"rumour" 70-300 4-5.6

Started Apr 22, 2020 | Discussions
John Gellings
John Gellings Veteran Member • Posts: 7,379
Re: "rumour" 70-300 4-5.6

jonikon wrote:

I would like to see an XC 18-135mm with similar optical performance as the inexpensive Canon EF-S 18-135mm ƒ/3.5-5.6 IS STM, ( Which the current more expensive Fujinon XF lens can not match, BTW).

The XF can’t match it but you expect an XC lens to match it?

 John Gellings's gear list:John Gellings's gear list
Fujifilm X100V Fujifilm X-E3 Fujifilm X-Pro3 Sony a7C Fujifilm XF 35mm F1.4 R +6 more
CAcreeks
CAcreeks Forum Pro • Posts: 16,331
Re: "rumour" 70-300 4-5.6

John Gellings wrote:

jonikon wrote:

I would like to see an XC 18-135mm with similar optical performance as the inexpensive Canon EF-S 18-135mm ƒ/3.5-5.6 IS STM, ( Which the current more expensive Fujinon XF lens can not match, BTW).

The XF can’t match it but you expect an XC lens to match it?

That might have been a slip of his left index finger. 'Twouldn't make any sense to have an XC lens in that zoom range.

Here is a comparison of the XF 18-135 and EF-S 18-135, perhaps showing why the XF 18-135 is less than fully beloved on this forum.

https://www.imaging-resource.com/lenses/fujinon/xf-18-135mm-f3.5-5.6-r-lm-ois-wr/blur/fuji-x-e1/

https://www.imaging-resource.com/lenses/canon/ef-s-18-135mm-f3.5-5.6-is/blur/canon-7d/

John Gellings
John Gellings Veteran Member • Posts: 7,379
Re: "rumour" 70-300 4-5.6

CAcreeks wrote:

John Gellings wrote:

jonikon wrote:

I would like to see an XC 18-135mm with similar optical performance as the inexpensive Canon EF-S 18-135mm ƒ/3.5-5.6 IS STM, ( Which the current more expensive Fujinon XF lens can not match, BTW).

The XF can’t match it but you expect an XC lens to match it?

That might have been a slip of his left index finger. 'Twouldn't make any sense to have an XC lens in that zoom range.

Here is a comparison of the XF 18-135 and EF-S 18-135, perhaps showing why the XF 18-135 is less than fully beloved on this forum.

https://www.imaging-resource.com/lenses/fujinon/xf-18-135mm-f3.5-5.6-r-lm-ois-wr/blur/fuji-x-e1/

https://www.imaging-resource.com/lenses/canon/ef-s-18-135mm-f3.5-5.6-is/blur/canon-7d/

No, he said XC and then referred to the current more expensive XF. Seems clear.

 John Gellings's gear list:John Gellings's gear list
Fujifilm X100V Fujifilm X-E3 Fujifilm X-Pro3 Sony a7C Fujifilm XF 35mm F1.4 R +6 more
Mebyon K
Mebyon K Contributing Member • Posts: 842
Re: "rumour" 70-300 4-5.6
2

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.

-- hide signature --

Mebyon K

 Mebyon K's gear list:Mebyon K's gear list
Fujifilm XF 56mm F1.2 R
HatWearingFool
OP HatWearingFool Senior Member • Posts: 2,540
Re: "rumour" 70-300 4-5.6
3

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
Mebyon K
Mebyon K Contributing Member • Posts: 842
Re: "rumour" 70-300 4-5.6

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.

-- hide signature --

Mebyon K

 Mebyon K's gear list:Mebyon K's gear list
Fujifilm XF 56mm F1.2 R
CAcreeks
CAcreeks Forum Pro • Posts: 16,331
Re: "rumour" 70-300 4-5.6

Mebyon K wrote:

HatWearingFool wrote:

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.

Is this the Nikon lens you two are talking about? It looks excellent at 85mm though only f/5.6.

https://www.imaging-resource.com/lenses/nikon/16-85mm-f3.5-5.6g-ed-vr-dx-af-s-nikkor/blur/sub-frame/

Maybe constant f/4 was an ill-advised design goal for the XF 16-80.

HatWearingFool
OP HatWearingFool Senior Member • Posts: 2,540
Re: "rumour" 70-300 4-5.6

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.

Do this look like they are on the same level?

Fuji 16-80

"You can immediately notice high consistency for all focal length range and a very good performance at maximum relative aperture, which is slightly worse for the maximum results by f/5.6. These maximum results, reaching 43 lpmm, are worth the praise in themselves. The best primes reach 45-46 lpmm, and here we deal with a 5x zoom lens after all. "

The Zeiss was very consistent across the board.

-- 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
Mebyon K
Mebyon K Contributing Member • Posts: 842
Re: "rumour" 70-300 4-5.6

HatWearingFool 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.

Do this look like they are on the same level?

Fuji 16-80

"You can immediately notice high consistency for all focal length range and a very good performance at maximum relative aperture, which is slightly worse for the maximum results by f/5.6. These maximum results, reaching 43 lpmm, are worth the praise in themselves. The best primes reach 45-46 lpmm, and here we deal with a 5x zoom lens after all. "

The Zeiss was very consistent across the board.

Which test site are these taken from?

-- hide signature --

Mebyon K

 Mebyon K's gear list:Mebyon K's gear list
Fujifilm XF 56mm F1.2 R
georgehudetz Veteran Member • Posts: 4,953
Re: "rumour" 70-300 4-5.6

Lenstip.

 georgehudetz's gear list:georgehudetz's gear list
Fujifilm X-T2 Panasonic Lumix DC-S1R Fujifilm XF 18mm F2 R Fujifilm XF 60mm F2.4 R Macro Fujifilm XF 14mm F2.8 R +10 more
HatWearingFool
OP HatWearingFool Senior Member • Posts: 2,540
Re: "rumour" 70-300 4-5.6

Mebyon K wrote:

HatWearingFool 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.

Do this look like they are on the same level?

Fuji 16-80

"You can immediately notice high consistency for all focal length range and a very good performance at maximum relative aperture, which is slightly worse for the maximum results by f/5.6. These maximum results, reaching 43 lpmm, are worth the praise in themselves. The best primes reach 45-46 lpmm, and here we deal with a 5x zoom lens after all. "

The Zeiss was very consistent across the board.

Which test site are these taken from?

Lens tip

-- 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
CAcreeks
CAcreeks Forum Pro • Posts: 16,331
Re: "rumour" 70-300 4-5.6

HatWearingFool wrote:

Mebyon K wrote:

HatWearingFool wrote:

The Zeiss was very consistent across the board.

Which test site are these taken from?

Lens tip

Does not look so good in this lab test.

https://www.imaging-resource.com/lenses/sony/16-80mm-f3.5-4.5-dt-carl-zeiss-vario-sonnar-t-sal-1680z/review/

HatWearingFool
OP HatWearingFool Senior Member • Posts: 2,540
Re: "rumour" 70-300 4-5.6
1

CAcreeks wrote:

HatWearingFool wrote:

Mebyon K wrote:

HatWearingFool wrote:

The Zeiss was very consistent across the board.

Which test site are these taken from?

Lens tip

Does not look so good in this lab test.

https://www.imaging-resource.com/lenses/sony/16-80mm-f3.5-4.5-dt-carl-zeiss-vario-sonnar-t-sal-1680z/review/

Looking at their blur chart it looks like their copy was decentered.

optical limits got similar results to lenstip

“The Zeiss produced very good to excellent resolution figures in the MTF lab. The center resolution is nothing short of stunning at all focal lengths and apertures.”

https://www.opticallimits.com/sony-alpha-aps-c-lens-tests/141-zeiss-za-16-80mm-f35-45-dt--sony-alpha--review--test-report?start=1

From their conclusion:

”Assuming a good sample the Zeiss 16-80mm f/3.5-4.5 ZA DT is surely a desirable lens. The primary design objective was obviously to maximize resolution because this is where the lens shines with generally stunning MTF figures matching or beating many standard zooms out there.”

the Panasonic 12-60 2.8-4 is also a better lens than the Fuji in many respects but again it’s more expensive.

Fuji made the cheapest 24-120 equivalent lens and I think it shows. Nothing wrong with design towards cost. The problem is a lot of Fuji users claim the lens performs no worse than other systems 24-120 equivalents and that all 5x lenses are poor performers. Yes they won’t equal a prime or shorter range zoom but they can be built to work well.

-- 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
DocetLector Contributing Member • Posts: 774
Re: "rumour" 70-300 4-5.6
1

I don`t know if one can compare the 2 graphs as there are different numbers on the LH side of the charts. Either the Fuji lens is sharper at peak peformance or the Fuji chart is more spreaded.

Or do I miss something?

 DocetLector's gear list:DocetLector's gear list
Fujifilm X-T1 Fujifilm X-E2S Fujifilm X-T2 Fujifilm XF 35mm F1.4 R Fujifilm XF 18-55mm F2.8-4 R LM OIS +3 more
Wezre Contributing Member • Posts: 779
Re: "rumour" 70-300 4-5.6
2

CAcreeks wrote:

Mebyon K wrote:

HatWearingFool wrote:

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.

Is this the Nikon lens you two are talking about? It looks excellent at 85mm though only f/5.6.

https://www.imaging-resource.com/lenses/nikon/16-85mm-f3.5-5.6g-ed-vr-dx-af-s-nikkor/blur/sub-frame/

Maybe constant f/4 was an ill-advised design goal for the XF 16-80.

No, I think they’re referring to the Nikon 16-80 f/2.8-4: https://www.imaging-resource.com/lenses/nikon/16-80mm-f2.8-4e-ed-vr-dx-af-s-nikkor/review/

 Wezre's gear list:Wezre's gear list
Fujifilm X-H1 Fujifilm XF 35mm F1.4 R Fujifilm XF 10-24mm F4 R OIS Fujifilm 16-55mm F2.8R LM WR Fujifilm XF 16mm F1.4 R WR
CAcreeks
CAcreeks Forum Pro • Posts: 16,331
Re: "rumour" 70-300 4-5.6

DocetLector wrote:

I don`t know if one can compare the 2 graphs as there are different numbers on the LH side of the charts. Either the Fuji lens is sharper at peak peformance or the Fuji chart is more spreaded.

Or do I miss something?

Different cameras, probably 16 Mp vs 24 Mp.

Hat Wearer, thanks for your theory about decentered Zeiss lens. You would think Sony could give them a replacement lens but NOOOOOOOOOO.

9VIII Senior Member • Posts: 1,185
Re: "rumour" 70-300 4-5.6

LarsRost wrote:

johnbandry wrote:

Erik Baumgartner wrote:

HatWearingFool wrote:

Apparently the 70-300 will be F4-F5.6

Fuji Rumours

So that's 1 of the three unknown lenses.... 2 more to go.

Please, a premium, but not enormous 12mm f/2 with nice sunstars, and/or a premium and fast 18mm - not a pancake.

Don't be greedy: I'd like one of them to be a 300mm f/4 prime, that can take a teleconverter. Pretty please, Fujifilm.

Yes, a 300/4 and a 500/5.6! Even though I own the 100-400/4.5-5.6 it would still be great to a have a telephoto prime.

If you look at filter thread sizes, the two main selections for large lenses are 86mm and 95mm. If you're not going to hit an 85mm front element size it may as well be just over 90mm.

Of course the 75mm front element of a 300f4.0 is even more common, but that also gives it more overlap with other lenses and makes it less special.

At 375mm f4.0 the front element is 93mm, I'd say that's the longest you can affordably go at f4.0 and would be nearly ideal for a sports and wildlife lens. You get the field of view equivalent of Full Frame 560mm, plenty long, decent aperture (important for AF), I'd probably prefer it over my Canon 400f5.6.

If there were such a thing as a 400f4.3 that would be just as good but I think people would concentrate more on the aperture speed than the focal length.

 9VIII's gear list:9VIII's gear list
Canon EOS 1100D Fujifilm X-E2S Fujifilm X-E3 Canon EF 400mm f/5.6L USM Sigma 150mm F2.8 EX DG Macro HSM +7 more
HatWearingFool
OP HatWearingFool Senior Member • Posts: 2,540
Re: "rumour" 70-300 4-5.6

CAcreeks wrote:

DocetLector wrote:

I don`t know if one can compare the 2 graphs as there are different numbers on the LH side of the charts. Either the Fuji lens is sharper at peak peformance or the Fuji chart is more spreaded.

Or do I miss something?

Different cameras, probably 16 Mp vs 24 Mp.

Hat Wearer, thanks for your theory about decentered Zeiss lens. You would think Sony could give them a replacement lens but NOOOOOOOOOO.

Most testing sites claim they get the lenses themselves so that companies can't cherry pick. Optical Limits says if they get one with obvious flaws (like decentering) they will try to get another.

-- 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
HatWearingFool
OP HatWearingFool Senior Member • Posts: 2,540
Re: "rumour" 70-300 4-5.6
1

DocetLector wrote:

I don`t know if one can compare the 2 graphs as there are different numbers on the LH side of the charts. Either the Fuji lens is sharper at peak peformance or the Fuji chart is more spreaded.

Or do I miss something?

The Sony was tested on a 10.2 megapixel camera. You can't compare absolute numbers across megapixels, but the overall trends will stay the same as the megapixel goes up. This is why sites like optical limits usually tell you what good, avg, great, or amazing scores would be for a lens. Because newer cameras are expected to resolve much higher than old ones which means you can't directly compare old reviews with new ones.

-- 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
oscarvdvelde Senior Member • Posts: 1,365
Re: "rumour" 70-300 4-5.6
1

HatWearingFool wrote:

Apparently the 70-300 will be F4-F5.6

Fuji Rumours

It looks nice, but then you realize that for 1/2 stop, 30% narrower and an aperture ring you will lug around something 2.5x the size and weight of the XC 50-230mm, and because of that leave at home 2.5 times as often.

 oscarvdvelde's gear list:oscarvdvelde's gear list
Fujifilm X-T3 Fujifilm XF 27mm F2.8 Samyang 12mm F2.0 NCS CS Fujifilm XF 16mm F1.4 R WR Samyang 50mm F1.2 +4 more
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum MMy threads