The Fujifilm XC 35mm F2 prime lens has the same optical formula as the company's XF 35mm F2 WR prime but costs half as much. How can this be? Chris and Jordan explain the differences.
Here's the most important difference between the XC and XF lenses: the XC lenses have a plastic lens mount. This means it is considerably less robust than the metal lens mount on XF lenses. I had the XC 16-50 that came with the XA-1, and it tumbled off chair a few inches onto a carpet, and the lens mount broke, which meant the contacts on the lens mount no longer contacted the camera len's mount and the camera could not see the lens. The plastic lens mount is considerably thinner and has less mechanical stiffness than the metal lens mounts on XF lenses.
I notice that the XF version states 'Super EBC' (Electron Beam Coating) on the lens ring that is absent from the XC version. There also seems to be a green tinge to the XF coating. Does this mean that flare control on the XC might be inferior?
Hope they continue the trend with other focal lengths (23mm, 50mm). This way they will get more users into their system without ripping their wallets off
Well maybe not now the plastic one used (in the future) will cost under $150, a very good deal for a begginer's 'nifty fifty'. Having access to cheap and good gear is always a good thing.
Having cheap gear is not the direction the lens or camera companies are going now. Their perception is that the income bracket that can make them the most profit is higher. That is why we see $1000+ lens prices being normal and camera bodies that once were about $800-$1000 on average now being $1500 or more. But nothing is stopping a company from covering all bases, that's how Sony (after trying just about every camera style) settled on mirrorless.
I love dpreview TV but this whole video is "barking up the wrong tree".
Based on pricing this is a "starter zoom" or "first zoom". We all know the optical formulas are close enough that this and the $400 lens will be similar, you are literally wasting your's and our time on that coverage. But what you don't answer and what just about everyone in the market for this lens will want to know: Is this lens better than the kit lens and if so how is it better.
This and every other one of the 8 dpreview articles covering this lens fails to answer that basic question important to the core targeted market for this lens.
It's a prime lens not a starter zoom which gives you better IQ and f2 at 35mm, as opposed to f4.5-f5 on the kit zoom. There also aren't 8 articles discussing the XC35f2.
Oh, it's you again. I guess the adage "don't feed the trolls" comes to mind.
But I will take this opportunity to comment at how awesome I think the Fuji 18mm-55mm F2.8 - F4.0 OIS "kit" lens is. There's actually something of an argument there, on whether this little 35mm F2.0 lens is "better" than that "kit" lens. Of course that "kit" lens is an excellent $700 lens, and this little F2.0 lens seems (to me) to be an excellent sub-$200 lens.
As to why this 35mm F2.0 lens is better than the $300 15-45mm F3.5-5.6 powerzoom kit lens, 2.5 stops (or so) at 35mm speaks for itself.
@ technotic there are hundreds of smartphone models that have a 50mm or even narrower focal length. beginning with the iphone 7plus,8plus,X,XS,11pro... many samsungs, many huaweis, and so on...
It gives you two stops less noise and two stops shallower depth of field at 35mm. Now the situations you mentioned the IQ difference won't be as noticeable because Fuji's kit zooms are very nice, but once you shoot with the primes advantages the difference is obvious.
Maybe the focal length isn't yours. 50mm equivalent is very boring in some circumstances. But fuji made a great package. I believe they needed a good kit lens for upcoming cameras.
My Canon 40mm f2.8 pancake came out for 129euro back then, with metal bajonett. At the same time Canon had a 50 Euro on every lens before Christmas program. So those 79euro for a new lens was a no brainer for me, too :)
In decent light, unless you are working the depth of field all of your pictures will look like iphone pictures. That is, like 90% of the pictures ever taken in the history of the earth. What scot kelbey calls the "no mans land" of focal lengths:
I think there is no such thing as a boring FOV. 50mm can yield just as interesting a photo as any other focal length. The framing, timing and use of light are the important factors.
Canadian currency has taken a severe hit with dpreview tv! :D I personally prefer a 40mm (equivalent) focal length. Strangely 40mm lenses I know are slower than I’d like with a slow motor. XF 27mm f2.8, EF 40mm f2.8. But it’s good to see Fuji offering cheaper options for their users as their lenses aren’t really affordable and sometimes as expensive as comparable full frame lenses. Their wide angle lenses (10-24mm f4, 14mm f2.8), are an example.
Not until you bump it to something - my AFS-18-105 DX Nikon mount shattered with a slight bump on the doorway - luckily I had a broken 18-55 DX lens so I did a lens mount swap - those were the days I was using DX camera - all Nikon FX lenses have stainless steel lens mount - so they should be.
Why do I need people to believe me - plastic lens mount is not on, you don't see them on any good quality lens - may be Nikon uses cheap inject molding brittle plastic.
Metal has a nice "high quality" look and feel, that is pretty much all the advantage there is to it. Plastic is a complicated land. There are high quality "plastics" that offer impressive mechanical qualities. Also breaking of the lens mount (and a cheap replacement, as you just stated) can be a much better outcome than a severe bending of the entire lens caused by a strong drop/hit on a lens with a metal mount.
Disclaimer: I also like metal construction, but I am aware metal has it's downsides as well and that it is more about "the feel" rather than anything else.
If I bumped into something I'd also worry about the glass inside, the apparent damage being only the tip of the iceberg. There can be a drop in sharpness in some area, focusing issues, that might appear later on, even though the lens seems fine.
Plastic is more than sufficient for this lens. Good plastic is very resilient and is very good at withstanding impacts. G-Shock watches are made of plastic and can withstand being thrown off of buildings. Car bumpers are made of plastic and can withstand being kicked, or banged by metal shopping carts. Plastic is far tougher than most people give it credit for.
I didn't realize the 35/2 was already out in 2016 ... how time flies. And in all these years Fuji didn't make fast focus updates on their bright primes...
How about a version of the more expensive one without WR but with OIS for the same price? $400. I do a lot of video work and I am uninterested in buying a gimbal.
Just watched the video and the funny thing was nothing to do with the content, but the video itself.. Chris seems to have significant green fringing on his face near the end of the video.
The XF price point is what prevents me from going to Fujifilm. I wish they had a XC version of the Fujifilm XF 8-16mm F2.8 R LM WR lens. I can't justify 2K for a hobby. I don't need weather sealing as you won't see me at the edge of a smoldering volcano in Iceland during a heavy ice fog. I like landscape and architectural photography. I carry on with a Panasonic DMC-M1, a dainty Pentax Q-S1 with respective ultra wide angle lenses, and if I don't have either, my LG V20 phone with a 130 degree FOV. C'mon Fuji. Give us hobbyists an XC ultra wde. The XC 35 is a good sign of Fuji broadening it's base of users.
I bought a Fringer adapter and cheap EF-S 10-18 and 60 macro for $150 each, and an 85 for under 200. The adapter has paid for itself already, and I also have an EF 200 F2.8 that I found super cheap. Good enough for my hobbyist needs for now but native AF and more compact size would be nice.
The Rokinon 12/2.0 is excellent. Af ist not necessary with an UW. At f5. 6 everything from 1.3 meters to infity ist in focus anyway. The hyperfocal near limit is 0.681 meters, focusing on 1.362 meters. Durable construction and cheap.
Newbie4life yes $300 for the adapter including shipping. It was only 10% off on Thanksgiving. Forgot to mention my EF-S 17-55 F2.8 ($300, some dust behind the front element, took a screw driver and 15 mins to clean). Compared to the alternative, XF10-24, XF60 "macro" (1:2 compared to Canon's 1:1), XF16-55 F2.8 and XF90 F2 at prevailing used prices, I saved about $1800 by spending $300 on the adapter. It's an expensive adapter but the math works out for the lenses I wanted. I have a bunch of Fuji lenses if course where Canon can't compete on price/performance due to their FF upselling strategy. Add in the beater EF200 F2.8 I had lying around ($200 because someone had glued an adapter to it 4head), the adapter gives me additional imaging options financially out of reach for most native Fuji users.
I'm sure the X mount used prices are because the system is growing and new users are gobbling up the few lenses that enter the market, so it's a good thing. Eventually the used market will hopefully stabilize. XC lenses with no optical compromise are a good idea!
Visually in my photos, I see no vignetting whatsoever on the ultrawide zoom and the 60 macro even wide open, some soft vignetting at the far wide end on the F2.8 zoom, as is normal for such lenses. No vignetting at intermediate to long focal lengths wide open, and disappears when stopping down. So no visible difference in expected behaviour compared to APS-C lenses designed for 1.5x crop, which is unsurprising, since we are taking about a mere 6% difference in image circle radius.
Agreed that nobody should spend a lot on a 50mm-equivalent lens (unless it's super fast) but other than the digression into Canandian exchange rates, why is a video needed for a simple list of pros and cons?
Exactly. Why do we need to spend 6 minutes watching a video when we could skim a pro/con list in less than 1 minute. They should at least include a written summary after the video.
DPRTV already faciliates links to certain parts of the video. So if you want to, you can directly jump to the part which is interesting for you. If that's still not working for you because you don't want to watch a video at all, why are you opening this article in the first place then?
"Why do we need to spend 6 minutes watching a video..." You don't need to watch 1 second of the video unless someone someone was physically holding it to your face.
This is a very smart move by Fujifilm, especially when you consider they offer some very nice entry level models (X-T200 and X-A7). This fast prime would pair perfectly with either one, and not be too expensive for the first time or value customer.
Good for luring new people into the system, not so good for hard-core X users who are still waiting for the overdue refresh of the top line of primes...
The profits from this cheap and cheerful performer which obviously punches above its weight, will be what pays for the refresh of the higher end primes.
Are you saying that you can't see the superb detail clarity and clean fluidness of the S1H footage? The GH5 is a fine video camera, but it is 2 stops behind in ISO performance.
The sad part is that you call viewing videos on your phone a "watching". You can't see $#!T on it. It's like watching your HDTV from 10 meters away. It doesn't matter what the image quality is at that point.
Even if I downloaded the original, my screens are all still 1080p. So it would just be downsampled-although I'm sure it would look fantastically sharp.
Watching it on a proper monitor isn't an extreme situation. You guys are basically "judging the book without reading it".
Mr Bolton, you are missing all the fun with just 1080p. What's the point of spending thousands of dollars on camera gear and then viewing everything on a cheap old FullHD screen? You are wasting it.
OK, so my phone at viewing distance occupies roughly the same angle of view as my 55" TV seen from my usual position. The phone is 1440p and TV is 2160p and I really doubt I can tell the difference between 1440p and 2160p at the same angle of view. Maybe with a static test image, but surely not with video.
So, are you afraid to come closer to your TV? Is its brightness cranked up to blinding levels, which prevents seeing clearly? A TV is not a monitor. And not every TV can even act like a proper monitor.
ecka84: Not sure why you think 'extreme situation' refers to the monitor? The GH5 shoots 4K in any case, which is plenty of resolution for most TVs/monitors.
I get it, a Canadian joke! I love those Canadian jokes. They're my favorites. Canadians have this great sense of humor. You know, the funny kind? Anyway.
I have always wondered: how much more expensive is it to manufacture weather-resistant gear compared to non-WR gear?
I am aware that most of the price difference is probably driven by customers' much higher willingness-to-pay for WR gear rather than simple manufacturing costs.
But putting that aside, I still wonder about the differences in manufacturing. I suppose quality control is harder to do with WR gear? The materials can't cost that much.
AFAIK most lenses don't go thru a lot of QC once they're put together (unless you're buying high end Zeiss, Leica or maybe some Sigmas)... Hence all the evidence about misaligned elements etc., I think most if not all QC happens when individual elements are made or bonded to each other before final lens assembly.
I doubt there's any serious QC being made over the WR seals of lenses but I'd be happy to be mistaken... I think it's just a feature manufacturers lord over consumers in order to upsell some of the more expensive lenses... And I'm not taking a shot at Fuji here, the 35mm XC looks like a pretty nice compromise.
Sigma has arbitrarily put a weather sealing gasket into some of their APS-C lenses (16/1.4 & 56/1.4) and not others (the earlier 30/1.4 or the f2.8 trio)... Oly (whose sealing is a little more battle tested even if only anecdotally) sells some relatively cheap sealed lenses (like the 60/2.8 macro) yet overall still uses it to push their kilobuck Pro line.
Fuji has done better than most in that regard with the f2 WR line IMO... I imagine the cost savings with this XC go beyond the 2¢ gasket or any QC or lack thereof, maybe the new casing makes manufacturing it cheaper and/or more automated or maybe they're just willing to lower profits on it (or a combination of all).
Sure, but it is rather interesting that weather sealing can often only be found in a manufacturer's high end line up. I share the suspicion that this is because it's a comparatively easy way to segment the market rather than WR being too costly to include in entry-level offerings. I'll gladly be proven wrong though.
Plastic lens components may be cheaply and easily molded and even machined if necessary. It's more expensive to make/mold, cast, then machine metal parts.
The WR rings and gaskets themselves are pretty trivial in cost, but the engineering of where to put 'em and how they work (especially in a zoom lens with a larger focusing group that moves in and out) takes time to work out and test.
I live in the PNW and will pay extra for WR gear because my WR cameras and lenses do not fail because they get a little wet.
Your assume WR makes the price by ignoring the differences in build (metal v plastic), aperture ring, hood, and likely packaging and lens coatings (according to the ebc making on the xf). The price difference is likely a result of all the above, probably coupled with adjustments to production and supply chain to boot.
I am fully aware that there is more differentiating the two lenses in the video than just the WR. My musings are related to the place of WR gear in the marketplace in general.
One of the things I dislike about how the current market is segmented is that high end gear is usually differentiated from entry level offerings not only by optical performance but also by WR and size (that is itself a result of manufacturers striving for the non-plus-ultra in IQ in their high end lenses).
The result is that it is rather hard to find gear that is both small and WR. Fuji's WR line is actually a welcome exception to that rule.
Bravo Fuji! In these days of new lens seemingly only getting larger, heavier, and insanely expense, it's always nice to see budget options that still pack a heavy punch.
And btw, your daughter is just cute as a button :)
Well, if you compare build quality and optical performance of these "expensive" lenses, you will quickly realize that quality costs money and Fujinon lenses are not the ones that deliver best value for your money.
There is a reason why top-performing lenses are big and heavy and if you are not seeing any of these on the X system, it should not be too difficult figure out what have you been missing all along...
Not sure what sirkhann is on about Fuji Red Badge XF glass not delivering value for money.. it's all large, heavy, built of metal and weather resistant, NTM being optically fantastic. X system glass tops out around two grand, excepting the great big 200mm F2, but even that compares favorably in price to performance ratio with the pro glass from CaNikon with which it competes.
Thankfully, there are an increasing number of third party options-including the Viltrox 85mm and their impending holy trinity of AF primes-so the value conscious set will be well served with those alternatives.
Maybe just maybe a little off, but it certainly FEELS like you are closer to right than I am when you are standing at the cash register credit card in hand. Good fun Chris and I always enjoy it.
I'm pretty sure that was sarcasm about the exchange rate. It sounded like he was referring more to Afghanis from 20 yrs. ago, although that was 45,000 Afghanis to the US$ so more extreme.
For the love of all things holy, please update the thumbnail on that video so that "Performance" is spelled correctly. You don't even have to replace/re-upload the video itself... it's JUST the thumbnail. My eye is twitching.
What is so difficult to grasp about the same lens in two different quality versions? If you want performance on the cheap, get the XC. If you appreciate build quality and durability, get the XF.
Is it a 2020 vision thing though (hint for title of future lens reviews...?) to entitle the video Same perofrmance for half the price?
That said, excellent concisely clearly spoken , well-described and argued review 10/10 guys! Is Fuji timetabling release of similar models at 23mm, 18mm etc?
Excellent, concise and to the point review, with good samples, and clearly described, guys, 10/10! Are fuji planning to release equivalent models for their other lenses?
What a brilliant idea from Fuji. Most people don't move away from their practical kit-zoom lenses. Partly because it doesn't make sense to buy a prime lens with a focal length they already have. This lens with an obviously great mix of price and quality can help them to experience shooting with a prime.
Brilliant idea? Is this some kind of Montessori-education-speech?
As good as this move is (same with the X-T200; both products are 'spot on', i think), it's honestly not brilliant, not new, not original - just look at other companies, which already did this years ago.
Nikon already did it a long time ago with the excellent 35/1.8 DX. Canon has the EF-S 35/2.8. Admittedly, Sony's E 35/1.8 is a bit on the pricey side, though.
It's like the XT3 vs the XT30. Essentially similar performance but you are paying for more controls, weather sealing and durability. Just make your choice. (I got the XT3 and have the other 35mm's already!)
I have been shooting digital cameras long enough to NOT care about FAST, HUGE, HEAVY and EXPENSIVE "professional" prime lenses. I am not interested in "near-perfect optical engineering marvels" that cost me USD 3K+ a piece. My ego is old and wise enough to NOT need fancy gear to justify its fragile existence.
Heck, with every camera buyer and their brother/sister/grandma chanting "IBIS", let's reduce complexity and costs by eliminating "OIS" from lenses.
There is practical sensibility in low-price (around USD 300) f/2 or f/2.8 prime lenses like the XC 35mm.
@AshleyMC To be fair that article by Barney Britton is about FF F1.8 lenses, not about FF F3.0 lenses. Or to quote the comments:
D7000ShooterUK "Let's not forget the Fuji f/2 primes - they are mostly excellent." Barney Britton "And not for full-frame ;)" D7000ShooterUK "Not everyone shoots full frame, @Barney Britton ;)" Barney Britton "No but articles about full-frame are articles which are about full-frame :)"
Also Barney Britton "this article is specifically meant to address full-frame photographers. With smaller formats, faster lenses make a big difference."
Very true Ashley. Your first section summarizes the problem, why Fuji was and still is is so unattractive for most (INCLUDING professional) photographers in the first place. It is because all previous Fuji (XF) lenses are overpriced by a factor of three. When compared e.g. against Sigma's DN lens series (for Sony APS-C and M4/3), i.e. Sigma's 1.4 APS-C primes with ART quality, which a priced fairly. Meaning, 1/3rd of Fuji's equivalent offerings so far.
So let's hope for Fuji future brand success, that this first XC prime is not a one-off. Unfortunately it could be, just like Nikon did for their APS-C DSLRs, where they also did a 35mm 1.8 for fair $200 USD, but then this remained the one and only prime they ever made for APS-C.
If you compare Fuji lens prices, then maybe not with third party lens prices? Compared to 3rd party Sony, Nikon, Canon and so on usually look bad in regards to price.
In addition the comparison will usually be positive for this lens and negative for that. You find great deals with every brand. It is of no use to cherry pick single examples.
Finally a lot of lenses are not directly comparable. I for one want small lenses. I do not care how good the Sigma Art lenses are, because they are all way to big. That makes their price irrelevant for me. I have to compare similar products to evaluate their worth to me.
Yes, some Fuji lenses are on the expensive side for what they offer, but most of them are rather good. But that is true for the other primary brands as well. Have a look at Sony GM lenses in the 2000+ region and come again with Fuji is expansive. Sure, the GM are a stop more potent, but that is really lots of cash for it, too.
@TORN But Fuji offers no competition to the GM. The Competition to the Fuji 56mm F1.2 are the various 85mm F1.8 lenses which are all cheaper.
You can go through all the lenses and sometimes the FF options are cheaper, and sometimes Fuji is cheaper. But overall Fuji isn't any cheaper than other competitors.
And while I agree that comparing third party options is a little unfair. The fact that Fuji has no third party options in their system makes the comparison warranted for many users.
I have both Fuji and Sony FF. Sony's lowly lenses are plastic garbage, I prefer the Fujis any day, they are small, super sharp and the fit and finish are superior.
@AshleyMC - is wanting a “professional” quality lens merely a matter of ego or perhaps a result of wanting to shoot in the rain? Similarly, is wanting an aperture ring simply down to ego, or could it be that some people prefer that as a means of direct control? Should every modest person think as you do with regard to every subject, or is it just confined to camera lenses?
Looking at 4k still I think the XF is a little punchier, better micro-contrast resulting in a deeper more pleasing rendering. This must be due to coatings or maybe tighter tolerances.
Just a consistency question. Why do DPreview reviews of FF lenses often mention distortion, while you don't do that for M43 or mirrorless APS-C lenses?
I mean this lens has -4.12% barrel distortion that is more than a Sony 12-24mm ultra-wide-angle zoom at 12mm
I personally have 0 problems with digital distortion correction. And this lens proves that digital distortion correction can be used to create sharper corners in a smaller package than otherwise possible, so that is fantastic. I would just prefer if DPreview stuck to one consistent opinion on that. If it matters mention it every time, if it doesn't don't. Your last reviews of the Nikon 35mm S and the Canon 35mm RF macro both still explicitly mention distortion
I personally hadn't noticed this difference before. Could it be that DPreview mentions distortions more frequently for lenses that go in front of an optical viewfinder (aka DSLR) as they cannot be hidden in an optical viewfinder? And it is not just that distortions would make the lens look bad in an optical viewfinder, it also means that if the application of (significant) distortion corrections is assumed the optical viewfinder would show incorrect framing. Fuji and m43 lenses thus might be treated somewhat differently not because they are not FF but because they are mirrorless.
Additionally, I think it was m43 that pioneered 'mandatory' distortion corrections in (third-party) raw converters (ie, in most raw converters there was no option to not apply distortion correction). Which went along with the lens manufacturers embedding the distortion correction parameters into the raw file while for DSLR lenses, the raw converter maker had to test the lenses themselves.
@noirdesir I get that point for DSLRs, but we are talking here about FF mirrorless. Both examples I mentioned are mirrorless.
And especially for mirrorless, you should have one universal standard. As they all embed a profile. Otherwise, your standard is "systems for which Adobe allows the corrections to be turned off" which is very arbitrary
panther, as you're a approved Sony Fan well-known here on DPR, it's funny you argue about distortion about a sub 200$ XC 35mm Prime Lens.
For instance, the Sony G 16-50/2.8 does have really distortion, which was approved online, just google it for yourself. And we're talking here about a 1300$ class Zoom Lens, not a 200 bucks prime ! ;-)
@marc petzold You don't understand my post. I am NOT against distortion correction.
I am FOR common standards when reviewing lenses. Notice also how I mention the Canon and Nikon 35mm in my example and not the recently reviewed Sony 35mm? That's because DPreview also skipped the mentioning on distortion on the Sony. So if anything Sony is unfairly advantaged by that.
If you really know me so well you know that I mentioned similar complaints multiple times. Both reviews and lens galleries should have a unified standard when it comes to digital correction, which currently they don't
Sad, but true, Adobe for decades, hence Adobe Camera RAW inside LR, PS or -Standalone is being considered as the Industry Standart, hereby.
Personally, C1 does deliver quite better results - but your milelage may vary, use the fave RAW Tool/Converter of your choice. ;-)
FYI - there is no common Standart, DNG is RAW-wide only Adobe Standart, and every brand/firm does have its own Format - therefore, no standart for "distotion correction", that question is a bit weirdo....
I do use since a hell long time PTLens to correct Lens Distortion for my Files, inside Photoshop as Plugin from Tom Niemann.
Regarding distortion correction, the common standard is quite easy. Apply it to all lens galleries for example. Why should you show some galleries with it enabled and some with it disabled just because Adobe arbitrarily gives you a button for that?
In lens reviews? Either never mention distortion, or always test for distortion by using something like a RAW digger that allows you to see the real distortion before correction.
The same goes for chromatic aberration correction etc...
In principle, a differentiator could be whether distortion data are embedded in the raw file (in a documented way). But naturally, the major raw converters have their own database (or use an open-source database), so in practice, this might not matter very much (anymore). Plus the aforementioned aspect of lenses for cameras with optical viewfinders.
But I don't even know whether all or only some mirrorless cameras embed distortion correction parameters in the raw files.
I agree with panther and I have no dog in this fight (Fuji, Sony, etc.)... It's not about file format standards or which converter is considered the best or most used... It's about consistency and the fact that pretty much all mirrorless lens designs are now being realized with these corrections in mind, and they're embedded in the files for your converter to use them whether it chooses to do so or not.
As a user you should only really care about the end result, not wether something was corrected more in software or in glass, for a lot of lenses it's a mix of both anyway (and I'm not just talking distortion)... The only real rub here is 3rd party lenses IMO, specially manual ones that often don't employ or embed any software corrections.
The forced corrections do make reviews less useful. The tool for overlaying two images with a slidey thing would be of great use here. Every review tends to have a photo taken to stress an aberration. Doing a slidey overlay thing for those with uncorrected/corrected versions would be very useful. Dcraw, rawtherapee etc. etc can provide uncorrected raws. Unless it's fully baked in that is. But I hope none does that.
I don't think any of the formats bake them in, but some do force the corrections (in LR anyway) with no option to turn them off as part of the agreement or licencing. There's usually review sites that'll use some other converter to show uncorrected output tho, pretty sure Lenstip does... I'd still argue it's the corrected result that matters most, but there's an argument to be made in knowing what software corrections are applied angle to what degree.
For whatever reason distortion isn't always fully corrected even in lenses that rely on it to a great degree, and some converters (DxO, etc.) even use their own in house corrections rather than those built into the metadata. Heck there's even open source third party lens correction databases.
The reason we want *reviews* to show the corrected and uncorrected data is that you can compare lenses and systems fairly. Third party and old lenses will always look bad compared to new force corrected ones. *All* lenses can be corrected in post so it's not a feature of the lens.
It is when the lens was designed from the start with certain corrections in mind, neither kind (optical or software) comes without trade-offs and it's ultimately the balance or end result that should matter IMO... I do agree it's slightly unfair to third party manual lenses that don't employ any, but they're kind of the minority if you look beyond the enthusiast bubble (and nothing is stopping them from employing them in certain mounts).
I've got nothing against reviews that give the reader both results tho, like I said before, there's some merit in looking at the uncorrected results even when you're absolutely gonna apply them anyway, and more data points never hurt an informed buyer.
Fine Video, i know that's Chris Niccolls fave, the 50mm FoV in FF terms. ;) I'm waiting for Fujifilm, to release the XF 23mm F2 also as XC 23mm F2 Lens - this would be a very good bargain, also for <200 bucks, like said before.
I'd like to pair my XT-20 with a XC 23/F2. I'm no photographer so it's just the kit lens XC 16-50 for now. Still I sometimes feel the need for a faster "all-rounder" lens and am put off by the price of the XF for an occasional use. Should be a sensible move for fuji to expand the XC range in the same way, the development's costs being already covered.
Not seeing misspellings is a sign of intelligence :) intelligent persons' brains do some kind of auto-correction subconciously, before they process the meaning of words. So, they often just don't "see" misspellings.
@dpthoughts Thanks for the compliment, but actually I take pride in being a bit pedantic myself concerning proper spelling - so I was surprised I didn't notice that one, especially it being so obvious. I wonder if a detective would agree with what you stated about intelligent people missing certain things....
I think this one pairs nicely with the affordable Fuji bodies. Smart move from Fuji, would be interesting to know to which extent the tools from the WR version can be used to manufacture the new one.
(In full frame equivalence...) The old one seems a bit expensive when compared to the Z 50mm f1.8 which I own and got for 300€ via special offer for my Z6.
I wish Nikon would make sth similar for the Z50...
Fujifilm's X-A3 is the company's only offering to use a new 24MP sensor without their trademark X-Trans color filter array. We've had it out and about with a variety of lenses to see how it compares.
Fujifilm didn't announce any new products at CP+ this year, but the show is the first chance that a lot of Japanese enthusiast photographers have had to get their hands on the X-Pro2 and X70, which were unveiled last month. In an effort to get cameras into photographers' hands, Fujifilm is running a rental service at this year's show, where prospective X-series users can hire gear while they're attending the show. Read more
After the official launch of the X-Pro2 recently in Tokyo, Fujifilm invited a select group of press to visit its Taiwa assembly plant in Sendai, to see the camera being put together. As well as the X-Pro2, we were also able to see the assembly lines for the X-T1, X100T and several lenses. So of course, being the nerds that we are, we took a bunch of pictures. Click through to check out our factory tour
Fujifilm's XF 35mm F2 strikes an appealing balance between size, cost and durability. It's sealed against moisture and dust, making it a great candidate for use with the weather-resistant X-T1, and at $399 is a fairly affordable 'normal' prime for Fuji's X-system. The Pacific Northwest is just the place to test weather-resistant gear, though thankfully we've had enough unseasonably dry and sunny days to put together a real-world sample gallery with the 35mm F2. Read more
Fujifilm has added another lens to its X-mount, this one being a low-cost Fujinon XF 35mm F2 prime. This compact lens features a nearly silent internal AF system, 9-blade circular aperture, 2 ED elements, and is sealed against moisture and dust. Also announced is a 1.4x teleconverter, which is currently only compatible with the XF 50-140mm F2.8 zoom. It will, however, be compatible with future lenses, including the XF 100-400mm super telephoto lens expected next year. Read more.
The X-T4 brings image stabilization and a larger battery to the X-T series, but dig a bit deeper and you'll find a host of improvements and tweaks. See what we've discovered in the X-T3's sister model.
Nikon's combined the best of its DSLR and mirrorless cameras into one tough-built body, equally well-suited for stills as it is for video. For effectively modernizing one of the brand's all-star camera lines, it receives our silver award.
It's not cheap and the initial setup is time-consuming, but the Loupedeck+ improves on its predecessor in some important ways and makes a lot of sense for those with demanding photo editing needs.
With a slew of significant updates, the Fujifilm X100V's formula remains the same as the previous models; it's stylish, engaging to use, and takes great pictures. Find out what Fujifilm's added to (and taken away from) its fifth X100-series camera in our initial review.
What's the best camera for travel? Good travel cameras should be small, versatile, and offer good image quality. In this buying guide we've rounded-up several great cameras for travel, and recommended the best.
If you're looking for a high-quality camera, you don't need to spend a ton of cash, nor do you need to buy the latest and greatest new product on the market. In our latest buying guide we've selected some cameras that might be a bit older but still offer a lot of bang for the buck.
What’s the best camera for less than $1000? The best cameras for under $1000 should have good ergonomics and controls, great image quality and be capture high-quality video. In this buying guide we’ve rounded up all the current interchangeable lens cameras costing under $1000 and recommended the best.
If you want a camera that you can pick up and use without having to page through the manual first, then this guide is for you. We've selected seven cameras ranging from compacts to full-frame, all of which are easy to operate.
What's the best camera for under $500? These entry-level cameras should be easy to use, offer good image quality and easily connect with a smartphone for sharing. In this buying guide we've rounded up all the current interchangeable lens cameras costing less than $500 and recommended the best.
In addition to improved metadata handling, customizable keyboard shortcuts and more, Affinity Photo can also open and edit Canon CR3 files as of this 1.8 update.
Canon's upcoming full-frame mirrorless camera, the R5, is on display at the company's booth at the 2020 Wedding and Portrait Photography International expo in Las Vegas alongside the new RF 100-500mm lens.
The long-rumored and much-anticipated Fujifilm X-T4 has finally landed. While it has much in common with its predecessor, the X-T4 comes with some major changes.
The X-T4 brings image stabilization and a larger battery to the X-T series, but dig a bit deeper and you'll find a host of improvements and tweaks. See what we've discovered in the X-T3's sister model.
The Fujifilm X-T4 makes some big promises, but can it deliver? Chris and Jordan put it to the test and tell us if this is the Fujifilm camera we've all been waiting for.
The sensor inside the new Fujifilm X-T4 is a known quantity – as it's straight from the X-T3 – and that's a good thing, since it's excellent. Check out our pre-production sample gallery to see how the image quality looks on the X-T4.
Fujifilm has announced its latest stills/video hybrid camera, the X-T4. The biggest change is undoubtedly its in-body image stabilization system, but its improved AF system, redesigned shutter and video-related updates are also notable.
The project provides an unprecedented look at New York as it existed more than 100 years ago by upscaling, increasing the frame-rate and colorizing century-old video footage.
Mathieu Stern recently discovered a time capsule in his family's home that had a number of 120-year-old glass negatives inside. To bring the images to life, Mathieu developed positive prints from the negatives using the cyanotype process.
In honor of National Peanut Butter Lover's Day (yes, it's a thing—we checked), peanut butter manufacturer Jif has teamed up with GIF-hosting platform Giphy to release a limited-edition jar of peanut butter that's meant to settle the hard/soft 'G' debate once and for all.
Sony just launched its newest fast aperture wide-angle prime for its full-frame Alpha lineup, and we've been shooting planes, people and felines with it over the past few days. Read our initial impressions and check out our sample gallery. Spoiler alert: it's a near perfect optic.
Sony is adding a new wide prime to its full-frame E-mount series: the 20mm F1.8 G. It's slightly smaller and lighter than the existing FE 24mm F1.4 GM and will go on sale in March for $900.
The Kolude KD-K1 features four USB-A ports, two USB-C ports, an HDMI port, an SD card slot and a microSD card slot, all inside a slim, but full-size keyboard.
The 1.26x magnification ratio means Nikon F-mount lenses mounted to Fujifilm GFX camera systems using the adapters will keep their native diagonal field of view, albeit at the cost of 2/3 stops of light.
We did a lot of shooting with our pre-production Canon EOS-1D X Mark III, and now that the camera has official support, we've provided out-of-camera Raw files and some Raw-to-JPEG conversions for your perusal.
Sony is updating its flagship Xperia 1 smartphone with faster burst shooting, a bigger sensor in its standard camera and a time-of-flight sensor. And thanks to popular demand, the 3.5mm headphone jack is back.
Vox's seven-minute video shows how the work of photographer Lewis Hine brought attention to the brutal reality of child labor when it was at its peak in the United States at the turn of the 20th century.
We attended the recent launch of the Fujifilm X100V in London, where we had the opportunity to sit down with two senior figures within the company: Chief Designer Masazumi Imai and Senior Manager Shinichiro Udono.
The Nikon D780 is a two-trick pony: it combines the great DSLR experience of Nikon's D750 with some of the great mirrorless features found on the Z6. Does it manage to do both well? Chris and Jordan seem to think so.
Our new Nikon D780 gallery takes you to the Canadian Rockies for photos mountains, people and, of course, a couple of ducks. Because who doesn't love ducks?
Comments