stillman3
Leading Member
It seems to have promise for macro images also. X-H1 straight out of camera, f8 at 80mm. This is heavily cropped roughly 2000x2000 pixels. I later added two extension tubes and the lens is very encouraging.
Cheers Eric
-
Welcome to the new forums! Please read this first. For known issues we are working to resolve, click here.
Fuji 16-80
- Thread starter VinceC
- Start date
It seems to have promise for macro images also. X-H1 straight out of camera, f8 at 80mm. This is heavily cropped roughly 2000x2000 pixels. I later added two extension tubes and the lens is very encouraging.
Cheers Eric
Samuraidog
Senior Member
- Messages
- 2,378
- Solutions
- 2
- Reaction score
- 2,131
Great pic. This is the kind of shot I haven't seen yet with this lens. Shows the bokeh very well. Please post some more samples if you have them. Thanks.
It seems to have promise for macro images also. X-H1 straight out of camera, f8 at 80mm. This is heavily cropped roughly 2000x2000 pixels. I later added two extension tubes and the lens is very encouraging.
Cheers Eric
For all that did not saw it yet. The first comparison about the new zoom lens XF16-80mmF4 against the premium primes.
The Youtube link from John Armstrong Photography comparing the zoom lens with the best premium XF primes: XF14mmF2.8; XF35mmF1.4; XF56mmF1.2 and XF90mmF2.0.
16-80mm compared with Premium Primes
The Youtube link from John Armstrong Photography comparing the zoom lens with the best premium XF primes: XF14mmF2.8; XF35mmF1.4; XF56mmF1.2 and XF90mmF2.0.
16-80mm compared with Premium Primes
Tom Schum
Forum Pro
Just go to your DPR screen name (click the name), go to "Settings", scroll down a little bit, then check the box that says "Allow download of originals".
At this point viewers will see "Original" along with "Small, Medium, Large" options when they go to your gallery images.
I've found this downloads exactly the same file you uploaded, without quality degradation, and all viewers can do it instead of just you.
Tom Schum
Forum Pro
I'm guessing it will make the X-T30 look a little bit small.
Also, Fuji might be swamped with initial ordering of this lens, at least it seems that way by reading the previous posts in this thread.
VinceC
Senior Member
Arrived today. First reactions are:
Slightly larger than I expected - closer to the 18-135 than the 18-55 (both of which I have), but still a good balance on my XT3.
Build quality is very good, feels solid, well finished. The lens hood appears to be a better quality than the ones I'm used to from Fuji - feels solid and snaps into place without me using bad words.
OIS appears effective - an accidental 1/5 sec shot in my living room is sharp, which really surprised me.
IQ? Not enough experience yet - we're having a deluge today in the UK. Shots of my back garden look sharp (on par or better than my 18-55? Certainly better than my 18-135), nice contrast. Too early to tell about edge to edge sharpness and bokeh. I'll post some shots when it stops raining!
Slightly larger than I expected - closer to the 18-135 than the 18-55 (both of which I have), but still a good balance on my XT3.
Build quality is very good, feels solid, well finished. The lens hood appears to be a better quality than the ones I'm used to from Fuji - feels solid and snaps into place without me using bad words.
OIS appears effective - an accidental 1/5 sec shot in my living room is sharp, which really surprised me.
IQ? Not enough experience yet - we're having a deluge today in the UK. Shots of my back garden look sharp (on par or better than my 18-55? Certainly better than my 18-135), nice contrast. Too early to tell about edge to edge sharpness and bokeh. I'll post some shots when it stops raining!
jhorse
Veteran Member
Ah, isn't this WR lens made for the UK? That's why I have mine on order!
Darryl Brooks
Leading Member
- Messages
- 542
- Solutions
- 1
- Reaction score
- 303
I saw one video on YT that showed it was very close in size and weight to the 10-24, which is the lens that feels the best on my T3. Good balance,etc. But I have had no problem shooting lenses down as small as the 27mm pancake. After the Canon 5DMKIII with battery grip and 24-105 lens, everything feels better
lewiedude2
Senior Member
Image 1 above, taken with the X-T3, has lots of purple fringing above the painted box.
Image 2 above, I would have to see how my 16-55 would handle similar difficult situation where wires are in front of blue sky...just looking at it.
Were your images SOOC? Just curious. And, thank you for posting. Why do you use ISO320 for those that you did? Again, just curious.
Enjoy the lens!
hectorpatrick
Well-known member
- Messages
- 243
- Reaction score
- 263
Thanks, Tom. That's useful info.
Stoneh Ray
Well-known member
- Messages
- 137
- Reaction score
- 148
I'm not here to knock the Angry photographer guy - there is enough negativity about today without adding to it. However, I hope folk don't go out in hordes and order this lens because of his 10/10 review. I haven't gotten my 'grimers' on this lens yet either, but I do have the 16-55 2.8. I have had this lens for a few years now and I just can't fault it. It is equally as sharp wide open (I only ever shoot wide open street/environmental portraits - have zero interest in landscapes or scenery), and it is every bit as sharp/clear/good resolution as my 90mm, 35 f2 and 23 f2. The angry dude said several times (as he repeated himself), that is was '... sharper than the 16-55 2.8'. Really - I sincerely doubt it, and just hope his slap/dash review does not let good folk waste even better money.
Sutto
Sutto
Lens_Goat
Leading Member
- Messages
- 827
- Solutions
- 1
- Reaction score
- 499
So long as you choose some place with a good return policy, there's no risk.
quintana
Leading Member
Unfortunately I've seen the same with full size samples on some eastern european review site. Even stopped down to f/11 the sharpness in the corners was poor and by far no match to the Nikon 16-80/2.8-4 that I used on my D500 before I switched to Fuji. I've seen better corners in full size samples from the 18-55/2.8-4 @18mm.
A_Mist
Senior Member
- Messages
- 1,330
- Reaction score
- 3,387
Unfortunately it seems that Fuji 16-80 is no match for amazing Olympus 12-100. I was hoping it would be. Well, the positive side is that now I’ll save money and just use my Fuji 18-55.
I still consider this lens, I have 16-50 v2 and 18-55.
Outside I prefer to use 16-50 because of the size, when I am with the kids I prefer 18-55. I do not search for the perfection, but hope 16-80 be at least good as both lenses I use.
Outside I prefer to use 16-50 because of the size, when I am with the kids I prefer 18-55. I do not search for the perfection, but hope 16-80 be at least good as both lenses I use.
HatWearingFool
Senior Member
To be fair though, the fuji is a fair bit cheaper than the Nikon so it isn’t surprising it’s not at the same level. I was worried as soon as I saw the price for the new lens. I suspected it wouldn’t match my old beloved Sony Zeiss 16-80 and sadly I was right. I loved that lens and was really hoping Fuji would swing for the fences with this new lens.
Oh well, I’m sure many people will be happy with the lens’ quality given the Fuji’s lower price. I’m aware Fuji couldn’t make everyone happy.
Tom Schum
Forum Pro
Fuji's own MTF charts for the 16-80 show that sharpness in the corners and at the edges would be mediocre.
What the standard MTF charts can't show is the performance change as the lens is stopped down. We now see it is a compromise some will be unwilling to make.
As for me, I'm still on the fence about this lens. I mostly shoot manual non-electronic primes but I do have a Fuji 50mm F2 WR prime and it is very nice. So the 16-80 would be a good step for me, if I can satisfy myself with the image quality. Still waiting and seeing...
Similar threads
Keyboard shortcuts
- f
- Forum