Fuji X Lenses

[armand]

I was anxiously waiting for the 16-50 2.8 with the hope that it will finally be my answer for a lighter walkaround/hiking system which has water resistance and very good quality. I am somehow disappointed by the lack of OIS; I know that Canikon don't have it either in their 24-70 but I expected Fuji to be better than this.

[Alan Smallbone]

There was an interview with a Fuji engineer and he said something along the lines of they did not include OIS because it would make it much larger and heavier. So I guess like most things it is a compromise.

Alan

[Paul2660]

Both the 16-50 and soon to come 16. 1.4 have interest. Especially the 1.4.
My 18-55 has so been such a great lens it's hard to consider replacing it.

Paul

[JV]

I only own Fuji prime lenses so I can't really comment on how useful OIS is for the zooms.

At first sight it does seem like an awkward move from Fuji given that all other zooms have OIS.

What would the advantage be of the new lens over the current lens?

I see WR, consistent 2.8 aperture, anything else?

Given that the 2 new zoom lenses have a constant aperture I would guess that Fuji is going to start paying more attention to video?

[armand]

I heard a reply that they initially had it but took it away to further increase image quality  

My hope was close to prime quality (therefore better than 18-55), slightly wider (I rarely feel the need to go wider than 24 equiv), in a WR package. I was willing to accept the increase in size and weight for this.

I'm not that convinced about video, they are quite behind now. I could dream about a new camera with a stabilized sensor though  

[AFairley]

I could live without the OIS if I had to (I do with my Nikon 24-70 OK), but the lens is a little large for me to use as a walk around, and coupling that with the lack of OIS means that I will stick with the 18-55 and live without the extra 2mm on the wide end.

[pluton]

There was an interview with a Fuji engineer and he said something along the lines of they did not include OIS because it would make it much larger and heavier. So I guess like most things it is a compromise.

Alan

Didn't he also mention that with OIS there'd be optical compromises?

[maddogmurph]

Honestly, why would you need a 16-55 WR lens on the Fuji camera that's already got a WR body, and the lens costs $250-350... I had my Fuji X-T1 set up next to a rock at the beach.  Rogue wave drenched this camera with it's non WR lens with the equivalent of 4 buckets of sandy, salt water.  Both camera and lens work perfectly to this day.  (I don't expect the lens to last long term now however)  If you're shooting in a torrential downpour, maybe just cover the lens with a plastic bag?  Boom OIS, save your weight, and a WR lens.     I also expect dividends from the money I just saved you.

[armand]

Honestly, why would you need a 16-55 WR lens on the Fuji camera that's already got a WR body, and the lens costs $250-350... I had my Fuji X-T1 set up next to a rock at the beach.  Rogue wave drenched this camera with it's non WR lens with the equivalent of 4 buckets of sandy, salt water.  Both camera and lens work perfectly to this day.  (I don't expect the lens to last long term now however)  If you're shooting in a torrential downpour, maybe just cover the lens with a plastic bag?  Boom OIS, save your weight, and a WR lens.     I also expect dividends from the money I just saved you.

Because I don't want to push my luck. It might also break in the middle of a trip, etc. And I cannot see the lenses as consumables.

[Eric Brody]

I have quite a few Fuji primes as well as the 18-55, and 55-200 zooms. The stabilization on both lenses, especially the 55-200 is nothing short of remarkable. I was looking forward to the 16-55 f/2.8 as a "24-70" for my X T-1. I know and use the high ISO capabilities of the X T-1 regularly but am incredibly disappointed that there is no OIS on the upcoming 16-55. In fact, it's likely I'll let it pass. The 18-55 is an pretty impressive lens but it's at f/3.2 by 23mm and of course at f/4 at 55mm. Every stop counts. The only thing I really miss about my (sold) Olympus OM-D was the in-body IBIS. With it, I could attach an old Leica 90mm f/2.8 Elmarit and have an F/2.8 180mm STABILIZED Leica lens. Fuji will lose significant sales of the 16-55 because of this decision, likely mine. While I am a fan of primes, I have used the "old" Nikon 24-70 on my D800E (on a tripod) with impressive results. I'd gladly pay a premium to have a stabilized version on a Fuji body.

[maddogmurph]

Because I don't want to push my luck. It might also break in the middle of a trip, etc. And I cannot see the lenses as consumables.

Where are you headed?

Definition:
WR means Weather Resistant, for casual protection against mild water spray and dust

My take is mild protection won't protect me against some of the serious things I do.  For back country work I need to take extra steps or a different system.  Aloksak, cuben fiber bags, or dry bags are key, and plastic bags for shooting, a mylar golite umbrella, and a shammy.  The WG3 from pentax will go anywhere, no concerns, and provide high image quality in situations other cameras would be crushed, maimed, drowned, or rendered obsolete by cold/dust, it's also 16.0 MP, and most of the images on my etsy were made with one.  Great $200 5.0 Oz backup system for being out in the field with a disabled DSLR.

[ndevlin]

I already fine the 16-50mm rather too large. OIS would have made it monstrous (see the Pentax 645's 28-45mm).  I find anything much more than the 18-55 starts to really cut into the size advantages of the Fuji Xs.

- N. 

[BJL]

Didn't he also mention that with OIS there'd be optical compromises?

Now that sensor-based stabilzation has been made workable with video as well as stills, optical purism seems to suggest that route.

[MoreOrLess]

Maybe take a look at the new Samsung NX1 + 16-50mm? has OIS and is a stop faster at the wide end.

[Pope]

Maybe take a look at the new Samsung NX1 + 16-50mm? has OIS and is a stop faster at the wide end.

That's a good recommendation.

I only own Fuji prime lenses so I can't really comment on how useful OIS is for the zooms

Me too

[armand]

Trying to do a very basic focus stacking (my first) I found out the 60 mm has a good amount of focus breathing. Another thing to pay attention to.

[armand]

Finally I gave in and got the 56 1.2.
Sharpness and bokeh seem quite good from the first few shots.

Focus in lower light it's not as fast as some others claimed to be, it's slowish many times and with good amount of hunting. When it locks it's ok accuracy wise (pretty good considering most shots were at 1.2, 1/125 and AutoISO choosing 4000-6400).
This is still the case for a DSLR, at least for Fuji (didn't try m43).

[armand]

the 56 seems quite sharp, even wide open. In good light it's ok focus speed wise (still not good compared to DSLRs, even with the X-T1, mostly for moving targets).

Some examples to look at the bokeh; with a little care looks good to me, but it gets "nervous" a little easier than I hoped, see next post

[armand]

you need to watch the background

[armand]

I wanted to post a follow up to the Fuji 56 1.2 but got taken with testing the new D750.

It's one of those lenses you don't realize how much you needed it and how awesome it is until you get it! Really, really nice. It's quite sharp wide open (as I shoot most of the times) and has character. Focus could be faster, bokeh could occasionally be better but at the end of the day it justifies its price. Definitely holds its own or more compared to the Nikon 85 1.8G. Fuji makes some really nice primes. Even the 35 1.4 is really nice despite not being so sharp wide open, a class above the Nikon 50 1.8G.

Overall the 56 it's my favorite Fujifilm lens (I have also 14 2.8, 27 2.8, 35 1.4, 60 2.4, 18-55 2.8-4, 55-200 3.5-4.8 ).

PS. I heard the 23 1.4 is in a similar class