Well compared to offerings from Canon, Nikon, Sigma, Pentax, Tamron, and Tokina this lens doesn't seem up to their level and IMHO a standard fast zoom is the lens I use the most
To put things a little into proportion:
Nikon 17-55/2.8: 30% more than the Fujinon
Canon 17-55/2.8: 33% less than the Fujinon
Pentax 16-50/2.8 DA: 4% more than the Fujinon
bean-counting: None of them covers the same FL-range and 1 mm shorter does make a difference at 17 mm
Did you check out the verdicts from Photozone? The Canon being the big exception, but the other two are not shining so much more.
Sigma, Tokina and Tamron all have some major differences: The turning focus-ring. It's obvious, therefore they can be cheap, but it's also obvious, they are not worse than the Fujinon. And none of them is weather resisting for those who care.
Quote:I can understand the reviewer's point of view. But from the practical standpoint... WTF?
Come to think of it; the Canon 17-55 was the reason I've chosen the Canon system back in the day... I did so just because the Canon 17-55 was stabilized whereas the Nikon one was/is not (for the same price). I haven't been disappointed since. 
So this Fuji 16-55 is bucking the trend.
In-body IS is the future, in-lens IS is the past except maybe for extremely long tele lenses.
I remember the days not long ago when everybody was joking about the measly 2 f-stop efficiency of in-body IS. Today the outdated 3 f-stop gain of the Canon 17-55mm IS is the joke really. The spread between in-body IS and in-lens IS will continue to rise simply because it's so much easier to move the sensor in multiple dimensions.
Sure, Fuji has no IBIS but it's inevitable that they'll include it soon. Till then I prefer not to have that useless IS group in the lens that does not contribute to the optical performance at all.
Quote:To put things a little into proportion:
Nikon 17-55/2.8: 30% more than the Fujinon
Canon 17-55/2.8: 33% less than the Fujinon
Pentax 16-50/2.8 DA: 4% more than the Fujinon
bean-counting: None of them covers the same FL-range and 1 mm shorter does make a difference at 17 mm
Did you check out the verdicts from Photozone? The Canon being the big exception, but the other two are not shining so much more.
Sigma, Tokina and Tamron all have some major differences: The turning focus-ring. It's obvious, therefore they can be cheap, but it's also obvious, they are not worse than the Fujinon. And none of them is weather resisting for those who care.
Nikkor: 85.5x110.5mm • Weight: 755g
Fuji: 83.5x110.6mm • Weight: 645g
Canon : 83.3x106mm • Weight: 655g
Pentax: 84x98.5mm • Weight: 565g
The Pentax is actually the most compact and light-weight of the bunch.
Not sure what you want to tell us with those % figures.
Quote:Not sure what you want to tell us with those % figures.
Oh sorry, that are the price differences (at least here in CH)
And the Pentax was rated also only 3 stars...
Quote:
The pricing of the Pentax 16-50mm f/2.8 is fair relative to its performance and build quality.
The pricing is about the same as the Fujinon...
Quote:In-body IS is the future, in-lens IS is the past except maybe for extremely long tele lenses.
I remember the days not long ago when everybody was joking about the measly 2 f-stop efficiency of in-body IS. Today the outdated 3 f-stop gain of the Canon 17-55mm IS is the joke really. The spread between in-body IS and in-lens IS will continue to rise simply because it's so much easier to move the sensor in multiple dimensions.
Sure, Fuji has no IBIS but it's inevitable that they'll include it soon. Till then I prefer not to have that useless IS group in the lens that does not contribute to the optical performance at all.
Hmmm, let's see if your prediction might happen. I'm a little bit more careful about IBIS: The two Pentax I once had (K-m and K-x) both had that feature and I always suspected this the reason why some lenses were not sharp wide open. One of them was the Tamron 17-50/2.8, even after I sent it in with the body. My explanation was like "if the sensor can move, how's the position defined without IBIS?" Since I know about the field curvature of that lens, I'm not that sure about this theory but after all, who guarantees the correct position if switched OFF?
However I found a demonstration from the Olympus sensor shift pretty convincing,
Quote:Oh sorry, that are the price differences (at least here in CH)
And the Pentax was rated also only 3 stars...
The pricing is about the same as the Fujinon...
I find it difficult to come up with ratings for lenses that rely on auto-correction.
Honestly I just can't ignore the raw performance when it comes to the pricing.
Under-designed lenses maximize the profits for the manufacturers but they just don't deliver the value to the customers that is suggested by the high price.
Quote:Hmmm, let's see if your prediction might happen. I'm a little bit more careful about IBIS: The two Pentax I once had (K-m and K-x) both had that feature and I always suspected this the reason why some lenses were not sharp wide open. One of them was the Tamron 17-50/2.8, even after I sent it in with the body. My explanation was like "if the sensor can move, how's the position defined without IBIS?" Since I know about the field curvature of that lens, I'm not that sure about this theory but after all, who guarantees the correct position if switched OFF?
However I found a demonstration from the Olympus sensor shift pretty convincing,
I'm afraid that we can already see what will happen - the combination of IBIS and ILIS.
But with IBIS in place there's at least less pressure on the manufacturers to use ILIS.
IBIS will become (more) interesting with more EVF-cameras. OVF benefit of ILIS very much, but for mirrorless cameras it would be much more adequate to move the sensor - or make the sensor bigger and do the IS electronically which I prefer somehow. No moving parts = no wearing parts. And somehow I'm not convinced if a 5- or 6-axis movement is necessary as well as if the sensors are sensitive enough and the motors reactive enough to do the effect completely.
Although
reduced vibration is still better than
full vibration. Just not as good as
no vibration at all. IBIS can also be the better system because bodies are changed more often than lenses, so a fresh system with the latest tech plays against some elder lens models / modules. A bit of that effect I saw when comparing the VR of Nikkors to the OS of Sigmas with maybe 3 years technology difference between.
Quote:
Under-designed lenses maximize the profits for the manufacturers but they just don't deliver the value to the customers that is suggested by the high price.
I agree, I just don't find much of these kind of lenses starting at 16 mm and performing better.
Basically that's what I meant when I ranted against downsizing: if the tolerances remain as they are for FF, and the assembly tolerances included as well, the outcome is predictable: A worse lens.
Quote:In-body IS is the future, in-lens IS is the past except maybe for extremely long tele lenses.
I remember the days not long ago when everybody was joking about the measly 2 f-stop efficiency of in-body IS. Today the outdated 3 f-stop gain of the Canon 17-55mm IS is the joke really. The spread between in-body IS and in-lens IS will continue to rise simply because it's so much easier to move the sensor in multiple dimensions.
Sure, Fuji has no IBIS but it's inevitable that they'll include it soon. Till then I prefer not to have that useless IS group in the lens that does not contribute to the optical performance at all.
Well, no argument from me about the merits of IBIS - I loved it on my old Minolta 7D - but I can't see most of the manufacturers (Canon and Nikon most importantly) switching to it any time soon. Remember it must be a patented invention so Fuji (and whoever else) can't probably just copy it from Sony/Olympus and slap it into their cameras. I wish they would, however.
3 stops of assistance is alright by me, though. Not long ago it was "as good as it gets".
Still very helpful if you ask me. My Canon 70-200 is rated like that (though the IS in the 16-35/4 is probably better?)