Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Sigma 17-70 F2.8-4 on a Fuji-X body?
#1
Hello everyone,

Has anyone tried to use a Sigma 17-70 F2.8-4 Contemporary DC OS HSM on a Fuji-X body?

I loved the older version (non contemporary) during my Pentax days. The contemporary version is even better.

Since I'm not happy with Fuji's current zooms (18-55 f2.8-4: too limited range and bad bokeh, 16-55 f2.8: huge and limited range, 16-80 f4: bad IQ), I'm thinking of using a Sigma 17-70 f2.8-4 using either a Fringer EF-FX Pro II (Canon EF to Fuji) or Fringer NF-FX (Nikon F to Fuji).
I'm more leaning towards the Fringer EF-FX Pro II as it seems to support more lenses than the Nikon version (and also because it's probably more tested given there are probably more Canon users than Nikon out there).

Although I see it's supported or the adapter page (https://www.fringeradapter.com/canon-ef-to-fujifilm-x), I'd like to know if someone has some first hand experience with the Sigma 17-70 and the adapter? How does it compare to a native lens in term of AF speed and accuracy for instance.

Thanks!
--Florent

Flickr gallery
#2
I would say: don't
tried third party adapters with Canon lenses on Sony: IS and aperture work well, autofocus was an a absolute disaster. Canon adapter for EF Lenses on RP works like a charm, I am reluctant to third party adapters
#3
Thanks Toni for your response.
I think the Fringer EF-FX Pro II works quite well.
I'm still undecided. The Sigma 17-70 + adapter wouldn't be much smaller than the Fuji 16-55 f2.8 (although lighter), but it would be much cheaper.
The Fuji 16-80 f4 would be perfect if it wasn't that bad optically. That really sucks.
I love Fuji for their primes, but I'm much less impressed by their zooms.
If only Sigma and Tamron were to develop lenses for X-mount... There are rumors saying Sigma might in 2021. Let's wait and see.
--Florent

Flickr gallery
#4
(01-08-2021, 08:55 AM)thxbb12 Wrote: Thanks Toni for your response.

The Fuji 16-80 f4 would be perfect if it wasn't that bad optically. That really sucks.

I'm a bit puzzled by the review and your comments, as well as others because my copy of the 16-80 f4.0 is that optically it's a very good lens. Yes wide open on the far ends, its not that great, back it down to 75mm at f5.6 is very sharp, and at the center throughout most of the range it's extremely sharp. I must have gotten a very good copy, because my lens is not the dog everybody is complaining about?

The truth be told there are very few good 24-105 FF or 16-80mm APS-C lenses with the exception of the new Canon 24-105 f4.0 RF lens. There are times I miss Canon full-frame, but and would love this kind of performance by the weight and expense of Canon tells me otherwise.
#5
Thanks for your comment.

I'm curious to see images taken with your 16-80.
Would you mind posting full resolution shots taken at 16mm and 75-80mm at f4, f5.6 and f8?
Preferably shots at the lowest ISO with enough details to gauge the corners.

I'm very interested in this lens for travel but haven't been impressed by any samples I've found online.

Thanks a lot!
--Florent

Flickr gallery
#6
Sony A mount Zeiss 16-80/3.5-4.5 was very good by all accounts. But I guess that is ancient history...
  


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread:
1 Guest(s)