I never really tested the RF 28-70 2.8 properly but recently decided to try the Fuji system again for travel and use the R5ii for just wildlife/action and when I needed the extra performance. The X-T5 is a cracking compact camera but trying to find a decent zoom lens for it has proven very challenging. I bought the X-T5 with the 16-50 a tiny compact 24-75 4-7.2 equivalent and its pretty good but it can be slow so set about trying some other options, first of all the Tamron 17-70 2.8, a fairly compact 25-105 f4 equivalent, but it had a lot of issues, mis-focus, ca was high in a lot of situations and I didn't bond with the lens and sold it. Next up was the new Fuji 16-55II 2.8 as expensive as the RF 28-70 2.8 and the first copy was lousy, I returned it for a refund and put it down to bad luck. Buying Fuji gear, especially some of the later lenses you have to join a que and wait, so had to wait weeks and weeks for another copy of the lens. It arrived too late for me to take it away on holiday and on my return I have been testing this copy.
Suffice to say, I am left totally confused by optical limits review of the 28-70 2.8 and what Fuji have released as their greatest 2.8 constant zoom lens, which after all is actually F4.
I set this little test up, which evolved after I was doing some ad-hoc tests around the house with the first lens and these 3 gin bottles became a good place to start and so I set them up again when this second copy of the Fuji 16-55ii arrived and embellished it a little. Again I tested it against the RF 28-70 2.8, which is leaving me a little puzzled as this lens does not seem anywhere near what optical limits is saying it delivers at 70mm and I'm actually thinking of cancelling my patreon to them as I'm not sure I trust their reviews if this is anything to go by. What do others think?
Tripod, es, ibis/ois off, af single on the central body of the cental bottle, smallest af point. 10 sec delay
Same set-up as above.
Note the coins at the extreme far sides are forward of the everything else and certain things behind the main plain of focus too. This was the second copy of this Fuji lens and the RF 28-70 2.8 has out-performed both of them imo, which has surprised me as I was expecting the extra stop of dof on aps-c and a lens without ois too to be particularly sharp across the field. It also raises the question about optical limits review imo as this lens at 70mm does seems very good across the frame wide open, which is quite impressive for a non L zoom.
Suffice to say, I am left totally confused by optical limits review of the 28-70 2.8 and what Fuji have released as their greatest 2.8 constant zoom lens, which after all is actually F4.
I set this little test up, which evolved after I was doing some ad-hoc tests around the house with the first lens and these 3 gin bottles became a good place to start and so I set them up again when this second copy of the Fuji 16-55ii arrived and embellished it a little. Again I tested it against the RF 28-70 2.8, which is leaving me a little puzzled as this lens does not seem anywhere near what optical limits is saying it delivers at 70mm and I'm actually thinking of cancelling my patreon to them as I'm not sure I trust their reviews if this is anything to go by. What do others think?
Tripod, es, ibis/ois off, af single on the central body of the cental bottle, smallest af point. 10 sec delay
Same set-up as above.
Note the coins at the extreme far sides are forward of the everything else and certain things behind the main plain of focus too. This was the second copy of this Fuji lens and the RF 28-70 2.8 has out-performed both of them imo, which has surprised me as I was expecting the extra stop of dof on aps-c and a lens without ois too to be particularly sharp across the field. It also raises the question about optical limits review imo as this lens at 70mm does seems very good across the frame wide open, which is quite impressive for a non L zoom.
