Jump to content

Anyone else is hoping for a 16-80 f4?

ychen

By ychen
in Fuji X Lenses

 Share

Recommended Posts

  • 1 month later...
ap81 Newbie

ap81

Posted
Posted

I would definitely purchase a 16-80 WR OIS.

So often I find I need 'just' a little more zoom than 50, and from experience with the 18-135 I rarely need all of the extra zoom - I would rather less range, with better image quality.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 2 months later...
  • 2 years later...
mbzznowhere Newbie

mbzznowhere

Posted
Posted

i believe there is whole new world of travelers out there who would love a fuji xt20 and 16-80 f4 for

travel and everyday use. this is the group fuji should market. i see the nikon 7200 and 16-80 f4 as

the model but fuji would outdistance that by far and for less money. i can see that fuji lens being

used by me in berlin and istanbul and in the caucasus mountains of the republic of georgia where

i live. out in the west of the usa it would be great for people who come to visit montana etc

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 3 weeks later...
tractorboyx Contributor

tractorboyx

Posted
Posted

I'm not sure what all the fuss is about, Panasonic/Leica make a 12-60mm (24-120mm in 35mm) that is f2.8/4.0, and people are getting excited about a f4,0 only lens.

Even up scaling from MFT to APS-C this still looks a sizable lens. Why not make something that is better than the opposition, say a constant f3.5.

Come on Fuji make a statement.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Lumens Collaborator

Lumens

Posted
Posted
On 7/7/2015 at 5:24 AM, MintMark said:

When I saw the subject I thought of the Canon EF-S 15-85... a great walk about lens.

I must agree, I kept my Canon 7D because of that lens.  Sold all the other lenses, but every once in a while I'll take a stroll with my 7D/15-85 combo just because it is so good.  I was more thinking the Fuji 16-80 f4 now in the works would be more to challenge the Canon EF 24-105 f4 - another good lens.  Either way it sounds like a good idea.  I just don't know that it would replace my 18-55/55-200 combo I love so much.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 1 month later...
Blacksheep Contributor

Blacksheep

Posted
Posted
On 8/15/2018 at 2:52 PM, tractorboyx said:

I'm not sure what all the fuss is about, Panasonic/Leica make a 12-60mm (24-120mm in 35mm) that is f2.8/4.0, and people are getting excited about a f4,0 only lens.

Even up scaling from MFT to APS-C this still looks a sizable lens. Why not make something that is better than the opposition, say a constant f3.5.

Come on Fuji make a statement.

Make a statement indeed!

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 4 months later...

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
 Share
Go to topic listing

  • Similar Content

  • Posts

    • thelostkiwi
      Looking for Full Frame lenses to adapt to GFX

      By thelostkiwi · Posted

      I also use a Nikon to GFX Fringer and it works very well.  24mm f/1.8 vignettes so best used on 35mm mode.  50mm f/1.8 covers the entire frame very well with no issues and is a superb little lens. 105mm Sigma vignettes slightly but is perfectly usable. 300 f/4 likewise the 105.  I have a 70-200 f/20+.8 incoming to test so will report back but I'm expecting a little vignetting.  Even in 35mm mode the image is still 60MP and if you're prepared to manually crop and correct you can get 80-90 MP images.  I also have a C/Y to GFX adapter.  The 24mm Sigma Superwide vignettes strongly. Ditto 28-80 Zeiss Sonnar. 80-200 f/4 Sonnar is perfectly usable. All work fine as 35mm mode lenses.  I also have an M42 adapter which I tried with the Carl Zeiss Jena 135mm f/3.5 with good results. 
    • Trevor R
      Image correction with GF20-35

      By Trevor R · Posted

      Thank you. I will research it.
    • jerryy
      Image correction with GF20-35

      By jerryy · Posted

      Ahh, the infamous brick wall photos… 😀 According to internet lore, if the dng converter does not properly apply the corrections, you can have it apply custom profiles that should work for you. How to do that is waaaaaay outside of this comment’s scope, but there are plenty of sites listed in the search engines that step you through the processes. Best wishes.
    • Trevor R
      Image correction with GF20-35

      By Trevor R · Posted

      Jerry Thank you very much. That is extremely helpful. It seems that the camera and the lens have the latest firmware update, so it appears that the corrections should be applied automatically. The lens arrived this afternoon and I took some quick test shots, in which the correct lens information appeared in the EXIF files, so that sounds good. I used Adobe DNG converter to convert the Raw (RAF) files, and then opened the DNG files and saved them in PSD format. However, with a beautiful, clear, cloudless blue sky, there were no lines near the edges to check if distortion had been corrected. Another day I plan to photograph a brick wall. Thank you for your help.
    • jerryy
      Image correction with GF20-35

      By jerryy · Posted

      Typically you need to make sure the lens is compatible with the camera, i.e. check the lens compatibility charts for your camera, then make sure the respective firmwares are updated so older issues are resolved. After that, each lens has a manufacturer’s profile which will be embedded into the raw file meta data for the images captured using that lens. From there, it is up to the raw conversion software to apply the lens correction to the image. Different converters do that differently, some automatically, some only if a setting is turned on. For in-camera jpegs, the on-board converter does the corrections automatically, assuming the camera recognizes the lens, it applies a generic profile otherwise. I do not know if that can be turned off or not.
×
×
  • Create New...