Fuji X Lenses

[Chris Kern]

Now the optical performance will be the main question. Should be at least in the range on the 18-55 or Nikon's 16-80 2.8-4. Based on the price I'm not sure, for Fuji is on the lower side. Weird, I'm complaining it might be too cheap.

My impression is that Fuji designed and priced this as a travel lens and as a default leave-it-on-the-camera lens, which is exactly how I use the 24-120mm on my Nikon D800E.  It should also make a good companion for the excellent 10-24mm f/4 Fujinon, with more reach than the 18-55mm kit lens but still relatively compact and light.  I suspect the claimed six stops of image stabilization is a bit of a stretch, but it sounds like this lens introduces some engineering improvements in Fuji's already quite capable OIS, which will be nice to have—especially when shooting at the long end.  I'm encouraged enough to have pre-ordered one.

[armand]

My impression is that Fuji designed and priced this as a travel lens and as a default leave-it-on-the-camera lens, which is exactly how I use the 24-120mm on my Nikon D800E.  It should also make a good companion for the excellent 10-24mm f/4 Fujinon, with more reach than the 18-55mm kit lens but still relatively compact and light.  I suspect the claimed six stops of image stabilization is a bit of a stretch, but it sounds like this lens introduces some engineering improvements in Fuji's already quite capable OIS, which will be nice to have—especially when shooting at the long end.  I'm encouraged enough to have pre-ordered one.

That would be the concept, we'll have to see how well they managed to pull it.
This would cover most of the range that you need during hiking. You can add the 10-24 for when you need wider and the 55-200 for telephoto k the latter is an opportunity for another F4 zoom, a 80-250 or so.
For city travel add 1-2 primes.

[DP]

These samples look good: https://jonasraskphotography.com/2019/07/18/fujinon-xf-16-80mm-f-4-r-ois-wr-first-look-preview/

not a single brick wall  !

[Dan Wells]

The 16-80 f4 could be a very interesting lens... If it's got the image quality of Fuji's excellent little 18-55 f2.8-4. Unlike that lens, it's weather sealed. A little extra on the wide end (a true 24mm equivalent - the 18-55 is occasionally annoying when one forgets that it's not, and it doesn't go quite as wide as expected). Some real extra reach...

It doesn't have the f2.8 at the wide end, but I've owned two 18-55s, and I still forget they're not f4 throughout the range (it becomes f4 quickly enough that I just treat it as an f4 lens).

If the IQ is the same or better, the modest increase in size and weight is well worth it for the true 24mm equivalent, the reach at the long end and the weather sealing! Hopefully, it has the IQ of the 18-55,  rather than the (decent, but nothing special) 18-135.

[armand]

The 16-80 is out, looking to see more real world results but so far it does look disappointing. Even by their MFTs the edges don't look great: https://www.fujifilm.com/products/digital_cameras/x/fujinon_lens_xf16_80mmf4_r_ois_wr/specifications/
I still have a little hope but considering that this is the cheapest larger aperture 24-120 equiv for any system than it's not that surprising. I was hoping to be similar to the Nikon 16-80 but it doesn't look like that's going to be the case (and this was not a very high bar to start with).

[Chris Kern]

I still have a little hope but considering that this is the cheapest larger aperture 24-120 equiv for any system than it's not that surprising. I was hoping to be similar to the Nikon 16-80 but it doesn't look like that's going to be the case (and this was not a very high bar to start with).

So far, I'd say more like the Nikon 24-120mm f/4: decent, not exceptional.  As a travel lens replacement for the 18-55mm, with better reach and weather-sealed, it works for me.  You could cover the same range with higher image quality with several of the Fuji primes, obviously.  This is a convenience lens.

[Jonathan Cross]

My travel lenses are the 18-55 and 55-200. Used them for a ploughing match I was asked to photograph for a local magazine last weekend; editor (ex national paper) v pleased and they will be centre spread in next issue.  Great fun, very muddy & had to be pulled out of car park field by a tractor.  I have various primes for critical work.  My standard prime for portraits is the 56, great lens IMHO.  I am surprised by how much I use the 90.  I bought a used 14 a couple of months ago, and am pleased.  When I asked the retailer why people got rid of 14s (he'd had 6 in the last 12 months) he said its 'cos they don't know how to compose with a wide angle; their loss my gain!

Best wishes,

Jonathan

[leuallen]

Used them for a ploughing match

Is that anything like a Plowing Bee here in the states. The farmers all get together and and plow a field paying attention to keeping the rows straight, etc. It is a social event and local to an areas farming community. Children are in abundance riding the tractors with their fathers, mothers, or grandparents. It is great to see the traditions being passed on. No big fancy new tractors allowed, in my area the tractors are all 1959 or older. I have fond memories of the father in his 70's with is son in his 40's on dads 1936 restored Case. Biggest grins you would ever want to see, like two schoolboys on their first joy ride. Or our tractor lady, has six of them and has to haul them in on a big flat bed. Or the farmer in his 70's with a meticulously restored John Deere that he learned to drive on when he was a boy. Farmers love their tractors. Lots of photo opportunities. I greatly enjoy them and I am a city boy.

[Jonathan Cross]

I guess it is like a Plowing Bee.  All ages of tractor, plus horses.  Lots of photo opportunities.  Attached are a few samples from the recent one.  The one with the two horses is titled, 'Thanks, Pal, we did a good job.'

Best wishes,

Jonathan

[John R]

I guess it is like a Plowing Bee.  All ages of tractor, plus horses.  Lots of photo opportunities.  Attached are a few samples from the recent one.  The one with the two horses is titled, 'Thanks, Pal, we did a good job.'

Best wishes,

Jonathan

It's so refreshing to see some natural looking images that evoke the past. Nice work.

JR

[leuallen]

Plowing Bee this year was postponed due to weather. Rescheduled for today. I am about to leave for event. I am looking forward to a great day.

Yes they are about the same thing, except no horses here.

Larry

[leuallen]

I had a great time. Took 1100 photos that is why I have not replied sooner, only about half way done.

Attached photo is of the organizer so I took extra time with it, 2 hours. There was little to no sky that is why it took so long, recovery not a swap.

I have many more fine photos will post some when finished.

Larry

[armand]

...
 I am surprised by how much I use the 90.  I bought a used 14 a couple of months ago, and am pleased.  When I asked the retailer why people got rid of 14s (he'd had 6 in the last 12 months) he said its 'cos they don't know how to compose with a wide angle; their loss my gain!

Best wishes,

Jonathan

I find it much easier to compose with a telephoto than with a wide angle, although 21mm equiv is still within my reach. The problem with the 90 is that it is as big as the 55-200 so I only take it when I know why I want it instead of the 55-200 (mostly drawing and DOF) despite being the best of the Fuji primes that I've used.

The silver lining is that the new rumored X-T4 will have IBIS which will make the 90 (and all primes) more appealing for non-people stuff.


I'm still confused by the 16-80 though, the reviews are slightly less critical than initially but I cannot get a clear answer if it's as good as the 18-55. It seems that the center is sharper but the corners are worse and the wide ranges, 16-20 and 55-70, which would be half the reason to get it over the 18-55 besides WR, are the worst. For my hiking and therefore landscape use this doesn't sound good enough. I'm trying to narrow myself to one system mainly instead of 3 and none is capable so far to get out what I want.

[Chris Kern]

I'm still confused by the 16-80 though, the reviews are slightly less critical than initially but I cannot get a clear answer if it's as good as the 18-55. It seems that the center is sharper but the corners are worse and the wide ranges, 16-20 and 55-70, which would be half the reason to get it over the 18-55 besides WR, are the worst.

I haven't performed any rigorous comparative tests, but your summary seems consistent with my subjective experience.

I've always been quite pleased with the sharpness and contrast of the 18-55mm as well as the other Fuji zooms I own, and that's not my reaction to the 16-80mm.  I haven't used the 16-80mm much yet because I haven't been traveling since I acquired it, but it's clearly not in the same league as the 10-24mm or the 55-200mm and, at its best (e.g., stopped down to f/8), I think it might be comparable to the 18-55mm within the same range.

The weather sealing appears to be excellent; that's one attribute which definitely isn't a disappointment.  I'm also very impressed with the image stabilization, which is more effective than any of the other Fuji zooms I've used by maybe one stop.  And I like the form-factor: on an X-T3, it doesn't really feel much bulkier or heavier than the 18-55mm (although of course it actually is both).

My advice would be to wait until it becomes available as a rental—that shouldn't be long now—then try it for a week to see how it works for the kind of shooting you do.  Or perhaps the OpticalLimits (Photozone) site will review it; I've found their analyses to be quite reliable.