"rumour" 70-300 4-5.6

Started 11 months ago | Discussions thread
John Gellings
John Gellings Veteran Member • Posts: 7,306
Re: "rumour" 70-300 4-5.6

HatWearingFool wrote:

John Gellings wrote:

Mebyon K wrote:

Mebyon K wrote:

HatWearingFool wrote:

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.

When Optical Limits and LensTip tested the two lenses you mention their summaries highlighted the same problems, although with different strengths and weaknesses, as those of the Fujifilm 16-80. As I stated in my original post, the fact is that a 5x zoom ratio and high optical quality are mutually exclusive. If you doubt that ask any high end optical design engineer.

In my original post and again above my statement is "The fact is that a 5x zoom ratio and high optical quality are mutually exclusive." That statement refers to all the optical qualities of the lens throughout the zoom range.

This is from part of the review of this lens . "The primary design objective was obviously to maximise resolution because this is where the lens shines with generally stunning MTF figures matching or beating many standard zooms out there. However, there're also downsides. At 16mm vignetting is a problem at f/3.5 and the level of CAs and barrel distortions is very high.

By what standards can that statement be regarded as referring to a lens of high optical quality?

Since when can a F4 lens do F3.5? Maybe that is referring to the 16-50mm?

The Sony wasn't a straight F4, it actually went from 3.5-4.5. But it was mostly a straight F4.

Sorry, I thought that was talking about a Fuji lens.

 John Gellings's gear list:John Gellings's gear list
Fujifilm X100V Fujifilm X-E3 Fujifilm X-H1 Fujifilm X-Pro3 Sony a7C +8 more
Post (hide subjects) Posted by
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow