[Klaus]

http://www.fujifilm.com/products/digital...mf4_r_ois/

[Brightcolours]

Nice elaborate design, if the trouble they have gone through concerning elements is anything to go by it should be a good lens.

Would be interesting to compare it with the Canon EF-M 11-22mm f4-5.6 IS STM. On paper both have plusses. The Fuji goes wider (also considering the different crop factor), and 1 bit bigger constant aperture. The Canon is half the weight and smaller. Both offer optical IS.

 

This UWA zoom looks to be a very good addition to the range, if I were to get a Fuji I'd get the UWA and the 23mm f1.4.

[stoppingdown]

I'm still keeping an eye on Fuji in case I won't get satisfied by Sony. The 10-24 was one of the two missing pieces in Fuji catalog (for what I need), but it's disappointing to see that it weighs 410g: in contrast the Nikkor AF-S 12-24 f/4 is 485g and the 10-20 f/3.5-4.5 is 462g. For me, who appreciate mirrorless for lightweight, there's not enough gain in this case.

[Guest]

So far Fuji lenses seem a *lot* beter than sony's offering (not just focal length but optical quality). The problem seems to be extremely poor QC.

[Klaus]

*sigh* the two tele Fujinons are waiting on my desk ... besides this other bunch ....

[stoppingdown]

So far Fuji lenses seem a *lot* beter than sony's offering (not just focal length but optical quality). The problem seems to be extremely poor QC.

 

For optical quality it sounds so - for offering not, it's subjective; for me a 10-18 + 16-70 (or eventually 18-105) is quite good and covers 90% of landscape shooting in two lenses; with Fuji I'd have to buy the 10-24 + 18-55 + 55-200. While it's a wider focal range, I don't frequently use 200mm for landscape, but to have the 10-70 range I'd have to buy and carry three lenses. The "inefficiency" is that overlap in the 18-24 range - or, alternatively, the lack of a 24-70.

 

 

 

If Fuji didn't have this failure in filling my range needs, I'd probably go for it in place of Sony, also because I like Fuji's camera ergonomics a bit more than Sony's.

[Rover]

Yeah, the focal length range is a bit odd -there isn't a matching 24-xxx lens. Of course, a user might want to skip a midrange zoom altogether, and go for the 35/1.4 and a Tele lens.

[Rover]

Yeah, the focal length range is a bit odd -there isn't a matching 24-xxx lens. Of course, a user might want to skip a midrange zoom altogether, and go for the 35/1.4 and a Tele lens.

[Klaus]

There is nothing odd about the focal length range. All ultra-wide zoom lenses overlap with the standard zoom lenses.

[Rover]

Not necessarily - a lot of them are made to end at 24mm to mesh with the next lens, a 24-70 or 24-105.