• Log in with Facebook Log in with Twitter
Photo

Fujifilm 8-16/2.8


  • Please log in to reply
28 replies to this topic

#21 stoppingdown

stoppingdown

    Advanced Member

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

Posted 22 September 2017 - 09:14 PM

I do agree: fast (ultra)wides do make sense (now, I put "ultra" in parentheses because how much ultra, it depends on the subjects; but fastness for blurring the background makes definitely sense).


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.

#22 Brightcolours

Brightcolours

    Advanced Member

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

Posted 23 September 2017 - 07:16 AM

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.

It is totally ok for you to appreciate that Olympus lens, I just found it strange to bring it up in a thread about a wider, "fast" UWA. The 16-35mm only came up because someone thought they had confused its size with that of the "fast" and also wider Sony FE 12-24mm f4.
 
I know that such a slow lens does not exist anywhere else, but I am unsure what the beauty of that quite extreme small maximum aperture is. 
Whether something like it does not exist anywhere else?
The Canon EF-M 11-22mm f4-5.6 IS STM is pretty close in size (just 4.5 mm wider and 8.5mm longer) and focal range:
 
Olympus ED 8-16mm f4-5.6 is a 18-36mm FF equivalent
Canon EF-M 11-22mm f4-5.6 is a 17.6-35.2mm FF equivalent
 
It is a tad faster too: Olympus f8-11 FF equivalent and the Canon f6.4-9 FF equivalent.
 
The Canon has IS vs the IBIS of Olympus.
http://j.mp/2xmm5S9

It seems a lens like that pretty much does exist somewhere else?



#23 thxbb12

thxbb12

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 601 posts
  • LocationGeneva, Switzerland

Posted 23 September 2017 - 08:18 AM

It is totally ok for you to appreciate that Olympus lens, I just found it strange to bring it up in a thread about a wider, "fast" UWA. The 16-35mm only came up because someone thought they had confused its size with that of the "fast" and also wider Sony FE 12-24mm f4.
 
I know that such a slow lens does not exist anywhere else, but I am unsure what the beauty of that quite extreme small maximum aperture is. 
Whether something like it does not exist anywhere else?
The Canon EF-M 11-22mm f4-5.6 IS STM is pretty close in size (just 4.5 mm wider and 8.5mm longer) and focal range:
 
Olympus ED 8-16mm f4-5.6 is a 18-36mm FF equivalent
Canon EF-M 11-22mm f4-5.6 is a 17.6-35.2mm FF equivalent
 
It is a tad faster too: Olympus f8-11 FF equivalent and the Canon f6.4-9 FF equivalent.
 
The Canon has IS vs the IBIS of Olympus.
http://j.mp/2xmm5S9

It seems a lens like that pretty much does exist somewhere else?

 

I agree, the EF-M 11-22 while not as small, is somewhat close.

The Canon M system could be actually interesting if it was a real system. At the moment however, the system is extremely poor in terms of lens selection. A shame. Hopefully Canon will think of filling up the huge gap in the lens line-up.


--Florent

Flickr Page


#24 Brightcolours

Brightcolours

    Advanced Member

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

Posted 23 September 2017 - 11:13 AM

Yeah, I totally agree that MFT has a much wider lens selection than native EOS M, and it also has more to offer concerning small lenses.



#25 toni-a

toni-a

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1,314 posts
  • LocationLebanon

Posted 23 September 2017 - 11:17 AM

What doesn't make any sense is the price of the EF lenses adapter, give us a cheap EF/EFs adapter and many will consider it

#26 Brightcolours

Brightcolours

    Advanced Member

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

Posted 23 September 2017 - 12:02 PM

What doesn't make any sense is the price of the EF lenses adapter, give us a cheap EF/EFs adapter and many will consider it

 

What are you talking about? Which brand of EF to Fuji X-mount adapter?

In case you are actually going even more off topic than I and thxbb12 have gone and are talking about a Canon EF to EF-M adapter for EOS M, you must have missed something. Almost 4 years ago I payed around $30 for my Meike EF to EF-M adapter, and you can get such adapters now for around $10, even.

 

But if size is of little concern and one does not need to mount a specific EF-M mount lens, I much prefer a camera like your "new" 7D mk II, your 750D or even a 100/200D any EOS M. Why? They offer an OVF. And you can make them do trap focus (probably, depending on model and lenses available to you).

 

There is no 8-16mm f2.8 for EOS M, though. So for such a solution and an APS-C sensor, one should look for Fuji (in the near future) anyway.



#27 toni-a

toni-a

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1,314 posts
  • LocationLebanon

Posted 23 September 2017 - 12:45 PM

Didn't know about the meike EF to EOS-M adapter

Is it as functional as the Canon adapter ? Maintaining autofocus and stabilisation ?

#28 Brightcolours

Brightcolours

    Advanced Member

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

Posted 23 September 2017 - 02:22 PM

The EF to EF-M adapters are just simple extension tubes. It does therefore not matter which brand is printed on them.



#29 toni-a

toni-a

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1,314 posts
  • LocationLebanon

Posted 23 September 2017 - 09:25 PM

The EF to EF-M adapters are just simple extension tubes. It does therefore not matter which brand is printed on them.

Many thanks BC Canon M6 is now more interesting... But i won't be getting a sixth camera body... Gear buying addiction isn't a benign disease after all




3 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 3 guests, 0 anonymous users



© by photozone.de