This lens is a great reminder that APS-C, especially Fuji zooms, aren't really saving you size and weight compared to full frame alternatives. Nikon's full frame version of this zoom weighs 500g and will get you images that significantly outresolve the Fuji sensors.
RoamingScott wrote:
This lens is a great reminder that APS-C, especially Fuji zooms, aren't really saving you size and weight compared to full frame alternatives. Nikon's full frame version of this zoom weighs 500g and will get you images that significantly outresolve the Fuji sensors.
Uh, no. The Nikon Z 24-70/2.8 weighs over 800 grams.
DOF yes, light gathering capacity, no. So nothing/nobody bit here, and again there is a significant difference in size and weight between the two systems.
And next, the Nikon 24-70/4 kit lens is good, but nothing special; the current 16-55/2.8 Fuji is very good by comparison. Granted, the Nikon 24-70/2.8 is essentially as good as the primes it replaces, but again it is large and weighs over 800gms.
I saw that FujiRumors post and it caught my attention.
I own the 16-55mm f/2.8. Most of the time I shoot with smaller primes, but I have this zoom (and a couple of others) to expand the range of what I can do with my XT5.
I like the current 16-55 quite a bit. It is a solid, functional lens that more or less does on the Fujifilm system what I do with my 24-70mm f/2.8L on my Canon FF system. While it is smaller and lighter than the Canon FF alternative, the Fujifilm is not a small, light lens.
Recently manufacturers have been making headway in reducing the size and weight of such zooms, or at least in producing alternative versions of their lenses that do this. The idea of making the 16-55 significantly lighter and smaller is appealing, but there are some important “ifs” to consider:
1. Will optical performance be at least as good as the current lens?
2. Will the differences in weight/size be as significant as the rumor suggests?
3. What will the cost be?
4. To what extent will Fujifilm rely on software lens optimization to obtain final quality?
It is rare for me to buy a v.2 version of a lens I already own. In most cases the improvements are much smaller than the initial marketing copy suggests, and the old lens works great. But in this case, I would give it a look.
- - -
About that aperture equivalency thing. Sigh.
Yes, we all know that you get less narrow DOF at the same aperture when you use a APS-C lens than a FF lens. If you are really all about super narrow DOF, you won’t get it from a zoom on any platform —get primes. But in terms of how we use such lenses, most of us getting a lens like the 16-55mm f/2.8 are doing so because it provides us a lens that we’ll use where we would otherwise use a 24-70mm f/2.8 on our FF systems. I use both, and essentially never put the Fujifilm lens on my camera and exclaiming, “Oh, darn! My f/2.8 is sort of like f/4 on my FF system!” ;-)
(When I do think of this difference, it is more likely in the context of usable smaller apertures. On FF I’m generally comfortable with f/16 if I need more DOF, avoiding by occasionally using f/22. On APS-C I usually avoid stopping down more than f/11, only occasionally going to f/16 if I’m willing to gain a bit more DOF by sacrificing a bit to diffraction blur.)
Hope it's not just a lighter sleeker body with the same optics like they've done before.
I was happy with mine when I owned one, sharp and well built. So I'm not saying it was bad in terms of iq. I just think that a lens like this is one where fuji needs to go all out and make it capable of really making all those 40mp sensors they're using in all their higher tier cameras shine.
I think if they do it'll help their uphill battle in winning over more customers who are comparing against full frame cameras (Canon, Sony, nikon etc), or at minimum hold on to the ones they have
gdanmitchell wrote:
I saw that FujiRumors post and it caught my attention.
I own the 16-55mm f/2.8. Most of the time I shoot with smaller primes, but I have this zoom (and a couple of others) to expand the range of what I can do with my XT5.
I like the current 16-55 quite a bit. It is a solid, functional lens that more or less does on the Fujifilm system what I do with my 24-70mm f/2.8L on my Canon FF system. While it is smaller and lighter than the Canon FF alternative, the Fujifilm is not a small, light lens.
Recently manufacturers have been making headway in reducing the size and weight of such zooms, or at least in producing alternative versions of their lenses that do this. The idea of making the 16-55 significantly lighter and smaller is appealing, but there are some important “ifs” to consider:
1. Will optical performance be at least as good as the current lens?
2. Will the differences in weight/size be as significant as the rumor suggests?
3. What will the cost be?
4. To what extent will Fujifilm rely on software lens optimization to obtain final quality?
It is rare for me to buy a v.2 version of a lens I already own. In most cases the improvements are much smaller than the initial marketing copy suggests, and the old lens works great. But in this case, I would give it a look.
- - -
About that aperture equivalency thing. Sigh.
Yes, we all know that you get less narrow DOF at the same aperture when you use a APS-C lens than a FF lens. If you are really all about super narrow DOF, you won’t get it from a zoom on any platform —get primes. But in terms of how we use such lenses, most of us getting a lens like the 16-55mm f/2.8 are doing so because it provides us a lens that we’ll use where we would otherwise use a 24-70mm f/2.8 on our FF systems. I use both, and essentially never put the Fujifilm lens on my camera and exclaiming, “Oh, darn! My f/2.8 is sort of like f/4 on my FF system!” ;-)
(When I do think of this difference, it is more likely in the context of usable smaller apertures. On FF I’m generally comfortable with f/16 if I need more DOF, avoiding by occasionally using f/22. On APS-C I usually avoid stopping down more than f/11, only occasionally going to f/16 if I’m willing to gain a bit more DOF by sacrificing a bit to diffraction blur.)...Show more →
I’m beginning to suspect the guy who continually slams Fuji’s APSc cams and lenses as essentially “grossly inferior” to Nikon or Sony Fx options, has never actually used a Fuji 40mp APSc cam, meaning one that takes interchangeable Fuji X lenses… I doubt it because most of what he claims isn’t factual, at least from my use and experience. If he’s drawing his conclusions based solely on a honeymoon with the fixed lens X100vi, that perhaps would explain some of his bias…
I'm really excited about this upcoming lens if it's smaller and yet retains the image quality of the current offering. I've always appreciated the versatility of the XF 16-55mm f/2.8 but I do think that one of the advantages that Fujifilm should lean into is the option to produce substantially smaller lenses than the FF competitors.
gear-nut wrote:
DOF yes, light gathering capacity, no. So nothing/nobody bit here, and again there is a significant difference in size and weight between the two systems.
And next, the Nikon 24-70/4 kit lens is good, but nothing special; the current 16-55/2.8 Fuji is very good by comparison. Granted, the Nikon 24-70/2.8 is essentially as good as the primes it replaces, but again it is large and weighs over 800gms.
No I think a FF F2.8 also gathers more total light than an APSC F2.8. Not relative to the sensor size (those would be equivalent) so the exposure values would be similar but definitely more total light. Bigger lens = Bigger bucket, right?
jakelindsay wrote:
No I think a FF F2.8 also gathers more total light than an APSC F2.8. Not relative to the sensor size (those would be equivalent) so the exposure values would be similar but definitely more total light. Bigger lens = Bigger bucket, right?
gear-nut wrote:
No, f2.8 is f2.8 regardless of format or lens IC.
Yes we agree. I was just saying that F2.8 Full Frame gathers more total light than F2.8 APSC. Maybe I misunderstood your post saying that there was no difference in light gathering. Either way we're getting side tracked. Looking forward to the lens.
jakelindsay wrote:
No I think a FF F2.8 also gathers more total light than an APSC F2.8. Not relative to the sensor size (those would be equivalent) so the exposure values would be similar but definitely more total light. Bigger lens = Bigger bucket, right?
Your intuition is correct but the explanation isn’t quite right. The light gathering power of the camera is a function of aperture size and pixel size. Any increase in each increases the throughput of the system—it’s etendue—as a multiplicative factor.
RoamingScott wrote:
This lens is a great reminder that APS-C, especially Fuji zooms, aren't really saving you size and weight compared to full frame alternatives. Nikon's full frame version of this zoom weighs 500g and will get you images that significantly outresolve the Fuji sensors.
It a pretty tired argument you make, Scott. Even if we give you the 16-55 is as heavy as FF, the option for travel F2 lenses and telephotos in the X system are way lighter than FF. And most people select a system for more than one data point. But shoot whatever you want which is obviously not this one. The X system is great for those that seek the flexibility it provides. You seem to acknowledge personal preference at times yet other times, suggest we should all be pixel peeping pursuers of ultimate sharpness. Whatever floats your boat, maybe someday you will respect others that don't think the same.
RoamingScott wrote:
This lens is a great reminder that APS-C, especially Fuji zooms, aren't really saving you size and weight compared to full frame alternatives. Nikon's full frame version of this zoom weighs 500g and will get you images that significantly outresolve the Fuji sensors.
If you want to cherry-pick then how about Sigma 18-50mm f2.8 which is only 285g.
Btw I own both a Fuji system as well as a full frame Sony system and more often than not I pick the Fuji over the Sony due to its compactness.
jakelindsay wrote:
No I think a FF F2.8 also gathers more total light than an APSC F2.8. Not relative to the sensor size (those would be equivalent) so the exposure values would be similar but definitely more total light. Bigger lens = Bigger bucket, right?
This notion has, unfortunately been bloated into meaning something that it does not really mean.
Yes, more photons fall on a larger area than a small one when all else is equal. But you still shoot f/11 at the same shutter speed whether your sensor is small or large.
To illustrate the trickiness of these comparison, consider rainfall. Let’s say that it rains 1” in an hour. If you look at a 10’ x 10’ area, the rate of rainfall is no different than if you look at a 100’ x 100’ area — it is 1” per hour either way.
Likewise, there’s no more light on a given area of your sensor (let’s say 1mm x 1mm) if the sensor is larger.
Technically, once you get into things like the dimensions of individual photo sites you see that this can affect noise and dynamic range potentially. But that’s not a “more light” issue — it is a “sensor bucket size” issue.
Consequently, as I mentioned earlier, folks getting something like the 16-55mm f/2.8 lens are, by and large, treating it the same way they would treat a lens with a comparable angle of view range on full frame — which is (very) roughly a 24-70mm f/2.8 lens. They will use them in more or less the same circumstances and for similar kinds of photographs. If they’d choose f/2.8 on one in a given situation, they almost certainly would choose f/2.8 with the other in the same situation.
(There is one exception. Because the effect of diffraction blur becomes apparent almost one stop sooner as you stop down on APS-C by comparison to FF, they might be moe likely to avoid the smallest apertures on the smaller sensor system.)
At about this point you typically see some forum creature enter the scene and write: “But your f/2.8 APS-C lens is really a f/4 lens!” (I’ve noticed that these are typically people who don’t actually use such APS-C lens, yet are utterly confident of the power of their arguement! ;-) Sigh. )
When I go into the field with my 16-55 f/2.8, my 50-140 f/2.8 (or, heck, just about any APS-C lens), I basically never think Oh, no! I’m really only getting f/4! Horrors!” ;-)
I have in mind doing a little experiment with a pair of systems, FF and APS-C. Let’s see if I can find some time…
