I'm curious whether anyone can describe how much the 16-55 F2.8 lens (affectionately known as "the brick" to some) blocks the X-PRO2 OVF's image when zoomed out to 16mm? I assume it's not much problem at 55mm, but wondered how much the lens intrudes into the image at wide-angle settings.
-
Welcome to the new forums! Please read this first. For known issues we are working to resolve, click here.
16-55 F2.8 with X-PRO2?
- Thread starter bowportes
- Start date
JS Burnie
Senior Member
I don't have first hand experience, but it's the other way around. The 16-55mm is longest at 55mm. I imagine it would intrude significantly into the OVF.
www.fujivsfuji.com
--
Fuji vs. Fuji
A site dedicated to Fujifilm X Series mirrorless cameras and lenses.
www.fujivsfuji.com
--
Galleries by J. S. B.
www.pbase.com
Noctumn
Well-known member
I use this combo. If the lens hood is attached, it protrudes quite a lot. Without, it's not bad when shooting distances. I'll try to get a picture for you of the OVF at various focal lengths. At 16mm, the frame lines are not displayed.
If you did have first hand experience, you'd realize that it's not just the length of the lens, but how fully the image itself fills the OVF. Even though the lens is slightly longer at 55mm, the image being photographed fills only a portion of the OVF. While at 16mm, the entire OVF is used, so even though the lens is slighly shorter in length, it blocks more of the image. That's why I asked.I don't have first hand experience, but it's the other way around. The 16-55mm is longest at 55mm. I imagine it would intrude significantly into the OVF.
Fuji vs. Fuji
A site dedicated to Fujifilm X Series mirrorless cameras and lenses.
--
http://www.pbase.com/jsb
Last edited:
Peter Foiles
Senior Member
I have both the X-Pro2 and 16-55 and when using the zoom I use the EVF exclusively. There are reasons the XP2 has a hybrid viewfinder and lenses like the 16-55 are the reason to use the EVF. As I recall from my very brief experience using the OVF with the lens about 1/3 of the lower right area of the frame are blocked. I am enjoying using the 27 and 35/2 with the OVF but with other lenses like the 16-55 it is EVF all the way.
I see you also have the X-T1.
How do you find the EVF in the X-Pro2 compared to the X-T1? Do you wear glasses with it? How does that go?
In general, what are your reflections on how the cameras compare?
If you were generally shooting with the 16-55 for most of your photography, would you have purchased the X-Pro2? Why / why not?
Just wondering...
Peter Foiles
Senior Member
The XP2 EVF is better than I expected based on the early reviews but clearly not as good as the X-T1 especially if like me you wear glasses. Best analogy I can think of is the XP2 is a standard movie screen the X-T1 is iMAX. The greater eye point is clearly visible, I can readily see corner to corner on the large X-T1 screen even with glasses not the case with the XP2 EVF. The XP2 EVF is OK, usable, but not ideal.
Overall the XP2 is a bit more refined and snappier to use. In comparing prints on 13x19 (A3) paper there is a small but noticeable improvement in detail going from 16 to 24 mp but I am hard pressed to see further improvement at 42 mp from my Sony (100% on screen is another matter). The XP2 is a bit bigger and I like that. But bottom line is you are paying a price premium for the hybrid finder of the X-Pro line and unless that feature is a priority for you many/most would be happier with the X-T1/T2.
I am rather conflicted but forced to choose, the X-Pro line is not the ideal platform for zoom lenses like the 16-55 and 50-140. But fortunately, long term, I don't have to choose and I suspect I will be adding an X-T2 to my collection this summer.
Really ? They seem to work pretty well for me. Just crank up the EVF and away you go. The body is a pretty good size for use with a bulky lens. Not sure what problem you are perceiving.
JS Burnie
Senior Member
OK
Peter Foiles
Senior Member
Yes, Really. If you have extensive experience with the X-T1 and 16-55 like I have and wear glasses you will find the EVF of the X-Pro2 to be a significant downgrade and less than ideal.
georgehudetz
Veteran Member
I know this isn't what you asked, but I just mounted my 16-55 on a friend's X-Pro2, and the AF seemed practically instantaneous, even indoors - at least, on objects with good contrast. With lower contrast there is a small delay, but the lock came with almost no hunting. That coupled with the near-silent AF motors of the 16-55 made for a really nice shooting experience.
Putting his 35/2 on my X-T1, there was a clear difference in AF speed.
Putting his 35/2 on my X-T1, there was a clear difference in AF speed.
Pete Fang
Senior Member
Similar threads
- Question
- Question
- Question
Keyboard shortcuts
- f
- Forum