Jump to content
Patrick FR

FUJIFILM will develop an XF 8-16mmF2.8 WR lens

Recommended Posts

Get both ... I did!

 

Got the 10-24 first, then 12 months later I got the 16.

 

I use them at totally different times, so having both is ideal

I use the 10-24 when outside in adequate light or when I want (or need) hand held slow shutter as the IS is quite good.  I can shoot @ 1/4 second easily with that lens and get a nice sharp image.

 

I use the 16 when I go indoors and set the aperture to 1.4 and don't touch it.  That is where that lens shines.   :)

Too much $ to justify both for a simple hobby photographer like me :)

I'm actually thinking of selling the 18-55 so I can purchase either 16 or 10-24 with a good conscience :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If it were me, and just for hobby, I'd get the 10-24 because I find it to be quite a versatile lens.  Excellent for ultra wide angle landscape and architecture stuff ... great IS ... and zoom to 24mm to get that coveted 35mm full frame equivalent for casual street type photography.  I use and enjoy that lens much more than the 16/1.4.  

 

The 16/1.4 only comes out (for me) when I'm doing paid gigs and I require F1.4.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If it were me, and just for hobby, I'd get the 10-24 because I find it to be quite a versatile lens.  Excellent for ultra wide angle landscape and architecture stuff ... great IS ... and zoom to 24mm to get that coveted 35mm full frame equivalent for casual street type photography.  I use and enjoy that lens much more than the 16/1.4.  

 

The 16/1.4 only comes out (for me) when I'm doing paid gigs and I require F1.4.

And now I'm also thinking about the rumored 18 f/2 MK II  :o

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wow....I kinda prefer the uncorrected version. The corrected one just makes me dizzy! :D

I have an X-T2...shooting in RAW....sorry I am not understanding since not technically knowledgable - "Adobe Camera RAW has a profile for it on an X-camera"....are you referring to Lightroom or Photoshop or in-Camera?  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have an X-T2...shooting in RAW....sorry I am not understanding since not technically knowledgable - "Adobe Camera RAW has a profile for it on an X-camera"....are you referring to Lightroom or Photoshop or in-Camera?  

ACR is in both Lightroom and Photoshop.To the best of my knowledge, they function identically. They function as a RAW to bitmap converter with a rich feature set. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It would definitely be bigger, just compare any F4 to F2.8 lenses that are the same focal length.

But that being said ... if they released a 2.8 version and did not put IS in the lens ... it may not be too much larger than the current which has IS. 

So why a zoom, and why 2.8? Given the sort of shots they're almost always used for, does anybody really use UWs at their long end? And does anybody really need them to be 2.8? In my DSLR days I used the (lovely) Sigma 10-20 f/4-5.6. But shot almost everything around 10mm and f/8. And I think most people I know who use UWs do pretty much the same. So, why not develop a nice, compact 10mm f/4?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You are right Qiki. These are the mysteries of human mind.

 

Despite the way real people use real things in real life, they still want anything which they buy to “ go up to 11” ( quote from  “ a spinal tap”) and they want it regardless, even if they never go “ up to 11” themselves.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So why a zoom, and why 2.8? Given the sort of shots they're almost always used for, does anybody really use UWs at their long end? And does anybody really need them to be 2.8? In my DSLR days I used the (lovely) Sigma 10-20 f/4-5.6. But shot almost everything around 10mm and f/8. And I think most people I know who use UWs do pretty much the same. So, why not develop a nice, compact 10mm f/4?

 

The needs of the working pro differ from the needs of the enthusiast.

 

Since my photography is almost 100% professional as I have other hobbies I spend my time at .... I can comment that I use the 10-24/F4 a lot when shooting a wedding ceremony to fly between the ultra wide angle for the entire scene and then back to fully zoomed in for the candid shots as I walk around perimeter of the ceremony.  I also use that lens a lot for the first dances at the reception to get the awesome ultra wide angle of the decorations and guests as they have their first dance, then I zoom in all the way to get a waste-up shot of them with a little of the background.

 

When I shot Nikon I had the same lens but it was F2.8.  I noticed the extra stop loss of F4 when I got the Fuji during the darker dance times.  To try to keep the background similar, I had to now go higher ISO or slower shutter speed (would prefer the slower shutter speed) ... it depends on the scenario.  But for the most part, it made no difference for the ceremony's having to go F4.  But that zoom range is very handy to have when doing closer, more intimate photojournalism style of work.

Edited by Adam Woodhouse

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So why a zoom, and why 2.8? Given the sort of shots they're almost always used for, does anybody really use UWs at their long end? And does anybody really need them to be 2.8? In my DSLR days I used the (lovely) Sigma 10-20 f/4-5.6. But shot almost everything around 10mm and f/8. And I think most people I know who use UWs do pretty much the same. So, why not develop a nice, compact 10mm f/4?

 

 

I would disagree as different types of photography often lead to different ways of shooting.  I used focal length of my DSLR UW zooms but I was often shooting in environments where I had little to no control or might need to reframe from one position.  Shooting wide and cropping in can change the "feel" of a shot or slow down a workflow on a tight deadline. 

 

The UW is a foundational to the photojournalists tool kit for shooting environmental portraits, action in tight spaces, the "Hail Mary" postgame handshake, crowds and for remote camera setups.  Landscape shooters may not be able to get closer or further back.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would love to see a 8 to 16/f2.8 (12 to 24 APS-C)

 

I shoot mainly landscape and the current 10 to 24/f4 (15 to 36) is too wide to be be a true landscape lens even though it is a sharp lens.

 

Is this 8 to 16/f2.8 a rumor or has Fuji committed to this lens?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×