Some other reason. Wide availability or not the very latest and greatest. You could add the 16-80, 55-200, 18-55 zooms to your list. They are not the best lenses in class so have taken a huge hit on resale. However, after splitting hairs, they are all pretty good performers. What I find odd is that old bodies seem to retain their value well but old lenses crater, kind of the opposite of what it should be (according to me, ymmv). Budget shoppers have some excellent opportunities with older X system lenses.
darwinphoto wrote:
Scanning the classifieds I notice the older Fuji lenses seem to be a real bargain. Great lenses at obscenely low prices. Things like:
I assume it is because these lenses are not as sharp in the corners when folks zoom into a 40 MP image. Or is there some other reason?
Some of it is that for sure, but I think more generally it's as simple as most folks believe the later versions are somehow significantly superior, an opinion generated based on typical feedback from online reviewers. While most of the newer replacement lenses are superior optically to some degree to the older designs, the lenses in that list are still quite capable of delivering excellent images. I find in many cases certain optical warts are an advantage; and "a more perfect optic" does not necessarily equal a "better image." A good example is the Fuji 33/1.4 compared to the 35/1.4. By most any test standard, the 33 is a near perfect optic. But where the 35 shows it's warts tends to produce a very classic look, a bit of edge resolution falloff and vignette wide open both combine to render a smoother, slightly dreamy region surrounding the outer edges. Defects like resolution falloff, vignetting and lower grade veiling flare can all add some classic magic to an otherwise "sterile" image. OTOH, if you want the absolute best optics all around, the latest designs tend to provide that over their replacements. No right or wrong answers, just a diversity of artistic choices...
In some cases the reason for the older lens being 'unloved' is fairly obvious, the 56 badly needed better AF so you could do sports with it, the new 23 is sharper at all wide apertures. The 33 is too but the old 35 is quite different and surely should still appeal to portraitists.
Hard to understand why the 50 and 14mm should be unloved, both are amongst the best of their type in any system and no real Fuji alternative is available.
I use or have used all of those except the 56mm, and all are excellent and very sharp. Yes, I shoot a 40MP system.
If the price is right, any of them would be worth having. They don’t really have “warts.”
darwinphoto wrote:
Scanning the classifieds I notice the older Fuji lenses seem to be a real bargain. Great lenses at obscenely low prices. Things like:
The XF 14mm f2.8 is an outstanding lens. The only problem with it is that the AF motor is quite noisy, so vloggers don't like it (which seems to be the kiss of death for any photo product these days...)
The 50 is an odd duck focal at net 75 ff equivalent, long normal/short tele. Personally I like that range, especially for night street. I also get there with my 16-55 at just 1 stop slower where the 56 gives 2-˝ extra stops over the zoom. My guess is that’s its Achilles heel and if it were even an f1.8 lens it might retain more popularity. Regardless it’s a nice, usable focal for street photography. I’ve been tempted on the 50/1.0, but it’s a massive beast and not very street friendly. In my case I settled for the lighter, smaller and very affordable Viltrox 56/1.7 air.
The 14 is a puzzle. My guess is first its relatively larger size combined with its relatively slower aperture, the reasons I sold mine. If it were an f2 or a more compact f2.8, I suspect more of us would keep it. Also, speaking for myself, when I want wider than ff 24, I usually end up wanting something more like a 15 or 18 net focal and I get all those with the 10-24 at minimally larger size, albeit at f4 max.
You know, it's wild how often I see the XF16mm f1.4 lens going for $400-$500 CAD here in Canada on Kijiji and FB Marketplace. That's just an insane deal for that lens! Whenever I'm doing local buys, sells, or trades, I always test the sharpness myself using a setup similar to Christopher Frost's with my X-T5.
And here's the thing, most of those older lenses (with the exception of the 35mm f/1.4 and some 35mm f/2s) are super sharp, including that 16mm f/1.4! They're so close to the newer ones in sharpness it's barely noticeable. And I would personally classify the 16mm f1.4, the 80mm f2.8 macro and the 90mm f2 in the same league as the newer f1.4 lenses.
Where some of the older lenses tend to lag is in autofocus and showing more differences in color, contrast, and aberrations. My guess is Fuji's just gotten better at making those ED elements or coatings over time.
The three lens I use for travel and street are almost always the 14mm f/2.8, 27mm f/2.8, and 50mm f/2.
I have had the 35mm f 1.4 since I started using Fujifilm a dozen years ago. It still stands up to any of the newer lenses.
I have had the 23mm f/1.4 since it was released. I use it a lot for night street photography. I only owned the 35mm f/2 for about a month, and it more or less equals the 35mm F/1.4 for optical performance. (It was a toss up but in the end the larger aperture won out.)
Among these are several lenses I love and which have gotten me some very good photographs.
I think some people get bored with photography and buying new stuff is sort of their drug, and perhaps that is why you see these lenses for sale. If one of rhem aligns with your needs, take advantage of this!
I'll come back to my original comment related to 40 MP and the "evils" of viewing images at 100%.
Yes, new lenses are sharper, but once you've rendered a full image for display to be viewed from a normal distance, the additional sharpness is not seen. It is clearly there at 100% on your screen but it is completely lost in your final image. Unless you crop heavily, of course. Or you expect people to view your work at closer than normal distances.
So the old lenses, while less sharp (in the lab) are actually just as sharp in real application. But people make their decisions at 100% (in the lab) so they sell the old "soft" lens, spend $$ on the new sharper one and their images remain just as they were.
But they feel better about because ... it is sharper.
The end result is a lens that has been and continues to be fabulous at producing final images can be had at a bargain price.
I have owned all those lenses on your list. The 14mm was one of the first two lenses I got with my Fuji system back in 2013. It's an insanely good lens, and the only Fuji lens I've sold that I regretted selling.
I still use the 35/1.4, which was the other lens I got in 2013. Yes, the 33mm is a little sharper and a lot less prone to lens flare, but the 35 just has that little something in the rendering. It's gentle. Photos made with that lens are obvious in a grid view in Ligthtroom, they stand out compared to the other photos.
darwinphoto wrote:
I'll come back to my original comment related to 40 MP and the "evils" of viewing images at 100%.
Yes, new lenses are sharper, but once you've rendered a full image for display to be viewed from a normal distance, the additional sharpness is not seen. It is clearly there at 100% on your screen but it is completely lost in your final image. Unless you crop heavily, of course. Or you expect people to view your work at closer than normal distances.
So the old lenses, while less sharp (in the lab) are actually just as sharp in real application. But people make their decisions at 100% (in the lab) so they sell the old "soft" lens, spend $$ on the new sharper one and their images remain just as they were.
But they feel better about because ... it is sharper.
The end result is a lens that has been and continues to be fabulous at producing final images can be had at a bargain price....Show more →
You should be able to tell the difference between a good lens and a poorer one on a print at normal viewing distances, even in printed reviews in magazines in the 'old days' you could, how else would you tell. I can remember doing brick walls on FP4 and printing them 15x12 to see the difference between my 50mm 2.8 Elmar at 2.8 and a Summicron before spending the money on it.
You can even see the difference viewing a full image on an HD monitor if the difference is big enough, such as between my 50mm f/2 and 18-55 zoom Fujiis
The old 23 1.4 was pretty soft in the corners at larger apertures, which is why I bought the f/2 version, which tests consistently show better at f/2 and 2.8, which I do use. The new 23 is much better in tests.
darwinphoto wrote:
I'll come back to my original comment related to 40 MP and the "evils" of viewing images at 100%.
Yes, new lenses are sharper, but once you've rendered a full image for display to be viewed from a normal distance, the additional sharpness is not seen. It is clearly there at 100% on your screen but it is completely lost in your final image. Unless you crop heavily, of course. Or you expect people to view your work at closer than normal distances.
So the old lenses, while less sharp (in the lab) are actually just as sharp in real application. But people make their decisions at 100% (in the lab) so they sell the old "soft" lens, spend $$ on the new sharper one and their images remain just as they were.
But they feel better about because ... it is sharper.
The end result is a lens that has been and continues to be fabulous at producing final images can be had at a bargain price....Show more →
There’s also a whole lot of confirmation bias at work in too many cases when people look at lenses, especially when comparing old and now and/or expensive/inexpensive lenses.
Frankly, the presumption when people “compare” an older than and something newer and more expensive (and bigger!) is that hte new, expensive, big thing simply MUST be better… even if it isn’t or the differnce is so small as to be invisible in all but test bench situations.
People who are open to looking at these things objectively. (rather than going with the presumption that bigger/newer/more expensive things will always be “better”) often find that a) often the differences are somewhere between small and invisible, b. not all differences reduce to a better/worse than assessment, c. stuff doesn’t need to be upgraded nearly as often as some assume.
Thinking a little more about this, some random musings... The entire Fuji X line of bodies and lenses represents a pretty significant bargain relative to other mirrorless options. The 26 and 40 MP sensor cameras with IBIS are stellar buys as well as are the aforementioned lenses and many others, especially when compared to contemporary ff cameras and lenses. Likewise, there are now several excellent 3rd party AF offerings that are relative bargains even at brand new pricing. Combining my thoughts here with the XT5/XH2 used body thread, I realize that it may simply be the stigma of APS-c cameras not being perceived as "professional," and in many ways that's probably true.
But for me, the only real limitation I've noticed within the aFuji X platform is the lack of full-frame's obvious fast glass shallow DoF rendering capability. I've owned most of the fastest lenses made from Canon, Leica and Nikon when I owned each system, and yes the effect is unique. However in virtually every case with a couple notable Nikon options, the shallow DoF effect comes at significant cost in dollars, size and weight; and more importantly for me was the discovery that not every client likes the look... In my case most of those huge fast lenses remained in the cabinet until I knew I was going to use them, and as a result, they didn't get used all that much.
Long way around to make the point that APS-c offers the distinct advantages of size and weight, and clearly in Fuji X's case, cost.
Final comment: I've never had anybody claim they could see a difference between my ff and APS-c images, nor have any noticed flaws from the "older" Fuji X glass I've used
Dan, confirmation bias works both ways. I/we have heard plenty of claims that the 40mp is too much or unnecessary and no human can see the advantage over 26mp. Same with the newer lens design compared to old. I don't feel that way but there's plenty of great work being done with the older tech so I'm not trying to convince anyone.
Jack, it does feel like the APCS v. FF has come down to a simple choice. Do you want that last bit of shallow DOF/bokeh or lighter lenses/much lighter telephotos? I'm not sure there is any other FF feature that matters much to me. But I'm also having tons of fun shooting Gfx with native, native fast 1.7, and various adapted lenses. To me, I'm living the best of both and loving it. Happy 4th of July to all!
SGinNorcal wrote:
Dan, confirmation bias works both ways. I/we have heard plenty of claims that the 40mp is too much or unnecessary and no human can see the advantage over 26mp. Same with the newer lens design compared to old. I don't feel that way but there's plenty of great work being done with the older tech so I'm not trying to convince anyone.
Jack, it does feel like the APCS v. FF has come down to a simple choice. Do you want that last bit of shallow DOF/bokeh or lighter lenses/much lighter telephotos? I'm not sure there is any other FF feature that matters much to me. But I'm also having tons of fun shooting Gfx with native, native fast 1.7, and various adapted lenses. To me, I'm living the best of both and loving it. Happy 4th of July to all! ...Show more →
Exactly! If I felt the need for really shallow DoF options, I would re-buy into the GFX system and get the 55 and 85 f1.7’s, and the 110/2. And that’s probably all I would need. But I owned all that with some adapted fast ff glass to a GFX100s a couple years back and didn’t use it in that fashion hardly at all. Other than a handful of occasions, I grabbed my Fuji X with the 50-140/2.8 and they more than sufficed. But I used that so rarely I even sold it recently, preferring the 70-300 versatility and size/weight convenience. Same with Nikon and the Plena, just never used it enough to justify. Frankly it takes dedication I no longer have to shoot with the fastest primes wide open, though I have solid respect for those that do. Even the excellent Viltrox 27/1.2 and 13/1.4 and Fuji 56/1.2— they were great lenses, but larger enough by Fuji X standards I knew I wouldn’t bother often enough and sold them, opting for smaller, lighter f1.7 options. Size and weight matter, for me and my uses anyway.
SGinNorcal wrote:
Dan, confirmation bias works both ways. I/we have heard plenty of claims that the 40mp is too much or unnecessary and no human can see the advantage over 26mp. Same with the newer lens design compared to old. I don't feel that way but there's plenty of great work being done with the older tech so I'm not trying to convince anyone.
Confirmation bias works in a particular way — it causes us to look for evidence of things that confirm our existing preferences/biases. It is a tricky thing and very difficult to avoid, and we're all subject to it to some degree.
My point is that we in the aggregate, especially in camera gear forums, do tend to presume that the newer, bigger, more expensive thing is going to provide significant improvements in our photography. It isn't just that there is "a difference" (two things are rarely identical) but that the difference can be clearly sorted into better/worse categories and that the differences will be reflected in observable differences in our photography.
Sometimes these things might be true, but it is really useful to be on guard against confirmation bias. When I got my 40MP APS-C camera and heard that some old lenses (including several that I own) were supposedly not up to snuff for the higher MP sensor I put those lenses on the camera and made some test photos that would give me some ability to test that claim.
I've done it with the 35mm f/1.4 (and in the past with the f/2 35mm lens), the 27mm f/2.8, the 14mm f/2.8, and the 50mm f/2.
They all work great on the 40MP sensor. Anyone who can't get a good sharp image from these lenses on the 40MP sensor needs to look at something other than the lenses for the cause.
