-
Welcome to the new forums! Please read this first. For known issues we are working to resolve, click here.
XC 13-33mm sample pics from DPR. Any thoughts or opinions?
- Thread starter jonikon
- Start date
Erik Baumgartner
Forum Pro
- Messages
- 10,236
- Solutions
- 39
- Reaction score
- 14,241
I’m traveling at the moment and can’t really scrutinize properly, but the pics look great on my phone. Should be a great compact walkabout lens in good light. I would love if they made a fast premium XF lens in this range.
I will not comment on photos by themselves, but rather on lenses.
I feel that 13-33 follows the current trend in the design of "standard kit" zoom lenses. The kit lenses we were used to in the past covered the FL range of about 28-70mm on FF, were slow even at the wide end, and featured questionable IQ. Fuji XF 18-55/2.8-4.0 was an outstanding exception due to its IQ, build, and overall quality.
Then, from some moment, the trend made a turn. In 2018, the Fujifilm XC 15-45mm F3.5-5.6 OIS PZ was introduced. In 2020, we saw the arrival of the Panasonic Lumix S 20-60mm F3.5-5.6.
Kit lenses began to get wider, extremely lightweight and compact, yet very sharp wide open.
The trend continues: in 2024, Panasonic introduced even more compact and lightweight (and even slower, but crazy sharp) Panasonic S 18-40mm F4.5-6.3. Sony in 2024 - Sony E 16-50mm F3.5-5.6 PZ OSS II at 107 g. These are FF.
2025 - and we see the Fujifilm XC 13-33mm F3.5-6.3 OIS, even tinier than XC 15-45, lighter, and crazy sharp. Pretty much follows the trend.
I didn't do any extensive research, though - my two systems are FF Panasonic and Fuji X, I don't follow news from other systems attentively, so I can't insist that my identification of the trend is correct. But if confirmed, it will mark an interesting tendency.
I feel that 13-33 follows the current trend in the design of "standard kit" zoom lenses. The kit lenses we were used to in the past covered the FL range of about 28-70mm on FF, were slow even at the wide end, and featured questionable IQ. Fuji XF 18-55/2.8-4.0 was an outstanding exception due to its IQ, build, and overall quality.
Then, from some moment, the trend made a turn. In 2018, the Fujifilm XC 15-45mm F3.5-5.6 OIS PZ was introduced. In 2020, we saw the arrival of the Panasonic Lumix S 20-60mm F3.5-5.6.
Kit lenses began to get wider, extremely lightweight and compact, yet very sharp wide open.
The trend continues: in 2024, Panasonic introduced even more compact and lightweight (and even slower, but crazy sharp) Panasonic S 18-40mm F4.5-6.3. Sony in 2024 - Sony E 16-50mm F3.5-5.6 PZ OSS II at 107 g. These are FF.
2025 - and we see the Fujifilm XC 13-33mm F3.5-6.3 OIS, even tinier than XC 15-45, lighter, and crazy sharp. Pretty much follows the trend.
I didn't do any extensive research, though - my two systems are FF Panasonic and Fuji X, I don't follow news from other systems attentively, so I can't insist that my identification of the trend is correct. But if confirmed, it will mark an interesting tendency.
I think phone cameras might be behind this trend. I remember various shooting guides telling us how hard it was to compose an ultrawide shot. But with an UWA lens in every pocket people have either learned how to compose good shots or have grown used to rectilinear distortion, and now they want kit lenses that can shoot wide.
And I don't think we've reached the end of the line yet. iPhone 17 and Pixel 9 have two main lenses that would require a 9-18 or a 8-16 zoom from Fujifilm, they can go *seriously* wide. A 9-18 kit zoom that can utilize sensor cropping on 40MP bodies to become a 18-36 zoom is the likely next step.
And I don't think we've reached the end of the line yet. iPhone 17 and Pixel 9 have two main lenses that would require a 9-18 or a 8-16 zoom from Fujifilm, they can go *seriously* wide. A 9-18 kit zoom that can utilize sensor cropping on 40MP bodies to become a 18-36 zoom is the likely next step.
Is it a new or returning trend, welcome trend it is.
20 years ago in my pro years, I enjoyed using Canon EF 17-40/4 and 16-35/2.8 lenses with 1DxM2 cameras. With 1.25x crop sensor the focal length was very useful 20-45 and 21-50mm. Most keepers are from 28-50mm range, but a possibility to go wide very quickly saved many shots.
20 years ago in my pro years, I enjoyed using Canon EF 17-40/4 and 16-35/2.8 lenses with 1DxM2 cameras. With 1.25x crop sensor the focal length was very useful 20-45 and 21-50mm. Most keepers are from 28-50mm range, but a possibility to go wide very quickly saved many shots.
Jeff Biscuits
Senior Member
- Messages
- 3,746
- Solutions
- 7
- Reaction score
- 5,350
Pretty much my exact thoughts.
13-33 basically covers the entire focal range that I like using, so I love that aspect of it—and I was very pleasantly surprised when it was announced as a mechanical zoom, as that wipes out my main objection to the 15-45, which is its horribly slow startup and shutdown times.
But I have a prime mindset and the only time I really want a zoom is for hiking, when a budget non-WR telescoping lens with a plastic bayonet doesn’t really cut it (at least in a British winter). So it’s not a clear win against my 10-24 WR, even though the focal range is better.
So I’m on the fence as to whether to get one.
Great travel lens for zoom users, though.
Last edited:
You knew!
Yes, and people are so used to it that when I took a close-up portrait of a tall lady in her early twenties with a portrait lens from ~2m distance, she looked at the camera screen then, and asked:
- But where is all my figure in this shot?
She honestly was not aware of the telephoto lenses' existence and firmly believed that all portrait photos around were cropped from wide-angle photos and digitally post-processed.
On S1R, the cheap, sharp, miniature, and lightweight 20-60 serves well as a pocketable wide-angle. This 13-33 one may end up being the same thing for Fuji X to someone (maybe even to me, pre-owned for a bargain price).
--
https://www.viewbug.com/member/stesinou
Last edited:
andrei1989
Forum Enthusiast
- Messages
- 255
- Solutions
- 1
- Reaction score
- 295
i just wish it would have gone to 50mm...but i might still get one when they pop up on the used market...
also, one thing i don't see mentioned is that when shooting video, most modes have a crop, on any camera, not just fuji, so starting the kit lens wider can enable reasonably wide video shooting
also, one thing i don't see mentioned is that when shooting video, most modes have a crop, on any camera, not just fuji, so starting the kit lens wider can enable reasonably wide video shooting
John Bean (UK)
Forum Pro
I was hoping for this for exactly the same reason. It's pretty much a copy mechanically of the well-liked Panasonic 12-32 for micro 4/3, although of course the focal lengths have a different meaning. The design allows a lot of flexibility in both use and storage as it's up to you whether you actually want to collapse it.
I definitely want one of these; the range is a much better fit than the 15-45 for my purposes and the annoyance factor of the 15-45 is non-existent in the 13-33 . I'm not buying a X-T30 III just to get one though.
--
John Bean [GMT+1]
Last edited:
Gaber
Veteran Member
One of my complaints about the 15-45 is the perspective distortion and it looks like the 13-33 is quite similar. I have a Tuit 12mm and it corrects that distortion in the lens itself so it is a joy to use. I don't mind so much correcting in pp, so the 15-45 and the 13-33 both should have a place in my bag since they are so light and small. I guess I will sell the 15-45 and, eventually, keep the 13-33 due to it's wider angle.
Jeff Biscuits
Senior Member
- Messages
- 3,746
- Solutions
- 7
- Reaction score
- 5,350
Not sure what you mean. Perspective distortion is a product of perspective, not a lens.
Do you mean barrel distortion?
But I see no issues with any lens distortion in the 13-33 sample gallery, nor in any images from the 15-45. (There’s almost certainly correction happening inside the firmware, but that’s not the point here.)
Is this the common misconception where people take a wide angle lens, tilt it off-horizontal and think that the convergence of vertical lines is a lens characteristic?
Last edited:
Erik Baumgartner
Forum Pro
- Messages
- 10,236
- Solutions
- 39
- Reaction score
- 14,241
Perspective distortion (converging verticals etc.) is a function of focal length and shooting position relative to the subject, this is never corrected in camera. Whatever inherent geometric distortion is present in the 15-45 and 13-33 design is corrected electronically in-camera. There should be no practical difference in usage relative to the Zeiss.
Last edited:
Gaber
Veteran Member
I'm not an expert and may not be describing it perfectly, but with the 15-45 invariably I get converging walls and building becoming pyramids. I see the same thing on the 13-33 samples. With my Touit at 12mm I still get straight walls. I believe the lens has some sort of correction for that. My experience is that it is relatively distortion free.
--
WSSA Member#40 ( Head Squirrel)
http://www.pbase.com/thegaber
http://www.flickr.com/photos/thegaber/
Last edited:
It is perspective distortion — an inevitable product of perspective, as mentioned earlier. To correct the perspective at the time of shooting, you need a shift lens.
Ummm... can you please explain or provide samples? Do you mean that the walls become curved instead of remaining straight, even though they are perspective-tilted? If yes, this is the question of lens profile, which either is nonexistent or not applied automagically.
For distortion-free photos, the Chinese brand LAOWA (Venus Optics) offers a line of high-quality "Zero-D" lenses, some of which also feature shift for perspective correction. However, most of their offerings aren't listed for Fuji X-mount, and the only native X-mount option I'm aware of is the Laowa 12-24mm f/5.6 Zoom Shift CF zoom lens, which isn't declared to be "Zero-D".
The Viltrox AF 13mm F1.4 APS-C Lens for Fujifilm X-Mount is also known for low distortion and has AF, but it does not feature perspective correction (no shift, I mean).
If you shoot your 12mm lens pointed at the horizon (so not tilted up or down), then this is why you're not getting converging lines.
Same will happen when using any other lens, as long as you point it towards the horizon line buildings will be straight.
Try it out with your own lens - point up and any building will become a pyramid.
Gaber
Veteran Member
I absolutely agree. Perhaps I have inadvertently been more careful with the Zeiss lens due to it's higher cost and prestige. I might have been more casual and less precise using the 15-45. I stand corrected. The Zeiss is incredibly sharp, however.
bloodycape
Senior Member
I like that lens has ois & I like the 13-16mm range. Will have to see how much used goes for. I would have been okay if this was a little larger & a constant f4 lens.
The “trend” is self adulation. Lenses need to be wide and light enough to hold with a stretched out hand.
Similar threads
Keyboard shortcuts
- f
- Forum