Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Fujifilm announcements ...
#21
Quote: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
Quote: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
Quote:Me too. In aspect of smooth bokeh the 100-400 also falls short.
 

Like most xx-400mm lenses.
#24
Quote: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 ...
#25
Quote: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?  Big Grin

 

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
Quote:Like most xx-400mm lenses.
 

Wait a moment: http://www.fujirumors.com/kenko-announce...i-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
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
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: . 

 

Big Grin

#29
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 ?

 

Quote: 

 

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


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 😉
  


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread:
1 Guest(s)