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 | Fuji Forum | Join Upload & Sell

1 2

4 end

Fuji Zooms

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

p.3 #1 · p.3 #1 · Fuji Zooms

Regarding atmospheric distortion, an example — and not an extreme one at all, just one I had handy from a recent shoot.

You could use the world's sharpest lens (this isn't that, but it is a very sharp lens) and you still won't get a sharp photograph when the atmosphere doesn't cooperate. Enlarged crop of a small section of a photograph:

You can actually see the atmospheric "rippling" effect on edges and straight lines, and it affects other areas of the image where the details are less contrasty. On top of that, the vestigial haziness of the recently-foggy atmosphere (see the fog bank offshore) has reduced contrast and further muted details.

There is literally no way to make a photograph of this scene that will be "sharp" at large magnifications — and the lens isn't the issue.

The whole photograph:

(Point Sur Lighthouse along the Big Sur Coast.)

Aug 26, 2024 at 03:08 PM

gear-nut
Online
• • • •
Upload & Sell: On

p.3 #2 · p.3 #2 · Fuji Zooms

SGinNorcal wrote:
I couldn't agree more. As for the comments on what pros are using, I suppose having your career on the line might be motivation to carry more. But some of the crap I've seen lately in outdoor magazines is nothing to brag about. To my eyes, things seem to be trending to over-cooked post-processing that I would never be happy with. That might be driven by others choosing content but I can see this driving overall quality down is that what is deemed a marketable look.

And we don't have to go very far to see absurd processing. It's an unfortunate trend, but photographers no longer seem to care about good color management practices; they don't realize that what looks one way to them on their system looks totally different when viewed on another system, and if I happen to be one who has a properly calibrated system, I definitely see it.

Aug 26, 2024 at 04:05 PM

Geoff D F
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.3 #3 · p.3 #3 · Fuji Zooms

gear-nut wrote:
The other thing we should probably spell out in the Fx vs APS-c debate is what the actual IQ "losses" are.

Lens sharpness. First off, virtually any newer design lens is better than the same thing from 5-7 years ago. However, the difference is not necessarily Earth-shattering. Lens resolution does not degrade from perfect to unusable at a hard stop, rather it's a gradual fall-off. As an example, in the Fuji APS-c line, the 55-200 is arguably the worst zoom option, yet I still carry one for travel because it's more than "good enough" for when I want that extra range AND it doesn't take up much room or add much weight (or cost) to your bag. It's plenty sharp centrally and only visibly softens at the corners, which usually aren't all that important when I'm zoomed out. (If I thought extreme corners at max focal were going to be a problem, I'd carry the 50-140 or 100-400 instead -- but neither one is nearly as travel friendly as the 55-200.)

(Side-bar comment here: The Fuji 55-200 is "as good as" any Fx 75-300 I've seen; there won't be a spits worth of difference between an Fx image made with a 75-300 and the APS-c image made with the 55-200 at any MP count even compared side-by-side at 100%. In fact, comparing either at use sizes to the best 70-200 option, you won't see a startling difference centrally between them and only barely noticeable at the corners. Zoom into 100% and sure, you'll see the marginal losses -- but are they critical losses for your imaging, or possibly a gain? To wit, there is a prominent wedding photographer I know that uses the 75-300 on his Fx cam as his mainstay for weddings. Why? Precisely because it isn't quite as clinical as newer options and works beautifully for people. Think of adding the weakest black-mist filter to your sharpest lens, and that's about where these "weakest" zooms hit.)

Noise. Net loss in noise from Fuji XH2 to my Nikon Z9 is maybe 1 stop. If noise is a big deal for you, then decide if carrying the added weight is worth it to you. Noise does not bother me much, in fact I sometimes like it some of my night shots, YMMV.

DoF. There's about a 1-stop difference for DoF between APS-c and Fx. If you need f1.4 a lot in Fx, then you're going to want f1.0 in APS-c for a similar look -- and there aren't many (none) AF f1 lens options for APS-c... The however-but flip-side to this is that you also gain back the stop of DoF with APS-c at any aperture, so you can shoot APS-c at f2.8 when you stopped down to f4 for Fx, gaining back 1 stop of shutter speed or ISO. This happens to be a significant benefit for my street/travel/lifestyle shooting, maybe yours too... ...Show more →

Couldn't agree more. These are the reasons I moved back to primarily shooting APS-C after a decade of shooting FF. It slowly dawned on me that the supposed benefits of FF didn't materialise in practice for any of my use cases - I can't see a difference on a 28 inch 4k screen (which displays around 8mp) and I can print up to 120cm, without seeing a difference. Further, it is rare that one stop of noise performance makes much of a difference. More often if there is not enough light, then there is not enough for FF too.

Aug 26, 2024 at 06:21 PM

mdude85
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.3 #4 · p.3 #4 · Fuji Zooms

RoamingScott wrote:
If you don't think 40mp Fuji bodies are competing directly with FF options, well...

Of course you have to compare these, even if the tech inside isn't particularly apples to apples, because they are the options for a consumer.

I didn't say they weren't competing.

The original premise of the question is just odd. It's like asking whether Canon or Sony's "weakness is in their zoom lenses"?

All major brands have excellent zoom lenses and weak zoom lenses.

The final image quality is a combination of lens quality and sensor quality. You can't even really compare one APS-C sensor to another, to say nothing of APS-C vs. FF sensors. Fuji's APS-C sensors are not the same as the sensors in Sony's APS-C cameras. Fuji's sensors lack an anti-aliasing filter which theoretically improves sharpness and microcontrast. How does one meaningfully distinguish sharpness of a final image attributed to the lens vs the sensor? That's just one of many complicating issues.

Aug 27, 2024 at 07:49 AM

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

p.3 #5 · p.3 #5 · Fuji Zooms

Humor me for a moment concerning a little pet peeve about word usage; ‘compare” versus “equate” ;-)

Right after you say that you write that you “ can't even really compare one APS-C sensor to another, to say nothing of APS-C vs. FF sensors…” you compare them! ;-)

I think people sometimes use “compare” when they mean “equate.” Comparing things that aren’t equal can be a useful and meaningful exercise. Make sense?

On the subject of how to, uh, “compare” images from different systems and formats, a useful approach is to take files through a typical post processing workflow, adjusted to optimize each image as you normally would. (For example, use different sharpening settings that produce the best results for each.) Then output them in the format that most interests you, whether that is print, electronic, or both. Compare. (Better yet, without telling them what they are looking at, let some trusted photographer colleagues observe and describe what they see.)

When people who doubt APS-C do this they often discover that contemporary APS-C systems are capable of producing excellent results — which is not to say that the results will always be equal to those from a larger format for those who really push the boundaries of things like print size. (Most don’t.)

mdude85 wrote:
I didn't say they weren't competing.

The original premise of the question is just odd. It's like asking whether Canon or Sony's "weakness is in their zoom lenses"?

All major brands have excellent zoom lenses and weak zoom lenses.

The final image quality is a combination of lens quality and sensor quality. You can't even really compare one APS-C sensor to another, to say nothing of APS-C vs. FF sensors. Fuji's APS-C sensors are not the same as the sensors in Sony's APS-C cameras. Fuji's sensors lack an anti-aliasing filter which theoretically improves sharpness and microcontrast. How does one meaningfully distinguish sharpness...Show more →

Edited on Aug 27, 2024 at 10:57 AM · View previous versions

Aug 27, 2024 at 09:16 AM

mdude85
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.3 #6 · p.3 #6 · Fuji Zooms

gdanmitchell wrote:
Humor me for a moment concerning a little pet peeve about word usage; ‘compare” versus “equate” ;-)

Right after you say that you write that you “ can't even really compare one APS-C sensor to another, to say nothing of APS-C vs. FF sensors…” you compare them! ;-)

I think people sometimes use “compare” when they mean “equate.” Comparing things that aren’t equal can be a useful and meaningful exercise. Make sense?

Consider yourself humored

Aug 27, 2024 at 10:38 AM

tgrantster
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.3 #7 · p.3 #7 · Fuji Zooms

I have given up all my zooms for primes with the exception of the 18-55 and the 100-400. Not worth selling the 18-55. Worth keeping it for the odd time I use my camera to shoot a video. The 100-400 will be gone when the 500 prime comes out if it’s any good.

The 16-55 is great …noticeably better colours and more consistent image quality through the range than the 18-55. Every bit as good as the Canon 24-70 on EF. But not worth the size and lack of stability for me to keep it around. Fun for landscapes but I’m not doing much of that these days…

Sep 02, 2024 at 10:44 AM

Joseph.
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.3 #8 · p.3 #8 · Fuji Zooms

RWNPhoto wrote:
For those that have used other systems, do you feel that Fuji's weakness is in their zoom lenses? Like, are their zoom offerings less and/or not as strong of performers as other brands? If you disagree, what zooms do you feel are worthy of a top shelf perch...?
Primes, a different story, a different topic.

Fuji's weakness is in AF. Their zoom lenses are some of the best I've tried.

Sep 03, 2024 at 06:22 PM

RoamingScott
Online
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.3 #9 · p.3 #9 · Fuji Zooms

A whole world of IQ awaits you in other brand zooms

Joseph. wrote:
Fuji's weakness is in AF. Their zoom lenses are some of the best I've tried.

Sep 03, 2024 at 06:34 PM

gear-nut
Online
• • • •
Upload & Sell: On

p.3 #10 · p.3 #10 · Fuji Zooms

RoamingScott wrote:
A whole world of IQ awaits you in other brand zooms

Perhaps I’m confused, but it sounds like you’re suggesting there is some quantum jump in IQ by going to a different system? If so, please provide the images that prove it rather than unsupported anecdotal inferences.

Sep 03, 2024 at 07:55 PM

gear-nut
Online
• • • •
Upload & Sell: On

p.3 #11 · p.3 #11 · Fuji Zooms

tgrantster wrote:
The 16-55 is great …noticeably better colours and more consistent image quality through the range than the 18-55. Every bit as good as the Canon 24-70 on EF. But not worth the size and lack of stability for me to keep it around. Fun for landscapes but I’m not doing much of that these days…

Primes will always be smaller and faster than zooms; and arguably better optically in most cases. But size itself is relative, and the Fuji 16-55 is significantly smaller than any Fx equivalent range f2.8 zoom.

The Fuji X system offers a great balance of size and weight savings while retaining excellent optical performance. Are there better options? Yes, but they all weigh at least twice as much and are twice the size; and the actual optical or IQ gains are relatively small.

Sep 04, 2024 at 09:34 AM

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

p.3 #12 · p.3 #12 · Fuji Zooms

gear-nut wrote:
Primes will always be smaller and faster than zooms; and arguably better optically in most cases. But size itself is relative, and the Fuji 16-55 is significantly smaller than any Fx equivalent range f2.8 zoom.

The Fuji X system offers a great balance of size and weight savings while retaining excellent optical performance. Are there better options? Yes, but they all weigh at least twice as much and are twice the size; and the actual optical or IQ gains are relatively small.

My feeling about the 16-55 f/2.8 size is that feels like a pretty big lens for an APS-C system. I have the lens and like it, but I more often use primes for my purposes.

That said, even though it feels large on the smaller APS-C system, it isn’t quite as large as the arguably comparable EF 24-70mm f/2.8L I use on Canon.

And in terms of overall system size, if I pit my XT5 plus the 16-55, 50-140, and 100-400 against my Canon FF system with the 5DsR, EF 16-55 f/2.8, EF 70-200mm f/4L IS*, and 100-400 f/4.5-f/5.6L IS, the Fujifilm system as a whole is quite a bit smaller and lighter.

Dan

*The difference is more stark if I replace that 70-200 f/4 with the f/2.8L version that I used to use.

Sep 04, 2024 at 10:52 AM

gear-nut
Online
• • • •
Upload & Sell: On

p.3 #13 · p.3 #13 · Fuji Zooms

gdanmitchell wrote:
My feeling about the 16-55 f/2.8 size is that feels like a pretty big lens for an APS-C system. I have the lens and like it, but I more often use primes for my purposes.

That said, even though it feels large on the smaller APS-C system, it isn’t quite as large as the arguably comparable EF 24-70mm f/2.8L I use on Canon.

And in terms of overall system size, if I pit my XT5 plus the 16-55, 50-140, and 100-400 against my Canon FF system with the 5DsR, EF 16-55 f/2.8, EF 70-200mm f/4L IS*, and 100-400 f/4.5-f/5.6L IS,...Show more →

Again, I think the terms "large" or "feels large" are relative. But I agree the 16-55, and anything larger frankly, all felt bit nose-heavy on the XT5 -- however, even my 100-400 feels quite well balanced on the XH2, and of course so does the 16-55. I am fairly certain it's the extra finger-well of the XH2 makes heavier lenses feel better "integrated" with the camera; and frankly it was these far superior (at least for me) ergonomics and UI that incentivized my migration from the XT5 to the XH2.

Sep 04, 2024 at 11:18 AM

SGinNorcal
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: On

p.3 #14 · p.3 #14 · Fuji Zooms

I thoroughly enjoy my X and Gfx cameras, for the reasons we have all beaten to death.
I have what is to me, an interesting experiment happening. I'm lucky enough to live in a very beautiful area where awesome views occur on a daily basis. My wife and I agreed that a particular valley/hills/ridgeline view a short distance from our home would make a great pano printed on canvas in our guest room. So I've been shooting multi-shots pans of the scene on different days with different focal lengths and cameras. I walk my dogs often during blue hour and have taken a bunch of different pans. Because I'm shooting anywhere from 3 to 7 frames to capture the full pan, X or Gfx still give me the resolution needed for a 4' wide print at 300 dpi. So far, my favorite was captured with the little Fujicron 50f2. I'm having trouble accepting that result and keep trying with the Gfx100S. I'm not suggesting that the XT5/50f2 combo is somehow better than the Gfx100S/GF32-64f4 combo. My point is that the particular day and natural light has made a larger difference than the optical goodness of the Gfx. I know this is not a revelation to most, but its still kinda cool to prove it to yourself.

Edited on Sep 04, 2024 at 01:16 PM · View previous versions

Sep 04, 2024 at 01:01 PM

gear-nut
Online
• • • •
Upload & Sell: On

p.3 #15 · p.3 #15 · Fuji Zooms

SGinNorcal wrote:
I thoroughly enjoy my X and Gfx cameras, for the reasons we have all beaten to death.
I have what is to me, an interesting experiment happening. I'm lucky enough to live in a very beautiful area where awesome views occur on a daily basis. My wife and I agreed that a particular valley/hills/ridgeline view a short distance from our home would make a great pano printed on canvas in our guest room. So I've been shooting multi-shots pans of the scene on different days with different focal lengths and cameras. I walk my dogs often during blue hour and have...Show more →

Wait, what? You mean you actually made a good image with such a sub-par lens? Inconceivable! (

)

Excellent post -- it underscores that "being there" with "good-enough equipment" is all that's needed to make "great art"

I'm reminded of the old sage, "It's the poor craftsman that blames their tools for subpar work."

Sep 04, 2024 at 01:14 PM

mdude85
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.3 #16 · p.3 #16 · Fuji Zooms

gdanmitchell wrote:
My feeling about the 16-55 f/2.8 size is that feels like a pretty big lens for an APS-C system. I have the lens and like it, but I more often use primes for my purposes.

That said, even though it feels large on the smaller APS-C system, it isn’t quite as large as the arguably comparable EF 24-70mm f/2.8L I use on Canon.

That's a full-frame lens, so it's not really an apples-to-apples comparison.

Sony is really the only other brand right now investing in professional grade APS-C lenses.

Their 16-55 f2.8 G lens is a bit smaller and 25% lighter than the Fuji 16-55. I think Fuji needs to update the optical formula and shave off some size and weight from the lens.

Especially now that Sigma has the 18-50 f2.8 lens which is teeny tiny in comparison.

Sep 04, 2024 at 02:35 PM

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

p.3 #17 · p.3 #17 · Fuji Zooms

mdude85 wrote:
That's a full-frame lens, so it's not really an apples-to-apples comparison.

Of course. That is why I wrote “arguably comparable.”

Though I think it is pretty obvious that the 16-55mm f/2.8 is targeted at a buyer who might use a 24-70mm f/2.8 on full frame.

Sony is really the only other brand right now investing in professional grade APS-C lenses.

Their 16-55 f2.8 G lens is a bit smaller and 25% lighter than the Fuji 16-55. I think Fuji needs to update the optical formula and shave off some size and weight from the lens.

Especially now that Sigma has the 18-50 f2.8 lens which is teeny tiny in comparison.

I am always happy when a comparable lens is smaller and lighter. I have no special fondness for gear that is larger than necessary.

Sep 04, 2024 at 03:33 PM

mdude85
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.3 #18 · p.3 #18 · Fuji Zooms

gdanmitchell wrote:
Of course. That is why I wrote “arguably comparable.”

Though I think it is pretty obvious that the 16-55mm f/2.8 is targeted at a buyer who might use a 24-70mm f/2.8 on full frame.

Arguably yes, arguably no. Fuji doesn't advertise that the lens is comparable to any FF lens.

I personally would compare it more to a FF 24-70 f4, because it's going to deliver the same image as that lens.

Sep 04, 2024 at 04:01 PM

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

p.3 #19 · p.3 #19 · Fuji Zooms

mdude85 wrote:
Arguably yes, arguably no. Fuji doesn't advertise that the lens is comparable to any FF lens.

I personally would compare it more to a FF 24-70 f4, because it's going to deliver the same image as that lens.

Heh. Somehow I KNEW you were going to go there. ;-)

If you read carefully, I wrote in such a way that I avoided getting into the whole “f/4 on crop is like f/2.8 on FF” thing. When I bought mine it was because I wanted something like my Canon 24-70mm f/2.8L on the smaller system.

Edited on Sep 04, 2024 at 06:01 PM · View previous versions

Sep 04, 2024 at 05:31 PM

RWNPhoto
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: On

p.3 #20 · p.3 #20 · Fuji Zooms

gdanmitchell wrote:
If you read carefully, I wrote in such a way that I avoided getting into the whole “f/4 on crop is like f/2.8 on FF” thing.

Or that f/2.8 on crop is like f/4 on FF....

Sep 04, 2024 at 05:56 PM

1 2 3 4 end
FM Forums \| Fuji Forum \| Join Upload & Sell 1 2 3 4 end

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