"rumour" 70-300 4-5.6

Started 11 months ago | Discussions thread
OP HatWearingFool Senior Member • Posts: 2,513
Re: "rumour" 70-300 4-5.6

Mebyon K wrote:

I would buy a 70-300 (105-450) f4.0-5.6 if it had the image quality of my 55-200, I wouldn't buy it if were as weak at the long end as the 16-80.

I honestly believe that Fuji produced the 16-80 to quell the clamour for such a lens, particularly from a well known Fuji rumour site, as their optical designers knew full well that a zoom ratio of 5:1 and high optical quality are mutually exclusive.

If it’s mutually exclusive how did other brands manage it?

To be fair the Fuji is cheaper. I got worried as soon as I saw the price. My old Zeiss 16-80 cost considerably more, but was a great lens. I was hoping that the Fuji would manage to at least match if not surpass a lens released in 2007, but sadly not.

But the Zeiss was 998$ in 2007 which equals $1242 in today’s money while the Fuji is $800. I really wish Fuji had gone for quality over cheapness. And the Nikon is $1066... that’s why so many of us were so worried when we saw the price of the Fuji, it didn’t bode well for its optical quality.

-- hide signature --
 HatWearingFool's gear list:HatWearingFool's gear list
Olympus PEN E-PM1 Fujifilm X-T20 Olympus M.Zuiko Digital 17mm 1:2.8 Pancake Fujifilm XF 18mm F2 R Fujifilm XF 18-55mm F2.8-4 R LM OIS +3 more
Post (hide subjects) Posted by
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow