mirrorless).

You mean it is pretty damn expensive compared to what's available elsewhere? The Canon EF-S 10-18mm IS STM is much, much more affordable, and the Canon  EF-M 11-22mm IS STM is quite a bit less than half the price of the Fuji (also a bit less wide). Both offer IS. 



#23 Klaus

Klaus

    Chief Editor

  • Moderators
  • 5,404 posts
  • LocationSydney, Australia

Posted 08 September 2017 - 11:15 AM

Me too. In aspect of smooth bokeh the 100-400 also falls short.

 

Like most xx-400mm lenses.


Chief Editor
photozone.de

#24 Klaus

Klaus

    Chief Editor

  • Moderators
  • 5,404 posts
  • LocationSydney, Australia

Posted 08 September 2017 - 11:29 AM

You mean it is pretty damn expensive compared to what's available elsewhere? The Canon EF-S 10-18mm IS STM is much, much more affordable, and the Canon  EF-M 11-22mm IS STM is quite a bit less than half the price of the Fuji (also a bit less wide). Both offer IS. 

 

A constant f/4 lens is always a magnitude more expensive than a f/4.x-5.6. Obviously the Fujinon has also a bigger range and it's in a different league mechanically - at least vs the EF-S. I've also yet to see an EOS M user out there. The system is very popular in Japan but beyond ...


  • JoJu likes this
Chief Editor
photozone.de

#25 Brightcolours

Brightcolours

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 4,787 posts
  • LocationThe Netherlands

Posted 08 September 2017 - 11:55 AM

A constant f/4 lens is always a magnitude more expensive than a f/4.x-5.6. Obviously the Fujinon has also a bigger range and it's in a different league mechanically - at least vs the EF-S. I've also yet to see an EOS M user out there. The system is very popular in Japan but beyond ...

What does you not having seen an EOS-M user have to do with this?  :D

 

The Fuji is expensive, also for "a constant f4 lens" for APS-C... It is almost as expensive as a Canon EF 16-35mm f4 L IS USM. And that for a f6 FF equivalent.



#26 JoJu

JoJu

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 2,719 posts
  • LocationSwitzerland

Posted 08 September 2017 - 12:51 PM

Like most xx-400mm lenses.

 

Wait a moment: http://www.fujirumor...o-fuji-x-mount/

 

Yeeaaaah, after all this garage opticians grinding revolutionary 50/0.95 lenses, the reflex "lens" gets a comeback! Yippeee-kay-yee.

 

Now where are David Hamilton's vaseline lenses, AF by ultrasonic beam, hell, amybe even SOny reactivated the laser-pattern?



#27 Brightcolours

Brightcolours

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 4,787 posts
  • LocationThe Netherlands

Posted 08 September 2017 - 01:27 PM

Kenko has offered a 400mm f8 mirror lens with T mount for a number of years now, this must be a new, improved version then?



#28 JoJu

JoJu

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 2,719 posts
  • LocationSwitzerland

Posted 08 September 2017 - 01:36 PM

The specs say "T-mount use (factory installed)".

 

Slight possibility to advertise an old lens with three new mounts (Canon EF, Sony E and Fuji X)

 

Can't be much slower in focussing than Fuji's 100-400. That's alright to focus in easy conditions, but let there be only one twig in between  - one learns to hate focus by wire :angry: . 

 

:D



#29 you2

you2

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 999 posts

Posted 08 September 2017 - 05:01 PM

I thought the X-E3 had the same level of control; it just exchanges knobs for touch screen ? Or perhaps that is what you meant by direct control ?

 

 

 

I don't like that much the X-E3, at least on paper, with less direct controls than XE2 (iso and wb for example only with touch or with the Q button), no tiltable lcd and no integrated flash.

 

 



#30 Klaus

Klaus

    Chief Editor

  • Moderators
  • 5,404 posts
  • LocationSydney, Australia

Posted 09 September 2017 - 06:05 AM

What does you not having seen an EOS-M user have to do with this? :D

The Fuji is expensive, also for "a constant f4 lens" for APS-C... It is almost as expensive as a Canon EF 16-35mm f4 L IS USM. And that for a f6 FF equivalent.


A virtually non-existent system is a bit of an irrelevant reference 😉
  • JoJu likes this
Chief Editor
photozone.de

#31 Brightcolours

Brightcolours

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 4,787 posts
  • LocationThe Netherlands

Posted 09 September 2017 - 07:17 AM

Sigh.... 



#32 Klaus

Klaus

    Chief Editor

  • Moderators
  • 5,404 posts
  • LocationSydney, Australia

Posted 09 September 2017 - 11:25 AM

Sigh.... 

 

yeah, it would have been so much easier if you cited the Sony 10-18mm f/4 rather than the  usual Canon stuff ...


Chief Editor
photozone.de

#33 Brightcolours

Brightcolours

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 4,787 posts
  • LocationThe Netherlands

Posted 09 September 2017 - 12:55 PM

The Sony is not that good (weaker corners, not that cheap, bad amounts of vignetting). So it would be odd to cite it in context of the post I reacted to?

 

I have not seen many Sony E mount cameras used, and none with a Sony 10-18mm, by the way.



#34 Klaus

Klaus

    Chief Editor

  • Moderators
  • 5,404 posts
  • LocationSydney, Australia

Posted 10 September 2017 - 07:31 AM

The Sony lens is

a) quite good actually 

B) spec wise more similar than your examples

c) the answer to all questions in the universe isn't always Canon


  • JoJu likes this
Chief Editor
photozone.de

#35 Brightcolours

Brightcolours

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 4,787 posts
  • LocationThe Netherlands

Posted 10 September 2017 - 08:03 AM

The answer to more affordable wide angle in this case clearly is Canon (the 16-35mm f4 L IS USM is almost the same price, the 10-18mm is almost a quarter the price, the 11-22mm is less than half the price).

 

I responded to "The Fuji 10-24 f4 is pretty damn good compared to what's available elsewhere (DSLR or mirrorless)."

 

I disagree, it is pretty darn expensive compared to what is available elsewhere, and in performance comparable to what is available elsewhere. That you react allergic to Canon is not my fault.



#36 toni-a

toni-a

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1,227 posts
  • LocationLebanon

Posted 10 September 2017 - 04:07 PM

We'll regardless of quality and value for money, it's clear nobody knows how to sell photography gear better than Canon. Their marketing department seems outstanding.




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users



© by photozone.de