This camera (as well as latest Fuji releases) shows that Fuji is not really interested in entry-level market and concentrates on higher level. The smallest/cheapest Fuji CSCs are not as small as the competition (Sony, Oly, Pana) and also Fuji has no small lenses to match entry-level bodies.Apart from 27mm/2,8 all other lenses are fairly big (even primes) and the kit zoom 16-50 is much bigger than kit zooms from Sony or M4/3. So instead of making useless new generation cam Fuji should concentrate on making suitable lenses, i.e. pancake primes and retractable zooms.
A "new generation" that brings less than most firmware upgrades. :-/If Samsung followed the same way it woud call the last NX1 firmware upgrade a NX2.
The macaque with an iPhone really got me; a photo of the year! Awesome. But all are great photos.
iudex: A truly interesting lens and from the specs it looks like a perfect allrounder for me. I had a Tamron 17-50/2,8 lens and I really loved it for it´s combination of useful range and fast aperture. However the optical quality was not that great and also I could imagine a bit wider and longer end. This new Fujinon offers both: wider (with 16mm I could live without other wideangle lens) and 5mm at the tele end is nice too. Seeing the complex and expensive optical construction and knowing the quality of Fujinon XF lenses I expect nothing but superb optical quality. To this point everything looks great. However complicated construction means big and heavy lens which somehow negates the advantages of a CSC. And paying 1200 EUR for a standard zoom is insane. I know I cannot compare it to the cheap and subpar Tamron 17-50 for 1/4 of the price, but comparing to my Sigma 18-35/1,8 I cannot stop wondering why the Fuji has to cost 70% more than the optically amazing Sigma. cont.
Conrad: nice lens selection. :-)Of course you are right the 18-35 cannot in any way serve as portrait lens, whereas 16-55 at tele end can (i used my 17-50 at 50mm and f2,8 for portraits and it can be done, however it is not ideal). As I said, 16-55/2,8 is great universal lens and I would be quite happy if something like this was made for Px mount.OTOH there are people who get on with only prime lenses (you said that too) and the Sig18-35/1,8 can substitute easily lenses like Fuji´s 18mm/2, 27mm/2,8 and partially the35mm/1,4 without the need of switching.The Sigma is not very light, that´s true, but I travelled (hiked) a whole day holding the camera in one hand without problems, so a lighter Fuji 16-55 would be perfectly portable for me.But we got far from the initial thought that the Fujinon is pretty expensive and big given it´s "only" f2,8, nas no OIS and is made for CSC with shorter flange distance. Maybe the price falls down later, right now it´s a pretty pricey glass.
... so instead of e.g. 18mm, 27 mm and 35mm primes you have only one lens covering it all and - most importantly - with comparable outcome and quality.Anyhow I do not by any means want to bash the Fujinon, on the contrary, I like the Fujinons useful focal range and if I had to choose only one single lens, it would be this 16-55/2,8.
Conrad: The Sigma is of course limited due to the short focal range, however it still covers the most used focal lengths. Re: "is unusable as a primary lens for portrait work..." which short standard zoom is a PRIMARY lens for portraits? None. For portraits you need much longer FL, ideally between 85 and 150mm (I use 100mm), so whethet the standard zoom reaches 35 or 50mm is from this perspective irrelevant.Anyhow these standard zooms are all competitors since they cover the most used focal lengths and none of them can serve as the only lens, they are not long enough, nor wide enough and need to be accompanied by other lenses (UW, portrait, tele). So for me they are alternatives (and I actually changed from 17-50 to 18-35).You can also look at the Sigma as a great substitute for couple of prime lenses: it offers prime lens quality (sharpness wide open is even better than some primes) and prime lens speed... (cont.)
Thorsten: the Sigma´s MSRP at launch was 799 USD, so the difference to Fujinon launch price is still considerable 400 USD. In different words: Fujinon is 50% more expensive then the (groundbreaking) Sigma.
Conrad: they are of course different, but the shorter FL of Sigma is outweighed (construction-wise) by much better luminosity (which is an optical challenge noone has repeated by now). Btw. the Sigma build quality is top-notch, easily on par with my all-metal Limited Pentax.
cont.The Sigma is optically top notch (Art line) and construction-wise a more complicated lens (it has f1,8, i.e. 1,3 EV faster) and costs 700 EUR. I somehow cannot convince myself to believe the Fujinon is worth paying 1200 EUR. P.S. all the thoughts are of course theoretical, since I do not own a Fuji CSC and compare CSC lens to DSLR lenses. If I had a Fuji CSC, I would have no other choice if I wanted a zoom with similar specs.
A truly interesting lens and from the specs it looks like a perfect allrounder for me. I had a Tamron 17-50/2,8 lens and I really loved it for it´s combination of useful range and fast aperture. However the optical quality was not that great and also I could imagine a bit wider and longer end. This new Fujinon offers both: wider (with 16mm I could live without other wideangle lens) and 5mm at the tele end is nice too. Seeing the complex and expensive optical construction and knowing the quality of Fujinon XF lenses I expect nothing but superb optical quality. To this point everything looks great. However complicated construction means big and heavy lens which somehow negates the advantages of a CSC. And paying 1200 EUR for a standard zoom is insane. I know I cannot compare it to the cheap and subpar Tamron 17-50 for 1/4 of the price, but comparing to my Sigma 18-35/1,8 I cannot stop wondering why the Fuji has to cost 70% more than the optically amazing Sigma. cont.
In all other votings my choice was the same as the choice of the majority (LX100, Sigma Art 50mm, Sony a6000) and I think those are deserved winners. However in this category I differ and am quite surprised by the leaders. I voted for Pentax 645Z, Nikon D750 and Sony. Pentax for bringing medium format quality and MPx count into a portable body for great price; Nikon for making almost perfect balance between features, picture quality and price and a7s for reminding that megapixels are not everything and for insane lowlight capability and high ISO quality. Anyhow I expected 7D II to lead, followed either by Nikons pro DSLRs or Sony a7s.
toomanycanons: When's the last time any of you bought a Metz product?
fmian: The 3-4 Metz flashes I have handled recently (modern models) felt incredibly bad. Poor component fitting. Loose door covers. Cheap feeling external materials. High price though.If that's the first impression I got after using YongNuo and Canon flashes, then I'm sure other potential customers got the same impression.
Having said that, I've seen some old Metz flashes that were quite nice.
As regards the build quality: it depends. My previous cheap Metz 36 AF5 was of poor build quality (battery doors, fitting). However my current Metz AF 44 is fine. I cannot compare it to other brands, but last week I shot a family fiesta and had a lot of troubles with the TTL metering: while exposition with one lens was OK, the pictures with other lens were up to 3 EV underexposed. So the reliability of TTL metering is questionable.
Artistico: Nice IQ. Digital medium format is getting better and better value for money.
It would have been nice if Mamiya and Fuji also competed with Pentax for this market segment of high-quality affordable MF cameras - just like in the film days. It would accelerate the development of a digital MF camera within the economical reach of more enthusiasts.
Even with the introduction price, though, Pentax is getting really close to being just that.
MF in Artistico´s post stands for medium format, not manual focus. ;-)
PPierre: I think the 7th one is amazingly well thought: good atmosphere, good story, and a topic we never talk about/feel ashamed to talk about though it exists and is quite common. I like this kind of photos !
Hint: bed, man and woman... ;-) Not only young and beatiful do it.
makofoto: Does anyone really buy these slow zooms?
Unfortunately yes, since people have no other choice. The focal range is great and covers cca. 80% of all the shooting and it´s pretty comfortable to have an all-in-one lens. However the speed is terrible and there are not many lenses in this focal range that are faster, so people have no other choice than buying these slow lenses. The only lens with similar FR and constant f4 is Sony 16-70/4.
audiobomber: You can't tell IQ or build quality from a photo. Ricoh says this lens is intended for people who want higher IQ than a kit lens. It's safe to say it will outperform the 18-55, 18-135 and the various superzooms.
The DA 18-135mm feels like a pro lens; it is tight, no creep, no rattles or looseness anywhere. It makes a Tamron superzoom feel like junk. I expect the 16-85mm will be the same build, and hopefully IQ will match my 16-45mm. If so, I'll sell the others and get this.
Ad "It's safe to say it will outperform the 18-55, 18-135 and the various superzooms." Well it´s not a big deal being better than the two worst lenses in Pentax´s lineup. ;-) For 750 USD the ambitions of this lens should be much higher. It needs to be noticeably better than DA 17-70mm and should compare to the DA 20-40mm (which is actually cheaper).
citrontokyo: Love all the complainers here.
This is the perfect landscape lens. It's DC, not SDM. It's WR where the 17-70 is not. It's 16mm where the kit is 18. It's 85mm where the 16-45 is, well...
Anybody who claims it doesn't do this or that clearly isn't thinking.
DStudio: I agree completely. People somehow do not see that also Canon´s/Nikon´s comparable lenses are too expensive and by pointing at those mediocre lenses they defent this Pentax. The fact that the others are not good does not mean my similar product is OK. It should definitely have been constant f4. Punktum.
alex_shin: This is what I was waiting for! Sounds like a great kit lens for my future K-3.My 16-45 is great, but I got tired of its very limited tele range.We'll see how the tests turn out. And, of course, the price shall go down, which it will, especially in a kit.
Exactly, at wide end every milimeter is useful and 16mm is better than 17, not to mention 18mm. Lately I switched from zoom beginning at 17mm to 18mm and I do miss it a lot, 18mm is not wide enough and the next lens I am about to buy is 15mm prime. Having a zoom beginning at 16mm I wouldn´t need it.
cgarrard: Nice range, rounded blades, weather resistant, quiet focusing, HD coating, ED element, nice size... now we need to see the optical quality tests. Sounds like an ideal zoom lens for many applications. If the optical quality is there, the price on the street will likely be $699 soon and that will be a great deal. 750 is lofty, despite it performing excellent optically- if it does.
Do you read what I write? I write about Tamron 16-300mm and compare it to Pentax 16-85mm and you reply:" it´s also wider, and 2mm wider creates a bigger design challenge..." what are you responding to? As you say, enough said, it´s a monologue from your side, not a dialogue.