• Log in with Facebook Log in with Twitter
Photo

Fujifilm 8-16/2.8


  • Please log in to reply
28 replies to this topic

#1 JoJu

JoJu

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 2,873 posts
  • LocationSwitzerland

Posted 22 September 2017 - 09:35 AM

There's not only rumors but also some "mock-up". So, we gonna see some of these lenses

 

http://www.fujirumor...ize-comparison/

 

Perfect to hide the camera behind them  :D



#2 Brightcolours

Brightcolours

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 4,849 posts
  • LocationThe Netherlands

Posted 22 September 2017 - 09:41 AM

That + Fuji X MILC will be a real competitor to the Sony A7 series + FE 12-24mm f4, if the optics hold up and Fuji keeps the price sane.



#3 JoJu

JoJu

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 2,873 posts
  • LocationSwitzerland

Posted 22 September 2017 - 10:31 AM

Even if the optic keeps up: My guess is, the Sony is lighter (and pretty good, according to lensrentals) and less fat. The 16/1.4 is already a big lens, so that 8-16 appears to be similar sized as the current 24-70/2.8 from Tamron and Sigma.

 

Anyway, it will find it's customers, I'm just not amongst them.



#4 Brightcolours

Brightcolours

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 4,849 posts
  • LocationThe Netherlands

Posted 22 September 2017 - 11:35 AM

Even if the optic keeps up: My guess is, the Sony is lighter (and pretty good, according to lensrentals) and less fat. The 16/1.4 is already a big lens, so that 8-16 appears to be similar sized as the current 24-70/2.8 from Tamron and Sigma.

 

Anyway, it will find it's customers, I'm just not amongst them.

The Sony is also pretty good according to Photozone's Klaus  ;)

 

I doubt the Sony will be smaller, though? They may just be similar in size (which makes kinda sense, since they are pretty equivalent).

The Fuji 16mm is 73.4 x 73mm and 375 grams, the Sony 12-24mm f4 is 117.4 x 87mm and 565 grams. The size of that prototype 8-16mm in that image looks to be pretty close to the Sony size?



#5 JoJu

JoJu

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 2,873 posts
  • LocationSwitzerland

Posted 22 September 2017 - 01:04 PM

I think, I was confusing it with the 16-35/4, which is rather small. You're right, they might be just about the same size and dimensions.



#6 JoJu

JoJu

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 2,873 posts
  • LocationSwitzerland

Posted 22 September 2017 - 01:11 PM

As I said, a perfect sight protection:

 

Fujinon-XF-8-16mm-1-720x449.jpg

 

Picture taken from Fuji rumors, which took it from ePhotozine, which took it from....



#7 obican

obican

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 405 posts

Posted 22 September 2017 - 03:52 PM

I think, I was confusing it with the 16-35/4, which is rather small. You're right, they might be just about the same size and dimensions.

 

12-24/4 is pretty close in weight to 16-35/4 and also almost similar in size too. Looks like this 8-16 will be huge but not unmanagable. Not a reason to switch to Fuji from Sony though.



#8 thxbb12

thxbb12

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 601 posts
  • LocationGeneva, Switzerland

Posted 22 September 2017 - 03:54 PM

Sure, it's big, but not enormous.

It's quite a unique proposal in the APS-C world though. I'm sure many landscape photog will be jumping on it.

 

Personally, I find the Olympus 9-18 to be the perfect compromise for travel/landscape work. It's amazingly tiny and good optically.


--Florent

Flickr Page


#9 stoppingdown

stoppingdown

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 577 posts
  • LocationGenoa / Milan, Italy

Posted 22 September 2017 - 04:40 PM

Sure it is... but it's also a super-super wide... Ok, you seldom need it, working at such extreme wide angles is difficult, for some kind of architectural shot you can go with composite... but nevertheless it's really an extreme lens. If they do it optically good, I think many will buy it.


stoppingdown.net

 

Sony a6300, Sony a6000, Sony NEX-6, Sony E 10-18mm F4 OSS, Sony Zeiss Vario-Tessar T* E 16-70mm F4 ZA OSS, Sony FE 70-200mm F4 G OSS, Sigma 150-600mm ƒ/5-6.3 DG OS HSM Contemporary, Samyang 12mm ƒ/2, Sigma 30mm F2.8 DN | A, Meyer Gorlitz Trioplan 100mm ƒ/2.8, Samyang 8mm ƒ/3.5 fish-eye II | Zenit Helios 44-2 58mm ƒ/2 
Plus some legacy Nikkor lenses.

#10 JoJu

JoJu

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 2,873 posts
  • LocationSwitzerland

Posted 22 September 2017 - 04:42 PM

12-24/4 is pretty close in weight to 16-35/4 and also almost similar in size too. Looks like this 8-16 will be huge but not unmanagable. Not a reason to switch to Fuji from Sony though.

 

Hmmm... interesting site, but I was refering to this picture (from lensrentals):

 

Group-Shot.jpg

 

And here the 16-35/4 is the dwarf in the middle.

 

thxbb12, I know your reasoning is reasonable like "most people put the pictures somewhere in the internet or mail them" and for this purpose APS-C or µ4/3 is perfect. Nothing against this point.

 

It's just: for me, landscape is the bigger the sensor, the better the resolution. Sure, also the bigger the back-pain  :( but I'm no fan of superwide with "small" sensors (I know, these two formats are not the smallest possible).

 

I just got 10 A1 posters back from print service. The prints from the Fuji don't look really bad - but in 12 MP more and double sensor area, I still see more details.

 

Speaking of super-wides: At the moment I try to stop myself from going the 14/1.8 Art path, but my resistance is not too hard...


  • thxbb12 likes this

#11 thxbb12

thxbb12

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 601 posts
  • LocationGeneva, Switzerland

Posted 22 September 2017 - 04:57 PM

Re: joju

Of course more resolution will resolve more details. However I'm not convinced that at base ISO say a D750 will resolve more details than a XT20 (or D7200) for instance. I'm pretty much sure they will be indistinguishable.

Furthermore, about your A1 print: what distance do you actually look at it? 10cm? That's not exactly realistic. At normal viewing distance I doubt you'll see any meaningful difference...

--Florent

Flickr Page


#12 toni-a

toni-a

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1,314 posts
  • LocationLebanon

Posted 22 September 2017 - 06:22 PM

A1 at 300dpi that's 69 megapixel, nothing but medium format can resolve that

#13 Brightcolours

Brightcolours

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 4,849 posts
  • LocationThe Netherlands

Posted 22 September 2017 - 06:50 PM

Sure, it's big, but not enormous.
It's quite a unique proposal in the APS-C world though. I'm sure many landscape photog will be jumping on it.
 
Personally, I find the Olympus 9-18 to be the perfect compromise for travel/landscape work. It's amazingly tiny and good optically.

Of course it is "amazingly tiny", it is a 12-24mm f5.3-7.5 APS-C equivalent (or 18-36mm f8-11 FF equivalent), it better be tiny compared to the Fuji 8-16mm f2.8. 
12mm vs 8 mm, not really a lens to bring up in this thread  :P
 
The Olympus 7-14mm f2.8 makes a bit more sense. At 105.8 x 78.9mm and 534 grams it is almost the size and weight of the Sony 12-24mm f4, and yet is equivalent to a f5.6 FF lens.

I find the EF-M 22mm f2 perfect for travel work, and the EF-S 10-18mm f4.5-5.6 IS STM perfect for UWA travel wide angle landscape shots. Also not lenses to bring up in this thread ;)

#14 obican

obican

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 405 posts

Posted 22 September 2017 - 07:16 PM

Hmmm... interesting site, but I was refering to this picture (from lensrentals):

 

Group-Shot.jpg

 

And here the 16-35/4 is the dwarf in the middle.

 

 

 

It's probably the fixed hood which makes it seem much larger. Weight is quite similar, which is more important to me. And it's MUCH wider. I loved Canon 11-24L so I'll probably love this one as well.

 

The question is, shall I sell Batis 25 and 16-35/4 or should I wait?

 

On a more Fuji related note, I don't think Fuji will be much cheaper than Sony 12-24. Probably similarly sized, maybe even a bit larger too. If I were in the Fuji land, I'd probably be eyeing that lens right now but would I switch to Fuji for it? Would you? Even if you need the angle?



#15 toni-a

toni-a

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1,314 posts
  • LocationLebanon

Posted 22 September 2017 - 08:10 PM

Frankly who needs fast ultrawides ? I have tokina 16-28f2.8 on full frame and I don't use it at f2.8 . When I am using crop sensor, I use 10-18f4.5-5.6 and never complained it is a slow lens. I use 10-18 mostly for landscape and architecture and for both I need all the depth of field I can have.
IMHO a 8-16 f4 much lighter would have made much more sense, who is complaining canon 11-24 f4 is a,slow lens?

#16 JoJu

JoJu

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 2,873 posts
  • LocationSwitzerland

Posted 22 September 2017 - 08:29 PM

A1 at 300dpi that's 69 megapixel, nothing but medium format can resolve that

 
:lol:
 
This good old 300dpi number... you would wonder how low resolutions of big posters really are. But thanks for calculating anyway.
 
300 dpi for inkjet are fine up to A3, the bigger you get, the lower the dpi can go - and at normal viewing distance you would not see the difference between 300 and 185 dpi (26.5 MP for A1).
 
The thing is: With an ultra-wide angle there are so much tiny details that people do come closer to the print, diving in - so, you're not so far off with higher dpi for large prints from ultra-wide. That's why I think, I would never (well, it's in real far distance down on my wish list, so maybe not never, but highly unlikely) buy this kind of glass for an APS-C camera. However, within the Fuji cosmos there's not much of a choice, right?
 
I expect this Fuji 8-16 to be in the same price range like a Sigma 12-24/4 or Sony 12-24. Having bodies for both systems, I would be stupid to limit the possible resolution. If I have to use a Fuji for UWA, I'd rather use the 16/1.4 and stitch 3 vertical pictures.
 

I find the EF-M 22mm f2 perfect for travel work, and the EF-S 10-18mm f4.5-5.6 IS STM perfect for UWA travel wide angle landscape shots. Also not lenses to bring up in this thread

 
Why not? Systems aside, why not talking about the final product: big printed picture on a wall or in a web-gallery?  :) My impression from the Fuji is more "yeah, you can now have a superfat UWA lens for Fuji, but it's neither saving weight nor size nor money". Plus other disadvantages like the usual filterholder problems and focus by wire. Other than that, it's a WR type, so should take some rain - nothing I can say about a lot of my wide angles (the 16/1.4 being one exception)

#17 Brightcolours

Brightcolours

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 4,849 posts
  • LocationThe Netherlands

Posted 22 September 2017 - 08:36 PM

Why not? Systems aside, why not talking about the final product: big printed picture on a wall or in a web-gallery?  :) My impression from the Fuji is more "yeah, you can now have a superfat UWA lens for Fuji, but it's neither saving weight nor size nor money". Plus other disadvantages like the usual filterholder problems and focus by wire. Other than that, it's a WR type, so should take some rain - nothing I can say about a lot of my wide angles (the 16/1.4 being one exception)

Because neither is that wide (and not that fast, but that is secondary). That is why not ;)

#18 Brightcolours

Brightcolours

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 4,849 posts
  • LocationThe Netherlands

Posted 22 September 2017 - 08:40 PM

canon 11-24 f4 is a,slow lens?

That Canon is just as fast as that Sony 12-24mm f4 and a tad faster than that Fuji 8-16mm f2.8 (remember equivalency?).
f2.8 x 1.5 = 4.2
That Canon is only a slow lens compared to a Nikkor 14-24mm f2.8, a Tamron 15-30mm f2.8 or a Canon 16-35mm f2.8 L USM III. But it goes wider than all of those.

#19 JoJu

JoJu

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 2,873 posts
  • LocationSwitzerland

Posted 22 September 2017 - 08:49 PM

Frankly who needs fast ultrawides ?

 

I do.

 

i-rBjVcT7-X2.jpg

 

ISO 7200, f/1.4, 1/40, 20 mm

 

i-DvfQhxQ-X2.jpg

 

ISO 64, f/2.2, 1/1250, 20 mm

 

i-pdWnkGr-L.jpg

 

ISO 5600, f/2, 1/125, 20 mm

 

Once you discover the things you can do with a fast high quality wide angle, it's too awesome to not to use.

 

I do look forward to the 14/1.8 Art  ;) I like the 14-24 Nikkor for being such a good UWA zoom (still, after all those years), but this winter I do want to get more milky way. 


  • Brightcolours and Rover like this

#20 thxbb12

thxbb12

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 601 posts
  • LocationGeneva, Switzerland

Posted 22 September 2017 - 09:13 PM

Of course it is "amazingly tiny", it is a 12-24mm f5.3-7.5 APS-C equivalent (or 18-36mm f8-11 FF equivalent), it better be tiny compared to the Fuji 8-16mm f2.8. 
12mm vs 8 mm, not really a lens to bring up in this thread  :P
 
The Olympus 7-14mm f2.8 makes a bit more sense. At 105.8 x 78.9mm and 534 grams it is almost the size and weight of the Sony 12-24mm f4, and yet is equivalent to a f5.6 FF lens.

I find the EF-M 22mm f2 perfect for travel work, and the EF-S 10-18mm f4.5-5.6 IS STM perfect for UWA travel wide angle landscape shots. Also not lenses to bring up in this thread ;)

 

I'm talking about size of an UWA here. Sure, it's not 12 equiv, but others have compared it to 16-35, so why not a 18-36?

Now, I now perfectly well it's equivalent to a 18-36 f8-11 and that's the beauty of it: such a lens DOS NOT EXIST in any other system.

That's what matters.

When travelling and shooting landscapes, I'm perfectly happy with a slow lens as I'm shooting landscapes (which don't move all that much ;-). With Olympus' IBIS you can shoot this thing at around 1 sec. So again, a combo such as an E-M5 II + Oly 9-18 doesn't exist ANYWHERE else. For the size factor it's simply amazing, regardless of what you think.


--Florent

Flickr Page





1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users



© by photozone.de