Look at all of the gorgeous flare. I wish every lens could do this!
drummercam: Save $1,400 and get a Pentax K-3. Use the $1,400 to get two, or nearly three, of the Pentax HD DA Limited lenses.
Howabout: All of these issues are moot, because the systems are different formats to begin with. I use a mirrorless APS-C camera because I use it for it's tiny form factor. But a Nikon FF allows more latitude in the way a person shoots. They are different cameras and can't really be compared. I happen to be a Canon 5d iii kind of shooter, but I use both systems because neither are suited to every situation. In fact I have a third system which consists of a Hasselblad H camera and lenses. I am sure that for some styles of shooting the PENTAX works great, but there are many of us that would never even compare the two because of the sensor size.I am sure there are many who would say that they can take the same kind of photo regardless of the sensor size, but that is only because they don't know how to take advantage of the FF form.
Uh yeah, not exactly the same kind of cameras. You know APS-C and all.
Clear as Crystal: Can't believe people are trying to turn this into a negative story about Nikon build quality. Was there ever a camera that received absolutely no negative comments and absolutely no reported issues? Nothing is perfect, Nikon seem to be really trying to change the image that they don't respond to build quality issues.
Also this is about Nikon addressing concerns, why the hell is anyone even mentioning Canon, Pentax or Sony? If you really need to justify your choice of system you desperately need:a, a lifeb, to actually take some photosc, more confidence in your own ability to choose ord, less of a Napoleon complex
Incidentally this is coming from and admittedly amateur Canon and Fuji user.
I had the same problem with a FUJI, it didn't make me feel like the camera was suddenly crap because it had a problem, I just felt good about the company for standing behind their product. Kudos to Nikon, I just hope that people remember, they still make some of the best glass around!
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.
Iudex: All very good points. I have no problem with the size, if that is what takes to design an optically superb piece of glass. The price is high...and you are correct that it will fall. I have seen virtually every lens they make fall drastically in price within a year or two after release. But Fuji knows that there is a percentage, myself included, that will always pay the opening premium. Generally new lenses by Fuji are so popular that Fuji cannot keep up with demand for the first couple of months. I had to order my 50-140 from Japan because there just were none available before Christmas here in the USA. Happy shooting!
Iudex, I also own the 55-200, the 50-140, and the 60. All of them are stellar lenses and some of my lenses double up what I already own for my FF 5D iii. I love how the Fuji's perform and as I have said many times on this site, the colors are awesome. Especially skin tones right out of the camera. Sometimes, like when I shoot a wedding for example I have to use the FF camera or even my Hasselblad MF. They are heavy and expensive but they do what my FUJI just can't do. I wish their was a "perfect" system so that I didn't have to have 3 different systems, but their just isn't. The laws of physics won't allow it. But not everyone can afford 25K in equipment like I have, so kudos to FUJI for making lenses that will work better for different situations. They won't work the same, but I will guarantee that the 16-55 2.8 will work better for a wedding than the 18-55 2.8-4. But I am glad that the 18-55 is made because I would never want to carry the 16-55 around all day at Disneyland.
Iudex, I went to Disneyland last summer with my kids. I carried a 23mm 1.4 one day and the 18-55mm 2.8-4 the other. There is no doubt that the two lenses took very different looking photos. I actually own the 14mm, the 23mm and the 35mm, but generally use them for "artsy" type photos, or for walkaround lens on the street. I prefer the zoom for vacation photos for obvious reasons. The 18-55 is equivalent to 27-84mm on the FUJI, so it works as a portrait lens as well, not a great one as out of focus blur is limited, but it does the job. The Sigma is of course equivalent to 27-53mm which is a wide to normal length. Like I said, it is a great travel lens, but not if you intend on taking portraits. The out of focus blur might be great with the 1.8 rendering, but image compression would be severely lacking, making for an unpleasing looking close up of people. Anyway last I checked, Sigma isn't making lenses for the XF mount anyway.
Iudex: The sigma lens is a VERY different lens. It has a VERY limited zoom range, and is unusable as a primary lens for portrait work, where as the new Fuji will zoom plenty long enough for that. When the Sigma came out I was intrigued, and the reviews I read gave serious props for image sharpness. The bokeh in my opinion is a little nervous looking...borderline fuzzy wide open. Again that is my opinion. All in all it is a lens I would pass on because it only zooms to 35mm. It is what I would call a novelty or travel lens. But given it's size I would still opt for the Fuji 18-55mm f2.8-4. My point is that it has it's strengths; sharpness, price. It also has it's weaknesses; bokeh, very limited zoom, and lack of weather sealing. It is like comparing a Ferrari to a Yacht. Both serve their purpose, but neither are designed to do the same thing.
HiRez: Not sure why all the hate on this lens, it looks like a pretty good package to me for the price. 24mm-84mm equivalent is a good range, 84mm is in the range of a true portrait lens. With most high-end FF zooms you get 24-70. Plus weather sealing and < 1 foot minimum focus. Sure OIS would be nice but it's really not necessary in this focal range, again most comparable FF zooms will not have it either.
Big question for me is how is the performance wide open? It has to be exceptional at 2.8.
It depends on the camera, some APS-C cameras have a better signal to noise ration than FF's. All of this is moot though because it is an optical design by FUJI. If it yields better results, well then who are you to judge how large or small it should be. Besides, they have an excellent 18-55mm 2.8-4 that is TINY compared to other brands. IF smaller is what you want then buy that one. Seems that Fuji has you covered.
The FUJI is all metal construction, the Sigma has a plastic barrel, and the FUJI zooms from 16-55 and the Sigma only zooms 18-35mm. They are very different lenses.
Exactly, I bought the FUJI so that I would have a lighter system for travel. It does a great job, and that is why I have FUJI X-T1 and an 18-55mm 2.8-4 for travel, and a 5D iii with a 24-70mm 2.8 ii for weddings. Who knows if the new fuji 16-55 2.8 performs well I might by it for the heck of it as a back up for my 5D.
@ draculr, you are full of it. It is hardly the same as the 24-70mm because it zooms to 85mm and it is a 2.8. You don't know what you think you know. And if you get annoyed that easily, THAT IS YOUR PROBLEM. Obviously FUJI designed a lens that they think will perform as good as it can on THEIR cameras. If you don't shoot FUJI or don't like the lens, THEN DON'T BUY ONE> But who the heck are you to start comparing CANON to FUJI or to anything else. CANON DIDN'T DESIGN THE LENS!!!!!!!YOU ARE the typical FUJI critic that annoys EVERYONE!
Besides AS I SAID, I am comparing it to WHAT I OWN! AND I happen to have the CANON 24-70 2.8 ii. If I thought that the Canon and the Fuji offerings were exactly the same, then why in the heck would I own both systems?????
I am simply stating my opinion, that the Fuji will hopefully perform as well or better than the Canon optically. IF it comes at a cost of a bigger and heavier lens than a Canon or Nikon or Tamron etc..... then who cares!
I agree that the X-Trans has its problems. Hair in any shot higher than ISO 400 starts to look smattered for example, but architecture and product shooting is RAZOR sharp. Much sharper than my 5D iii. I do wish for a higher resolution sensor, because the colors are FANTASTIC. On par with my Hasselblad as far as color goes.
MikeF4Black: Maybe an allright lens if you already own a Fuji camera. No reason for changing down from ff. 655 grs, holy mackerel...
There are many things that come into play. Several people have also complained about the size/weight/price of the 50-140mm, but all I can say is that the images are ASTOUNDING. If that is what it took to engineer a lens of that quality, then the size/weight/price don't bother me at all. I am going to say that if the FUJI 16-55mm is as good as the 50-140mm, then it will outshine the Canon and Nikon offerings. If this means bigger and heavier...well then that is the price that one pays for image quality. If it doesn't, well then it will probably be a disaster.
Conrad567: Metal construction. Weather sealed. Zooms to 84mm instead of 70mm while maintaining a constant 2.8 aperture all for less than 2/3 the price of the mighty Canon 24-70mm ii. (Which I own BTW) This also has a Filter thread of 77mm instead of the 82mm of the Canon. If it performs at least as good as the Canon or the FUJI 50-140mm then this lens will be a bargain.
It really seems to me that FUJI is trying to build professional type lenses in the hope of breaking into the fashion and wedding business. It will be interesting to see if it works. I have an X-T1 and 7 FUJI lenses. All of them are great lenses. Certainly expensive, at least when they are first released, but they do take a nice photo.
Yeah, I suppose you have a point. In either case the Canon makes a sharp lens, but the Fuji 50-140 definitely outshines the Canon 70-200 ii. It will be interesting to see how this lens holds up compared to the 24-70mm mark ii because that is what I currently own. The 5D iii is a great camera, but it is different. High ISO is AMAZING, but FUJI just seems to have more natural looking colors, especially skin tones. My point is, Canon doesn't make an APS-C camera that comes even close to the FUJIs even the 5D iii struggles to match the color fidelity, so an exact comparison between cameras is futile I guess.
5d iii. Certainly the 5d iii has more resolution, but the FUJI colors are much better.
flatrion: At this size and price, no OIS ? May be Fuji needs to hire better engineers.
Actually NAwlins, you are right. The Canon 17-55 does have it, and that lens was pretty darn sharp. It has other problems, but sharpness is not one of them.
Well the Canon costs far more and it doesn't have OIS. Maybe there is some other reason that it doesn't have it? Actually I don't think the Nikon has it either. It seems like the brands that do include it...Tamron for example, seem to be optically inferior. Canon put it on the f4 version of the 24-70, and it suffers optically as well.
zakaria: a bad price for a great lens
Price doesn't bother me in the least. I paid over $2000 for my Canon and it only zooms to 70mm.
You should see what a Leica zoom weighs. Metal construction and the extra 14mm of zoom is going to weigh in a little more. Fuji can't defy the laws of physics.