Home · Register · Software · Software · Join Upload & Sell

Moderated by: Fred Miranda
Username  

  New fredmiranda.com Mobile Site
  New Feature: SMS Notification alert
  New Feature: Buy & Sell Watchlist
  

FM Forums | Fuji Forum | Join Upload & Sell

1
       2       end
  

Fuji 8-16mm and 10-24mm - thoughts ahead of release
  
 
corposant
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #1 · p.1 #1 · Fuji 8-16mm and 10-24mm - thoughts ahead of release


I have been holding off on acquiring a wide angle lens for my X-T2 with the rumor (and now de facto announcement) of a new SWA zoom. As best as I can see, here's the profile between the two choices:

10-24mm - Pluses
- Useful range
- OIS
- Can accept filters

10-24mm - Minuses
- Performance not uniform throughout its range (but not bad)
- f/4 can be limiting if in a dark area which exceeds what high ISO and OIS can compensate for

8-16mm - Comments relative to the above
- Range seems geared towards anybody who would be using a FF 12-24mm (landscape and perhaps some architecture)
- f/2.8 helpful, but does one stop make that much difference?
- Size - looks to be somewhat bigger than the 10-24
- Cannot accept filters - images look to be a non-removable petal hood, similar to the Nikon 12-24

It kind of makes me wonder who Fuji is targeting with such a big, expensive, but probably high performance optic.



Sep 18, 2017 at 10:23 PM
akin_t
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #2 · p.1 #2 · Fuji 8-16mm and 10-24mm - thoughts ahead of release


Lol, landscape photography without filters


Sep 18, 2017 at 10:48 PM
millsart
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #3 · p.1 #3 · Fuji 8-16mm and 10-24mm - thoughts ahead of release


First and foremost, I find no weakness in the 10-24 at any focal lengths, darn good lens overall and shoot it as much at 10mm as I do at 24mm.

That said, I think it comes down to what ones needs are. I use mine for landscapes so I'm actually putting things like a ND filter on it to get less light, blur water etc. Paying for f2.8 wouldn't make much practical sense for me, since I never even shoot at f4, much less f2.8.

On top of that, the ability to take filters (and affordable 72mm ones at that) is pretty darn useful. Likely there may be some sort of 3d printer holder for the 8-16mm I'm sure, BUT, look at the price of 100 or 150mm square filters. Ouch, not to mention how big the kit is getting when you've got that hypothetical filter holder.

I owned the Nikon 14-24/2.8 ages ago and while great optically, it was a huge PITA to haul around, couldn't take filters etc. Was kind of an awful landscape lens, even though it was technically a very good lens. I switched to a 16-35 and was much much happier.

For me, the 10-24 checks off all the boxes

pretty compact/light and affordable
takes standard size filters
OIS
fast enough f4 aperture that it can focus well enough in dim light etc
useful range from pretty darn wide to near normal, thus hardly any lens changes required
optically very good
very, very resistant to flare


I actually was going to the EM1.2 and the 12-100, as I loved the IBIS/sync IS and handhled 5 second exposures, but the Fuji 10-24 was such a great lens for my needs that I stuck with Fuji



Sep 19, 2017 at 12:10 AM
vmunhoz
Offline

Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #4 · p.1 #4 · Fuji 8-16mm and 10-24mm - thoughts ahead of release


there are numerous other types of photography where a super wide angle zoom with a constant aperture of 2.8 are the bread and butter of photographers. Sports, concerts, and photojournalism are the first ones that come to mind. If you look at the most used lenses by photojournalists worldwide the Canon 16-35 and Nikon 14-24 are always there.

Therefore this lens makes absolute sense if Fuji wants to be taken seriously and get the attention of professionals.

Personally as a concert photographer, one of the reasons I gave up on Fuji and went back to Nikon was the fact that this lens was taking too long to be released.



Sep 19, 2017 at 12:35 AM
joeybk85
Offline

Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #5 · p.1 #5 · Fuji 8-16mm and 10-24mm - thoughts ahead of release


I have the 10-24 and haven't noticed it being worse at certain focal lengths. I use it 90% of the time at 10mm. It's a great lens. Frankly, if Fuji made a 10mm f/2 prime that was smaller and lighter than the 10-24 I'd probably change to that.


Sep 19, 2017 at 12:46 AM
millsart
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #6 · p.1 #6 · Fuji 8-16mm and 10-24mm - thoughts ahead of release


I actually think it would of made sense to have a 8-16 f4, and a 10-24 f2.8, given a wide to semi-normal, and yet fast, lens covers what I found in my career as a PJ to be a very good all around range.

When I shot the 14-24, (I actually worked for Kerrang! magazine in the UK covering concerts for about 8 years) the issue I always had was it was a bit too wide. I had to switch back and forth between my 24-70 and 14-24, as the ultra wide was cool for unique shots, but way too much for extended periods.

To each his or her own as well, but I really find getting wider than 10mm, or 15mm equiv, starts to get a bit too wide.

I bought the 12mm VC for my Sony A7rII and while novel, it was darn hard to actually work with, since it gave so much perspective distortion to everything in the frame, though some may of course find that their ideal look



Sep 19, 2017 at 12:52 AM
vmunhoz
Offline

Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #7 · p.1 #7 · Fuji 8-16mm and 10-24mm - thoughts ahead of release


completely agree with your idea of having made an 8-16 f4 and a 10-24 f2.8. I personally love the Nikon 17-35mm 2.8 simply for its focal length, even though it's way behind in quality to the other modern lenses. I even considered the Tamron 15-30mm 2.8, but got a deal too good to pass on a 17-35. A Fuji lens of this range would've been a dream


Sep 19, 2017 at 01:31 AM
monochrome
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #8 · p.1 #8 · Fuji 8-16mm and 10-24mm - thoughts ahead of release


millsart wrote:
First and foremost, I find no weakness in the 10-24 at any focal lengths, darn good lens overall and shoot it as much at 10mm as I do at 24mm.

That said, I think it comes down to what ones needs are. I use mine for landscapes so I'm actually putting things like a ND filter on it to get less light, blur water etc. Paying for f2.8 wouldn't make much practical sense for me, since I never even shoot at f4, much less f2.8.

On top of that, the ability to take filters (and affordable 72mm ones at that) is pretty
...Show more

Damn, that could have been written by me. Except the Oly part.



Sep 19, 2017 at 02:02 AM
Pavel
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #9 · p.1 #9 · Fuji 8-16mm and 10-24mm - thoughts ahead of release


The monster size of the 8-16 makes it a complete no-go for me. Just look at the flange diameter versus the rest of the body. This is for weight-lifters more than the photographers who were looking to downsize a bit.

Same with the 80 mm macro as far as that is concerned. Fuji is crossing a line here with these gorilla sized zooms. The 80 macro could have been, should have been, an F 4.0 lens. I kept thinking about why someone would make it that fast when the size penalty is so extreme for an APS-C sensor and where it weighs more and is longer than Canon's FF 100 macro, which covers FF and costs 50% less.

I can't fathom it. I mean who needs F 2.8 in a macro, unless nowadays the sensors are with such small pixels that diffraction limits things and perhaps f 2.8 will bring the best imatest numbers and score a marketing coup for Fuji? Macro shooters are more interested in how it performs at f 8.0 and f 11.

I can't think but that there was too much sake and too much ego involved in these recent decisions. It's so far from the original purpose of APS-C sized sensors and the original promise.

But in fairness we did get the appropriately sized 23, 35 and 50 f 2.0 lenses, so we are getting served well, and I guess these new ones are more choice. Some don't mind weight and size. I don't really mind it myself, but in such a case I'll take FF if I'm going to have a bad back at the end of the day.

Yes. F 4.0 would have been a very attractive option, as far as my preferences go.



Sep 19, 2017 at 02:18 AM
apsphoto
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #10 · p.1 #10 · Fuji 8-16mm and 10-24mm - thoughts ahead of release


monochrome wrote:
Damn, that could have been written by me. Except the Oly part.


+1...

Alan



Sep 19, 2017 at 04:08 AM
 

Search in Used Dept. 



Jannik Peters
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #11 · p.1 #11 · Fuji 8-16mm and 10-24mm - thoughts ahead of release


There seem to be no astrophotographers here

I'd love to have a low coma 2.8/8-16, that would be hugely useful for astro-, night- and cityscape-photography. It would match a kit with the 2.8/16-55 also very good.

It's a bummer that the lens doesn't take screw-in filters but on the other hand, a bulbous front element seems to be the standard and probably a need for bright UWA lenses. The Laowa 2/15 for Sony FE is a nice exception there but also not as wide.



Sep 19, 2017 at 07:56 AM
cvrle59
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #12 · p.1 #12 · Fuji 8-16mm and 10-24mm - thoughts ahead of release


I owed a few copies of 10-24mm, and I used it with X-T1, and now with X-T2. It is a very nice lens, very convenient and flexible, but I'm not happy with the flare when I'm shooting into the Sun.
I used to owe 14mm too, and when I compare my images between those two, there is something special in those that I shot with 14mm. I'm thinking to get it again, to make sure, it's not about my imagination.



Sep 19, 2017 at 11:32 AM
cputeq
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #13 · p.1 #13 · Fuji 8-16mm and 10-24mm - thoughts ahead of release


Shooting interiors, I'd want the 8-16--think wedding dances, etc . That said, my 10-24 does just fine for me, landscape. Wish it had aperture marks ND weather sealing, but I make do.


Sep 19, 2017 at 11:48 AM
mdude85
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #14 · p.1 #14 · Fuji 8-16mm and 10-24mm - thoughts ahead of release


The OIS provides a TON of stabilization -- as far as low light performance is concerned, you're essentially dealing with a lens much more capable than a typical f4. So I would not consider the f4 to be a "minus" unless you really need some subject isolation.



Sep 19, 2017 at 02:58 PM
Pavel
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #15 · p.1 #15 · Fuji 8-16mm and 10-24mm - thoughts ahead of release


mdude85 wrote:
The OIS provides a TON of stabilization -- as far as low light performance is concerned, you're essentially dealing with a lens much more capable than a typical f4. So I would not consider the f4 to be a "minus" unless you really need some subject isolation.


Are those Metric or Imperial tons? A tripod does it quite nicely as well.

With f 4.0, iso 6400, good technique and 15mm of field of view, I could get sharp images even with a few cups of coffee in me. Now if I could only get people in the frame to freeze for every shot.




Sep 19, 2017 at 03:27 PM
millsart
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #16 · p.1 #16 · Fuji 8-16mm and 10-24mm - thoughts ahead of release


cvrle59 wrote:
I owed a few copies of 10-24mm, and I used it with X-T1, and now with X-T2. It is a very nice lens, very convenient and flexible, but I'm not happy with the flare when I'm shooting into the Sun.
I used to owe 14mm too, and when I compare my images between those two, there is something special in those that I shot with 14mm. I'm thinking to get it again, to make sure, it's not about my imagination.



Did you have a filter on your 10-24 ?? I live on the Gulf coast of Florida, and when were aren't having hurricanes, I'm usually on the beach, shooting into the sun for sunsets. I've found the 10-24 the most flare reisstant ultra wide of any systems I've owned and tried, such as the Olympus 7-14, Panny 7-14 and 8-18, Sony 16-35, VC15, Nikon 16-35 and 14-24 etc. As I mentioned previously, what really brought me back to Fuji was that the 10-24 was so resistant to flare. With MFT it was a total no-go with any of the lenses I bought, all of them producing purple blobs/spots and green veiling flare.

The 10-24 I can point directly into the sun, with it still fairly high above the horizon and get essentially zero flare, which I find one of the most remarkable aspects of the lens





























Sep 19, 2017 at 04:29 PM
liggy
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #17 · p.1 #17 · Fuji 8-16mm and 10-24mm - thoughts ahead of release


I love the 10-24. Literally one of my favorite X mount lenses period. As someone with a really bad case of GAS I'm not sure I'm going to go for the 8-16. Already have the Samyang 8 + 12 and 10-24 + XF16.

And I don't recall flare being particularly troublesome with the 10-24 either.

I think I'm going to print this to aluminum and see how it works.

Untitled by j c, on Flickr



Sep 19, 2017 at 05:05 PM
cvrle59
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #18 · p.1 #18 · Fuji 8-16mm and 10-24mm - thoughts ahead of release


millsart wrote:
Did you have a filter on your 10-24 ?? I live on the Gulf coast of Florida, and when were aren't having hurricanes, I'm usually on the beach, shooting into the sun for sunsets. I've found the 10-24 the most flare reisstant ultra wide of any systems I've owned and tried, such as the Olympus 7-14, Panny 7-14 and 8-18, Sony 16-35, VC15, Nikon 16-35 and 14-24 etc. As I mentioned previously, what really brought me back to Fuji was that the 10-24 was so resistant to flare. With MFT it was a total no-go with any of the lenses
...Show more

If I use a filter, it's a Breakthrough X4 6-stop ND filter, very rarely X4 CPL. CPL's don't work well on WA lenses, so I try not use it much.
I will experiment little bit more to see if that filter brings the flare I noticed.
Thanks for your input!



Edited on Sep 19, 2017 at 05:31 PM · View previous versions



Sep 19, 2017 at 05:16 PM
gdanmitchell
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #19 · p.1 #19 · Fuji 8-16mm and 10-24mm - thoughts ahead of release


akin_t wrote:
Lol, landscape photography without filters


Two thoughts.

1. It is quite possible to do landscape without (or almost without) filters. I rarely use them any more, though I do occasionally use a dark ND filter or a polarizing filter.

2. It is unusual to use a polarizing filter on an ultra-wide lens. The effect on sky is not very lovely, as the sky within the angle of view will end up with an ugly kind of gradient.

YMMV.

corposant wrote:
8-16mm - Comments relative to the above
- Range seems geared towards anybody who would be using a FF 12-24mm (landscape and perhaps some architecture)
- f/2.8 helpful, but does one stop make that much difference?
- Size - looks to be somewhat bigger than the 10-24
- Cannot accept filters - images look to be a non-removable petal hood, similar to the Nikon 12-24

It kind of makes me wonder who Fuji is targeting with such a big, expensive, but probably high performance optic.


- Yes, on your first point. It seems directly placed against the f/2.8 12-24 range on full frame.

- It depends, on your second point about f/2.8. If you use it as a landscape lens, the value of f/2.8 would seem to be pretty minimal. You could restrict DOF a bit, but it isn't going to be super narrow at 8mm anyway, and that isn't a common thing to do with landscape at ultra wide focal lengths. One stop is one stop when it comes to light gathering — and if you shoot from the tripod the need to maintain a one-stop faster shutter speed is minimized unless you typically photograph moving subjects, and even there the difference becomes marginal. This also leads to...

- Size, your third point. This is a big lens and likely to be pretty heavy. If you need such a critter you will deal with it, but if you are on the fence you may be less sure. It also depends on how much of a super wide angle vision you have. Some love these very short focal lengths, while others find them less useful in their photography. (I own a 16-35 for my full frame landscape photography, and for me it seems plenty wide, and I tend to gravitate to somewhat longer focal lengths in my work.)

- Cannot accept filters. I can't say that I have a definitive answer to that. Some similar lenses will accept drop-in filters, and it may be possible to get non-screw-in filters in front of the lens with a holder of some sort. For most people, I suspect that filters are less critical for these super wide focal lengths. You aren't likely to use a polarizing filter since it behaves poorly at these focal lengths. I suppose that if you are a fan of very long exposures you might want to use a 9 or 10 stop ND?

Dan



Sep 19, 2017 at 05:24 PM
millsart
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #20 · p.1 #20 · Fuji 8-16mm and 10-24mm - thoughts ahead of release


I think the "conventional" wisdom that polarizers don't 'work' on UWA is a bit of a misleading statement that has gotten repeated so often on internet forums that its just accepted as an absolute truth.

It is quite true that a polarizer is not going to produce an even result across a wide expanse of sky, and your going to have a rather odd looking result of part of the sky having a bit more darkening, depending to some degree on the angle of the sun.

However, there are plenty of uses for a polarizer other than just trying to darken a blue sky.

For example, a polarizer works wonders to help cut the glare of things like wet rocks, saturate colors a bit more on foliage etc, and for these uses it works just fine on wide angles lenses too.

Basically what I've come to see on forums is that someone asks for a polarizer recommendation for a wide, and 5 seconds later they get 10 responses all saying "polarizers don't work on wide angle" and reinforcing the wisdom that one shouldn't ever mount one under any circumstances, which is quite false.

Its basically like saying a wide angle lens is only used to shoot wide expanses of sky and certainly, which of course plenty of people use a wide angle for, BUT, we also know that a wide angle can be used to help create a sense of depth in an image with a strong foreground element etc.

I'll see if I can dig up some example shots, but I quite often use a polarizer with my 10-24 when shooting things like wet rocks on a beach or stream, cutting some glare when shooting cars, and plenty of other compositions that don't really have any expanses of blue sky in them.



Sep 19, 2017 at 05:38 PM
1
       2       end






FM Forums | Fuji Forum | Join Upload & Sell

1
       2       end
    
 

You are not logged in. Login or Register

Username     Reset password