[Klaus]

Hmmh, I am slightly disappointed given the high pricing ...

 

http://www.opticallimits.com/fuji_x/971-fuji1655f28

[Guest]

But think on the positive side: Three fuji lenses without a major centering issue !!!

[joachim]

Hmmh, I am slightly disappointed given the high pricing ...

 

http://www.opticallimits.com/fuji_x/971-fuji1655f28

 

Minor correction: That 18-55 you recommend in the conclusion is an f/2.8-4.0 and not an f/2.8 (unless I am missing a thing).

 

Considering your measurements, it seems many of the Fuji lenses are not as high resolving in the corners as one would hope.  That includes the 35/1.4 in my view.

[Rover]

"Some of you may hate the equivalence game by now"

That we do!

I'm a little baffled by this lens though... no IS??? ZOMG the distortion too. I would've probably just used the 18-55/2.8-4 if I had been into the Fuji system.

[Klaus]

"Some of you may hate the equivalence game by now"

That we do!

I'm a little baffled by this lens though... no IS??? ZOMG the distortion too. I would've probably just used the 18-55/2.8-4 if I had been into the Fuji system.

 

Thank god that it has no IS if you ask me.

Minor correction: That 18-55 you recommend in the conclusion is an f/2.8-4.0 and not an f/2.8 (unless I am missing a thing).

 

Considering your measurements, it seems many of the Fuji lenses are not as high resolving in the corners as one would hope.  That includes the 35/1.4 in my view.

 

Fixed the bug. Thx.

[toni-a]

Liked the obective (as usual) review, fuji guys should be disappointed.

Every manufacturer has a fast standard lens, this one seems one of the  worst and one of the  most expensive

[JJ_SO]

Liked the obective (as usual) review, fuji guys should be disappointed.

Every manufacturer has a fast standard lens, this one seems one of the  worst and one of the  most expensive

Only those should be disappointed for who a 16-55 is a must have. I don't know, I'm not interested much in zoom offerings in APS-C. Others like their primes as well. It is no cheap lens given the offerings for normal APS-C DSLRs. But then, even when looking at contemporary 24-70/2.8 zooms: how much of them are flawless although some come at double the price? Buying a zoom is very often living with a mixed bag, and buying a prime or a lot of, will fill up the real bag. No matter which way you go, there are some drawbacks. I simply don't expect a zoom to be super great. "Versatile" is enough as long as the pictures are acceptable. And honestly people how many of you are always happy with what's coming out of your standard zoom? Wide open corners as well?


One could say "but it's weather resistant". Please don't get me wrong I don't want to defend Fuji or this lens. I'm still at the stage how surprisingly well they are doing, but seeing what's happening when I import pictures made within the 35/2, there are massive corrections done in Aperture, like correcting corners. Fuji is relying on software manipulation of the original picture, so to say. If you switched that off, they cook with water like everybody else.

[Rover]

Thank god that it has no IS if you ask me.

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.

[davidmanze]

At the last Fuji review  I asked if my Sigma 50-150 EX MKII wasn't it's sharpness equal..........

 

 

 ......this time I'm asking if the Tamron 17-50mm 2.8 hasn't better sharpness?  

 

  If the review had.......... "tested on the so and so full format sensor"........  written above it, it would maybe explain the distortion, edge sharpness, vignetting, size and weight...........

 

   Hélas..........no

 

     .........looks great however......

[JJ_SO]

A minor thing: I was wondering why in several tests of the Fujinons with weather resistance you wrote "-10C" - correct is -10 °C (or 14 °F or 263.15 K) Only with Kelvin as unit you don't need the ° character. If YOU get on my equivalence-allergy trigger nerves, I gonna start counting peas