How good are the fuji x lenses? (as a system)

[fredjeang2]

Hi.
I would like to have the views of photographers and videographers who possess already a
Wide range of X lenses (extensive set-up) so that they can give their impressions as a system.

And also videographers who could comment on the usability of the Fujinon, included zooms, that you'd consider valuable for the requirements of motion imagery.
Then the quality third-party options available to date (Zeiss?) for the mount.

All imputs on still and/or motion experiences are welcome as I'm intetested in both aspects.
And particulary photographers who are used to high-end equipment on field so they have trained eyes when judging the qualities of a lens system. (I'd like to avoid a pixel peepers thread if possible).

Ps: as for motion imagery only, I know well the Panasonic system strengths and limitations. So if someone uses/used m43 for video and also Fuji I'd be very interested on pros & cons compared to each other.

[mbaginy]

I use the following Fujifilm lenses with my X-Pro 1 and X-T1:
18/2
23/1.4
35/1.4
35/2
56/1.2
16-55/2.8

I regularly use each lens wide open (I often like shallow DoF) and seldom stop down further than f8.  Regardless of the lens, I haven’t missed any image quality due to lens limitations.

Important for me is not only the resulting image, but also the satisfaction I feel using gear.  I’m extremely pleased with Fujifilm’s aperture ring.  While I like their metal lens shades, I wish these were built into the lens (like many of my former Leica lenses).  Plastic lens shades (in general) are not up to Fujifilm standards, in my opinion.  I’m not keen on (manual) focus-by-wire, but that’s no deal-breaker for me.

I find these lenses to be solidly built and none have caused any problems.  Also, the 23/2 on my X-100T is fine and I also enjoy using it wide open.

The 16-55 weighs considerably more than any of my primes and gets used far less often.  I've never found image quality lacking at f2.8.  The plastic lens shade stinks and I almost never use it.  Same with the plastic junk shade Fujifilm found necessary to supply with their excellent 56/1.2 - the lens deserves a proper lens shade.

I was thinking about Fujifilm’s longer zooms, but will try one of the recent adapters to mount my 100-400 Canon EOS lens (remaining from my former Canon gear).

Bottom line for me: Fujifilm have produced a number of excellent lenses!

By the way, I only shoot stills.

[armand]

See here some thoughts: http://forum.luminous-landscape.com/index.php?topic=93563.0

[David Sutton]

When I used Canon gear I had a couple of 3rd party lenses I'd use when sharpness and contrast was important. The difference was quite visible without pixel peeping.
I bought adapters for them when I switched to Fuji, but they've stayed in the cupboard. Even the kit Fuji lenses are very good indeed. Some lenses (like the 50-140) are just outstanding. I wouldn't bother with 3rd party lenses for this system unless doing specialist work.
I agree about the crappy lens hoods.
I don't do video, just stills.
David

[rdonson]

My 16-55, 50-140 and 100-400 Fuji lenses are every bit as good, if not better, than my Canon L glass.  The rest of my Fuji lenses are very good to excellent for my still uses.

I only dabble with video on my X-T2 so I won’t comment on that application other than to say that reviews of the new Fuji cine lenses have been very favorable.

If you’re looking for lab reviews check here:
https://www.imaging-resource.com/lenses/fujinon/reviews/

Since DXO won’t deal with X-Trans sensors they don’t review Fuji lenses.

[Rand47]

I’m almost embarrassed to report that I have a boat-load of Fuji glass:

23, 35, 50mm f/2
10-24 f/4
16mm f/1.4
16-55 f/2.8
56mm f/1.2
50-140 f/2.8
90mm f/2
100-400 zoom

They’re all excellent.  Certainly as good as anything I’ve owned previously (Sony/Zeiss, Leica, Minolta, Canon, Nikon).  One non-Fuji lens that I really like for video is the Mitakon Speedmaster II 35mm f/0.95.  Clickless aperture ring, very smooth manual focus, lovely DOF control.

I’m not a fan of focus-by-wire “at all.”  (That’s mildly put.)  But with the X-H1 camera body I now have the option of “linear” mode (default was “speed of turn sensitive” making any kind of focus by feel, or reliable focus pulling impossible, IMO).  Linear mode is much more like normal mechanical manual focus, which is a HUGE improvement as far as I’m concerned.  Some of the prime lenses (e.g. my 16mm f/1.4) has a physical clutch ring on the lens that puts it in true mechanical manual focus - very nice.

Fuji’s zooms are especially brilliant.  The 16-55 is rival to primes, and the 50-140 is so good I often use it for portrait work rather than either the 56 or the 90 - just for ease of framing.

Rand

[Alan Smallbone]

I have a boat load of Fuji glass, more than I really need. I have found them all to be quite good.

I started with the X-Pro1 and the 18mm, 35mm f1.4 and 60mm as that was all there was. I have added the following as well,

27mm pancake
18-55mm
18-135mm  great travel zoom
55-200mm
100-400mm
10-24mm
90mm f2
23mm f1.4
1.4x and 2x tele converters
14mm f2.8
and some third party lenses like the 12mm samyang and 8mm fisheye.

The lenses I use the most are the 18-55m, and for travel the 18-135mm. The long zooms next, the 55-200mm is good for most things and easy to carry, I bought the 100-400mm for some longer reach. Next would be the 10-24mm. I use the Samyang 12mm a lot for nightscapes and sometimes the 14mm, both are excellent lenses for that use. I find I do not use the primes that much anymore, mostly the zooms but that is more that fits how I like to shoot, I like the versatility of the zooms. I will sometimes challenge my self and only take one or two primes, but more often than not a quick outing will involve the 18-55,55-200mm and 10-24mm in a bag and that covers just about anything.

The Fuji system is great there are lots of options to match different shooting styles and none of the lenses are bad are mediocre. Although it may not sound like it but the Fuji really has quelled by GAS syndrome, I am quite happy with what I have and not really itching to get anything new.

They work for me.
Alan

[TommyWeir]

I think the lens system is one of the main reasons to buy into Fuji.

I own a smaller range than my colleagues above.
- 10-24mm, really good.  It quelled my desires for primes in this region.
- 35mm 1.4 on my X-T2 80% of the time.  Apparently the f2 focusses faster.  I've no issues, love this lens.
- 56mm, it's as good as they say, every time I put it on I am struck by the beautiful quality of the images.
- 50-140mm and the 1.4TC.  This is a stellar lens if heavy (though nowhere near the Canon equivalent) staggeringly sharp, even with the teleconverter.

I aim to pick up the 80mm Macro and the 100-400mm.   I traded in the 18-135mm towards the 50-140, I was less happy with it, softer than the other lenses.

[Eric Brody]

Just sold the last of my Fuji glass. Had many primes, 14, 23, 35, 56, and zooms 10-24, 16-55, 50-140, with 1.4 converter. I will never say anything negative about Fuji glass. It always performed superbly. For a bunch of complicated reasons I now use the Sony A7RIII but have many large prints from the Fuji hanging on my walls.

[fredjeang2]

Many thanks to all for your imputs, indeed informative.
I now can make myself a better idea on this relative new system.
Cheers.

[armand]

I have most of their primes, and most of their XF non pro zooms (no 18-135).

14 2.8 - sharp, light, little distortion
16 1.4 - sharp (borders need stopping down), nice bokeh combined with close focus, WR
23 1.4 - does everything well without being exceptional in any particular category
27 2.8 - sharp, very compact and light
35 1.4 - sharp (particularly in the center), can have awesome bokeh at times, slightly slower focusing
35 2 - good, WR, I'm less taken by it compared to others
56 1.2 - sharp, nice rendering, bokeh can be nice with a little care (avoid very busy backgrounds)
60 2.4 - sharp, macro, very light, takes its time to focus
90 2 - best of their primes, WR, misses stabilization (if you don't have the X-H1)


10-24 4 - very good and versatile, misses WR, sharpness is similar to other 16-35 equiv (very good till about 28-30 equiv)
18-55 2.8-4 - sharp, light and compact, misses WR
55-200 3.5-4.8 - sharper at the lower end, light for what it is, not the fastest focusing

[pluton]

  Some of the prime lenses (e.g. my 16mm f/1.4) has a physical clutch ring on the lens that puts it in true mechanical manual focus - very nice.

Just for clarity for the OP, the Fujifilm lenses with the clutch manual focus are focus by wire, even when in manual focus mode.  All known Fujifilm X lenses are focus by wire, at all times.

[armand]

Other thoughts as I have time.

The 10-24 is occasionally a blurred corner at certain shutter speeds, likely related to OIS. It doesn't have WR but did ok with some light splashes and snow.

[Jonathan Cross]

I went to Fuji for a lighter system than my Canon, and primarily for travel.  I do not shoot video.  I have X-t1 and x-t2 + 18-55, 55-200, 23 f1.4, 35 f2, 56, and 90.  For travel the t1 & zooms are fine, though the 55-200 is a bit soft at 200.   The primes on the t2 are amazing, and will now use them often rather than my Canon 5d3.  The Canon 100 macro I really like though. Love the Fuji 56 for portraits.  All the primes give superb results IMHO. I use Lightroom 6 for processing & print up to A3+ (13 X 19").  I have no regrets buying into this system and have appreciated the firmware updates. 

[Stephen Scharf]

I've owned several of the Fujifilm XF mount lenses since my first X-Pro 1 purchased in 2012:

35mm f/1.4
23m f/1.4
23mm f/2
27mm f/2.8
14mm f/2.8
60mm f/2.4 Macro
18-55 f/2.8-4 zoom
55-200mm
50-140 f/2.8

In addition, I've used the 18mm f/2.0, the 10-24/4 and 100-400. Wasn't overly impressed with the 18mm prime; it seemed to have a lot of distortion and I found I liked the 18-55 at 18mm better than the 18mm prime.

Of course, there's the 23mm f/2.0 on my X100F; I find the lens and sensor combination on this camera to be exemplary, producing some of the finest image quality I've seen from any camera.

In my experience, all of the lenses are excellent (with the exception of the 18mm), and some are absolutely superb, ranking amongst the finest optics I have ever used from any manufacturer; these are:

23mm f/1.4
14mm f/2.8
50-140 f/2.8

I haven't shot yet with the 16mm, 56, or 90, so I can't speak to those, but from what I have heard, they are also superb.

Since the end of last year, I've pared my collection down to the essentials, at this point, based on what gets used the most:
14mm f/2.8
18-55 zoom
60mm f/2.4 Macro (really a lovely lens that is forgotten by most, but has a really beautiful image quality)
50-140: one of my go-to lenses for my motorsports work, sharper than my Canon 70-200 f/2.8 L IS II.

While I loved both 23mm primes lenses, I found that when I needed a prime providing a 35mm FOV (in 35-e), I would always grab my X100F, so the two 23mm primes got very little use,  and I ultimately sold them as they were just sitting around unused.

I would like to have the 10-24 as that is a great lens for landscape, architecture assuming you get one that is sharp from corner to corner.

[fredjeang2]

If I understand correctly, all the X lenses are focus by wire?
How many ° throw from close to infinity we can expect? I ask this question as in another thread on the BM pocket 4k, Chris wisely pointed that many m43 lenses are not suitable for video because of excessive manual focussing throw °.(also the case in some Sony lenses by the way)
And does the ring hard stops in MF? (At least in some models).

[rdonson]

If you're serious about video you may wish to consider the new MKX cine lenses from Fuji for the X-H1.

http://www.fujifilm.com/news/n180215_02.html

[fredjeang2]

If you're serious about video you may wish to consider the new MKX cine lenses from Fuji for the X-H1.

http://www.fujifilm.com/news/n180215_02.html

Good link. Thanks. This is exactly what Fuji had to for the X as an hybrid system and the par covers most situations. So let's wait june.
It's good to see that Fuji makes sensible decisions.