Pretty nice indeed. More expensive and heavier/bigger than s 70-200mm f4 L IS USM on FF though, but the smaller camera weight makes up for that. And it appears to have smoother background bokeh.
Well, it has a tripod mount which has a bit of extra weight.
However, as with most Fujinon - it is too big for an APS-C format lens.
With
Quote:
It is still worth to mention though that the Fujinon is more expensive than comparable full format DSLR lenses from Canon or Nikon.
you mean - as usual
only DoF weighted - something like a 70-200/4? Which is neither weather sealed nor as fast nor as bokehish as f/2.8. If you look into the contemporary 70-200/2.8 offerings, your statement is a bit off reality.
Nice lens. I also found an offering together with 1.4× converter for just 100.- more. Tempting like so many other Fujinons ^_^
Oh, and with "too big" you mean, you know how to do it slimmer? But weatherproof and with OIS and with constant length and with their linear AF motors (which appear also big to me)? Fantastic.
Oh please. Not again. A 70-200mm f/4 on full format is as bokehish as a the 50-140mm f/2.8 on APS-C.
And of course - it is DoF weighted. A 50-140mm f/2.8 is hardly a low-light centric lens - it is DoF-centric.
Your mileage may vary but globally that's the reality of such lenses.
Canon's 70-200mm f4 L IS USM is weather sealed, and probably Nikon's offering too.
For joju the math again:
140mm / 2.8 = 50mm aperture diameter.
200mm / 4 = 50mm aperture diameter.
So, pretty comparable amount of blur they will make.
By "weather-sealed" I mean "specified and declared by it's manufacturer" - which Fuji and Olympus do and Nikon does not. A rubber gasket to me makes no weather sealing. And Nikon doesn't tell anything specific so it's to me a fairytale. I would not bet on my 70-200's "weather sealing", but that Fuji (or as well the Olympus) are a different story.
Also, the Olympus 40-150/2.8 Pro is only slightly lighter and smaller - but the sensor is also smaller. And not that much cheaper. If it comes to price comparisons, there's simply no offering in the 50-150/2.8 APS-C range from Nikon, the 70-200/4 can be that cheap because it's manufactured in China - that's the only reason. And add the (useless, but expensive) collar, you're pretty much in the very same region, but still one full stop slower. YES that counts, and I don't give much to this useless DoF comparisons. DoF is nothing to be calculated exactly and you're operating in a very wobbly field.
Anyway, I didn't read anything about "bad centerring" - do you have the impression that Fuji improved in this matter?
Sorry but in terms of DoF/bokeh there's no wobbly ground.
In fact even the speed argument is nonsense. A X mp full format sensor has the same noise characteristic at 2x the ISO of a X mp APS-C sensor - give or take a little due to different sensor technologies. Thus when taking the same noise/DR characteristic a full format camera with 70-200mm f/4 (the system comprising both components) is also "as fast" as a APS-C camera with a 50-140mm f/2.8 lens.
I am a fan of MFT/APS-C format mirrorless system but there are realities that I accept. The crop factor has to be applied to field-of-view, depth-of-field and speed. Beyond we are entering esoteric realms.
Regarding centering - it's too early to call off the worries IMHO.
Quote:Regarding centering - it's too early to call off the worries IMHO.
Well, I read it like "decenterring issues are not always existing". And I'm guessing as well the red-badge lenses might see tigther controls? Being the first red-badge lens in PZ-test, we'll have to wait how the XF 16-55mm F2.8 R LM WR or the 100-400/4.5-5.6 will stand.
Also, I take the liberty to disagree with your in terms of different speed at different sensor sizes because that's just not logic. If an exposure-meter tells me "1/60 sec @ f/4 @ ISO 200" it absolutley plays no role which size the film or the sensor behind that lens have. As long as the lens is made for the sensor proportion, that given shutter speed and f-stop will remain the same for a given EV. You will never be able to convince me of something else, simply because it's wrong.
Quote:Well, I read it like "decenterring issues are not always existing". And I'm guessing as well the red-badge lenses might see tigther controls? Being the first red-badge lens in PZ-test, we'll have to wait how the XF 16-55mm F2.8 R LM WR or the 100-400/4.5-5.6 will stand.
Also, I take the liberty to disagree with your in terms of different speed at different sensor sizes because that's just not logic. If an exposure-meter tells me "1/60 sec @ f/4 @ ISO 200" it absolutley plays no role which size the film or the sensor behind that lens have. As long as the lens is made for the sensor proportion, that given shutter speed and f-stop will remain the same for a given EV. You will never be able to convince me of something else, simply because it's wrong.
No exposure meter tells you 1/60th sec, f4, iso 200, unless you told the meter two of those things. It only tells you the missing one (either the exposure time or the aperture setting).
And, you are talking about film. So, you say it does not matter which size the film has, but the formulation matters. Did it occur to you that cameras do NOT have the same formulation of sensors? So, trying to bring up how things used to be with film is a moot point.... It simply does not transfer that way over to digital. And ISO is no longer about the sensitivity of film.