I always thought it was a great lens, and very annoying to handle/carry. This most recent time I went Fuji, I got the Sigma 10-18 for most things and the 8mm 3.5 for the rest. Combined, they probably weigh half or less than the 8-16.
SGinNorcal wrote:
I was having a brief irrational thought of adding this lens to the pool. But its too heavy for my backpacking X system kit and I have the Gfx w/ 20-35 for when weight is not an issue. But I would certainly add it if I were to bail on the Gfx.
My guess is that Fuji will update this lens making it smaller with hopefully screw on filter threads…the lens is 1.8lbs, heavier than GFX 20-35 and Nikon’s 14-24 z 2.8, Fuji can do much better same as they did with the 16-55 ii.
Rod.smith7 wrote:
My guess is that Fuji will update this lens making it smaller with hopefully screw on filter threads…the lens is 1.8lbs, heavier than GFX 20-35 and Nikon’s 14-24 z 2.8, Fuji can do much better same as they did with the 16-55 ii.
I doubt that's possible, at least in a meaningful way, while maintaining IQ AND aperture at the same time. If they make it an f3.5 or f4 lens, probably. And then they could also possibly kick it up to an 8-20, and this IMO would be a HUGE success. But it would likely kill off 8-16 and 10-24 sales almost instantly...
Jack Flesher wrote:
I doubt that's possible, at least in a meaningful way, while maintaining IQ AND aperture at the same time. If they make it an f3.5 or f4 lens, probably. And then they could also possibly kick it up to an 8-20, and this IMO would be a HUGE success. But it would likely kill off 8-16 and 10-24 sales almost instantly...
They can definitely make this lens smaller and lighter, thinking of the Nikon’s 14-24 Z which is only 1.4lbs…the 8-16 range (12-24 FF equiv) will make it difficult to add a filter thread, but they can certainly find a creative solution like Nikon or perhaps alter the range, which as you point out is probably not ideal given overlap with 10-24. The main point is that this was their first go and they can (likely will) do much better on a mark ii version.
Rod.smith7 wrote:
They can definitely make this lens smaller and lighter, thinking of the Nikon’s 14-24 Z which is only 1.4lbs…the 8-16 range (12-24 FF equiv) will make it difficult to add a filter thread, but they can certainly find a creative solution like Nikon or perhaps alter the range, which as you point out is probably not ideal given overlap with 10-24. The main point is that this was their first go and they can (likely will) do much better on a mark ii version.
The Nikon 14-24 is first not a 12-24, and second is already larger than the 8-16 by a bit, albeit the Fuji lens weighs more; and probably due the added element requirements to make that 8-10mm range as optically excellent as it is. As soon as you add 2mm of focal AT THE WIDE END, the Nikon lens will get both longer and wider AND more expensive in order to maintain the f2.8 aperture at now a 12mm focal. To support that statement, we have the more relevant comparison Fx lens in the Sony 12-24/2.8. Comparing IT to the Fuji, it's 10mm wider, 15mm longer 42gms heavier, AND costs nearly 3x the Fuji 8-16... My point here, is IF it could be done smaller and lighter (and at reasonable cost), it would be...
But for sure if aperture was reduced for either platform, then a smaller, lighter and possibly a few mm longer designs become very likely possible. But IMHO not so probable from Fuji as they have the 10-24. But perhaps a quality 3rd party vendor will see the demand -- can we hope? And like I indicated above, if there is an 8-20 f4 X-mount lens that accepts front filters at a reduced size with excellent IQ, I am all over it and will be an immediate tester and possible adopter.
For whatever it's worth at this point, I for one find the Fuji 8-16 first an outstanding lens optically and second a relative bargain; and hence accept its current size given what it offers. Plus I am fortunate to also have the 10-24 when I want smaller. Moreover--and this is relevant for me-- I have about the same total dollar amount invested in BOTH those lenses as I had in my Nikon Z 14-30(!), so for me it doesn't seem much of an extravagance to own both. Respect others views will vary.
Jack Flesher wrote:
The Nikon 14-24 is first not a 12-24, and second is already larger than the 8-16 by a bit, albeit the Fuji lens weighs more; and probably due the added element requirements to make that 8-10mm range as optically excellent as it is. As soon as you add 2mm of focal AT THE WIDE END, the Nikon lens will get both longer and wider AND more expensive in order to maintain the f2.8 aperture at now a 12mm focal. To support that statement, we have the more relevant comparison Fx lens in the Sony 12-24/2.8. Comparing IT to the Fuji, it's 10mm wider, 15mm longer 42gms heavier, AND costs nearly 3x the Fuji 8-16... My point here, is IF it could be done smaller and lighter (and at reasonable cost), it would be.
But for sure if aperture was reduced for either platform, then a smaller, lighter and possibly a few mm longer designs become very likely possible. But IMHO not so probable from Fuji as they have the 10-24. But perhaps a quality 3rd party vendor will see the demand -- can we hope? And like I indicated above, if there is an 8-20 f4 X-mount lens that accepts front filters at a reduced size with excellent IQ, I am all over it and will be an immediate tester and possible adopter.
For whatever it's worth at this point, I for one find the Fuji 8-16 first an outstanding lens optically and second a relative bargain; and hence accept its current size given what it offers. Plus I am fortunate to also have the 10-24 when I want smaller. Moreover--and this is relevant for me-- I have about the same total dollar amount invested in BOTH those lenses as I had in my Nikon Z 14-30(!), so for me it doesn't seem much of an extravagance to own both. Respect others views will vary.
Yes, fair points and totally understand the extra 2mm on the wide end makes a difference. However, lens design continues to evolve and are seeing iteration of lenses becoming materially smaller while maintaining optical qualities, smaller being size and / or weight, i.e., the new 16-55 2.8 ii is ~30% lighter, sony 24-70 2.8 ii is 20% lighter, and so on. This might not be a priority for Fuji right now, but hopefully at some point it will be.
Rod.smith7 wrote:
Yes, fair points and totally understand the extra 2mm on the wide end makes a difference. However, lens design continues to evolve and are seeing iteration of lenses becoming materially smaller while maintaining optical qualities, smaller being size and / or weight, i.e., the new 16-55 2.8 ii is ~30% lighter, sony 24-70 2.8 ii is 20% lighter, and so on. This might not be a priority for Fuji right now, but hopefully at some point it will be.
I agree with you in principle, especially as it relates to older lens designs. The issue of reducing size of the 8-16 is it’s already a newer design. So yes probably, but only if you’re willing to wait 5 or 6 years to get one.
