Do people here think the mark 2 will produce shots that feel more "clinical" than the mark 1? From what I've read online that was a complaint that many photographers had with the 33mm f/1.4 vs the 35mm f/1.4, that the older models had more 'character'.
nomadthirty wrote:
Do people here think the mark 2 will produce shots that feel more "clinical" than the mark 1? From what I've read online that was a complaint that many photographers had with the 33mm f/1.4 vs the 35mm f/1.4, that the older models had more 'character'.
It's a valid concern. IMO, clinical usually relates to higher micro-contrast, which in turn can make an image seem less smooth. But of course such a lens can also have flat out better MTF. And probably this one will have a little of both -- and the one lone video review I watched comparing them seems to indicate both, plus a small bump in bokeh. But to be clear, just going from what I saw onscreen anyway, I thought these gains looked relatively small. IMO not enough reason by themselves to upgrade OR avoid the newer lens; better optically with slightly better bokeh, but nothing Earth-shatteringly so.
In my case, I use zooms as all-around lenses and so better usually is for most of my purposes. I reserve primes for my "artistic" exploits and here is where me personally prefers the legacy-look, less clinical glass. But smaller and lighter is always welcome, and this new lens is reported to be about a 30% size and 250gm weight savings. So for me, this is probably the most relevant reason to upgrade, AND will be worth the cost delta *for me*. But I respect other's reasoning may be different.
nomadthirty wrote:
Do people here think the mark 2 will produce shots that feel more "clinical" than the mark 1? From what I've read online that was a complaint that many photographers had with the 33mm f/1.4 vs the 35mm f/1.4, that the older models had more 'character'.
Clinical and character seem to mean different things to different people. To me, if you looked at a scale that had "clinical" at one extreme and "character" at the other, then "neutral" in the center, I would put the newer Fuji primes like the 18&33F1.4 in the Neutral zone. Or even a tick toward character. I don't find them clinical at all and really like the color rendering. I would guess that designing a lens to play nice with 40mp is probably going to yield a less characterful lens. Anyway, if the new version 16-55 can look like the 18 & 33 at their respective FL's, that's a big win IMO.
Thank you for your insights! I was wondering if the way the new lens will produce photos would keep people from upgrading to the mark 2 or even push people to the mark 1, but it seems like the size/weight difference is most likely the larger factor at play.
nomadthirty wrote:
Do people here think the mark 2 will produce shots that feel more "clinical" than the mark 1? From what I've read online that was a complaint that many photographers had with the 33mm f/1.4 vs the 35mm f/1.4, that the older models had more 'character'.
The XF 35mm f1.4 has bokeh with some character - a bit of swirl and looks interesting as opposed to nauseating when tending towards nervousness. This is the type of character often seen in older lens designs. It is my favourite Fuji lens.
I don't think the 16-55 was ever regarded in this way.
Geoff D F wrote:
I don't think the 16-50 was ever regarded in this way.
Assuming you mean the 16-55? Anyway, just to be clear, I personally am very happy with how my 16-55 renders and performs overall even on the 40mp sensor. I expect the new one to be even better. And if it’s along the lines of the 8-16 which I find pretty remarkable, then I’ll be quite happy. Not even mainly as re any improvement in optical performance, but more for the smaller size and reduced weight. I do not see the new lens “improving” my photography in any appreciable way…
Jack Flesher wrote:
Assuming you mean the 16-55? Anyway, just to be clear, I personally am very happy with how my 16-55 renders and performs overall even on the 40mp sensor. I expect the new one to be even better. And if it’s along the lines of the 8-16 which I find pretty remarkable, then I’ll be quite happy. Not even mainly as re any improvement in optical performance, but more for the smaller size and reduced weight. I do not see the new lens “improving” my photography in any appreciable way…
Thanks, yes, I meant the 16-55. I have corrected my post. And to be clear I wasn't saying the 16-55 wasn't a good lens. I'm sure it is great, but I expect it renders like a modern lens given its design. The original Fuji trio are regarded as having some vintage character in the way they render, which some people like. I know I do.
Geoff D F wrote:
Thanks, yes, I meant the 16-55. I have corrected my post. And to be clear I wasn't saying the 16-55 wasn't a good lens. I'm sure it is great, but I expect it renders like a modern lens given its design. The original Fuji trio are regarded as having some vintage character in the way they render, which some people like. I know I do.
Yes 👍. The current version is vanilla-good as a zoom; renders optically well like any other top 2.8 zoom, but nothing special.
jakelindsay wrote:
Wonder if anyone has any real world usage with the 16-50 and can compare as a walk around/travel lens with the 18-55, 16-80, and 16-55 II.
I’ve only owned the current 16-55 and 16-80. I liked the size and range of the 16-80, but it was a notch behind the 16-55 optically; there’s just a bit more oomph from the 16-55 images at any aperture. Given the 16-55 is already reasonable size, I sold the 16-80. My assessment is the “kit” versions 18-55 or 16-50 will be more along the lines of the 16-80 — quite decent optically, but nothing special. I have the new one on order. If it’s as good or better optically, it will replace my existing 16-55 simply due to its smaller size. But I remain somewhat skeptical it will be on the same level optically as the existing version. We shall see.
My 16-50 kit lens is really good, I like it a lot as a travel lens because it's small, light, doesn't extend when zooming, and is bitingly sharp.
The 16-55 II is already available in the UK, and there are a few reviews over on dpreview showing it performing roughly equal to the v1, with some slight improvements in some areas which aren't really all that remarkable. The main impetus for purchase is the smaller size and lighter weight while retaining that same/slightly improved performance of the v1.
I currently have the 16-55 II on pre-order and am thinking it will replace my 16-50 as a "do it all" lens on my X-T5 when I don't want to use my primes, and/or travel with one lens. I just want to see how much heavier/cumbersome in-hand than it is than the 16-50 before I make any decisions on which to keep.
Just received notice my "new" 16-55/2.8 has shipped, should be here by Friday, which also happens to be a Friday the 13th Anyway, we shall soon see if the new one holds its own...
Very interested to hear how you like it. Yesterday, I had my 16-80 on me for a day hike. Looking over the frames just now, 75% of the images fell in the 16-55 range. I was surprised that it wasn't even higher.
SGinNorcal wrote:
Very interested to hear how you like it. Yesterday, I had my 16-80 on me for a day hike. Looking over the frames just now, 75% of the images fell in the 16-55 range. I was surprised that it wasn't even higher.
I get that. I was probably closer to 90% being under 55mm, and frankly the IQ difference is pretty noticeable even with the older version 16-55 WR, and so why I sold the 16-80. And even then the ver i wasn’t really obnoxiously larger. Definitely looking forward though to an even smaller, lighter version, and hoping it’s at least as good (and maybe even better?) optically 👍
Jack Flesher wrote:
I get that. I was probably closer to 90% being under 55mm, and frankly the IQ difference is pretty noticeable even with the older version 16-55 WR, and so why I sold the 16-80. And even then the ver i wasn’t really obnoxiously larger. Definitely looking forward though to an even smaller, lighter version, and hoping it’s at least as good (and maybe even better?) optically 👍
I'm keen to hear about your experience. I never bothered with the old 16-55 because if I wanted something that large I'd probably use a Sony zoom, but the smaller size of the latest version is very tempting.
RoamingScott wrote:
As usual, the aperture false equivalency bites another one.
The Fuji is equivalent to the 24-70/4 in terms of LOOKS/bokeh.
Given that APS-C cameras are about a stop behind in ISO performance than full frame, any light gathering gains of the 2.8 are negated immediately.
The laws of physics don’t change for optics regardless of sensor size.
A zoom with an aperture of 2.8 lets in the same amount of light no matter what the sensor size is receiving that light.
So, the 16-55 2.8 is equivalent to the 24-70 2.8 in terms of light capture.
So, it’s a false equivalency comparing a 2.8 zoom for one format with a zoom with an aperture of 4 for a different sensor size.
It’s not the light gathering but the depth of field that’s different. Understanding that getting a similar depth of field changes with the size of the sensor.
So a comparison of zooms across formats with the same aperture is fair game.
I have the original 16-55 2.8 and it’s super sharp. It balances well with my X-H2S.
If I had a smaller camera, I would think about going with the Mark II. But the trade in and replacement cost with the new one still won’t move me to upgrade.
Lifeinpictures wrote:
The laws of physics don’t change for optics regardless of sensor size.
A zoom with an aperture of 2.8 lets in the same amount of light no matter what the sensor size is receiving that light.
So, the 16-55 2.8 is equivalent to the 24-70 2.8 in terms of light capture.
So, it’s a false equivalency comparing a 2.8 zoom for one format with a zoom with an aperture of 4 for a different sensor size.
It’s not the light gathering but the depth of field that’s different. Understanding that getting a similar depth of field changes with the size of the sensor.
So a comparison of zooms across formats with the same aperture is fair game.
I have the original 16-55 2.8 and it’s super sharp. It balances well with my X-H2S.
If I had a smaller camera, I would think about going with the Mark II. But the trade in and replacement cost with the new one still won’t move me to upgrade. ...Show more →
You know, I think I make it clear as crystal, but apparently not. This is why I typically avoid talking about "equivalency" because no one reads.
Lifeinpictures wrote:
The laws of physics don’t change for optics regardless of sensor size.
A zoom with an aperture of 2.8 lets in the same amount of light no matter what the sensor size is receiving that light.
So, the 16-55 2.8 is equivalent to the 24-70 2.8 in terms of light capture.
So, it’s a false equivalency comparing a 2.8 zoom for one format with a zoom with an aperture of 4 for a different sensor size.
It’s not the light gathering but the depth of field that’s different. Understanding that getting a similar depth of field changes with the size of the sensor.
So a comparison of zooms across formats with the same aperture is fair game.
I have the original 16-55 2.8 and it’s super sharp. It balances well with my X-H2S.
If I had a smaller camera, I would think about going with the Mark II. But the trade in and replacement cost with the new one still won’t move me to upgrade. ...Show more →
Hmm. So the 2.8 lens on my cell phone lets in the same total amount of light as the 2.8 lens on my GFX lens? You invoked the laws of physics, so please let me know how the same amount of light passes through the two.
jakelindsay wrote:
Hmm. So the 2.8 lens on my cell phone lets in the same total amount of light as the 2.8 lens on my GFX lens? You invoked the laws of physics, so please let me know how the same amount of light passes through the two.
Technically the larger the diameter of the lens elements the more light will be gathered by that element. That is why bigger is better when it comes to telescopes. However, the intensity of the light for the receiving element - sensor, film or eyeball will be determined by the aperture alone. An f2.8 lens on M4/3, at 100 ISO will require the same exposure as an f2.8 lens on APS-C at 100 ISO and same for full frame. The smaller M4/3 lens only has to illuminate a smaller sensor. The teeny lens on your phone is illuminating a teeny sensor. Get it?
Geoff D F wrote:
Technically the larger the diameter of the lens elements the more light will be gathered by that element. That is why bigger is better when it comes to telescopes. However, the intensity of the light for the receiving element - sensor, film or eyeball will be determined by the aperture alone. An f2.8 lens on M4/3, at 100 ISO will require the same exposure as an f2.8 lens on APS-C at 100 ISO and same for full frame. The smaller M4/3 lens only has to illuminate a smaller sensor. The teeny lens on your phone is illuminating a teeny sensor. Get it? ...Show more →
I very much get it. The same amount of light relative to the sensor size. Which, incidentally, is not the same amount of total light.
I guess it's semantics maybe But total light is not intensity and the claim was that the same amount of light (again, not intensity) is absorbed. The same intensity yes allows for same exposure values, but given that the total light values differ we see differing levels of noise.
Anyway, we shall soon see if the new one holds its own...
But total light is not intensity and the claim was that the same amount of light (again, not intensity) is absorbed. The same intensity yes allows for same exposure values, but given that the total light values differ we see differing levels of noise.