[Klaus]

Very nice ..

 
 
http://www.opticallimits.com/fuji_x/887-fuji1024f4ois

[Guest]

Is the center noticably (visually) softer @ 24 than the other vocal lenghts (2650 vs 3050) ?

[Scythels]

It certainly performs well but is one of the strangest sets of design criteria I've ever seen.  I mean, the edges receive less than 50% as much light as the center at f/11 - perhaps they should have gone back to square one at some stage of the design and redesigned the front of the lens to not place the chief ray at such an extreme location and then cut it off by reducing element diameters for mechanical design.  I wonder how the lens would perform if the vignetting were removed.  Judging by the geometry that must be happening, quite poorly

 

The distortion is also highly disappointing.  Certainly by leaving barrel distortion you "counteract" some of the so-called rectilinear distortion and hide its effects, but nearly 5% is monstrous, nearly as monstrous as Olympus' distortion

 

Correcting it would require a complete redesign of the lens though, perhaps fuji should have started at first order and focused on correcting the individual zoom groups instead of using them to balance each other.

[stoppingdown]

For the sake of curiosity, how do you compare it with the SEL1018? Reviewed here, but at 24MP vs 16MP numbers cannot be directly compared (I know that we have to repeat the concept over and over for some people continuously miss the point  <_< ).

[Klaus]

For the sake of curiosity, how do you compare it with the SEL1018? Reviewed here, but at 24MP vs 16MP numbers cannot be directly compared (I know that we have to repeat the concept over and over for some people continuously miss the point  <_< ).

 

Well, the Sony lens is quite good. In the real life you may see few differences ... that is assuming decent samples.

[Klaus]

It certainly performs well but is one of the strangest sets of design criteria I've ever seen.  I mean, the edges receive less than 50% as much light as the center at f/11 - perhaps they should have gone back to square one at some stage of the design and redesigned the front of the lens to not place the chief ray at such an extreme location and then cut it off by reducing element diameters for mechanical design.  I wonder how the lens would perform if the vignetting were removed.  Judging by the geometry that must be happening, quite poorly

 

The distortion is also highly disappointing.  Certainly by leaving barrel distortion you "counteract" some of the so-called rectilinear distortion and hide its effects, but nearly 5% is monstrous, nearly as monstrous as Olympus' distortion

 

Correcting it would require a complete redesign of the lens though, perhaps fuji should have started at first order and focused on correcting the individual zoom groups instead of using them to balance each other.

 

I am wondering why the mirrorless lenses are generally less "harmonic" than the DSLR designs. 

[Brightcolours]

Except for the heavy barrel distortion, it looks like a pretty ok lens. I think the heavy vignetting is partly sensor related (due to the close to the sensor lens design), just like UWA on FF has heavy vignetting. Leica tried/(tries?) to solve that with a change in the microlens structure in front of the sensor.

 

What caught my attention was that this Fuji lens throws in a similar performance to the Canon EF-S 10-18mm IS STM and Canon EF-M 11-22mm IS STM which are priced at €269 and €399 respectively, where this Fuji is priced at €999. Yes, the Fuji has a bigger focal range than both and is constant f4, but it still seems like a pretty rough deal to me... Especially since the constant f4 is not always very useful for an UWA for APS-C.

 

To put that price into perspective: the FF Canon EF 16-35mm f4 L IS USM costs €1099.

[davidmanze]

  Beautiful lens, great construction,

                                                        but I agree with Brightcolours here, we are talking a grand and we are talking 5% distortion, it's also pretty huge but are only seeing "just into very good edge resolution" (the registration distance?) . 

  Still most things seem to be a grand these days, I'm sure Fuji fans will welcome it with open arms and the OS  is nice.

[Rover]

What caught my attention was that this Fuji lens throws in a similar performance to the Canon EF-S 10-18mm IS STM and Canon EF-M 11-22mm IS STM which are priced at €269 and €399 respectively, where this Fuji is priced at €999. Yes, the Fuji has a bigger focal range than both and is constant f4, but it still seems like a pretty rough deal to me...

You've already answered your own question, innit? 

 

"Especially since the constant f4 is not always very useful for an UWA for APS-C."

For landscape shots, you would still stop down some, but if you're interested in employing it for  general use, it's a blessing over the f/4.5-5.6 designs. The aperture is constant to boot. I used a Tokina 12-24/4 in the days of yore and it was a great experience (sadly I had to part with it in anticipation of stepping up to APS-H).

[Brightcolours]

You've already answered your own question, innit? 

 

"Especially since the constant f4 is not always very useful for an UWA for APS-C."

For landscape shots, you would still stop down some, but if you're interested in employing it for  general use, it's a blessing over the f/4.5-5.6 designs. The aperture is constant to boot. I used a Tokina 12-24/4 in the days of yore and it was a great experience (sadly I had to part with it in anticipation of stepping up to APS-H)."

"Not always very useful" is answering what, exactly?

F4 compared to f5.6 is not very useful a difference on APS-C with an UWA zoom, in my opinion. You are not gaining a lot of shallow DOF (to say it mildly) and exposure time wise it is still an UWA anyway.

 

I too have had the crappy put together Tokina 12-24mm f4 (which would have worked just fine on that APS-H camera) and do not get why its constant f4 would be of any advantage.

 

And that is not worth €600 or €731 to me..