Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Fujifilm 8-16/2.8
#11
Re: joju


Of course more resolution will resolve more details. However I'm not convinced that at base ISO say a D750 will resolve more details than a XT20 (or D7200) for instance. I'm pretty much sure they will be indistinguishable.


Furthermore, about your A1 print: what distance do you actually look at it? 10cm? That's not exactly realistic. At normal viewing distance I doubt you'll see any meaningful difference...
--Florent

Flickr gallery
#12
A1 at 300dpi that's 69 megapixel, nothing but medium format can resolve that
#13
Quote:Sure, it's big, but not enormous.
It's quite a unique proposal in the APS-C world though. I'm sure many landscape photog will be jumping on it.
 
Personally, I find the Olympus 9-18 to be the perfect compromise for travel/landscape work. It's amazingly tiny and good optically.
Of course it is "amazingly tiny", it is a 12-24mm f5.3-7.5 APS-C equivalent (or 18-36mm f8-11 FF equivalent), it better be tiny compared to the Fuji 8-16mm f2.8. 
12mm vs 8 mm, not really a lens to bring up in this thread  Tongue
 
The Olympus 7-14mm f2.8 makes a bit more sense. At 105.8 x 78.9mm and 534 grams it is almost the size and weight of the Sony 12-24mm f4, and yet is equivalent to a f5.6 FF lens.

I find the EF-M 22mm f2 perfect for travel work, and the EF-S 10-18mm f4.5-5.6 IS STM perfect for UWA travel wide angle landscape shots. Also not lenses to bring up in this thread Wink
#14
Quote:Hmmm... interesting site, but I was refering to this picture (from lensrentals):

 

[Image: Group-Shot.jpg]

 

And here the 16-35/4 is the dwarf in the middle.

 

 
 

It's probably the fixed hood which makes it seem much larger. Weight is quite similar, which is more important to me. And it's MUCH wider. I loved Canon 11-24L so I'll probably love this one as well.

 

The question is, shall I sell Batis 25 and 16-35/4 or should I wait?

 

On a more Fuji related note, I don't think Fuji will be much cheaper than Sony 12-24. Probably similarly sized, maybe even a bit larger too. If I were in the Fuji land, I'd probably be eyeing that lens right now but would I switch to Fuji for it? Would you? Even if you need the angle?
#15
Frankly who needs fast ultrawides ? I have tokina 16-28f2.8 on full frame and I don't use it at f2.8 . When I am using crop sensor, I use 10-18f4.5-5.6 and never complained it is a slow lens. I use 10-18 mostly for landscape and architecture and for both I need all the depth of field I can have.

IMHO a 8-16 f4 much lighter would have made much more sense, who is complaining canon 11-24 f4 is a,slow lens?
#16
Quote:A1 at 300dpi that's 69 megapixel, nothing but medium format can resolve that
 
:lol:
 
This good old 300dpi number... you would wonder how low resolutions of big posters really are. But thanks for calculating anyway.
 
300 dpi for inkjet are fine up to A3, the bigger you get, the lower the dpi can go - and at normal viewing distance you would not see the difference between 300 and 185 dpi (26.5 MP for A1).
 
The thing is: With an ultra-wide angle there are so much tiny details that people do come closer to the print, diving in - so, you're not so far off with higher dpi for large prints from ultra-wide. That's why I think, I would never (well, it's in real far distance down on my wish list, so maybe not never, but highly unlikely) buy this kind of glass for an APS-C camera. However, within the Fuji cosmos there's not much of a choice, right?
 
I expect this Fuji 8-16 to be in the same price range like a Sigma 12-24/4 or Sony 12-24. Having bodies for both systems, I would be stupid to limit the possible resolution. If I have to use a Fuji for UWA, I'd rather use the 16/1.4 and stitch 3 vertical pictures.
 
Quote:I find the EF-M 22mm f2 perfect for travel work, and the EF-S 10-18mm f4.5-5.6 IS STM perfect for UWA travel wide angle landscape shots. Also not lenses to bring up in this thread
 
Why not? Systems aside, why not talking about the final product: big printed picture on a wall or in a web-gallery?  Smile My impression from the Fuji is more "yeah, you can now have a superfat UWA lens for Fuji, but it's neither saving weight nor size nor money". Plus other disadvantages like the usual filterholder problems and focus by wire. Other than that, it's a WR type, so should take some rain - nothing I can say about a lot of my wide angles (the 16/1.4 being one exception)
#17
Quote:Why not? Systems aside, why not talking about the final product: big printed picture on a wall or in a web-gallery?  Smile My impression from the Fuji is more "yeah, you can now have a superfat UWA lens for Fuji, but it's neither saving weight nor size nor money". Plus other disadvantages like the usual filterholder problems and focus by wire. Other than that, it's a WR type, so should take some rain - nothing I can say about a lot of my wide angles (the 16/1.4 being one exception)
Because neither is that wide (and not that fast, but that is secondary). That is why not Wink
#18
Quote:canon 11-24 f4 is a,slow lens?
That Canon is just as fast as that Sony 12-24mm f4 and a tad faster than that Fuji 8-16mm f2.8 (remember equivalency?).
f2.8 x 1.5 = 4.2
That Canon is only a slow lens compared to a Nikkor 14-24mm f2.8, a Tamron 15-30mm f2.8 or a Canon 16-35mm f2.8 L USM III. But it goes wider than all of those.
#19
Quote:Frankly who needs fast ultrawides ?
 

I do.

 

[Image: i-rBjVcT7-X2.jpg]

 

ISO 7200, f/1.4, 1/40, 20 mm

 

[Image: i-DvfQhxQ-X2.jpg]

 

ISO 64, f/2.2, 1/1250, 20 mm

 

[Image: i-pdWnkGr-L.jpg]

 

ISO 5600, f/2, 1/125, 20 mm

 

Once you discover the things you can do with a fast high quality wide angle, it's too awesome to not to use.

 

I do look forward to the 14/1.8 Art  Wink I like the 14-24 Nikkor for being such a good UWA zoom (still, after all those years), but this winter I do want to get more milky way. 

#20
Quote:Of course it is "amazingly tiny", it is a 12-24mm f5.3-7.5 APS-C equivalent (or 18-36mm f8-11 FF equivalent), it better be tiny compared to the Fuji 8-16mm f2.8. 

12mm vs 8 mm, not really a lens to bring up in this thread  Tongue

 

The Olympus 7-14mm f2.8 makes a bit more sense. At 105.8 x 78.9mm and 534 grams it is almost the size and weight of the Sony 12-24mm f4, and yet is equivalent to a f5.6 FF lens.


I find the EF-M 22mm f2 perfect for travel work, and the EF-S 10-18mm f4.5-5.6 IS STM perfect for UWA travel wide angle landscape shots. Also not lenses to bring up in this thread Wink
 

I'm talking about size of an UWA here. Sure, it's not 12 equiv, but others have compared it to 16-35, so why not a 18-36?

Now, I now perfectly well it's equivalent to a 18-36 f8-11 and that's the beauty of it: such a lens DOS NOT EXIST in any other system.

That's what matters.

When travelling and shooting landscapes, I'm perfectly happy with a slow lens as I'm shooting landscapes (which don't move all that much ;-). With Olympus' IBIS you can shoot this thing at around 1 sec. So again, a combo such as an E-M5 II + Oly 9-18 doesn't exist ANYWHERE else. For the size factor it's simply amazing, regardless of what you think.

--Florent

Flickr gallery
  


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread:
1 Guest(s)