Reading mode: Light Dark

Fuji XT1 with 18-55 vs Nikon D300s w 16-85

Go to last post
B

brettchris

Leading Member
Messages
506
Reaction score
73
Location
Melbourne, AU
i decided to run a test between nikon and fuji as i wanted to see if my new setup is better.

I shot the scene at 18mm at various apertures; f2.8( N3.5)/6.7/8/11/13 and selected f8 for comparison as it seemed to be the sharpest.

Camera setups were as follows

tripod mount with 2 sec timer release
lens with VR/OIS OFF.
focus on the water can for all shots
ISO200
Full frame metering, zero exposure compensation.
RAW
LR5.7 processed with NO adjustments except sharpening at 56.
Main scenes exported at 1920 pixelsComparison shots at full resolution


fuji 18mm f8, 1/25s




nikon 18mm f8, 1/30s



The first thing to notice is the fuji has done a much better job of metering; the histogram has no blowouts, the nikon is blown out in the sky and overall probably 1/3 to 1/2 over-exposed.

Here is a 100% crop of the watering can ( focus point) from both cameras





there is not much in it but i believe the fuji has resolved better.
And here is a 100% crop from the top left of the frame from both cameras;





Clearly the fuji has way outperformed the nikon lens. i have noticed this smearing of the nikon on quite a few shots from trips, and i wonder if its my shot or other factors, but this test confirms the nikon 16-85 is not great at 18mm on the edges.

Light ran out but i will also do comparisons at 24mm, 35mm and 55mm

These tests have confirmed my move to fuji; i could have bought a d7100 or whatever comes next e.g. d400, but the true problem is the lens, so i would need to go to full frame and get new lens. The fuji kit lens is doing a great job while the package is around half the size and weight and gives me features i want.
 

Attachments

  • 3085167.jpg
    3085167.jpg
    2.2 MB · Views: 0
  • 3085166.jpg
    3085166.jpg
    2.3 MB · Views: 0
  • 3085168.jpg
    3085168.jpg
    179.4 KB · Views: 0
  • 3085176.jpg
    3085176.jpg
    459 KB · Views: 0
Last edited:
Thanks, brettchris! My D300 has served me faithfully for years, but the XT-1 does look like an attractive little piece of equipment :) The Fujinon lenses are definitely pricey, but the end results speak for themselves. (Though Nikon's 16-85 is generally regarded as one of their worst standard telephotos, so it might not be a fair comparison to begin with...)

I would be interested in other comparisons between the two cameras, if you have any.
 
piratejabez said:
Thanks, brettchris! My D300 has served me faithfully for years, but the XT-1 does look like an attractive little piece of equipment :) The Fujinon lenses are definitely pricey, but the end results speak for themselves. (Though Nikon's 16-85 is generally regarded as one of their worst standard telephotos, so it might not be a fair comparison to begin with...)

I would be interested in other comparisons between the two cameras, if you have any.
Click to expand...
I would say it depends on what lens you have, as you say the 16-85 is mediocre and nikon lack of a suitable dx upgrade forced my move.

If you have a suit of nice FF lens I would stick to nikons slr otherwise come on in the water is fine!

I have now added the 10-24 fuji and it is also great.

I am still completely amazed at how STUPID nikon are at not offering good DX enthusiast lens to go with the zillions of apsc slrs out there. ( canon have the 15-85 which is a nice option, my wife has that on a 7d .)
 
Surprised you say Nikon 16-85 is mediocre. Certainly not the experience of many users I've come across on Nikon forums. Thom Hogan review says:

A very good performer overall. The 16-85mm doesn't set any performance records, but it also doesn't have any glaring weaknesses.

For DX generally considered an excellent walkaround lens - Nikon users would like an F4 version of this lens to be sure but the existing one is no way mediocre, is well made and has good VR options.
 
Not shocked, the 16-85 was the only nikon lens I have sold. Not that sharp in my experience, the VR is just "ok", is a slow heavy lens and some of THE worst bokeh I've ever seen. The little Fuji lens is great!
 
twamers said:
Surprised you say Nikon 16-85 is mediocre. Certainly not the experience of many users I've come across on Nikon forums. Thom Hogan review says:

A very good performer overall. The 16-85mm doesn't set any performance records, but it also doesn't have any glaring weaknesses.

For DX generally considered an excellent walkaround lens - Nikon users would like an F4 version of this lens to be sure but the existing one is no way mediocre, is well made and has good VR options.
Click to expand...
Tom is wrong about not having any glaring weaknesses, that lens has some absolutely -nasty- looking bokeh. The other glaring weakness is it's very long MFD, it's so long you can't even do something like take a picture of a decent size flower with it. After using the sigma 17-70c, the 16-85 went on ebay. The sigma is faster, sharper, the same size/weight and has pretty decent bokeh. Same with the little Fuji zoom except it's even smaller.

Maybe a decade ago when the 16-85 was released (and there were no other options) is was deemed as a "excellent walkaround lens" but not anymore.
 
brettchris said:
I am still completely amazed at how STUPID nikon are at not offering good DX enthusiast lens to go with the zillions of apsc slrs out there. ( canon have the 15-85 which is a nice option, my wife has that on a 7d .)
Click to expand...
This is primarily why I left Nikon.
 
Stacey_K said:
Not shocked, the 16-85 was the only nikon lens I have sold. Not that sharp in my experience, the VR is just "ok", is a slow heavy lens and some of THE worst bokeh I've ever seen. The little Fuji lens is great!
Click to expand...
 
To be honest with you I think you would have not seen the same thing using the D7100. The D300 is about 8yrs old or so and is 12mp? You are comparing it to a much newer camera with a 16mp non aliased filter. So personally not a fair test at all.

I own the Fuji XT-1 and 18-55 and think it's a great lens however I did own a Nikon and the 16-85 and thought it was pretty good.
 
DanielBme said:
To be honest with you I think you would have not seen the same thing using the D7100. The D300 is about 8yrs old or so and is 12mp? You are comparing it to a much newer camera with a 16mp non aliased filter. So personally not a fair test at all.

I own the Fuji XT-1 and 18-55 and think it's a great lens however I did own a Nikon and the 16-85 and thought it was pretty good.

--
'Not all those who wander are lost.'
- J.R.R Tolkein
Click to expand...
Very good point. All you can really say, about these two lenses, on this test, is that the Nikkor degrades at the corners more than the Fuji @ 18mm. Mounting the Nikkor on a D7000 would be a better test in terms of the absolute resolving power of the two lenses.

I also seem to recall that, according to DxO, the 16-85 is weakest on the wide end and is strongest on the long end. A test at one focal length is not adequate to characterize any zoom lens as a whole.

Not criticizing the OP - the information is interesting and the test seems properly executed.

--
http://georgehudetzphotography.smugmug.com/
My Flikr stream: http://flic.kr/ps/Ay8ka
 
Last edited:
+1 Sensor technology and resultant image quality has improved significantly since the D300/S, and it's not only about the pixel count. Testing the XT1 against a D7100 would be a much "fairer" test. You would still likely see some lens-related IQ issues with the 16-85, but overall the D7100 files would be better than the D300/S.

I also don't understand the OP saying there's a "need" to go full frame: "...i could have bought a d7100 or whatever comes next e.g. d400, but the true problem is the lens, so i would need to go to full frame and get new lens." A D7100 with a better DX lens will certainly give the XT1 a run for the money in terms of image sharpness/resolution/noise.

I'm saying this as someone who divested all my Nikon gear after going mirrorless, and I'm several bodies and many lenses deep into the Fuji system. I do prefer Fuji's X-Trans IQ, but I think the IQ differences between modern sensors w/good lenses aren't necessarily significant. What's significant to me is the totality of the interface and system: mirrorless/live-view vs DSLR, body size/weight, the Fujinon lens system, etc.
DanielBme said:
...I think you would have not seen the same thing using the D7100. The D300 is about 8yrs old or so and is 12mp? You are comparing it to a much newer camera with a 16mp non aliased filter. So personally not a fair test at all.
Click to expand...
 
Im surpriced that the Fuji is sharper... Why on earth did you use Lightroom? that is so bad for Fuji. Try again in C1 or photoninja, then see that Fuji is much much sharper
 
Last edited:
Sorry Stacey, same old record from you. And I accept for you it was not what you needed. But it is still an excellent walkaround for many Nikon shooters and I very much doubt Tom was wrong in his assessment. Too many other reviews support his. I never use mine for flowers. It is and remains an excellent Nikon lens whatever you feel.
 
Alphabart said:
Im surpriced that the Fuji is sharper... Why on earth did you use Lightroom? that is so bad for Fuji. Try again in C1 or photoninja, then see that Fuji is much much sharper
Click to expand...
WAY overpositioned. I get that you're one of those that don't like LR rendering of Fuji images. But suggesting that LR can't create a sharp image of a Fuji RAW is beyond ridiculous, as witnessed by the example he posted and hundreds of others posted here on this forum all the time. There are many of us out there that are very happy with Fuji and LR, and whatever issues it might (emphasize "might" since here's little agreement on this long standing issue) have are very specific to certain types of images as opposed to being an across the board problem with creating a sharp JPG from a RAW file.
 
Last edited:
twamers said:
Sorry Stacey, same old record from you.
Click to expand...
And ditto for your pumping up this old "meh" IQ lens.
twamers said:
And I accept for you it was not what you needed. But it is still an excellent walkaround for many Nikon shooters.....
Click to expand...
...... who have never shot with anything else to know how really dated and mediocre this lens design is.

--
Stacey
 
Last edited:
georgehudetz said:
DanielBme said:
To be honest with you I think you would have not seen the same thing using the D7100. The D300 is about 8yrs old or so and is 12mp? You are comparing it to a much newer camera with a 16mp non aliased filter. So personally not a fair test at all.

I own the Fuji XT-1 and 18-55 and think it's a great lens however I did own a Nikon and the 16-85 and thought it was pretty good.

--
'Not all those who wander are lost.'
- J.R.R Tolkein
Click to expand...
Very good point. All you can really say, about these two lenses, on this test, is that the Nikkor degrades at the corners more than the Fuji @ 18mm. Mounting the Nikkor on a D7000 would be a better test in terms of the absolute resolving power of the two lenses.

I also seem to recall that, according to DxO, the 16-85 is weakest on the wide end and is strongest on the long end. A test at one focal length is not adequate to characterize any zoom lens as a whole.

Not criticizing the OP - the information is interesting and the test seems properly executed.

--
http://georgehudetzphotography.smugmug.com/
My Flikr stream: http://flic.kr/ps/Ay8ka
Click to expand...
both valid points, but i was comparing my "old" setup to my new.

Mainly to see if i had progressed on the IQ scene as well as having a significantly smaller kit to deal with.

I will also do a test at say 24 between both as i did plan to compare more than just 1 field of view.
 
Alphabart said:
Im surpriced that the Fuji is sharper... Why on earth did you use Lightroom? that is so bad for Fuji. Try again in C1 or photoninja, then see that Fuji is much much sharper
Click to expand...
I use LR for all my photos from the nikon and the fuji; I can live with the compromise if LR is not optimal.

I do find the LR workflow and storage/search features pretty good ( after you work out how to use them!)

If i ever get a fabulous shot and want to blow it up large i may download c1 to see the improvement...
 
pcb_dpr said:
I also don't understand the OP saying there's a "need" to go full frame: "...i could have bought a d7100 or whatever comes next e.g. d400, but the true problem is the lens, so i would need to go to full frame and get new lens." A D7100 with a better DX lens will certainly give the XT1 a run for the money in terms of image sharpness/resolution/noise.
Click to expand...
Agreed, but there does not seem to be this "better DX" lens ( from Nikon) to put on the D7100? In any event that would have meant a new body and new lens.
 
Thanks for the huge laugh that you provided by pointing out you are more knowledgeable than Thom though. That really was a good one. I'm sure he'd like to know from you where he has been going wrong. And backed up by what evidence? Zilch!!! But still it was a good laugh so thank you for that.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Keyboard shortcuts

f
Forum
m
My threads
Mobile site
About
Editorial content
Cameras & Lenses
Community
All content, design, and layout are Copyright © 1998–2025 Digital Photography Review All Rights Reserved.
Reproduction in whole or part in any form or medium without specific written permission is prohibited.
When you use DPReview links to buy products, the site may earn a commission.
©GPS Media - Guides, Products, Services.
Back
Top