Fuji 18mm F2 thoughts?

[milandro]

A lens lacking of dynamic range? I think that something is askew in the use of terminology here...  if you talk contrast ( and the picture above shows plenty of that and range to match) this could be but it doesn’t seem to be the case so it is either your lens, or, I suspect, the way you have set up the camera.

 

Maybe reading the manual, albeit once again or for the first time, in order to set the camera properly up, once and for all, would help.

[Yellerz]

Not sure a CPL will improve your dynamic range either.

[frod]

Despite this lens relative performance in the range, just like many derided lenses in the past it's still far better than many of the lenses that the past masters got to use.

[Tata Steva]

Like many others, it's "love vs. hate" with this lens: love the size and FOV! Hate that this is the only lens out of all Fuji (primes) line up I have, that I need to watch out and correct in LR when developing files (aberrations, sharpness, etc...).

 

I wish Fuji will update this lens with same size, max. F-stop of 2.0 and improve obvious inferiority to the rest of the prime champions...

[johant]

I wish Fuji will update this lens with same size, max. F-stop of 2.0 and improve obvious inferiority to the rest of the prime champions...

 

My 2/18 on the X-Pro1 is clearly better than the Canon 1.8/28 (same FOV on the 5D) that I had. Yes, the other Fuji primes that I have are optically better, and no, I'm not really bothered by that. In many cases, the action is not going on at the extreme edges of the image, and I like the images this lens produces.

 

 

[Tata Steva]

...I'm not really bothered by that. In many cases, the action is not going on at the extreme edges of the image, and I like the images this lens produces.

 

 

 

 

Most of my work with Fuji X system get submitted to stock agency. Issue with 28/2 becomes at the point when I have to "pixel peep" every file for chromatic aberrations or (near center) lack of sharpness due to poor quality of image on 2.0-2.8 range (my usual working F-stop with this lens).

I would say 75% of images are great with this lens, but I need it to be far closer to 100% as other Fuji primes I have.

 

Again, this is totally nitpicking... Comparing to any other lens system I used i recent years on digital (except Leica, but being manual focus - not classified). My Fuji line up is so much better in performance than prime EOS kit I use to own or large FX kit from Nikon I use now on my D800/D810...

 

Being primarily "wide angle" shooter, my 14,18, 23 give far better performance than anything else. Even Leica M glass I owned (again being manual focus and only used  on range finder) did not give me such a high number of "keepers"...

 

[milandro]

I have always found a very sobering and refreshing experience to see, first hand, real prints of famous photographs shot by famous photographers. Most, I have found several times, were less than perfect but great pictures nonetheless.

There are many ways to skin a cat.

[Paul Crespel]

Many photos by Cartier-Bresson, Doisneau, Erwitt and others, whose abilities are beyond question, are blurred, grainy and slightly out of focus, but they are world-class photographs.

 

Many of mine are the same, but it didn't stop over one million people visiting my Milan exhibition in 2014 and 2015, and strangely enough, the imperfect photos were some of the most-loved by the visitors.

 

Perfection is a myth - it's boring.... and while most photographers are still messing around trying to get 100% perfection, the real photographers have already grabbed the most poignant moment and syndicated it worldwide. 

 

Sometimes you can be lucky and get near perfection in the second it takes to grab a stunning photograph (posed or contrived photos are never stunning), but perfection is simply not important compared to capturing the decisive moment.

 

The 18mm lens has caught me some amazing photographs that have never been refused by any publication.  Post 16 of this thread is one such example.  The expressions of all the people looking at the old man far outweigh any softness that a pixel peeper might find in the corners.

[milandro]

Exactly, I remember an exhibition of Cartier-Bresson in London with prints where one could see all the retouching done by Gassman. Very interesting indeed.

[magnesi]

I like the 18mm, a lot of the time, but not always. I've got no complaints about its quality or size and I think its a steal at the price (i bought mine used for about £170).

 

However I sometimes find it too wide and the 27mm not wide enough. Obviously my answer would be the 23mm, but apart from it being too expensive for my pocket, I also think it's bigger than what I wish to carry around.

 

Anyway below are some shots that I took with the 18mm that I feel demonstrate that it's no slouch.

 

18mm, f5.6, Barcelona

 

Barcelona Streets by Magnesi Rich, on Flickr

[magnesi]

18mm, f6.4

 

Barcelona Market by Magnesi Rich, on Flickr

[magnesi]

18mm, f5.6

 

Love Thy Phone by Magnesi Rich, on Flickr

[Tata Steva]

 

 

18mm/ f4

[Tata Steva]

 

 

18mm/F2.2

[Tata Steva]

 

18mm/F2.2

[Paul Crespel]

I am curious why people are posting just photos here.

In the context of this thread, photos would be ok in support of text, but on their own I don't see them as valid input on a discussion thread.

The OP asked for thoughts on the 18mm lens, but it seems the thread is deteriorating into a gallery for people to simply show off their images.  There are many other threads where you can show off your photos, but it would be nice not to have to wade through meaningless images to find the real discussion in what are obviously discussion threads

[magnesi]

Sorry, I'm the guilty one for starting that. Thanks for pointing it out.

[Merde]

18mm/F4

Your exif says: f/2.2

[Woodworth]

I have been using my trusty 18-55mm Fuji kit as a reception lens, but lately it's been having a really tough time focusing in low-light scenarios. I know that I generally shoot most of the time at 18mm at 2.8. I am wondering if the 18 f2 would be a better low-light performer? The 16mm is also an option, but if I'd prefer to save the cash and weight if possible. Any thoughts or experience with any of these?

 

I use my 18/2 a lot, in my opinion it is a superb low light option. The difference between your 18-55 at 18mm and 2.8 and the 18/2 at f2 won't be huge and there is no anti-shake on the 18/2 but in my opinion, it will be slightly better and I would choose it over my 18-55.

[milandro]

exactly, the capability to focus won’t depend from the aperture being one stop faster.

 

Not only the EVF shows you an amplified image which only depends at extreme values of the maximum opening of your lens.

[frod]

Just one more thing to note with the humble 18mm, it's currently the only X system lens at gets to 1:1 with the macro tubes:

 

http://www.fujifilm.com/products/digital_cameras/accessories/pdf/mcex_01.pdf

 

I know some people think this is important. Pretty insane working distance but nevertheless...

 

Edit: just noticed the xc 16-50... Not that 2mm is useable.

[batian]

Hi together,

 

I have changed my opinion on that lens totally and really started to love it despite its known quirks.

 

http://peterpoete.de/a-second-try-the-fujinon-xf18-f2/

 

Cheers,

Peter

[Aswald]

I have been using my trusty 18-55mm Fuji kit as a reception lens, but lately it's been having a really tough time focusing in low-light scenarios. I know that I generally shoot most of the time at 18mm at 2.8. I am wondering if the 18 f2 would be a better low-light performer? The 16mm is also an option, but if I'd prefer to save the cash and weight if possible. Any thoughts or experience with any of these?

 

Stick with your 18-55 until the 18 mk2 comes out.

 

The 18mk1 is a very normal lens. Nothing to shout about. Soft corners and colors are a little dull.

[citral]

There are 4 reasons to switch from the zoom to the 18mm :

 

Size

Weight

Close-Focus

Bokeh (yes, it's beautiful on the prime)

 

The F2 vs F2.8 aperture is not going to bring an edge in low-light scenarii tbh

[Mervyn]

Personally I would go for the 16mm. It's wider and two stops brighter then the 18-55. Since you're experiencing difficulty because of a lack of light I would play it save and go for the f1.4 option. F2 might not make enough of a difference to justify buying another lens.

Edited July 28, 2017 by Mervyn