Marc G.

Optically, the 23mm sitting on the X100 series is poor compared to the excellent XF 23 1.4 R. The XF 23 has a far more advanced optical formula than both 35s which is why it is superior to both, optically. 300g and the "bulk" is the price you have to pay for the optical superiority. A minor one, I might add. 300g for a lens is next to nothing, when looking at all those dslr beasts of lenses. From an optical design point, it's probably next to impossible to create a slightly slower lens at half the size, half the weight (but keeping a metal mount and lens barrel) which has superior performance at a lower price point. To ask for something like that can only come from a severe lack of knowledge about optics. Besides, the 35/2 Sonnar of the RX series is a great lens. Yeah. But it's also huge and the RX series has a few downsides, as well.

Those were exactly my findings. I had 2 examples of the 10-24. The first one was mediocre, at best. Barely usable at 24mm and good at 10-18mm. The second one was much better. When the OIS enraged me once again, I sold the better copy and got the 14mm. The sharpness is much more uniform. There's no smearing in the corners and the overall image I get is just brilliant, even at f/2.8. Since I sold the 10-24, I hardly looked back. I have no complaints about the 14mm, other than I wish I tried it earlier.

10-24 for best performance? I strongly disagree. It's a good zoom but I find the 14 2.8 and 16 1.4 to offer superior IQ (and the 16-55 in the 16-24 range). given the choice I would probably pick the 16 and save for either the 12 or 10mm (there's a walimex 10mm, too). I had the 10-24 twice and the OIS disappointed me twice, although the second copy was optically much better than the first one. Now I'm happy with the 14 and 16-55. I'd still recommend you the 16 1.4 the most. Besides the FOV and aperture, it also offers a big creative potential with the ridiculously low near focusing limit.

And still, the different focal lengths were created because of certain optical properties they inherit. And camera companies still thrive to create these focal lengths. 14/15 - 18 - 20/21- 24/25- 28- 35- 40/42/43 - 50/55/58/60 - 85/90 - 100/105 - 135 - 180/200 and so on. When Fuji already created equivalents for most of these (with only 14/15, 100/105 left), it would make NO sense to start creating mixed focal lengths between the already existing ones.

So what? The 27mm is an equivalent to the 40mm pancakes for DSLRs. It's another equivalent to all the other equivalents. The author of the original post was talking about focal lengths that simply don't make sense.

I'm sorry but there's a lot of nonsense in your post. It's impossible to have a Fujinon lens front- or backfocusing. This would require a DSLR-style focusing system to "work". The 27mm is f/2.8 and, thus, 2 full stops slower than the 1.4 lenses. No I don't understand why the designers would want to create some weird focal lengths and how this would win over people from DSLRs. That doesn't make any sense. So... whatever you smoked... gimme some or stop it.

Thats the exact reason I sold the 16. Bokeh at medium distances. It can be as sharp as it can but if the pictures of a wedding look shitty because of busy bokeh, it's not for me. Sadly. I loved it for several reasons.

Why should it be unfair? The Sigma is arguably the best of the 24 1.4 bunch. So why not compare the Fujinon to the best, rather than some overpriced lenses that don't deliver the best quality?

It's not even industry standard to include any lens hood. And every manufacturer charges quite a bit for those plastic ones. That's the standard procedure with lens hoods. Besides, the plastic ones offer superior protection, compared to metal ones and, apparently, I think that the plastic one offers superior flare reduction, too. So what you want is a hipster lens hood while Fuji provides a more than decent one in the box. I call that ungrateful.

Oh come on. They give you a lens hood for free (look at the policy of Olympus, Canon and Nikon there?!) and you still cry because you don't get the small badge metal one for free, too? Seriously?!!?!?

I sold mine after using it for a couple of months. But the reasons are highly subjective. a) the focal length didnt suit me the bokeh at medium distances (1-5m) is nervous/ugly and only good in the close focusing range c) I'll rather use the lighter 14 2.8 for UWA and the 23 1.4 for documentary stuff

flysurfer got that wrong, too.

I'm not calling your approach nonsense. I call the repeating of the slogan "mirrorless shouldn't be heavy" nonsense. There's a subtle, but nonetheless important, difference.

So what? I enjoy using lighter gear, too. The 16-55 and 50-140 are still lighter than their f/2.8 counterparts for DSLRs. If you require tools with certain apertures, then there's no way around weight. But you still save a bit. Mirrorless does offer 2.8 zooms and I am happy about that. After all, you can go light with small primes with a DSLR, too. But most people choose not to.

I can't read this nonsense anymore. Glass is glass and metal is metal. If you want a well built lens with certain specs, then there's no way around a certain weight. Maybe the 16-55 is too heavy for you but this slogan that mirrorless can't be heavy is just pure bollocks...

That's the way how to compare Fuji primes with Leica primes. Putting Leica primes on Fuji is not the intended use and reduces the performance noticeably. The different sensor format makes comparing them impossible as the same sensor cannot be used. So... all you contributed to this topic is splitting hairs. Anything on topic maybe? Besides, the OP, from my understanding, asked for the optical quality. I gave an answer to the best of my knowledge.

Some parts you can only measure subjectively. Sharpness and other aberrations can be measured objectively. But the look comes partly from the perceived sharpness and the bokeh (which is the biggest subjective part). Still, I showed prints to photographers around here and brought them with me to a Leica regulars' table. More photographers preferred the Fuji print over the Leica print. I repeated the test with a black&white print. Of course, Lightroom and the processing software in camera do their part. But most people didn't niggle about the small differences in tonality or contrast but went for the obvious things (sharpness and bokeh). After all, you would expect the Leica glass, paired with a full frame sensor to deliver superior results. That is not the case for the lenses I compared (21/1.8, 28/2 ASPH, 50/1.4 ASPH, 90/2 APO ASPH). Both regarding aberrations & regarding the look, the Fujinons prevailed. It would be interesting to do this on Flickr or similar communities where a lot more people can guess. Can't compare prints like that, though.

Maybe the best lenses YOU have ever used. Certainly not the best lenses on the market. Even in Leica's own lens portfolio there's day and night. Let's look at some examples: There are technically excellent lenses like: 18/3.8, 21/3.4, 24/3.8, 50/2 APO, 75/2 APO, 90/2 APO, 135/3.4 APO that offer great sharpness, colors and all-around performance. But there are also lenses that suffer severely from focus shift, field curvature (both very hard to predict on a range finder) like: 21/1.4, 24/1.4, 28/2.8 ASPH, 35/2 ASPH, 50/2 pre-asph. I actually compared prints from the 56/1.2 and 90/2 APO ASPH Summicron that costs 3.5x as much. I'm sorry to say but the Fujinon delivers superior bokeh, sharpness and a prettier overall image. If one seeks today's best lenses, the answer is Zeiss. But those are manual focus. Autofocus primes? Sigma ART series, Fujinon XFs but there are at least some in every lens manufacturer's portfolio. Zooms... the same. But sadly, the best of the best doesn't come from Leica.

To clarify: I didn't use Leica lenses on Fuji cameras. The M lenses were used on an M9

Many current-in-production Leica M lenses are quite old designs that cannot compete with today's modern lenses on a technical basis. They still have an excellent reputation. Partially rightly so, but part of the lineup does not deserve the excellent reputation they enjoy. I used Leica M before switching to Fuji. I find most Fujinon glass to be of better quality. Fujinon X Mount lenses are all VERY modern designs (2012+) and do not suffer the same weight and size restrictions than Leica glass. Leica's lenses are mostly very good, especially when taking the look of the final result into consideration. But from a pure technical standpoint, Fujinon glass is superior. Leica's glass simply suffers from the extreme design restrictions (flange distance, diameter, length paired with sometimes extreme apertures)

Shooting primes is fine and all but there's a place for zooms in wedding photography. For example: 50-140 for ceremony and snapshots if you can't get closer (church) or for camera-shy guests 16-55 for group shots, documentary and all-purpose lens On the other hand I definitely own more primes than zooms. I often use the 23 and 56 for the couple shoot, the 90 for details and the 35 as an all-purpose lens and for dancing. Weddings are rapidly changing and require the photographer to be flexible. If you don't use 2 bodies, I'd definitely go for a zoom but even though I shoot with 2 bodies constantly, I use zooms quite a bit. There's a lot of people around who say they can shoot a whole wedding with just a 35mm or 50mm (Fuji 23/35 respectively). Luckily, I don't have to, nor do I want to. After all, there's a reason I keep lugging 2 bodies and 7 lenses around. Each of them gets a fair share of use during each wedding.

That's an instant buy for me. If the performance is there, this will probably the XF king and a big reason for people to switch to the system. IF the performance is there. Judging from the other XF lenses, though, it's fair to say that Fuji will not deliver a slouch.

Not really that far behind, imo. Regarding precision, mirrorless is already miles ahead of DSLRs. You simply don't have these front-/backfocus issues that PDAF systems are known for. Regarding the tracking and low light, I think it will take 2-3 years and mirrorless is on par.

It's about how the system reacts in certain situations. People got years and years of experience with DSLRs but pretty much none with mirrorless. If you want to use a mirrorless like a DSLR you're destined for failure. If there actually exists a sports shooter who actually shot loads of sport with mirrorless, that would be the person to ask for a review of the systems. But there is no such person. We'll have to wait and see. Mirrorless also has a giant lack of professional grade sports lenses with the 50-140 being the only one currently. Let's wait for the lens lineup to arrive and THEN look at the af performance again. I'm sure once the primes arrive, the AF will be on par with DSLRs. And I still think it's usable, if you know what you're doing with the Fuji. But with only having a 70-200 equivalent, it's a rather small niche in sports photography that you can fill with Fuji currently.

It's certainly not top notch, but it's usable. Biggest problem is lack of experience in sports photography when it comes to mirrorless. I bet some workarounds could easily do some magic to improve the performance. That said, I love the 50-140 and X-T1 for ice hockey...