09-08-2017, 08:57 AM
Quote:Although Fuji fanboys over at Fuji rumours are drooling like hell about these lenses - I would not think about getting one.
Fuji mirrorless is a nice concept and benefits a lot of not much weight and compact size. But for ultra-wide angle it is the wrong concept, the lens will cost a fortune and it still remains APS-C. Personal preference, but the wider the angle the bigger and better the sensor - otherwise I feel pictures lacking of detail.
And this monster 200/2... I'm already afraid with the 100-400 when I hold the camera down to do some setup or only check the playback button. I'm afraid it will wear the little mount. Maybe not rip it out of the camera, but ... well, not a great feeling in my gutts.
Why didn't they do a lens like the 300/4 PF E from Nikon. I just checked, it's about half the weight of the 100-400 (755 vs. 1375 grams). This 200/2... well, the Nikon FF verison has just about 3 kg - and then there's a big body behind with a good grip - while the tiny Fuji bodies just look out of place.
While I was cross-checking some prices, weights and sizes, I found kind of a surprising value: A Fuji X-T2 with a 100-400 costs a little bit more than a D500 with a Tamron 150-600 G2. And the latter has
Yes, the X-T20 has a touchscreen - it's just still not as available as it should be. And it shares the very same slow AF-C technique with the X-T2.
- more reach
- more reliable AF-C, in 3D mode as well
- about same speed (without a booster grip - that is not in the equation)
- no bloody focus by wire
- a touchscreen
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).