That's because FF trolls are 1.6x louder than APSC trolls

Strongly disagree. :P You can not fool physics.

Fijifilms's GFX line is more interesting… Medium format sensors and FF prices… (well, the lenses are particularly affordable, and even more these days with a $500 off promotion on all GF lenses)

Wow, I had no idea that lenses have built in sensors too. I already thought the sensors are part of the cameras and those are definitely cheaper than otherwise comparable FF cameras.

;-)

dpr commenters: 1/1.7" talent and 4x5" critiques

That's true with all brands though. I've noticed big variations in copies of Nikkors as well. When i get a new lens i test it thoroughly. All apertures, all distances, all edge AF points and a good sampling of interior AF points. If I'm not totally satisfied, it gets returned and replaced without hesitation. Never let a brand or huge price tag lead to an assumption of quality. Always test each copy and be critical.

No, i never said Fuji makes perfect lenses. In my limited experience with Fuji I've been quite impressed with quality control and the look of the images. I really like Fuji lenses. They are pricey, but i can see why.

When buying used lenses locally, make sure to thoroughly test them as i outlined above and keep in mind a lot of people on craigslist are just trying to unload broken or worn out junk. Be super critical when you test used stuff and don't hesitate to walk away. If buying used online, make sure you can return or at the very least that you have protection against DOA.

Why do you suggest to "always set zoom at 16mm when not in use" ?

The Sony comparison is flawed.
Where I live, the price for the Sony (A7III) is so high in comparison to the Fuji (X-H1, X-T3) that you have to buy more than four equivalent lenses to make up the difference.

Nice review. Really a great lens but too pricey for me. For cost/benefit nothing beats my Tokina SD 12-24 DXII going on half a decade of full service. The f4 max aperture doesn't bother me at all in the great outdoors. I just have a question. Have you ever heard of lugging gear in a backpack or a gear vest? The way you carry camera and tripod one in each hand what are you going to do if you trip?

Who cares about "lying"? Get that house sold! 😈

22-24mm already makes rooms look larger than they are. And wider is needed for some rooms, shower, bathrooms etc

16mm x 1.5 crop factor is 24mm. So we seem to be agreed. :)

So this f2.8 is a suitable lens for interiors and not having to use a tripod, so long as the focus curvature is rounded and not flat.

It is. Makes small places look big. 😈

Lobster with white truffles and beluga caviar, I can afford it because I bought a Samyang instead of this "monster".

awesome. I myself am more of a potato guy and like long walks on the beach.

Excellent information.

*facepalm*

*facepalm*

Double facepalm?

Why should you go fullframe? If one likes the handling and the IQ of Fuji APS-C and want to build onto en invest into that system why won't just let him? Why sell all your gear and make a switch?

Glad you think the 200mm f2 does make sense in the Fuji system.

But the 100-400 on APS-C "sees" what a full frame 150-600 sees. Therefore, they're quite different.

Yeah... I'd like to see you complain about FF 150-600 :)

Agree, pro zoom lenses on Fuji are basically the same size as the full frame counterparts. Primes on the other hand are amazing on Fuji. I wish Olympus update its cheaper primes to compete with F2 primes on Fuji.

@ bigsensorisbest: You say this as if FF is the best choice for everybody.

No it does not makes sense to get FF for me. I want one system and have loads of other small, light lenses for when I want/need them. The 8-16 and 100-400 make all the sense in the world in my scenario.

For the price of the Sony A7 III and the sony 100-400 I can buy a Fuji X-t3, Fuji 100-400 and another Fuji X-t3 with the kit lens.

@Bigsensorisbest...... sure, if those are the only two lenses you need but that generally is not the case so you have to consider the overall. If I own the 100-400 but only need it sometimes then the Fuji system might still be better overall because for everything else I may be spending less and carrying less. If you're using only one system you have to accept all of the strengths and weaknesses, you can't just look at one or two lenses and draw the conclusions you have with your comments.

There isn't, a con nor a 6-12.

It is indeed much better on the X-H1.

This point makes me wonder, the Sony bodies are also quite small, yet Sony tends to have bigger lenses on average than Fuji to support the bigger sensor. How do Sony users solve grip issues with these bigger lenses?

No not the xh 1. I have used the XE 1, XE 2, xt10, xt20 and the XT3. All had a horrible grip. Works only with the smallest of lenses.

Yes the Sony doesn't have the best grip at all. But compared to the fuji its no competition who has the worst grip by far.

I was looking for 13.37mm prime - and here it is!

True, but if they were primes they would be faster, say f1. 8.

@User9362470513 and I would need to carry 5 or more primes, lose time (and possibly the shot) as well as expose my sensor to dust and rain when I change them.

Not sure why anyone would carry 12 and 14mm primes at the same time. In fact 12 and 24 would do me out of that list.

You probably meant with its front camera, as the rear one takes even better photos than those, right?

Lol, i do have to admit the S10/S10+ ultrawide camera is actually really impressive. Obviously not a match for this lens on a real camera when pixel-peeping. But you would be surprised how truly good it is...

If you are concerned about expensive lenses I don't think Sony is a good counter example...

Having owned both, the Sony 10-18 & Fuji 8-16 are worlds apart in terms of performance.

Thé 16-35 Sony is also probably world apart compared with the Fuji :-)

Of course it is. It‘s 4mm narrower on the wide end and 11 at the tele. Thatös probably why Sony build a 12-24 too

sorry but I've tried a few Sony E 10-18mm and while some of them were really excellent in the center, anything farther from center would be quite bad without stopping down, not in the same league as Fuji 10-24mm. Real shame because the Sony is so light...

@hotshew "a lot for an APSC lens" - do you think APS-C lenses should be cheaper than full frame lenses? Why? The pixel pitch of a 24 MP APS-C sensor is similar to a 50MP full frame sensor so puts high demands on the lenses. APS-C lenses need to be good because of this.

@D7000: "The pixel pitch of a 24 MP APS-C sensor is similar to a 50MP full frame sensor so puts high demands on the lenses." Trueish, but the FF sensor is more than twice as big, so the lens has to maintain that quality over a much larger image circle. So this is in fact one reason why equivalent APS-C lenses should be cheaper.

Good point, I used to be a Fuji die-hard owner and fan, still I dropped the system for FF mirrorless. There are basically two strategies:
(1) You decide your camera system (in this case Fuji X-Mount APS-C) and buys lenses for it, lives with its limitations, and practically ignores the other options. This is where the Fuji 8-12mm fits perfectly.
(2) You decide the kind (ultra wide architecture/landscape) of photography/videography, you pick your lenses (Laowa 12mm/f2.8 Zero-D, Canon TS-E 17mm, and so on and forth) and pick the system accordingly. I belong to the second group, for this the Canon/Sony/Nikon/Panasonic FF mirrorless systems are lot more flexible.
On the other hand, as an ex-Fuji-fan, I fully understand my fellow photographers, who prefer brand loyalty.

Miki, Brand loyalty has nothing to do with it for some of us. Personally, I prefer Fuji handling over other brands and the "limitation" to me is their user experience. As someone else here said, Honda and Yamaha are technologically better than Harley Davidson, I still drive a Harley. Chacun son choix.

Surely you ride a Harley or are they making cars now?

No compromises do not exist, sorry. There are always compromises. Fuji lenses are not perfect, some are good some better but not perfect. No apsc lens as good as it might be can’t compete With ff lenses. Ff lenses always revolve better, this is proven everyday in many tests.

Fair point. Old folk tale.

Now you are an ageist :D

MrBrightSide i don’t know if you’re kidding or not. Larger formats will always exceed in the areas you’re talking about. Do you think that smaller sensors have some magical ability to be better, pixel to pixel, than a larger sensor? Do you think that lenses made for the smaller format are going to be better?

In what way can the smaller format be better than the larger format can be? It makes no sense.

Can you tell me which other lens can replace this, ie has the same speed, range, DOF at f/2.8 etc... and better distortion?

All 12-24 f/4 lenses on full frame have the same range and DOF at f/4.
Canon's 11-24 distortion at 11mm is -4.5%.
Sigma's 12-24 distortion is - 5.3%.
Sony's 12-24 distortion is -3.8%.
As far as speed is concerned, the f/2.8 aperture on APS-C sensors is negated by full frame having about one stop of advantage in sensor noise at the same ISO.

@io_bg

Tell me which other lens has the same speed, width, zoom range, DOF, build etc and also better distortion.

This lens is not perfect. With such extreme specs and features, that will be compromises. Performance should not be just evaluated in absolute numbers and compared with lenses that are not the same. I wish they were also tests in taking cityscape at night, cathedral interiors, beaches at dusk, matches in indoor stadiums, etc when the lens will be appreciated more.

I just did in my above comment.
As for your second paragraph, I fully agree. But no lens is perfect, they're all a compromise of some sort. And, if you're already committed to the Fuji system then all the other lenses don't make sense. The DSLR designs could be adapted but I doubt many would do that.

There's more to this. I believe that with APSC's DOF, it means the same f/2.8 can freeze motion better than FF for situations when you need great depth of field, e.g. To keep foreground interest like leaves sharp in landscape.

no, sergey, aps-c does not have more dof than ff.

dpr tv compared this lens to the sony f/4 lens because they both have the same effective dof.

https://www.dpreview.com/articles/2666934640/what-is-equivalence-and-why-should-i-care

@MILC, The point is that this lens has one faster shutter speed for the same depth of field as FF, which is important for many lowlights situations to freeze motion.

That's supposed to be -

one stop faster shutter speed for the same DOF than FF.

@sergey only at the same ISO. But, FF sensor has over the double the area so you can use higher ISO and get the same result.

io_bg wrote "Canon's 11-24 distortion at 11mm is -4.5%. Sigma's 12-24 distortion is - 5.3%. Sony's 12-24 distortion is -3.8%."
Plus, since 2016 we have the $1000, manual-focus Venus Optics Laowa 12mm/f2.8 Zero-D lens, either. I used to be a Fuji owner and fan, but, quite reluctantly, I dropped the system, since the mirrorless full frame systems (especially Sony's) are so much more versatile and have so much better support and options than the esoteric Fuji. Another major point when talking about (ultra) wide photography/videography, the brilliant (and affordable $1500 open-box/street) Canon TS-E 17mm cannot be used on Fuji APS-C cameras. So, honestly when looking for best tools for architecture photography/videography Fuji APS-C system is not really a viable option vs the brilliantly great FF systems available today for the same price. The Laowa 12mm/2.8 Zero-D on the A7RIII or A7RII (with their IBIS) with the optional excellent shift adapter is very hard to beat.

We don't need to go as far as full frame lenses to prove there's an alternative in primes for the same focal lengths. There's the Laowa 9mm f/2.8 that's $500 or the Samyang 12mm f/2 and Zeiss Touit 12mm f/2.8 if you need something less extreme.

The XT3 is a far more enjoyable camera to use than any Sony, and that counts for something if one is having a dedicated camera system for the fun of it.

Why do we always have to talk in terms of tech specs and not fun and user experience? I mean for those of us who are not pro's, we buy these expensive cameras and lenses supposedly because we enjoy them.

I know a friend who likes motorcycles and he has a Harley; now while a great machine, he will tell you that in some areas a Honda or Yamaha or Suzuki bike is better, but he still goes with the Harley for the sheer fun of it. And he has a point.

8 bit gaming or bust

Because everyting at this site is compared with Sony now :) At least Sony is mentioned at least once.

Funny that you are in fact part of the problem, mentioning the Sony comparison as main point of the review when it wasn't and achieving one of the most popular post, therefore gathering views and interactions. Just because you mentioned Sony. What an irony, isn't it?

What about you MilC Man? Weren’t you banned from the forum and changed your name?

Then like this reviews mention you’d probably love the Fuji 10-24 f4. Isn’t having choices great?

I never understood Sony pricing that lens at $850 retail...or not having a cheaper alternative. The vast majority of Sony crop users would not entertain that sort of money for an UWA zoom. Canon and Nikon at least have cheap options. The Sony might be better, but the price makes it a non-starter for most.

This is coming from someone who bought the 16-70mm...

@CanonKen - "I never understood Sony pricing that lens at $850 retail"

as opposed to Fuji pricing this lens at $1900? it's a classic example of why x-mount doesn't make sense.

the fe12-24/4 for example has similar fov/dof on ff?? it's $1600

"as opposed to Fuji pricing this lens at $1900? it's a classic example of why x-mount doesn't make sense."

The XF 10-24 F4 OIS is about 800-900€. The XF 8-16 F2.8 LM R WR is pricely but robust and perform great. And its price is in the same "class" as peers(Sigma 12-24 F4, Canon 11-24 F4, Sony 12-24 F4..). And it's sometime on sales..

Could you please tell us about the x mount making no sense because this lens is not for you ?

what part of the Fuji lens at $1900 vs. the sony lens at $1600 did you not understand? price is not "in the same class".

p.q. is not "in the same class" either, because you can put 42mp behind the ff sony, without the x-trans nonsense.

that is hardly the only example, either.

There is Fujifilm 10-24mm f4 OIS, you know? I guess you don't. You just wanted to bring Sony into the topic. Out of blue.

1) it does not make the X-mount a "non sense" because one lens is expansive
2) +- 20% make that lens is the same price range. in EU, the Sony is 1750€ and the Fuji 2000€ so about 13% more expansive
3). Their focal and aperture are equivalent.
4) The Fuji probably most robust

@Ozturert giving us his traditional daily dose of anti-Sony troll talk...

You can get the "cheap" XF 50mm F2 too.. XF 56mm is really good optically, AF a bit slow and noisy. 85mm FF are most very good. For sure.

"people in previous posts to this article have stated that it's not even weather-sealed."
WR means Weather-Ressistant. It's should be weather sealed.. said the manufacturer. So far, the Fujifilm's WR looks fine.

"you are not very well informed about this, and no, they are not in the same "price class".
1750€ VS 2000€ is in the same price class. Moreover, a mouth ago the XF 8-16 F2.8 was on sale for 1600.. there will be more sales probably.

"You can get the "cheap" XF 50mm F2 too"

no, f/2 is NOT the same thing as f/1.8 on ff and f/1.2 on crop, it doesn't fit that comparison at all.

and xf 50/2($350) is again stupidly overpriced, vs. the faster sony fe50/1.8($200), which is a 20fps af-c lens.

you can't win at this, because many Fuji lenses are simply way overpriced for what they deliver.

Humm. The EF 50mm f1.8 STM is even cheaper There is nothing to win. :)

Still allegating that the x mount is a non sense, is a non sense.

If it does not fit you, just pass.

Well, if you are obsess in proving yourself true. For sure..

Facts' obsession

Milc Man, the OP talked about Sony 10-18mm f4 which is an APSC lens. I responded to that. He didn't consider that Fujifilm already has a similarly specced and priced lens.
Who is wrong now?

@oztuert - your exact words were: "You just wanted to bring Sony into the topic. Out of blue."

that has nothing to do with any lens.

don't try and post false garbage about what you said, lol

@s1oth1ovechunk. I do not understand your question. There are obvious advantages with text. It is searchable for one. Now the links is a kind of compromise. So I want text. Videos are more for entertainment and getting a hum about things. Information gathering is best done with text.

@HatWearingFool. I would be surprised if this is useful as a substitute for someone writing a piece of text. Very surprised. And I am quite sure you cannot google the content generated this way.

If you start to buy more lens, $ony tag and qc lottery will start to take a toll.

Plus, Fuji promotions are seen quite often.

Did you expect anything else? Dpreview has turned into sonyreview in the last months and I guess Chris and Jordon have to go this route now too

Simple, because Sony is pretty much the benchmark. The reference in tech and IQ. Nobody will review a Sony G Master and say “well, this is good... almost offers the same IQ of this or that APS or M43 lens”

@cosinaphile: When that article was written (back in 2015) Sony only offered lossy compressed RAW files. As a result of that article, and others, Sony released firmware for most of the cameras which allowed uncompressed RAW (which I shoot on my A7R2). The most recent bodies A7III etc also support lossless compressed RAW, which doesn't have those issues either.

It was a comparison in size. btw The same reason I bought a Z6 (not a Sony) even though I am invested in Fuji lenses and love what they do.
The overall Package of standard zoom + FF body with IBIS was lighter.

@ S TG dynamic range is largely the same for a late apsc sensor of 24 mp vs late FF 24 mp sensor ,extra dynamic range is useful in post processing when
sucking the last bit of detail out of the blacks , but for 95 percent of shooting an extra stop of DR is meaningless for most shooting and most files

a "huge " difference at base iso ?????? that is pure fan boy nonsense

and dpr has a multitude of test scenes between 24 mp apsc and 24 mp Ff files and many different isos ..... they can be examined by any readers of these posts, especially at the 1\252 enlargement tool selector DPR usefully provides
the "huge " difference simply does not exist for the human eye at low iso
and emerges as a 1 stop improvement at difficult isos where S|N ratios
rear their ugly head

the s\n ratios at iso 200 iso 400 ??? nope

edit : i would like to mention that my post was flagged for a "swearword"
and i looked everywhere for my indiscretion .... it was the word
f a n b o y .... with the letter all in a row

political correctness gone mad!

et tu dpr.........et tu??

The Sony has a 1 stop faster sensor at the same iso.
If you don't want to start an equivalence debate, dont say meaningless things. The lenses, factoring in the different sizes of the projected image circles are roughly equivalent in every way. The Fuji 'projector screen' is just 1.5 times as close as the Sony one, the image is brighter, but smaller.

the fuji image is brighter but smaller.... which is exactly what i said

you need to read more carefully before accusing other or writing "nonsense "

i stand by my contention that for apsc 24 mp vs ff 24 mp files there is no meaningful difference in iq at low isos .... where the S\N ratios differences disappear .... with the gain necessary in an iso 25600 file
the large ff sensor totally bests the apsc ... i fully concede that truth

at low isos it is meaningless and dprs tool supports that with the mag tool

oh another FF vs APSC bash
never mind. None of that.
The size and weight are nearly identical. Take your pic. I chose more affordable DOF and KEPT my APSC.

And the difference between iso400 on full frame and iso200 on Fuji is basically nonexistent by any measurement. Meaning the faster lens is not really any faster and they are equivalent.

Just say "they are equivalent in every meaningful way". It's nonesense to say the Fuji is one stop faster. So why even start that discussion?

think about what youre saying. Putting discussions that concern sensor size on the shelf for a moment ,a 2.8 lens exceeds an f4 lens b y 1stop for any format m43\ apsc\FF\"MF"
if you test the light [with a hand held meter] emerging from the rear of an apsc 2.8 lens, its DOUBLE intensity of light from the back of an f 4 lens

so a 2.8 lens is twice as fast as f4 len no matter the sensor from cellphones to large format,one can argue, since a ff sensor is so much larger than apsc, the is effectively canceled out when considering, the QUALITY OF IMAGE OUTPUT. however this is a SENSOR issue
no ones disputing a FF image circle means more total light is gathered by the larger image circle than a smaller one.That is mathematically provable. Also provable & instrumentally testable is a fujif2.8 delivers 2X intensity of light to its smaller sensor as the ff f4 lens delivers to its larger sensor

there are times when a fast lens is useful over slower one ,
from cellphones on up, period

So we see the confusion.

The intensity of the light leaving the lens is just as bright on the f4 lens as the f2.8. they have the same aperture diameter and the same field of view. The apsc just had a shorter focal length so the image is brighter, but there is no more light on the image.

This is why you can't compare f/numbers across formats. Aperture area determines speed. The focal length determines the brightness for a given aperture diameter, that's literally what an f/number represents.

Do you not understand my projector analogy?

As far as the quality difference between lenses or the Sony conspiracy theories, those are different discussions...

@s1oth1ovechunk You projector test has a issue. Our camera sensor is indeed your projector screen, but distance between your sensor and your lens won't change as a projector would do. You should imagine it a fixed focus projector that, to get proper focus your image stays that big.

With that in mind, F-number is an universal number that already counts everything you said. You take any lens from any format and set to f/4, they will be equally bright.

None of those distinctions are applicable here. What I'm talking about explains exactly why full frame iso 400 has the same snr as apsc iso 200. These iso values are not actual gain values. They are derived so that people can figure out exposure.

Think of a 24mp FF sensor and a 24mp apsc sensor. Now take an 8mm f2.8 apsc lens and a 12mm f4 full frame lens. We have the same pixel counts, the same field of view, the same aperture diameter (roughly). It doesn't get much more equivalent than this.

What's cool here is that if you take the exact same image with exactly the same shutter speed, each pixel gets exactly the same signal on either system. The full frame would report a higher iso value and a lower f/number but that's because those numbers are per unit area. Not per unit image. In this case each pixel has the same unit image and receives exactly the same signal. Assuming similar sensor technologies, the images will be as identical as you can get.

the fuji lens is one stop faster to its sensor , as the nikon is to its sensor

what is the value of one stop ?

well as an example in
f mount ...: a dslr ff lens 70 200 f2.8 at B&H is 2100usd
a dslr ff lens 70 200 f4 at B&H is 1400 usd

within lenses for a given image circle i n this example one stop cost 700 usd
the nikon has 14 lens elements
the fuji has 20 lens elements

nikon has 7 blade iris
fuji has 9 blade iris

i suspect the fuji is a better lens and is one stop faster to its image circle

i distinctly said :

"within lenses for a given image circle "

to demonstrate the cost difference one stop generates ... not to advance or discuss
sensor sizes or the lenses that serve them

that is a seperate issue and discussion

Damn so many people don't understand equivalence. cosinaphile, "one stop faster to its sensor" is a sentence that has zero useful meaning. Likewise, having more lens elements does not imply that a lens is better. :(

cosinaphile one stop costs a lot in lenses but in full frame you already have one more stop from the bigger sensor. Fuji is cheaper with body but gives up the light collecting area for good amount of features and cheap prices which in turn is spent on the more expensive and slower lenses. There's no equivalent for 2.8 full frame like in your example. Sigma has 1.8 zooms but not for Fuji. And if you really want to use one (which I still recommend), you need to also invest in adapter like Fringer.

@jnd take an a7r3 and use apsc mode, you DR is the same with xt3. You only get more resoltuin for the extra grand. So, it’s a matter of how you look at it.

@chriswy
That is not true. When cropping to APS-C you lose resolution and the noise/grain is also "magnified", resulting in a worse perceived ISO performance.

Cropping however doesn't reduce your tonality or dynamic range.

You should cure GAS first. Unless you shoot indoor with lights turned off and crop to 1:1 size, perceived noise is more or less a psychological thing, especially during normal use.

@chriswy
That's just semantics then. Doesn't change my point and that you are misinformed.

@GAS Cropping does reduce DR and tonality (to an extend) if one is to downsize for internet output. why I said to an extend is that this isn't always the case, and degrees of degradation can vary, especially when you are not capturing scene that has dynamic ranger exceeding sensor limit. This is what DPR's comparator shows (they downsized everything to the same size for browser viewing).

If you download raw and pixel peep at 1:1 magnification, I think both will yield very similar results.

Anyway, taking xt3 a cut-down a7r3 for $1300 USD less still makes some people happy.

i own the 10 24 fuji and thought it was WR ..... i better be careful

thanks for the heads up

edit .... not weather sealed .... yup it was almost a grand .... i just assumed ..... no ass u me joke please .....lol

Yes, I agree.

Fujifilm's marketing message has been a bit confusing lately: Buy into our system because it is compact and lightweight, and our APS-C X-Trans sensor produces near FF quality (which is subjective, BTW). But their recent product releases such as the X-H1 and red badge lenses is saying the opposite.

Careful Matt, you're telling Fuji users they're inferior to fullframe? Careful.

@BWJunkie,

I've tested the X-T30 and X-T100 sensors, they do indeed match FF offerings from yesteryear, back when FF was still in the ~12 megapixel range. Comparing apples to apples, though, (latest generations) ...there will always be a (possible) ~1EV advantage to full-frame when it comes to both depth and light-gathering.

The thing is, you don't have to use that advantage if you don't want to. On FF, you can buy an f/4 zoom, or a dinky f/2 or f/2.8 prime, instead of that f/2.8 zoom or that f/1.4 prime. And you can save quite a bit of money, and size/weight, too. Some of the latest f/4 zooms and f/2.8 primes for Sony and now Nikon are proving that. Meanwhile, on APS-C systems, if you're not using the f/2.8 zooms and f/1.4 primes, you're actually at a 2EV total disadvantage, not a 1EV disadvantage.

But, again, for most people, that's fine! As a casual travel/landscape shooter I'd MUCH rather have an X-T30, or even just an X-T100, and a Fuji 10-24, than a full-frame option.