Home · Register · Join Upload & Sell

Moderated by: Fred Miranda

New fredmiranda.com Mobile Site

New Feature: SMS Notification alert

New Feature: Buy & Sell Watchlist

FM Forums | Canon Forum | Join Upload & Sell

3 end

R50, R100 vs Fuji

jgoetz4
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: On

p.2 #1 · p.2 #1 · R50, R100 vs Fuji

I shot these and about 30 or so more with my old 12MP, X100 (which I still have) while working in Rosedale, MD 7 years ago. They were good enough to use on tv back then, and would still be good enough today. It's not about the lens or replacements, but rather about the photographer knowing how to use the gear

Jim

FinePix X100 23mm f/4.0 1/900s 100 ISO 0.0 EV

FinePix X100 23mm f/4.0 1/400s 100 ISO +0.3 EV

FinePix X100 23mm f/4.0 1/500s 100 ISO 0.0 EV

FinePix X100 23mm f/4.0 1/1400s 100 ISO 0.0 EV

Jul 09, 2024 at 07:59 PM

sebjmatthews
Offline
•
Upload & Sell: Off

p.2 #2 · p.2 #2 · R50, R100 vs Fuji

AmbientMike wrote:
Anyone tried these yet, R100 or R50, etc + 16, 28, etc? Any thoughts?

Not tried the 16 (no use for it myself), but the 28 works well. Of course f/2.8 on APS-C is nothing exciting (f/4.5 equivalent), but it's fine as a kind of point-and-shoot if you know you like the 45mm equivalent field of view. Preferable to using the dreadful 50mm f/1.8 on a bigger camera, for example.

That said, Fujifilm has their own 27mm f/2.8 which works just as well, and the only-slightly-larger 18mm f/2; I find that extra stop can really make a difference indoors. Of course Fuji also have their own 16mm f/2.8, and many other small lenses to consider. And if you're considering any of these sorts of systems then you should also check out the 4/3rds cameras, where there are a huge range of tiny f/2-and-faster lenses, and most of those bodies have stabilisation thrown in. Once you do the equivalence maths, every APS-C and 4/3rds system winds up pretty equal except for Canon's very limited lens selection.

So, the R50 + 28 is a combo that works fine, but if you're cross-shopping multiple systems then it's nothing special. Every other equivalent system has an equivalent lens to everything Canon has, whereas Canon is still lacking much that other systems have had for years. Canon has a long way to go before they can really compete with the established APS-C and 4/3rds systems, and like many others, I do fear they simply won't bother.

Jul 10, 2024 at 10:52 AM

AmbientMike
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.2 #3 · p.2 #3 · R50, R100 vs Fuji

sebjmatthews wrote:
Not tried the 16 (no use for it myself), but the 28 works well. Of course f/2.8 on APS-C is nothing exciting (f/4.5 equivalent), but it's fine as a kind of point-and-shoot if you know you like the 45mm equivalent field of view. Preferable to using the dreadful 50mm f/1.8 on a bigger camera, for example.

That said, Fujifilm has their own 27mm f/2.8 which works just as well, and the only-slightly-larger 18mm f/2; I find that extra stop can really make a difference indoors. Of course Fuji also have their own 16mm f/2.8, and many other small lenses to consider....Show more →

Mostly the "Canon has no lenses" bit is compkete nonsense. I don't think Fuji or m4/3 (heck, even Sony) can compete with Canon superteles. 300/2.8, 400/4 & 2.8, 500/4, 300/4, 800/5.6 etc.

See @jgoetz4 moon shots on the previous page, one of the lightest long options out there. Nobody has that, I don't think, and, perhaps more importantly, good luck doing that on your phone. If you're interested in <100mm primes maybe the others have them, but the others tend to be pretty limited, in general.

I have yet to see a bad 50/1.8, even my <$20 1960's one, and the Canon Rf is very light. Never really bought into the equivalent aperture business too much, to a large degree 50 at 2.8 is 50 at 2.8. A 1 pound R8 is pretty amazing, 12 oz R100 is extremely light

Jul 10, 2024 at 11:33 AM

ISO1600
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: On

p.2 #4 · p.2 #4 · R50, R100 vs Fuji

Canon has no lenses that specifically make getting a tiny camera like the R50 or R100 a compelling argument. If you are not adding to a Canon kit that you already have, why get an R50/100/10/etc when every other crop system has more lens options that are tailored to that sensor size?

Yeah, Canon probably has the craziest telephoto lineup out there right now, but I don't think that's what this thread is about haha

Jul 10, 2024 at 06:31 PM

gdanmitchell
Offline
• • • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.2 #5 · p.2 #5 · R50, R100 vs Fuji

ISO1600 wrote:
Canon has no lenses that specifically make getting a tiny camera like the R50 or R100 a compelling argument. If you are not adding to a Canon kit that you already have, why get an R50/100/10/etc when every other crop system has more lens options that are tailored to that sensor size?

Yeah, Canon probably has the craziest telephoto lineup out there right now, but I don't think that's what this thread is about haha

You are getting at what some users regard as one of the real pluses of the Fujifilm system — rather than relying on lenses that come from the full frame system Fujifilm supplies an entire system of lenses that is specifically designed for APS-C. In quite a few cases — though arguably not all – this means that the lenses can be smaller than their full frame equivalents.

As examples, I’d point to a couple of the tiny pancakes (the 27mm f/2.8 and the 18mm f/2), the lovely little f/2 “Fujicron” lenses (23mm, 35mm, 50mm). Even the 50-140mm f/2.8 is smaller than my Canon 70-200mm f/2.8. (It is roughly the size of the 70-200mm f/4.)

One could point out that if you have an APS-C camera you would not want a 70-200mm, and you might prefer an angle-of-view-equivalent 50-140mm lens. I don’t keep up on all the lenses from all the brands, but I don’t think there is such a thing from Canon or the others.

I am not saying that the Fujifilm system is “the best” or that it is ideal for everyone, and there are fine reasons to choose an APS-C system from one of the other manufacturers if it meets your needs.

By the way, some of the Fujifilm lenses are not particularly small. As an example, the excellent 80mm f/2.8 macro is bigger and heavier than my Canon EF 100mm f/2.8 macro!

Anyway, each brand has its attractions — the object is to match them with your individual needs and preferences.

Jul 10, 2024 at 10:03 PM

garyvot
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: On

p.2 #6 · p.2 #6 · R50, R100 vs Fuji

Jul 10, 2024 at 10:46 PM

AmbientMike
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.2 #7 · p.2 #7 · R50, R100 vs Fuji

Jul 11, 2024 at 12:21 AM

JohnDizzo15
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.2 #8 · p.2 #8 · R50, R100 vs Fuji

AmbientMike wrote:
Except that's not really true the Rf 28 is about the same as 18/2 & works on ff as well. The 50-140 isn't much lighter than the Rf 70-200/2.8 which also works on ff. Canon has a lot more macro options too and it's nice to be able to use 70-200/2.8 or 400/4 etc natively if you want to.

Canon has had light options for years the Rebel especially SL series and kit zooms very lightweight, but people would generally rather say DSLRS are heavy, and mirrorless so much lighter, as they put a 2lb+ lens on their mirrorless. It gets...Show more →

I tend to agree with you regarding diminishing differences when it comes to the longer lenses/zooms.

However, having shot Canon DSLR, mirrorless M line, and now RF, alongside Fujis and Sonys since the X-Pro 1/X100 and the A7R mk1 (along with a boat load of lenses from across all brands, natively and adapted), I have consistently found that no one else does APSC dedicated lenses like Fuji, which is one of the main reasons I have always maintained a couple of Fuji rigs in the stable.

Yes, the RF28 is not overly different in size from the XF18. However, the Canon lens is slower and I personally like the XF18 better, with regard to general image output. The RF28 does work on FF as well. But that isn't the point a couple of the other members were making. the Fuji lenses (especially in the wider to normal FL ranges) are in a different league than the Canon budget compact options.

Like Dan said above, the "Fujicrons" are not just budget lenses that happen to be small. They are really good lenses that consistently produce great results, super compact, weather resistant, fast focusing, etc. I cannot say that about Canon RF lenses like the 28, 16, and 50. They're decent, but not in the same league. Not to mention the fact that they are all slower lenses, regardless of their ability to be used on a larger format.

Point is, the Fuji lenses are among the best at what they do for the specific format they are designed for (which is what the OP was about), without having to consider whether they are compatible with FF.

As a side note, Fuji did make an even more budget option (with lesser materials) of one of their Fujicrons, the 35/2.

X-T30 pr0n by John Dizzo, on Flickr

Found an old shot in my Flickr to show relative size.

RF kit arrived - “my my what a big lens you have there” she said 😂 by John Dizzo, on Flickr

Jul 14, 2024 at 06:11 PM

ISO1600
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: On

p.2 #9 · p.2 #9 · R50, R100 vs Fuji

I woefully disagree in that the RF28 is comparable to the XF18. Slower and totally different look produced by the two lenses. The little XF18 is one of the few AF lenses I've used that I get emotional about. I love that little lens. It's got such a great look, and just worked so well for me. I haven't encountered a native RF lens so far that I would say comes close in my use. Maybe the 100-400 honestly, because I've enjoyed it so much and it was a surprise.

It could also be argued that Canon's older EF lenses are just as "native" on other systems as they are RF, because they can be adapted very easily and effectively to several other brands' cameras, just as they have to be adapted to RF... So don't use the 400/4 or any other compelling EF glass as an argument to shoot Canon.

My R7 and R50 arrived in time for me to use them this weekend. The 28 pancake is boring as hell on the crop sensor, my Google Pixel takes more interesting photos with less effort. The 16 is about the same. That's why both of mine are up for sale lol. The telephotos are a blast. The 18-150 is a joy.

Jul 14, 2024 at 07:06 PM

AmbientMike
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.2 #10 · p.2 #10 · R50, R100 vs Fuji

JohnDizzo15 wrote:
I tend to agree with you regarding diminishing differences when it comes to the longer lenses/zooms.

However, having shot Canon DSLR, mirrorless M line, and now RF, alongside Fujis and Sonys since the X-Pro 1/X100 and the A7R mk1 (along with a boat load of lenses from across all brands, natively and adapted), I have consistently found that no one else does APSC dedicated lenses like Fuji, which is one of the main reasons I have always maintained a couple of Fuji rigs in the stable.

Yes, the RF28 is not overly different in size from the XF18. However, the Canon...Show more →

That is a misleading photo, though. The R100 is lighter than the X-T30, even. And Fuji just isn't necessarily that light, you have to look, some are, but many, maybe even most, are heavier than a Rebel, and the Rf aps bodies are lighter than a Rebel

SL2 + 18-55 I've used quite a bit is lighter than, say, X-T4 + 18-55, both body and lens are lighter. Canon 24 pancake can be used on the Rebel. So yes Canon has light gear, if you like the pri.esFuji might be greatbut Canon has a MUCH more extensive lens lineup, overall.

Jul 15, 2024 at 04:40 PM

AmbientMike
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.2 #11 · p.2 #11 · R50, R100 vs Fuji

ISO1600 wrote:
I woefully disagree in that the RF28 is comparable to the XF18. Slower and totally different look produced by the two lenses. The little XF18 is one of the few AF lenses I've used that I get emotional about. I love that little lens. It's got such a great look, and just worked so well for me. I haven't encountered a native RF lens so far that I would say comes close in my use. Maybe the 100-400 honestly, because I've enjoyed it so much and it was a surprise.

It could also be argued that Canon's older EF lenses are...Show more →

People constantly complain about the EF-Sony adapters these days, and I doubt the 400/4 + Fringer on Fuji is as good as Canon adapter.

Jul 15, 2024 at 04:42 PM

ISO1600
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: On

p.2 #12 · p.2 #12 · R50, R100 vs Fuji

the "MUCH" more extensive lense lineup relies on adapting EF, most of which are much larger after adapting than the tiny R bodies we're talking about here. It's almost an apples and oranges debate. Two VERY different photography experiences.

Yes, an X-T4 is a lot heavier than a rebel, R50, R100- it's also a pretty dang serious camera. Even the X-T30 is a far more serious camera than the R50; the price, capabilities and build are on another level.

For what the Fuji system is good at, the small Canon bodies+lens options don't really compare.
OTOH, where the Canon R system is good (AF, telephotos, uhhhh i guess being plastic and tiny?), Fuji can't hold a candle.

Jul 15, 2024 at 05:26 PM

JohnDizzo15
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.2 #13 · p.2 #13 · R50, R100 vs Fuji

AmbientMike wrote:
That is a misleading photo, though. The R100 is lighter than the X-T30, even. And Fuji just isn't necessarily that light, you have to look, some are, but many, maybe even most, are heavier than a Rebel, and the Rf aps bodies are lighter than a Rebel

SL2 + 18-55 I've used quite a bit is lighter than, say, X-T4 + 18-55, both body and lens are lighter. Canon 24 pancake can be used on the Rebel. So yes Canon has light gear, if you like the pri.esFuji might be greatbut Canon has a MUCH more extensive lens lineup, overall.

To clarify, the only intent for my posting the second photo was to show relative size to my other stuff that others might be familiar with, just as a reference point.

And I don't disagree. Much of the Fuji stuff isn't necessarily the absolute lightest weight in comparison (even if only minutely so). But again, it would be shortsighted to only focus on one particular facet of the equation without taking the entire package into consideration holistically.

Again, I've had multiple compact APSC Canon offerings through the years, to include all their recent budget RF primes. They were all underwhelming at best.

Does Canon make compact/lightweight options that in certain combinations, is lighter and more compact than Fuji stuff? Sure. But that doesn't make them better options for any other reason other than saving a few negligible grams and millimeters in a couple directions.

As I stated above, the Fujicrons are beautifully designed, optically superior, weather resistant, fast focusing, and generally high performing lenses. That cannot be said for any of the budget compact primes that Canon has ever made. If I had to pick two that I've actually liked (not loved) from Canon, it would be the M 22/2.0 or the EF 40/2.8. Outside of those two, I've generally disliked all of their offerings in this category. And even those two fall way short of what the Fujicrons bring to the table as a whole. As a side note, part of the reason I even give extra grace to the 40/2.8 is because I had some fun with it adapted to a GFX as well. But again, that doesn't have a true nexus to this particular topic.

Canon may have a lot of offerings. But all of the budget stuff is generally exactly that, budget. Sometimes, they just happen to be compact or lightweight as well. But that isn't the only thing we are after here. I've personally just never been a fan of being small or light at the expense of performance.

Jul 15, 2024 at 09:25 PM

AmbientMike
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.2 #14 · p.2 #14 · R50, R100 vs Fuji

It's not a prime, but one of my most used lenses is the 55-250, and it's excellent. And I really don't think Fuji has a comparable lens. My other most used lens is the 180 Tamron, which you'd have to adapt since Fuji doesn't have that , either.

If you just want small primes Fuji might be ahead there, but Canon is ahead on everything else. I've looked at Fuji and if you want an 85/1.4, 135/2 or 70-200, you can adapt using Canon pretty much native. Just more limited in general on Fuji

Fuji seems to be getting away from the really light stuff, and also if you don't like Rebels the FF R8 is right there, lighter than a lot of the Fujis.

Jul 16, 2024 at 12:25 AM

ISO1600
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: On

p.2 #15 · p.2 #15 · R50, R100 vs Fuji

Mike, nobody is arguing that Fuji has better telephoto options. NOBODY. Nobody would make that argument, as there's nothing to it. Canon > Fuji for telephoto without a doubt.

For small, everyday, simple and fun (and often low light) lenses on crop sensors, mounted natively.... Canon has essentially zero options currently in production. The R8 with the small RF primes is a better option in a LOT of ways than any similarly-priced Fuji setup, but many (including myself) would argue it's not "as fun". I roundabout upgraded from X-E4 to R8 last year, and honestly wish I had stayed with the X-E4. It would cost me more to get back into the setup now than I was able to sell it for then, and I miss it dearly. Small lenses, small camera, great handling, and jpgs to die for.

Jul 16, 2024 at 12:35 AM

AmbientMike
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.2 #16 · p.2 #16 · R50, R100 vs Fuji

ISO1600 wrote:
Mike, nobody is arguing that Fuji has better telephoto options. NOBODY. Nobody would make that argument, as there's nothing to it. Canon > Fuji for telephoto without a doubt.

For small, everyday, simple and fun (and often low light) lenses on crop sensors, mounted natively.... Canon has essentially zero options currently in production. The R8 with the small RF primes is a better option in a LOT of ways than any similarly-priced Fuji setup, but many (including myself) would argue it's not "as fun". I roundabout upgraded from X-E4 to R8 last year, and honestly wish I had stayed with...Show more →

The SL2 is a popular camera, some have trouble with it but it's held its value on the used market more than you'd think. It has a lot of features like DPAF in LV. You can say Fuji has this or that, but i don't think all of them have the articulating screen like the SL2, and that's a popular feature and I liked using SL2 & 18-55 very light landscape camera

To cast Canon aps as a poor choice, I just d9nt think that's accurate. Honestly Fuji seems to be abandoning the lightest cameras like X-E4 and Canon has 16, 24, 35, 50, 85mm primes and is just getting rolling

I shoot mostly jpegs and have been very happy using Canon. I’ve thought about Fuji in part because of this, but currently not sure if I'll get a Fuji or not.

Jul 16, 2024 at 12:46 AM

ISO1600
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: On

p.2 #17 · p.2 #17 · R50, R100 vs Fuji

What made Fuji popular vs the direction they are headed today are two different things- there's a lot of discussion about that in Fuji circles, believe me. I don't like the direction they are going lol.
Most of the OG Fuji shooters don't want a flippy screen. I don't think most of the OG shooters want zooms, or telephotos.
Heck, a lot of the OG Fuji shooters only really like the early X lenses, like no newer than the Fujicrons.

The SL/SL2 are awesome cameras, but aren't they long out of production? Holding value on the used market is not the same as doubling or quadrupling on the used market, often selling for more used than new like most Fuji bodies are these days.

Jul 16, 2024 at 01:04 AM

ISO1600
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: On

p.2 #18 · p.2 #18 · R50, R100 vs Fuji

I've said it before and I'll say it again, Canon NEEDS to give us more RF-S options- 22/2, 60 macro, there were several (not a lot admittedly) lenses in EF-M and EF-S mounts with cult followings.

I am hoping at the R5II event they drop some surprise lenses (22/2!!!) as well.

Jul 16, 2024 at 01:10 AM

JohnDizzo15
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.2 #19 · p.2 #19 · R50, R100 vs Fuji

AmbientMike wrote:
It's not a prime, but one of my most used lenses is the 55-250, and it's excellent. And I really don't think Fuji has a comparable lens. My other most used lens is the 180 Tamron, which you'd have to adapt since Fuji doesn't have that , either.

If you just want small primes Fuji might be ahead there, but Canon is ahead on everything else. I've looked at Fuji and if you want an 85/1.4, 135/2 or 70-200, you can adapt using Canon pretty much native. Just more limited in general on Fuji

Fuji seems to be getting away from...Show more →

Fuji does happen to have a cheapo 50-230 which I picked up as part of a kit a long time ago. It is pretty similar in performance and build to the Canon 55-250 STM (which I also have and love). But again, not why I like my Fujis.

When I want to shoot my big whites or pretty much any real telephoto stuff, I still stick to the Canons.
---------------------------------------------

AmbientMike wrote:
The SL2 is a popular camera, some have trouble with it but it's held its value on the used market more than you'd think. It has a lot of features like DPAF in LV. You can say Fuji has this or that, but i don't think all of them have the articulating screen like the SL2, and that's a popular feature and I liked using SL2 & 18-55 very light landscape camera

To cast Canon aps as a poor choice, I just d9nt think that's accurate. Honestly Fuji seems to be abandoning the lightest cameras like X-E4 and Canon has 16,...Show more →

I don't think anyone is saying that Canon is a poor APSC choice. But for the wide and normal range FLs, compact and fun shooting experience, very high IQ (simultaneously existent qualities), the Fuji is head and shoulders above any Canon APSC stuff I have ever owned along the way. So while I would consider Canon APSC plenty good enough and generally solid for most use cases, for the specific niche I described above that places high value in those qualities mentioned, Fuji is superior.

I have had the RF 16/2.8, 24/1.8, 35/1.8 and the 50/1.8 (only borrowed the 85/2) combined with my R8, and they were all decent/okay to sort of good enough (aka underwhelming) to me. In addition, the 24, 35, and 85 were not by my standard, compact. They were also all not weather sealed/resistant, which is something that has annoyed me for the greater part of the last two decades with Canon when it comes to their non L offerings. Add to that, the very underwhelming AF performance and image output of all of the lenses in the list above, and I am not compelled. (Side note - I didn't like those lenses any better when I tested them on APSC).

In order for Canon to change my mind about their APSC offerings, they'd have to add weather seals, better AF, and high IQ in addition to them being dedicated APSC lenses to minimize size/weight. Until then, they just have a huge portfolio of lenses that allow you to get by in APSC. But getting by isn't equivalent to being super happy with, for many of us.

Putting the Fujicrons and compactness aside, the more premium prime lens offerings that I love from Fuji (16/1.4, 23/1.4, 56/1.2) also have no equivalents in Canon RF APSC. I would be very excited to see the 22/2.0 and 35/1.4 from the M line ported over from Canon for starters. But even then, the truly dedicated APSC portfolio from Canon would still have a very long way to go to get close to what Fuji has currently.

As a last note, DPAF in LV on a DSLR is not anywhere near the performance of a true current ML camera in operation speed and function. The SLs were nifty little cams. But I wouldn't even begin to compare them in LV to a true ML cam.

Jul 16, 2024 at 02:03 AM

gdanmitchell
Offline
• • • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.2 #20 · p.2 #20 · R50, R100 vs Fuji

A couple of things:

First, before wading into a discussion comparing options from different manufacturers and certainly before making supposedly definitive statements about what is or is not available from the brand one does not use, it is worthwhile to at least take a moment to look into the facts about that brand, including the various options available.

Second, while we could spend weeks doing the “buy MY brand has a thing that is .2 ounces lighter than YOUR brand” thing, it is a good idea to back up a step or two and remember that one user might think that is definitive (say if they already have a camera from that brand and are trying for the very lowest weight, perhaps at the expense of performance — which is a fine thing for them) while another might not (say if prefer the full system from the other brand, have a preference for the performance of its lenses, and so forth).

Again — and I really wish people would accept this — different photographers have different preferences, budgets, and needs. What you use or what I use may or may not match up with what someone else prefers. That doesn’t make any of us “wrong,” it just means our expectations are different.

Insisting that Brand X is always better than Brand Y is pretty pointless these days. Helping prospective users understand the real world pluses and minuses of the various options is relevant and helpful.

For one user an M body could be perfect. For another a used SL could fit the bill. For someone else it could be one of the Fujifilm options. Another person might be best served by something rom another brand.

Make sense?

Jul 16, 2024 at 08:21 AM

1 2 3 end
FM Forums \| Canon Forum \| Join Upload & Sell 1 2 3 end

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.