-
Welcome to the new forums! Please read this first. For known issues we are working to resolve, click here.
Fujifilm = poor value?
- Thread starter Nikita66
- Start date
-
- Tags
- fujifilm x-t3 nikon d7500
- Status
The Davinator
Forum Pro
- Messages
- 24,707
- Solutions
- 2
- Reaction score
- 37,836
Well...for starters, why did you choose a Non-Nikon lens in your comparison? Why did you compare a DSLR to a mirrorless system? Yes...you are definitely missing something.
cute_girl_emily
Active member
I do agree that fuji lenses can be a bit expensive, but they are are really nicely made. But I think to make your comparison valid, you need to be comparing using the price of a D500 instead of a D7500.
The Davinator
Forum Pro
- Messages
- 24,707
- Solutions
- 2
- Reaction score
- 37,836
And Nikon lenses instead of Tokina.
cute_girl_emily
Active member
Yeah, that too. But I was willing to give him that one just in case nikon doesn't make any DX wide angle lenses
Loganberry
Well-known member
- Messages
- 125
- Solutions
- 1
- Reaction score
- 101
Poor value?
Follow the herd by all means and go Nikon! But every system has a cost.
I’ve always found Fuji to be a joy to use, tried all the other brands, been there done that. To lessen costs I traded in my previous camera and went with the X-T3. Using Ebay I got good deals on the XF 16-55 f2.8 for everyday stuff and the ell cheapo XC 50-230 for more distant things. Mock the 50-230 if you want but am well impressed with mine. So costs can be controlled if you have a mind to.
If I had wanted to go super wide, the Samyang 10mm f2.8 seems to be getting good crits and from previous experience, the Samyang 12mm f2 is excellent.
However, my choice is not everyones choice. Your perception of a system is often what guides you, logic doesn’t always come into it!
Follow the herd by all means and go Nikon! But every system has a cost.
I’ve always found Fuji to be a joy to use, tried all the other brands, been there done that. To lessen costs I traded in my previous camera and went with the X-T3. Using Ebay I got good deals on the XF 16-55 f2.8 for everyday stuff and the ell cheapo XC 50-230 for more distant things. Mock the 50-230 if you want but am well impressed with mine. So costs can be controlled if you have a mind to.
If I had wanted to go super wide, the Samyang 10mm f2.8 seems to be getting good crits and from previous experience, the Samyang 12mm f2 is excellent.
However, my choice is not everyones choice. Your perception of a system is often what guides you, logic doesn’t always come into it!
Nikita66
Senior Member
Nikon does have WA zooms for APS C, but they are not fast.
Also, the Tokina 11-16 /11-20 has a good reputation for sharpness, though with too much flare when shooting toward the sun.
I'm surprised and frustrated that no one makes an UWA APS prime, like 10mm 2.8. (Samyang, but it has several disadvantages). Given Fuji's commitment to APS-C, which I applaud, I'm surprised they don't offer this.
Also, the Tokina 11-16 /11-20 has a good reputation for sharpness, though with too much flare when shooting toward the sun.
I'm surprised and frustrated that no one makes an UWA APS prime, like 10mm 2.8. (Samyang, but it has several disadvantages). Given Fuji's commitment to APS-C, which I applaud, I'm surprised they don't offer this.
The Nikon body mentioned was launched in early 2017, so the X-T2 is a better comparison. I bought a new X-T2 with 18-135 earlier this year for $1,350, making the price comparable to the Nikon kit.
How does the new Nikon mirrorless compare in price to the X-T3?
How does the new Nikon mirrorless compare in price to the X-T3?
C
Christof21
Guest
This isn't at all a real comparison... as Nikon doesn't make wide angle lenses prime/zoom beyond 14mm for crop sensor. Why even bother to compare a Tokina 11mm with a Fuji 8mm at the wide end? If that's a useless zoom range for you, why list it in the comparison? Either you don't understand FoV or you're just wanting to be argumentative.
If you want small, light and very wide... go this way:
XT-20 - XF10-24, XC15-45 or 16-50 and XC50-230 - $2,397 at Adorama.
For that you are getting the range from 10 to 230mm rather than 11 to 140, all brand name, and paying only $500 more. These are all high quality optics.
To get anything near comparable on the wide end (quality brand-name optics) you'd have to pay $1,895 for Nikon 14-24... and you'd be stuck with 14mm at the wide end. But the XF10-24 is at least as good, smaller and meets your needs for ultra-wide at only $999. That's a good value... more so than the all-Nikon options.
--
JNR
Designing quality short flange (mirrorless) fast lenses beyond about 11-12 is extremely exacting and expensive, especially if you want to keep size down.
In this day and age, there is no good reason to go wider than f/4 in the zooms. Even the Nikon 14-24 is pretty weak at 14 f/2.8, and the Tokina designs have terrible CA and crappy coatings. You really can't expect much in the way of bokeh from an UWA, and they are easy to hand hold at slow shutter speeds.
The Fuji XF 10-24 is excellent - judging from many images, but my wallet has me using the Samyang/Rokinon 12mm.
Jerry-astro
Forum Pro
Perhaps, but it’s also a very well informed group. If you’d walked in here with questions and a genuine need to understand why Fuji’s products might be seen a reasonable value, then I think your post would have been far better received. Instead, you came with a series of judgments, none of which were really based on an serious experience with the system. You must realize that they system is seen as a reasonable price/performance value by many people, hence the fact that we have a dedicated forum for its products. Trying to understand why it’s seen that way and approaching this with a set of questions rather than simply conclusions, — many of which are based on little real experience — might have gotten you a far more useful response.
Consider your approach to dealing with issues like this if you really want a useful response rather than posting something that comes across as troll bait. Perhaps you might sit back, read your OP, and see why some people might see it that way. If not, then maybe you’ll find forums elsewhere that are more tolerant of your posting style.
Last edited:
iRanN
Leading Member
You’re comparing a first in class WR 8-16 2.8 lens to a kit lens from Tokina? L M A O
first, you should be comparing the D500 to the XT3, that’s the equivalent, the D7500 i would compare to the XT20
Nikita66
Senior Member
Well put. I can see where my approach was inflammatory.
boy_wander
Well-known member
- Messages
- 163
- Solutions
- 1
- Reaction score
- 109
Not to feed the trolls or anything but Fuji isn't a better value than say the FF alternative. And that's not necessarily a bad thing. Cost is just one of the many factors to consider because there are other trade offs to be made. My decision to go with the XT3 over the A7III actually ended up costing more. But I also put a value in color science, video specs and other things.
OP... As others mentioned, you've missed several very serious points here that can account for the price difference. The capability of the two camera bodies, their construction and performance are quite far apart from each other. As for the lenses, you're comparing excellent Fuji glass - materials, craftsmanship, optics and also resale value - against what are basically generic third party cheap lenses.
To be fair, I personally don't think Fuji has the best value at the low end of the market. I don't really care for the XT-20, XT-100 or XA bodies - or the XC lenses. It's a toss-up and the Tamrons, Tokinas, Sigmas available on a cheap Nikon or Canon body might be overall a more compelling buy.
But.. you can't compare this junk to the X-T3 (or X-Pro or X-H lines) and XF lenses.
To be fair, I personally don't think Fuji has the best value at the low end of the market. I don't really care for the XT-20, XT-100 or XA bodies - or the XC lenses. It's a toss-up and the Tamrons, Tokinas, Sigmas available on a cheap Nikon or Canon body might be overall a more compelling buy.
But.. you can't compare this junk to the X-T3 (or X-Pro or X-H lines) and XF lenses.
biza43
Forum Pro
This is all relative and subjective. May be poor value for you, but a lens like 8-16 f2.8 from any major company would be expensive. A 3rd party company will make them cheaper of course. Even then, 8mm is very different from 11mm.
In the end, you are not comparing apples to apples, so your logic is flawed.
In the end, you are not comparing apples to apples, so your logic is flawed.
ikaika777
Senior Member
- Messages
- 2,632
- Solutions
- 3
- Reaction score
- 1,808
Well, considering Fuji makes some of the best lenses in the world you’re going to pay a bit more for the best. Why do you care about the 8-16 if you already think it’s “useless”? Somebody else might think $2000 for that lens is just right for their budget and the lens will be very useful for them. Other than that since you’ve already “given up” on Fuji and made up your mind I don’t know why you posted in the first place. By the way, have you gone over to the Leica forum and complained that the Leica 75mm f/1.25 Noctilux-M is almost 13 grand, yet?
Sal Baker
Forum Pro
Beyond price, what are your needs in a new camera. what do you shoot?
Sal
Sal
- Status
Keyboard shortcuts
- f
- Forum