Previous news story    Next news story

Just posted: Our Fujifilm XF 14mm 1:2.8 R lens review

By dpreview staff on Apr 2, 2013 at 15:30 GMT
Buy on GearShop$809.99

Just posted: Our review of the Fujinon XF 14mm 1:2.8 R lens. Fujifilm has been steadily building up its X-system of rangefinder-inspired mirrorless cameras since its launch in January last year, and the 14mm F2.8 is the fifth lens in the family. It's a 21mm-equivalent ultra-wide prime that's designed to match the full field of view offered by the X-Pro1's optical viewfinder. Like the other XF primes it has an aperture ring on the lens barrel, but it also includes an improved manual focus ring with distance and depth of field scales. Fujifilm makes some grand claims for its optical performance; click through to see if it lives up to them in our detailed review.

284
I own it
71
I want it
10
I had it
Discuss in the forums
Our favorite products. Free 2 day shipping.
Support this site, buy from dpreview GearShop.
Fujifilm XF 14mm F2.8 R

Comments

Total comments: 78
peevee1
By peevee1 (Apr 7, 2013)

Where is your usual lens test widget?

1 upvote
HubertChen
By HubertChen (Apr 5, 2013)

@ dpreview: What is going on with lens reviews ?
This is the third format of a lens review introduced in the last 2 years. This makes comparing lenses within your lens reviews almost impossible. You have few reviews only to begin with and the lenses I am interesting in comparing are in different review formats, leaving me with no useful content at all. Lens- reviews is a systematic business which requires commitment and consistency. If you can not do it it systematically, it might make more sense to not do it at all and invest the saved resources into camera reviews, where your reviews often come out way too late. In case anybody feels the same, you might find the following place useful: http://www.photozone.de/ Significantly larger lens portfolio and all reviews in the same format.

Comment edited 1 minute after posting
0 upvotes
HubertChen
By HubertChen (Apr 6, 2013)

I am a big fan of dpreview and have turned many of my acquaintance into dpreview fans. I am very open. Maybe you have a smart plan and I simply did not recognize it. However, I really care about an answer to this one. Anybody ?

0 upvotes
HubertChen
By HubertChen (Apr 18, 2013)

This is now a week later and there has been no response. Very sad.

0 upvotes
dvdennin
By dvdennin (Apr 4, 2013)

I bought this lens and lo and behold it also had the loose aperture ring! Very disappointing. But I sent it into Fuji's repair center in Edison, NJ and they adjusted the ring tension. It's still not as tight as the 18mm lens, but now it's much better. This lens is amazingly sharp and straight. I cannot believe vignetting at low apertures is considered a defect in this day and age. It's the simplest thing to remove if that's not your thing. Me, I love it and mostly shoot wide open with my pictures.

0 upvotes
rusticus
By rusticus (Apr 4, 2013)

the only true Fuji camera is still the awesome X100 - nobody needs a Fuji system -
I can not Fuji-System, for that I have my Pentax K-5: still the no. 1 for System Camera

Comment edited 2 times, last edit 1 minute after posting
0 upvotes
sgoldswo
By sgoldswo (Apr 5, 2013)

You know I'll disagree with you there. The X100S is a better camera than the X100. This lens (excellent) just adds to the amazing 35 and 60 as reasons to buy a Fuji X camera system. It's a stunning landscape lens: http://www.flickr.com/photos/sgoldswo/8529823068/

0 upvotes
RStyga
By RStyga (Apr 3, 2013)

First and foremost worry for Fujifilm, in my opinion, should be to get complete software support for their RAW files; it seems that they're getting there, at last, but they have lost precious time and this delay has given their cameras a questionable name that, unfortunately, will take time to be erased. Their lenses also seem to be very good albeit not enough to warrant the name of a system quite yet. Last, the pricing needs to be a bit more aggressive in favour of the consumer; currently, lenses and bodies are a bit expensive.

0 upvotes
sgoldswo
By sgoldswo (Apr 3, 2013)

Has it? I sold my NEX-7 for my X-Pro1 notwithstanding the RAW "issues" (that are now solved by the way). Thanks for the FUD though!

Comment edited 27 seconds after posting
0 upvotes
RStyga
By RStyga (Apr 4, 2013)

FUD? WAYTA? Thanks for your enthusiast-loves-his-gear "input" too!

0 upvotes
Ahmet Aydogan
By Ahmet Aydogan (Apr 4, 2013)

First, RAW is not an issue for Fuji because the camera produced JPEG's are superb and work for most workflows directly from the camera to the client. Second, the lenses are some of the best optics produced recently (Not surprising since the same company produces all the Hasselblad optics and broadcast TV glass, too.) Finally, the target customer is not the consumer. The target customers are professionals seeking a system with great color, dynamic range and full control with minimal size and weight. The other target customers are advanced amateurs. By selling at higher prices, theu can continue to develop the system despite the niche product.

I think Fuji is definitely on the right path. The days of having to rely on Nikon hand-me-down bodies are, thankfully, gone.

Have you ever wondered why not one single mainstream manufacturer makes a camera that just records in RAW? Nikon, Canon, Pentax, Fuji, Leica, etc. all spend millions on developing in-camera processors for a reason.

Comment edited 54 seconds after posting
1 upvote
RStyga
By RStyga (Apr 4, 2013)

JPEGs are indeed superb, but RAW images are very much needed, especially to professionals and advanced amateurs, for better image parameter control. My GX-1 has great JPEGs as well but clips the living daylights out of highlights so I needed to shoot RAW to save the day.

No matter what arguments are there, lower prices make products sell better. E.g., X100 was selling for about double the price than before the release of X100s... let's not wait that much next time, Fujifilm.

Comment edited 2 times, last edit 2 minutes after posting
1 upvote
yabokkie
By yabokkie (Apr 4, 2013)

> especially to professionals and advanced amateurs

neither the target of XF.

0 upvotes
sgoldswo
By sgoldswo (Apr 3, 2013)

This is a truly excellent lens and about all I could come up to argue about was the AF speed (it is fast if you keep the focus box large). This is very much the equal of Zeiss and Leica lenses which are much more expensive. With a tad more resolution in the sensor I think you could get stunning results...

In any event take a look at this: http://www.flickr.com/photos/sgoldswo/8457284364/lightbox/

1 upvote
mapgraphs
By mapgraphs (Apr 3, 2013)

Sorry, but I just have to ask it…

While I understand the teenage crush some of the staff have with the Fuji X line (and it a very decent line), are you guys honestly saying that the images you’ve shown for wide open, center and edge sharpness and vignette make this a Gold Award “fast” ultra wide?

For the vignette, I could see it if the lens was an f/1.4 and perhaps f/1.8 but that amount of vignette for an f/2.8? Come on.

Doing the “It's not bad at F2.8” is an opinion, not supported by what your review offers. Shooting at f/4 kind of defeats the intent of “fast” Ultra Wide doesn’t it? At f/4 one could pick up a Heliar, get better sharpness and less vignette and save some money. From what the review offers it seems like a very decent consumer grade “fast” ultra wide. But your review hasn’t shown anything to put it into a class above that.

3 upvotes
yabokkie
By yabokkie (Apr 4, 2013)

this is a normal lens sold at very high price.

it is slower than f/4 on 35mm format because you get the same image quality (SNR at the same shutter speed), same DOF, etc., everything controlled by aperture, exactly as f/4.3 on 35mm format.

f/2.8 is fast enough for wide angles but an APS-C lens has to be f/1.8 to compete at level ground with f/2.8 on 35mm format.

it's much easier to desgin and make a wide angle for a mirrorless mount with short back-focus than for SLR.

Comment edited 3 times, last edit 7 minutes after posting
0 upvotes
sgoldswo
By sgoldswo (Apr 4, 2013)

Err, no. This is a pro grade lens and you will get better results that the helier you mention at any aperture.

Note the added DOF is a positive advantage over an equivalent FF lens (query if there are any equivalents this good for any system.

0 upvotes
yabokkie
By yabokkie (Apr 4, 2013)

there is no such thing as "added DOF".
you won't lose the capability to stop down a lens.
only that you have no way to step up.

0 upvotes
sgoldswo
By sgoldswo (Apr 5, 2013)

Yabookie, you seem to be hard of thought. It isn't a lens for FF 35mm sensors. It's designed for an APS-C sensor. In light gathering ability it IS an F2.8 lens. In DOF terms it will give you more DOF at all apertures than a F2.8 lens designed for FF. That is an advantage for a UWA lens!

0 upvotes
yabokkie
By yabokkie (Apr 6, 2013)

it is an f/2.8 that can do exactly the same job as f/4.3 on 35mm format for everything that aperture can control.

it is an f/2.8 that can let in only 43% of light as an f/2.8 on 35mm and for that sake should worth 43% of the an f/2.8 on 35mm.

Comment edited 6 minutes after posting
0 upvotes
autoy
By autoy (Apr 2, 2013)

From the review:
"One point worth knowing, though, is that there's no way of combining auto and manual focus, so you can't use AF to prefocus then make adjustments manually."

Yes there is: use AF-M to engage manual mode the press the AF-L on your thumb to make a quick point focus using autofocus, then make small adjustments with the usual manual focus technique.

The reviewer may have meant to say there is no manual focus override but there's really no need for it in X bodies.

1 upvote
Andy Westlake
By Andy Westlake (Apr 3, 2013)

This approach works with other XF lenses, but not the 14mm. To get the AF-L button to set focus, the lens ring must be in the AF position, where it's locked and doesn't rotate. If you then pull the ring back to adjust manually, the focus position will change to wherever it was when you last switched from MF to AF.

5 upvotes
autoy
By autoy (Apr 3, 2013)

I stand corrected, good to know about this. Arguably, not as critical for wideangle as for normal and tele lens, so minor inconvenience in my opinion. This might also be the reason why Fuji is only using the ring-pull mechanism in the 14mm primes, aware that the distance scale advantages outweigh manual focus override.

Comment edited 4 minutes after posting
2 upvotes
yabokkie
By yabokkie (Apr 3, 2013)

Olympus started to sell FourThirds in 2003 but they learned how to make modern lenses only 4 years later (ZD12-60/2.8-4, late 2007).

XF got a very small market share which is hard to justify good development budget. they will need time to learn slowly and rebuild their line of lenses slowly.

0 upvotes
massimogori
By massimogori (Apr 3, 2013)

Yabokkie, I understand from your comment that you have not tried the fujinon primes, am I correct?

Suffice to say that the vast majority of TV lenses and the Hasselbald lenses are from Fuji.

Comment edited 3 minutes after posting
1 upvote
yabokkie
By yabokkie (Apr 3, 2013)

totally different things. the reality is that XF lenses are not so good. to me they look like a mix of Pana and Penta: Pana for new idea of low cost lenses and Penta for old design and quality.

0 upvotes
Jman13
By Jman13 (Apr 3, 2013)

Have you used any of these? The 18mm isn't anything special, but it's not bad. Meanwhile, the 14mm is one of the best wide-angle lenses made in the last several years by ANY manufacturer (with maybe the Zeiss 21 being the only thing close), while the 35/1.4 is absolutely stunning - far better than the 50/1.4's for Nikon or Canon, with a sharp central region wide open with gorgeous bokeh and a beautiful rendering, and becoming critically sharp across the frame stopped down a bit.

I haven't used it, but from what I understand the 60/2.4 is also exceptionally good optically, and the 18-55 is a very good standard zoom. What, praytell, is 'not so good.' And FTR, Panasonic makes some pretty incredible optics themselves (25/1.4, 7-14, 35-100/2.8...all exceptional)

1 upvote
Marty4650
By Marty4650 (Apr 2, 2013)

Fuji is doing something very smart here.

They realized that the CSC market is already overcrowded, and they would never get much shelf space at Best Buy or Costco, so they created their own niche at the high end.

They have become the "MILC Leica" with an outstanding set of beautifully styled well made cameras and nice extremely nice lenses to go with them. They also deliver outstanding image quality, so they have credibility with high end users. They are expensive... but not nearly as pricey as Leicas are.

14 upvotes
yabokkie
By yabokkie (Apr 3, 2013)

then why was Leica chased out of the market?

0 upvotes
Martin Datzinger
By Martin Datzinger (Apr 3, 2013)

Leica serves a different market. And they do so well since the M8, they actually can't keep up with demand (or don't want and need to).

1 upvote
yabokkie
By yabokkie (Apr 3, 2013)

I would not call it market (where Leica can make profit) but rather marketing cost (like the paint of a signboard).

0 upvotes
starwolfy
By starwolfy (Apr 3, 2013)

Leica is positioned on the niche market of cameras as a good photographic tool as well as a luxury good (more and more).

So for you, and simply because you don't like the brand (for whatever reason) you are telling us that they are not positioned on a market ?

I think you shouldn't make such basic and public reasoning simply because you don't like the brand.

You didn't say it, but you are surely the kind of guy who could have said: "I wish Leica will sink soon".

I've always wondered why someone may wish a company sink just because they don't understand their products or market position.

Comment edited 39 seconds after posting
7 upvotes
yabokkie
By yabokkie (Apr 3, 2013)

I don't wish Titanic to sink and I think people are very kind to say that Titanic never sank because tip of a mast is still above water.

0 upvotes
vodanh1982
By vodanh1982 (Apr 2, 2013)

I don't see it is sharp at f/2.8.

4 upvotes
dengx
By dengx (Apr 2, 2013)

http://www.photozone.de/fuji_x/807-fuji14f28?start=2

Here you have some samples at f/2.8 and you can judge the sharpness from these for yourself.

0 upvotes
vodanh1982
By vodanh1982 (Apr 2, 2013)

Look at page 3 and move your mouse back and forth between f/2.8 and f/4 and you'll see very clearly.

2 upvotes
dengx
By dengx (Apr 2, 2013)

That's only one sample, there are many others in the sample gallery and on photozone.

And of course it's softer at f/2.8 than at f/4, it's pretty unrealistic to expect something different.

Comment edited 4 minutes after posting
2 upvotes
yabokkie
By yabokkie (Apr 3, 2013)

though f/2.8 isn't any large aperture lens on APS-C especially for primes, do not look at extreme corners at open for wide angles. usually it's a good wide lens if it's okay around the middle of horizontal borders, and the extreme corners can get reasonably sharp when stopped down, not at this funny price though.

0 upvotes
DarkShift
By DarkShift (Apr 2, 2013)

Oh, it equals about 21mm f4.5 lens on full frame. Not too fast for a 900$ lens.

Vignetting is also very extreme, whopping 1.34 EV @ f8.

2 upvotes
Photomonkey
By Photomonkey (Apr 3, 2013)

The speed IS f2.8. If you are commenting on the ability to display a narrow DOF you might realize that ultrawides are not selected for that but rather their angle of view. A deep field of focus is desirable for most applications this lens will be put to.
As for the vignetting the Zeiss 21mm lens has 2.5 stops wide open. Fast lenses will show a lot of vignetting wide open so this performance is actually very good. As there is very low distortion couple with sharpness and speed it seems to be one of the few lenses to become a coveted standard of excellence.

16 upvotes
zapatista
By zapatista (Apr 3, 2013)

Wow, I didn't know that f2.8=f4.5. :P

0 upvotes
Chez Wimpy
By Chez Wimpy (Apr 3, 2013)

"A deep field of focus is desirable for most applications this lens will be put to."

I think that is confusing cause and effect. For a "rangefinder" DOF control on a UWA would be nice, ala the Leica 21/1.4 similar to FF DSLRs with the Canon/Nikon 24/1.4s. In this regard, the Olympus 12/2 on m43 is no better than the Fuji unfortunately. For now it seems this specific type of photography is either very bulky, or extremely expensive.

0 upvotes
love_them_all
By love_them_all (Apr 3, 2013)

Mirrorless or RF lenses always got issues with vignetting for wide angles. There are already in camera corrections or pp software to help. Learn how to adapt.

3 upvotes
Karroly
By Karroly (Apr 3, 2013)

@ DarkShift
An F2.8 lens on an APS-C sensor with a crop factor of 1.6 as the same DOF than an F4.5 lens on a FF sensor.
But for the camera light metering system, F2.8 is F2.8 whatever the sensor size.
Whatever the camera and sensor size you use, you will shot the same scene with the same ISO, aperture and speed settings if the camera light metering system is correctly calibrated. If you don't believe it, test it !

Interesting reading here :
http://www.cambridgeincolour.com/tutorials/digital-camera-sensor-size.htm

2 upvotes
yabokkie
By yabokkie (Apr 3, 2013)

> I didn't know that f2.8=f4.5. :P

think it's about f/4.3 though, you can see it easily that every photographic effect you can get from an f-number (aperture actually) in the image are exactly the same as f/4.3 on 35mm format.

everything are accurately quantitatively the same with no exception (as long as it's controlled by aperture).

> you will shot the same scene with the same ISO, ...

same ISO won't give you the same result from different formats, neither same f-number will do. same shutter speed should be okay.

Comment edited 3 times, last edit 3 minutes after posting
0 upvotes
zapatista
By zapatista (Apr 4, 2013)

What I'd love is to see just ONE of these "crop sensor" comment discussions go on without some dumbass equivocating DoF to full frame. JUST ONE.

1 upvote
DarkShift
By DarkShift (Apr 4, 2013)

Commentators obviously didn't see the sarcasm included in my post. If this would have been MFT lens release, there'd have been endless equivalence discussions started by trolls. Still I think price/performance ratio is not too good with this lens.

@Photomonkey

About wignetting. This Fuji lens has 2.43 EV vignetting @ f2.8 thus being about the same as Zeiss 21mm. I think 1.34EV @ f8 is bit too much and Zeiss has only 0.57 EV @ f8.

Comment edited 3 times, last edit 4 minutes after posting
0 upvotes
yabokkie
By yabokkie (Apr 4, 2013)

> JUST ONE.

not possible if you want to compare against lenses of different formats.

not a problem if you do have a good one.

Comment edited 1 minute after posting
0 upvotes
Pixel Judge
By Pixel Judge (Apr 2, 2013)

Thank you DPReview! Great writing and review.
Enough said! Now out to buy this lens and mount onto my XE1.

0 upvotes
Sergey Borachev
By Sergey Borachev (Apr 2, 2013)

Very nice lens! Fuji owners should be very happy with this fine lens. Unlike other mirrorless brands, Fuji is accepting very little compromise to get quality, not even compromising on size and cost, like equivalent lenses in Micro Four Thirds. This is good for Fuji X camera owners, who obviously want a higher level or performance in IQ, and prepared to carry more weight, pay more and do not mind slightly slower AF, etc. Compared to a FF camera, this approach is in fact very attractive.

Those complaining should see the X system with this perspective. It's about very high quality in the end results, and Fuji is doing that better than any other mirrorless makers. They compromise less on size and price for quality. It's not for everyone though. This system is IMO so much better and practical than Leica's.

Comment edited 2 times, last edit 3 minutes after posting
10 upvotes
IstvanNagy
By IstvanNagy (Apr 2, 2013)

This is a good, very useful review, thanks. Many people are in doubt about the Fujifilm XF 18mm (also vs. the 18-55mm), it would be great to see a similar review for those lenses too.

Istvan

3 upvotes
zapatista
By zapatista (Apr 3, 2013)

1234

Comment edited 26 seconds after posting
0 upvotes
p5freak
By p5freak (Apr 2, 2013)

A brand new f2,8 prime lens for 799 and it is soft in the center wide open ? Thats disappointing. A Tamron 2,8/17-50 for 299 is sharper in the center wide open.

1 upvote
dengx
By dengx (Apr 2, 2013)

It's not.

Tamron 17-50 VC on D7000 (16mpix):

http://www.photozone.de/nikon--nikkor-aps-c-lens-tests/642-tamron175028vcdx?start=1

XF14 on X-E1 (16 mpix):

http://www.photozone.de/fuji_x/807-fuji14f28?start=1

Non-VC was better but still nowhere the XF14.

5 upvotes
HSway
By HSway (Apr 2, 2013)

I’d see the sharpness wide open relative to the price. If it’s twice as expensive one could expect this pin sharp wide open. Besides, a 14mm lens at f2.8 really has limited use, the more so on an aps-c camera - like less practical for subject isolation (21/f4.3 lens full frame equiv.). This is a very challenging design lens optimized a bit differently and with remarkable distortion result that contributes to its resolution. I feel Fuji is on a good road with such lenses.

1 upvote
nicolas brun
By nicolas brun (Apr 2, 2013)

I think it says the opposite:

from page 3: "The XF 14mm F2.8 R is, overall, an extremely sharp lens. Even at F2.8 the centre of the frame is impressively sharp"

The edges are soft at 2.8. not the center:
"although the corners are noticeably soft. But they improve dramatically on stopping down to F4.0, and at F5.6 the image is critically sharp right across the frame."

2 upvotes
marike6
By marike6 (Apr 2, 2013)

@p5freak The review did not say the 14 2.8 is "soft in the center wide open". Many moderately fast max aperture lenses are have softer corners at max aperture. As far as price, it's an extremely wide lens, so it's not exactly easy or inexpensive to design.

@HSway wrote "Besides, a 14mm lens at f2.8 really has limited use, the more so on an aps-c camera - like less practical for subject isolation (21/f4.3 lens full frame equiv.)"

Why would a wide angle lens (a 21mm lens on APS-C have "limited use"? For a landscape or street photographer, and wide does not see limited use at all, but it a bread and butter lens.

As far as subject isolation, are people really worried about subject isolation with an UWA lens? To worry about subject isolation with such a wide is an example of the shallow DOF/equivalency taken to the extreme.

3 upvotes
DDWD10
By DDWD10 (Apr 2, 2013)

I'm pretty pleased with the sharpness of my XF 35/1.4 wide open in the corners and I know some reviews say it's fairly soft there as well. Do you think I would be put off by results from this lens? Seems like a solid piece of kit and one of the very best 14mm primes on the market for any system.

0 upvotes
doctorbza
By doctorbza (Apr 2, 2013)

Fuji is really putting together a nice system. With the improvements seen in the X20 and X100s there's no doubt the camera that replaces the X-Pro1 will have the bugs hashed out; then we'll be left with nothing but excellent image quality and a growing selection of nice lenses.

No doubt they had a bit of a rocky start, but this system is certainly preferable to a DSLR rig unless you're doing the sports/wildlife routine.

Nice to see a company listening to its customers as well.

14 upvotes
massimogori
By massimogori (Apr 2, 2013)

Driven by curiosity, I visited a shop and mounted this lens on my x-pro1. I took some pictures and said thank you.

Then, after seeing the result, I had to rush back to the shop and buy the lens. Fantastic.

Something that struck me is nothwithstanding the short focal lenght, the OVF of the x-pro1 still has space to see what is going on outside the frame.

7 upvotes
justinwonnacott
By justinwonnacott (Apr 2, 2013)

Are the RAW files available to download? The jpg files look soft and I would like to try processing the original please.

0 upvotes
yabokkie
By yabokkie (Apr 2, 2013)

no big deal I accept it as normal, ... not at this funny price though, it's a far easier lens to make than 35mm SLR ones.

Comment edited 1 minute after posting
0 upvotes
max metz
By max metz (Apr 2, 2013)

Another excellent review, strengths and weakness clearly shown and described, particularly as dxo doesn't support the x-trans. This lens looks like yet another excellent addition to the rapidly growing fuji stable, with each lens addition the X system becomes more compelling.

6 upvotes
Matthew Miller
By Matthew Miller (Apr 2, 2013)

Do you have a reference for "The 'R' in the lens name indicates that ... the 14mm has a dedicated ring to control the aperture."?

Previously Fujifilm has indicated that the R stands for "radius angle" and refers to the shaped aperture blades.

0 upvotes
Andy Westlake
By Andy Westlake (Apr 2, 2013)

Fujifilm's launch presentation to us about this lens and the XF 18-55mm, given by senior members of the design team in Japan, unequivocally stated that 'R' stands for aperture ring.

2 upvotes
Matthew Miller
By Matthew Miller (Apr 3, 2013)

Thanks Andy. Sounds pretty authoritative.

0 upvotes
walberty
By walberty (Apr 2, 2013)

Nice review. The XF 14mm low flare/ghosting, close focusing and even sharp resolution at normal F settings make it a great for hiking and landscapes. In many ways the Pentax DA 15mm has similar performance. By the way Pentax also has a DA 14mm F2.8 that is a dedicated APS lens with very close focusing, although when stopped down it has softer corners than the XF.

2 upvotes
Tom_A
By Tom_A (Apr 2, 2013)

Currently I have the XE-1 with only the 35mm lens. This 14mm lens seems like a very interesting second lens. Then when the 56mm f1.4 comes out I will have a trio of lenses that covers 95% of all my personal needs.

4 upvotes
h2k
By h2k (Apr 2, 2013)

Thanks for letting us know.

10 upvotes
yabokkie
By yabokkie (Apr 2, 2013)

to me, plastic is better than metal in almost every aspect and every part should be covered/coated carefully if metal is used.

digital correction is definitely the way to go then how will this lens compare to APS-C zooms? (mirrorless wide angles are not bad but they should have been better, especially at small apertures).

Comment edited 2 minutes after posting
0 upvotes
Vlad S
By Vlad S (Apr 2, 2013)

What happened to the lens test widget? Is it gone forever? It would be very disappointing if the tests are going to be conducted under variable conditions now, and there's no fluid and unified way to look at the lens performance :(

2 upvotes
Andy Westlake
By Andy Westlake (Apr 2, 2013)

At the top of page 3 of the review, it explains: "We're not able to bring you our usual suite of studio test data for the XF14mm F2.8R, as DxO Analyser doesn't work with the RAW output from Fujifilm's X-Trans sensor."

We'll continue to use our lens data widget in other reviews.

7 upvotes
rfsIII
By rfsIII (Apr 2, 2013)

Thank heavens. That widget is very fun, especially when you compare lenses side by side.

0 upvotes
Harold66
By Harold66 (Apr 2, 2013)

Two questions for Andy Westlake and dpr :
Is it really an April 2012 or a typo ?
More importantly does it mean that dpr for future lens test do not use any longer the chart with the color code for each aperture

this was one , if not the , MOST efficient and understandable tool for lens testing on the web I hope dpr would still use it
I am sure other people here would like to know as well

Harold

0 upvotes
Andy Westlake
By Andy Westlake (Apr 2, 2013)

The typo is fixed, thanks.

At the top of page 3 of the review, it explains: "We're not able to bring you our usual suite of studio test data for the XF14mm F2.8R, as DxO Analyser doesn't work with the RAW output from Fujifilm's X-Trans sensor."

We'll continue to use our lens data widget in other reviews.

Comment edited 22 seconds after posting
1 upvote
Kexi Cao
By Kexi Cao (Apr 2, 2013)

typo: in the final words, the first sentence, should be F2.8 not F1.4

0 upvotes
Andy Westlake
By Andy Westlake (Apr 2, 2013)

Fixed, thanks

0 upvotes
Rob P
By Rob P (Apr 2, 2013)

Hooray! Thank you for not popping up the link to the review in a new tab! I hope this isn't just a one-time thing and you make this the norm.

Cheers,
-R

7 upvotes
Total comments: 78