My review: Fuji X-T1 vs the Nikon Df

Started 6 months ago | Discussions thread
photoreddi
Senior MemberPosts: 4,694
Like?
Re: My review: Fuji X-T1 vs the Nikon Df
In reply to slimandy, 6 months ago

slimandy wrote:

photoreddi wrote:

slimandy wrote:

sgoldswo wrote:

stuartgolden wrote:

Full frame this, SLR that. For me what it comes down to is what would you want to lug around all day around your neck.

For me - the left wins!

Odd choice in lenses don't you think? Try putting the 10-23 on the front of the X-T1 or the 16-85 on the front of the Df. Or even better the 35 on the X-T1 and the 50 F1.8G on the Df.

I would have thought the most logical comparison was the Fuji 18~55 vs the Nikon 24~70, and he'd still have made his point. Small primes even it out to an extent, but are you only going to use small primes? Are you going to carry just one lens all the time?

I'll somewhat disagree here. The 16-50mm is Fuji's most inexpensive kit lens. I agree that the 18-55mm would be the better mate for the X-T1, but the 24-70mm is a large, expensive, unstabilized f/2.8 lens often used by pros, not really comparable to the two standard Fuji kit lenses. Nikon's 28-85mm VR lens is a relatively inexpensive, smaller full frame kit lens that's stabilized and like the Fuji lenses is quite good optically even for a D800 but even better when it's used with the 16mp Df.

If you mean the old 28~85 it isn't a great lens by modern standards and is not stabalised. If you mean the 24~85 VR it is 460g and 72mm filter vs the Fuji 18~55 at 309g and 58mm filter.

Sorry about the typo, "28-85mm VR" should have been "24-85mm VR" but it should have been clear from the context. The 24-85mm VR lens is stabilized (as indicated by the "VR"), it's a much better lens than the old 28-85mm, good enough that it has been used as the kit lens for the D600/D610. This is from Thom Hogan's review :

I was prepared to be disappointed with this lens. Instead, I've decided to keep in my bag and use it regularly. Remember, I don't say that about the 28-70mm or 35-70mm AF-S lenses. (Why? Because both are large lenses with very small focal length ranges--you don't get a lot of flexibility with them, so I don't find using them much more convenient than having a 35mm, 60mm, and 85mm lens in my bag. And, as good as the modern zooms are, they're no match for the fixed lenses.)

Focusing is eerily silent and AF-S fast. Because of the slower, variable aperture, I was expecting to see some compromise here, but if the camera body can calculate the focus point, this lens will reach it nearly instantaneously, with no hunting. Even on the CAM900 sensor of the N65, N75, N80, D100, Kodak Pro 14n, and Fuji S2 Pro, this lens focuses fast and reliably. Whatever compromises Nikon made to keep the lens in the affordable range, focus speed wasn't one of them.

On a digital body from 24 to 85mm, from corner to corner, this lens turns in some impressive results, especially considering its price. I see little obvious to complain about other than a small amount of linear distortion at both extremes. Compared to the older 24-85mm f/2.8-4, the newer AF-S lens simply is in another (higher) class. On a full-frame body, you can see light falloff and loss of sharpness in the corners, but not nearly as much as I would have expected, considering the price.

http://www.bythom.com/2485lens.htm

.

That should be more than enough to qualify it as fit to be compared with Fuji's 18-55mm lens. Most importantly it's the lens that would have been the much more appropriate mate for the Df for the reasons I gave. Yes, it's larger than Fuji's 18-55mm but what they have in common is that they're both high quality kit lenses and the 24-85mm is also (like the 18-55mm) not a fixed aperture lens. So the 24-70mm f/2.8 lens used in the comparison is clearly not the lens that should have been used in the OP's comparison except to try to make a full frame DSLR version of Fuji's X-T1 look much larger than necessary to try to "prove" his point. He could have carried it to a more ridiculous extreme by using Nikon's 200-400mm VR lens instead.

BTW, underscoring that the 24-70mm was the wrong choice, at 900g it's nearly twice the weight of the 24-85mm VR and instead of it having a 72mm filter size as you mentioned was used by the 24-85mm, it uses 77mm filters.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Post (hide subjects)Posted by
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark post MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow