• Log in with Facebook Log in with Twitter
Photo

Rumor: Fujinon XC 15-45mm F3.5-5.6 OIS Pancake Power Zoom


  • Please log in to reply
32 replies to this topic

#1 Klaus

Klaus

    Chief Editor

  • Moderators
  • 5,541 posts
  • LocationSydney, Australia

Posted 09 January 2018 - 10:11 AM

Kinda nice if you are into small things at least


Chief Editor
photozone.de

#2 Kodachrome 25

Kodachrome 25

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 54 posts

Posted 09 January 2018 - 10:55 AM

Maybe a replacement for the 16-50 now better fitted (and with sufficient image quality) for video?

I would rather prefer an XF-non-pancake version more akin to the 18-55 for still images - a wider, not too fast, variable aperture and not to big standard zoom with good or better image quality as most popular systems (alas Sony...) offer. IMHO that is still an omission in the Fujifilm lens line-up.



#3 JoJu

JoJu

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 2,966 posts
  • LocationSwitzerland

Posted 09 January 2018 - 11:10 AM

What do you really miss with the exisiting 18-55 / 16-50 / 16-55 /18-135 offerings? I keep on reading about the outstanding quality of the 18-55/2.8-4 (which I got cheap as 2nd hand) and the less so quality of the 16-55/2.8 but zoom lenses always have downsides and the Fujinon is pretty usable, I'd say. And the range is really overly populated by lenses, hence we still wait for a decent 300 mm, reasonably fast.



#4 thxbb12

thxbb12

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 622 posts
  • LocationGeneva, Switzerland

Posted 09 January 2018 - 11:40 AM

I welcome this new addition. I'm one of these guys who like small lenses :-)

I particularly like the 15mm at the wide-end which is rather unique et much more useful than the longer usual 55mm range IMO.

 

This being said, I fear that being an XC lens, it won't be that great IQ-wise. Plus, it will probably feature a plastic mount and no aperture ring.

If only it had it was a high quality XF lens :-(


--Florent

Flickr Page


#5 thxbb12

thxbb12

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 622 posts
  • LocationGeneva, Switzerland

Posted 09 January 2018 - 11:49 AM

What do you really miss with the exisiting 18-55 / 16-50 / 16-55 /18-135 offerings? I keep on reading about the outstanding quality of the 18-55/2.8-4 (which I got cheap as 2nd hand) and the less so quality of the 16-55/2.8 but zoom lenses always have downsides and the Fujinon is pretty usable, I'd say. And the range is really overly populated by lenses, hence we still wait for a decent 300 mm, reasonably fast.

 

  • The 18-55 has indeed great IQ. However, it has 2 drawbacks for me: only 18mm at the wide-end. I'd like 16mm instead. Also, it suffers from AF issue (I wonder if it's unique to my copy or not). Sometimes, it doesn't AF where it says it does leading to slightly blurry images. It's the only lens I have that does this. Are you encountering this with yours, Joju ?
  • 16-50: about the same size as the 18-55 despite being much slower throughout the range. Good thing is that it starts at 16mm, but the overall IQ is not as good as the 18-55 and it has no aperture ring and a plastic mount. I had one and sold it.
  • 18-135: It only starts at 18mm, is quite a large for its specs and not so hot IQ-wise. 

Personally, I'd love to see a 13-40 "standard" lens for APS-C (20-60mm FF equivalent).

When I analyze which focal lengths I use the most when using standard zooms, it's mostly towards the wide-end. The long end is rarely used. A wider albeit shorter lens would make a lot more sense to me. I know there are options like 10-24 and so, but these are too specialty lenses.

I wonder why no manufacturer has ever tried to release such a lens 20-60 equivalent lens?

Is it too difficult to design? I would think given the limited range, it would be doable.


--Florent

Flickr Page


#6 JoJu

JoJu

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 2,966 posts
  • LocationSwitzerland

Posted 09 January 2018 - 12:20 PM

thxbb12, my copy occupies only space in a drawer and ocassionally sees daylight. That happens when I want to travel very light, in daylight conditions. I'm not the best reference about it's AF capabilities, but there was a firmware 3.22 update coming out in October 2017 with the promise "Fix for wrong focal length display and shaking in peripheral part of images." - doesn't it do what it should?

 

As for IQ of any Fuji lens, I'm simply spoilt by Nikon/Sigma combinations and don't expect Fuji to work miracles. In low light the quality differences become massive. As in all kind of lights the weight difference is also pretty massive. I remember the Sigma 18-35/1.8 also as rather huge - and imagine that on a tiny Fuji body. That 13-40 sounds cool, but since the first number in superstition is an unlucky one, I'd opt for 12-40



#7 Klaus

Klaus

    Chief Editor

  • Moderators
  • 5,541 posts
  • LocationSydney, Australia

Posted 28 January 2018 - 02:44 AM

It's not super small it seems 

http://www.nokishita...18/01/x-a5.html


Chief Editor
photozone.de

#8 chrismiller

chrismiller

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 228 posts
  • LocationGlasgow, UK

Posted 31 January 2018 - 10:25 AM

mtfs actually look a bit better compared to the 18-55:

 

15-45 

 

18-55

 

Of course its a stop slower...



#9 thxbb12

thxbb12

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 622 posts
  • LocationGeneva, Switzerland

Posted 31 January 2018 - 10:31 AM

Three very annoying things about it :

  1. Powerzoom : I hate this crap : it's mega slow, inaccurate and uses energy for nothing. For videography it's a different story, but who buys Fuji for shooting movies?
  2. No aperture ring (probably) given it's an XC lens.
  3. Plastic mount (probably again)

I suspect QC is probably worse too?

 

If it had been a regular XF lens without powerzoom, an aperture ring and a metal mount, it would sit high on my top lenses for travelling.

As it stands, not a chance. What a bummer  :(


  • JoJu likes this

--Florent

Flickr Page


#10 JoJu

JoJu

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 2,966 posts
  • LocationSwitzerland

Posted 31 January 2018 - 10:34 AM

I wonder what I would do with a 22.5-67.5 FL which is so slow that in "tele"-range you click one stop down and are already entering the land of diffraction. But then, I'm not used to 24-70 lenses and the closest to that (the pretty mediocre Nikon 24-85 with tons of distortion) I sold rather quick.

 

thxbb12, the lack of an aperture ring would bring the otherwise useless front-dial back to life. But this is something I feel very confusing, the whole lens line-up is a big collection of different concept: some have an aperture ring, some don't. The aperture rings sometimes have numbers on it and an "A" position, sometimes not - so no display of f-number. Some have distance rings with a clutch and a distance scale, others are without, all are focus by wire. But the clutched ones behave differently in override situation. With the AF-switch on M and an assigned AF-ON button I can accidentally initialize AF - although I thought to set the camera to manual mode.

 

Really the only consitency I could discover is that there's a collection of functions and Fuji uses them with not much of a plan.  :( I'm very grateful that Nikon at least here is very straightforward.



#11 Klaus

Klaus

    Chief Editor

  • Moderators
  • 5,541 posts
  • LocationSydney, Australia

Posted 31 January 2018 - 11:25 AM

MTFs here:

http://www.fujifilm....specifications/

 

Interestingly they look a little better than those from the 18-55 and 16-50


Chief Editor
photozone.de

#12 obican

obican

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 436 posts

Posted 31 January 2018 - 03:34 PM

My gf is using the 16-50 as a 16/3.5 and guess what? It's perfectly fine. It's featherweight, cost 15$ when bought with the body and image quality is fine. The alternative is the much more expensive 16/1.4 which is also a much larger lens. 

 

Power zoom is probably there to keep the lens even more compact, they are probably using it to collapse the lens when it's powered off. 

 

This is an even smaller kit lens with a slightly larger field of view and I'd be happy to get one with the body. It's a great starter lens and works just fine as a cheap wide angle.



#13 thxbb12

thxbb12

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 622 posts
  • LocationGeneva, Switzerland

Posted 31 January 2018 - 04:32 PM

My gf is using the 16-50 as a 16/3.5 and guess what? It's perfectly fine. It's featherweight, cost 15$ when bought with the body and image quality is fine. The alternative is the much more expensive 16/1.4 which is also a much larger lens. 

 

Power zoom is probably there to keep the lens even more compact, they are probably using it to collapse the lens when it's powered off. 

 

This is an even smaller kit lens with a slightly larger field of view and I'd be happy to get one with the body. It's a great starter lens and works just fine as a cheap wide angle.

 

I agree it would be a small wide-angle lens.

Ironically, the reason Fuji made it 15mm at the wide-end is not so much to attract landscape shooters, but to attract the selfie crowd: with this lens you can capture more people while doing a selfie given it's a wider lens. This selfie trend is truly pathetic.

At least it benefits landscape shooters in this case.

 

I don't understand the logic that if it's a power zoom it can be made smaller. If anything it should be the opposite: one has to add a motor for the zoom itself on top of the existing one for AF.

Olympus features several manually collapsible lenses which are very small (UWA 9-18 and kit lenses). No need for powerzoom.


  • borisbg likes this

--Florent

Flickr Page


#14 obican

obican

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 436 posts

Posted 31 January 2018 - 04:43 PM

I don't understand the logic that if it's a power zoom it can be made smaller. If anything it should be the opposite: one has to add a motor for the zoom itself on top of the existing one for AF.

Olympus features several manually collapsible lenses which are very small (UWA 9-18 and kit lenses). No need for powerzoom.

 

Afterwards I realized that the lens stays the same size when it's powered down. Sony 16-55 PZ extends a bit after powering it up, I had thought this would be somewhat similar. 



#15 JoJu

JoJu

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 2,966 posts
  • LocationSwitzerland

Posted 31 January 2018 - 05:05 PM

..., but to attract the selfie crowd: with this lens you can capture more people while doing a selfie given it's a wider lens. This selfie trend is truly pathetic.
...
 
I don't understand the logic that if it's a power zoom it can be made smaller. If anything it should be the opposite: one has to add a motor for the zoom itself on top of the existing one for AF.
Olympus features several manually collapsible lenses which are very small (UWA 9-18 and kit lenses). No need for powerzoom.

 
Pathetic with a tendency to get pathological. Sociological that trend is quite interesting, we are developing acting skills and depend very much on how others see ourselves.

 

As for the rest of it: A mechanically collapsing zoom lens is a more challenging device (in terms of tolerances and precision) than one which doesn't collapse and uses plastic rails and a cheap motordive - in a way, my G11 also has plastic rails and cheap drive, but it actually is collapsing it's lens.



#16 Klaus

Klaus

    Chief Editor

  • Moderators
  • 5,541 posts
  • LocationSydney, Australia

Posted 31 January 2018 - 05:50 PM

I've always been amazed of the "cheese" movement - which started way before selfies anyway. Essentially people are faking a smile for a picture. Everybody knows that it looks artificial. It started sometime after WW II , didn't it? You don't really see it in very old pictures. Thus selfies are merely an evolution. I reckon the company that will invent a robot for documenting your life will make a shitload of money ... although imagine what that means in term of acting all the time. Anyway, selfies don't hurt anybody (although selfie sticks ...).

 

The other day we created a photo book about our life here in Australia for our parents. The reactions were quite interesting - from "where are you in these pictures?" to "finally a nice album where people don't obstruct the view".  :D


Chief Editor
photozone.de

#17 JoJu

JoJu

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 2,966 posts
  • LocationSwitzerland

Posted 31 January 2018 - 05:59 PM

Selfies are pantomimic story-telling from people who don't like typing to people who don't like reading.

 

In a way I'm happy for all the illiterates out there.

 

:D



#18 Klaus

Klaus

    Chief Editor

  • Moderators
  • 5,541 posts
  • LocationSydney, Australia

Posted 31 January 2018 - 10:28 PM

Size comparison ... 15-45mm vs 16-50mm vs 18-55mm

Attached Files


Chief Editor
photozone.de

#19 Klaus

Klaus

    Chief Editor

  • Moderators
  • 5,541 posts
  • LocationSydney, Australia

Posted 31 January 2018 - 10:33 PM

Another size comparison - 15-45mm vs Pana 12-32mm vs Sony 16-50mm

Attached Files


Chief Editor
photozone.de

#20 thxbb12

thxbb12

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 622 posts
  • LocationGeneva, Switzerland

Posted 31 January 2018 - 11:19 PM

It's quite small indeed. I really really like the fact it starts at 15mm.

 

Klaus, are you going to review it at some point?


--Florent

Flickr Page





2 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 2 guests, 0 anonymous users



© by photozone.de