p.2 #1 · Fujifilm XF 50-140mm f/2.8 IOS rolling impressions
I don't know. I'm looking at RAW files though. That might account for lateral CA, but not the longitudinal CA (bokeh fringing). There's none, at least to my eye.
p.2 #3 · Fujifilm XF 50-140mm f/2.8 IOS rolling impressions
Got mine yesterday. Very impressed, although I was/am concerned about elements moving within the lens when it's not on. If you lean it back and forth, you can feel what I assume is the floating OS element moving around. Makes a little knocking sound. A bit concerning for long term durability, but put it on the camera and turn it on, and it is bitingly sharp at f2.8 with very soft bokeh. I've done some quick, non controlled comparisons with my 56/1.2 at 2.8, and they are very similar. The 56 has slightly lower contrast at 2.8, but captures a bit more light. Color rendering is the same and bokeh very similar.
p.2 #4 · Fujifilm XF 50-140mm f/2.8 IOS rolling impressions
The IS having a slight rattle shouldn't matter much. A LOT of IS lenses from a wide variety of manufacturers have that 'feature' and they're fine. Went slower, and getting sharp shots at 140mm and 1/6 second. 1/6! That's the full claimed 5 stops and is seriously impressive. (though the hit rate here is about 50%, and requires very steady technique)
p.2 #5 · Fujifilm XF 50-140mm f/2.8 IOS rolling impressions
Yep, a lot of IS lenses have a rattle. The old Canon 300mm not only has a rattle, but lots of clicking and whirring, as though there might be a hamster running on a wheel in there somewhere. Had that lens for 7 years, no problems.
Jordan - you see none of the crazy bokeh that some early samples were showing?
p.2 #6 · Fujifilm XF 50-140mm f/2.8 IOS rolling impressions
galenapass wrote:
Yep, a lot of IS lenses have a rattle. The old Canon 300mm not only has a rattle, but lots of clicking and whirring, as though there might be a hamster running on a wheel in there somewhere. Had that lens for 7 years, no problems.
Jordan - you see none of the crazy bokeh that some early samples were showing?
Just got in from a quick shoot around town. (no images processed yet, bug will post tonight.) While it's possible with a really busy background to have the background look, well, busy, I'm not finding it typical. Most of what I'm seeing is very similar to how the 56/1.2 looks. Good, though not flawless. Mostly produces pleasing bokeh, but it has a little character. Probably the biggest detriment to the bokeh is the fact that it mechanically vignettes, so that cats eye specular highlights are prominent away from the center. Otherwise it looks good to me.
p.2 #7 · Fujifilm XF 50-140mm f/2.8 IOS rolling impressions
Ok...bunch O samples. Impressions after looking at these: Bokeh is fine for my purposes. Not the super creamiest in the world, but perfectly fine, and quite nice in most circumstances. With busy backgrounds, it too can get a bit busy, but I think the horror bokeh of some of the samples requires a host of bad alignment of circumstances.
The lens is quite sharp right from f/2.8 across essentially the entire frame. There's a smidge of softening in the corners that essentially won't matter for 99% of all relevant field work. Of course, final sharpness judgement will have to wait. Horribly overcast and dark today, so I was shooting at around 1/60s and higher ISOs outside, and while the shots look good, I'm not going to profess that relying on the IS that much is a test of the full potential of optical quality.
However, I've seen enough that I think I want this lens. It definitely is too large to be my daily carry (it wont' fit in my Think Tank Suburban Disguise 20 with the camera mounted to the lens, and it barely fits by itself)...but it would be fantastic for events or any time I needed the speed. Most days I'd still carry my 55-200, though, for the size savings. Perhaps by the summer I'll have packed enough away to pick one up.
p.2 #8 · Fujifilm XF 50-140mm f/2.8 IOS rolling impressions
I did some quick testing with the 50-140 against the 55-200 today, and while I've looked at the results quickly, I don't have time to do crops and present them until tonight...but it pretty well kicks the snot out of the 55-200, especially at infinity. The 55-200 likes to be down a stop or so at infinity for optimal sharpness, and the 50-140 at first glance looks to be similar at f/2.8 to the 55-200 at f/5.6 or f/8 at infinity. Closer up they are closer to each other, but the 50-140 still a step ahead. It's sharp over about 90% of the frame right from f/2.8, with only the corners softening a bit (and moreso at the wide end than the long end, where it is still pretty good in the corners). Bokeh is very similar between them to be honest.
I know it's not a perfect bokeh lens, but I have to say...it looks pretty nice in the majority of situations.
p.2 #10 · Fujifilm XF 50-140mm f/2.8 IOS rolling impressions
A bit too early to tell. One thing I can confirm, is that the Fuji is better in CA control and flare control. Sharpness, I keep going back and forth depending on the sample. Bokeh, I actually think the Fuji is a bit better here, despite the big hubub about bokeh in the other thread (it can be busy in the right circumstances, but in most situations I find it quite beautiful.) The Oly is smaller and lighter (though still not small, especially compared to the other m4/3 lenses...the Fuji is as big as any FF 70-200/4, but it feels less of a leap since the Fuji lenses as a whole are larger than m4/3).
Interestingly enough, I just noticed today that the 50-140 doesn't appear to have any aspherical lens elements. It's the only Fuji lens I have that simply says "Fujinon Lens" around the front ring, rather than "Fujinon Aspherical Lens." Not that it needs it.
p.2 #11 · Fujifilm XF 50-140mm f/2.8 IOS rolling impressions
thanks for the reviews
I could have really needed one at my daughter's nativity play this evening but I still don't fancy the size. I think the x100T might be a better upgrade for me (Instax share, Wifi etc).
p.2 #12 · Fujifilm XF 50-140mm f/2.8 IOS rolling impressions
Jman13 wrote:
A bit too early to tell. One thing I can confirm, is that the Fuji is better in CA control and flare control. Sharpness, I keep going back and forth depending on the sample. Bokeh, I actually think the Fuji is a bit better here, despite the big hubub about bokeh in the other thread (it can be busy in the right circumstances, but in most situations I find it quite beautiful.) The Oly is smaller and lighter (though still not small, especially compared to the other m4/3 lenses...the Fuji is as big as any FF 70-200/4, but it feels less of a leap since the Fuji lenses as a whole are larger than m4/3).
Interestingly enough, I just noticed today that the 50-140 doesn't appear to have any aspherical lens elements. It's the only Fuji lens I have that simply says "Fujinon Lens" around the front ring, rather than "Fujinon Aspherical Lens." Not that it needs it....Show more →
Yep...no aspherics. Probably a first for Fujifilm. They almost seem addicted to use aspherical lenses.
Interestingly, if you read the web page for this lens at Fujifilm.com you find out that there's a newly developed coating used on the glass, in addition to EBC.
p.2 #13 · Fujifilm XF 50-140mm f/2.8 IOS rolling impressions
Jman13 wrote:
Ok...bunch O samples. Impressions after looking at these: Bokeh is fine for my purposes. Not the super creamiest in the world, but perfectly fine, and quite nice in most circumstances.
It reminds a bit me of the Sigma Art lenses' bokeh, TBH. The tendency towards edginess is definitely there, but at these longer focal lengths you get enough blur anyway to get decent bokeh in many situations. I personally find it a bit disappointing -- good sharpness is one thing, but that doesn't make a beautiful rendering. I really appreciate it when optics designers go the extra mile to create a nice rendering.
p.2 #14 · Fujifilm XF 50-140mm f/2.8 IOS rolling impressions
AhamB wrote:
I personally find it a bit disappointing -- good sharpness is one thing, but that doesn't make a beautiful rendering. I really appreciate it when optics designers go the extra mile to create a nice rendering.
Absolutely. I feel the exact same way and probably have a special affinity for Zeiss lenses because it is so clear that they go way beyond specs in their lens designs.
p.2 #18 · Fujifilm XF 50-140mm f/2.8 IOS rolling impressions
Jman13 wrote:
A bit too early to tell. One thing I can confirm, is that the Fuji is better in CA control and flare control. Sharpness, I keep going back and forth depending on the sample. Bokeh, I actually think the Fuji is a bit better here, despite the big hubub about bokeh in the other thread (it can be busy in the right circumstances, but in most situations I find it quite beautiful.) The Oly is smaller and lighter (though still not small, especially compared to the other m4/3 lenses...the Fuji is as big as any FF 70-200/4, but it feels less of a leap since the Fuji lenses as a whole are larger than m4/3).
Interestingly enough, I just noticed today that the 50-140 doesn't appear to have any aspherical lens elements. It's the only Fuji lens I have that simply says "Fujinon Lens" around the front ring, rather than "Fujinon Aspherical Lens." Not that it needs it....Show more →
Thanks for your impressions. Do you plan to evaluate another very similar lens: the Samsung 50-150/2.8?
p.2 #19 · Fujifilm XF 50-140mm f/2.8 IOS rolling impressions
Iliang wrote:
Thanks for your impressions. Do you plan to evaluate another very similar lens: the Samsung 50-150/2.8?
I'd like to. Getting a hold of an NX1 with the 50-150 would be great, but it's a lot harder than with the other gear. If I can get a review sample from Samsung, I'd absolutely love to review it.
Focus speed: Quite good. In good light it's very fast, and it has no problems tracking at all (Took some pictures of bicyclists and people walking today and had a very good hit rate). In lower light it slows down like most Fuji lenses. About the same speed as the 56/1.2 in dimmer light, I'd estimate.
p.2 #20 · Fujifilm XF 50-140mm f/2.8 IOS rolling impressions
Thanks for the response Jordan!
This lens is starting to look a bit like my 70-300- blow out the background or get everything in focus and it's great, but 'mid-range' bokeh is always nervous to some extent.
