AmbientMike
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
|
JohnDizzo15 wrote:
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.
---------------------------------------------
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....Show more →
I have mostly used Canon aps since 2005 and it is excellent gear. It is a big problem if you want to come on the Canon board and say everything aps Canon ever made (and some of the ff even) stinks. You try to say you're not saying that, but "underwhelming" and "sort of good enough" are hardly complimentary.
I have shot Rebels a lot, and it is pretty ridiculous how they get ignored in light gear discussions and people go spend $1700, or a lot more anyway, on a smaller sensor 1" p&s. And I certainly didn't look at Fuji aps for fast af, generally consideted underwhelming, regardless of how true a mirrorless camera you think it is.
I don't really care about 56mm prime that much I'd probably rather use the 55-250. 24mm ff (16mm) doesn't sound appealing either, 23 might be good but I'd generally cover this using a zoom and the Fujis aren't that light, a lot of people on here care about weight. I found DPP sharper even before DLO, are you using the correct raw processor?
|
