The photo of the ice cave never fails to fill me with awe and wonder. Thanks for reviewing the lens, I was surprised to see that there's an ever so slight difference in focal range.
Thanks for the comment, glad you enjoyed it...and yes, the ice cave is something special. As for the difference in focal length, I wonder if it's just my copy. As I said I had mine fixed when I noticed a lack of sharpness and wonder if something happened then. Who knows?
@@AndyMumford Do you suppose that Fuji updated the built-in correction with the new version? That would explain the difference. It would be interesting to compare the two images without correction and see if the difference persisted.
Thank you, I love watching your reviews. You have a nice calm style with a good pace, your technical knowledge and thoroughness is really great. Please keep making these videos. I shall be keeping my original 10-24mm, but good to know that there is a slightly improved version.
Thanks a lot for the review Andy! The minimum focus distance is the distance between the sensor and the subject, that's why you were able to shoot at distances of 7-10cm from the front of the lens :)
Thanks for the comment. A number of people have mentioned that about the focus distance. Even so, the lens is about 9cm long, plus 1cm to the sensor and then 7 cm from the front of the lens to the subject...it's still considerably less than the 24cm Fuji claim
I own this lens, the WR version specifically. One of the interesting tests performed on this lens and the 8-16mm F2.8 was T Stop assessment. What was found is that the difference in light transmission between the two lenses is not as big as you'd think. It's half a stop difference in reality between the two lenses, not the expected full stop. A lot of glass in the 8-16 which damages the light transmission. The 8-16 is quite a bit sharper though, especially at the edges. I shoot on Fuji X Mount and Sony E Mount full frame. I don't currently own an ultrawide on Sony, so I am very happy using the 10-24 for that. Only downside then is I need to bring two camera systems on trips abroad to cover the full focal range. Advantages and disadvantages there. I'll take my A7IV set up next trip as usual with three lenses and then strip my X-T3 down to the bare essentials, remove the battery grip and just bring the body with the 10-24 to cover the very wide shots. Pop a tripod plate on it and bring a couple of spare batteries. Probably won't take much more room up in my bags than a nice F2.8 ultrawide FF lens.
Thank you so much. Shooting nature since 20 years. But this will be my first super wide angle zoom. Seems to be the perfect compromise. Focal range, image quality, weather resistance and price.
Thanks Andy for this excellent lens review! You should get paid from Fuji, there's no better way to sell lenses than having a review accompanied by such epic pictures.
Haha, thanks so much I'm glad you found it useful. Well, I'm an ambassador for Fuji and they sent me this lens for review, and it's always nice to be able to get to try new stuff
Great review as always Andy. I went through two copies of the original lens after watching your reviews. Unfortunately, both of my copies suffered from the often mentioned softness in the corners....as in really soft. I gave up and sold both. I now use the Viltrox 13mm and the amazing Fuji 18mm F1.4 (maybe the sharpest lens I've ever owned). I do miss the zoom feature, but that's about all. I really wish Fuji would update the old 18-55 kit lens to their newer standards...that would be a lens I would buy in a heartbeat. Keep up the great work!
Thanks for the comment. A number of people have mentioned that about the focus distance. Even so, the lens is about 9cm long, plus 1cm to the sensor and then 7 cm from the front of the lens to the subject...it's still considerably less than the 24cm Fuji claim
Nice review Andy. I went with the newer version as my first 10-24 lens due to the minor improvements. My thoughts were just as you summarized: either lens would serve me well for many years.
Great review and as always great pictures! For me the previous version is better value for money especially second hand but it’s nice to see fujifilm upgrading their lenses!
Thank you for another great review, and may I add that your photographs are just stunning! Very inspirational. I'll try to book one of your workshops now :)
Thanks so much for your comment, really glad you enjoyed the video and my work. I’d love to see you on one of my workshops, drop me an email if there’s anything you’re interested in
The previous version is my all time favourite lens. I don't feel the need to upgrade but if mine ever breaks I'll be getting one. The proper aperture ring is the best feature imho.
I agree. Of all the improvements that Fuji did make, the marked aperture ring is the nicest. Why the original 10-24 didn't get one has always been a question. It is the only fixed-aperture zoom that didn't have that.
Finally somebody explained in a lense review why focus breathing matters - the others just state it and go on as if it would be a musthave in all situations
@@AndyMumford maybe you could do me a favor and have a short test if the 70-300 is any good for some really casual bird shootings? Just from an amateur perspective. Maybe a good all around er. Thanks a lot!👍
I have previously shot with Nikon's 14-24mm which was a fantastic landscape lens. Now you make me really want to test this 10-24mm. I just bought a Fujifilm Camera as I have to learn, really like Fujifilm . 👍🙂
Wow, I didn't read your title at first, so when you said WR, I like thought wait, what ? Those are some great up grades to this lens. lighter, and focus closer, and f-stops, I am stoked. very good review and some of the best images anywhere on UA-cam. Thank You.
Thanks for the excellent review, which was well-presented and easily understood. I must admit to being somewhat disappointed after my own recent evaluation of my new 10-24mm Fujinon lens. I’m not a techie with a lab, but this last weekend I made 111 shots on a tripod outdoors (no wind, also no UV filter) using the self-timer to ensure no vibration from pressing the shutter on my Fuji X-T4. I mulled over returning the lens but after reading many online reviews it seems what I’ve found is characteristic of the lens. My 111 shots were made at a variety of focal lengths, from 10-24, with many in between. I’m not talking about edge softness. My eye focused primarily towards the center portions of the images, which contained a variety of buildings, signs, stone inscriptions on building fronts, and sometimes flowers in the foreground. I will try to avoid using this lens at f-16 or f-22. Yes, I know about diffraction. One wonders why they make lenses capable of f-22 or f-16 if the laws of physics are inevitably gong to render the images soft. I will only use these settings if required to achieve long exposure times to show flowing water or other blurred motion effects. Other reviewers confirm optimum performance at f-5.6 and f-8, and I agree. The lens has other positive features. It is well-built, of good metal construction. I will keep it as I move from Canon to Fuji, to lighten my load.
Thanks so much, glad you found it useful. I honestly don't know about the focal length...I'm wondering if it might be that when i sent my copy to Fuji to have the optics realigned that something changed then
Great comparation and also wide angle lens talk. Finally we can move more freely in Lisbon and around. I'm just seen for sony aps-c a new tamron 11-20mm f2.8 as been announced and because of your videos I'm feel very tempted to get it. I have sigma 16, 56 f1.4, sony 16-55 f2.8 and 70-350mm F4.5-6.3. in many ocasions the 16mm (FF24) felt short, the tamron would cover the only range that i don't get. Keep the good work and have fun
Haha, you love those shots because you're in them Hamish! I actually have some where I photoshopped you out, but I prefer these because of the scale and that little splash of red. As for the lens, it's a superb lens...probably the lens I've used most in all my years as a photographer, and the build quality is great. Glad you enjoyed the video, hope you're safe and well
Thanks for the review and the beautiful images. For scenic landscapes with my Fuji X mirrorless digital, I use the 16-55mm f/2.8 and the Zeiss 12mm f/2.8. I never considered the 10-24mm f/4 because it was too slow for my non-landscape shooting. The third lens I add to my scenic/landscape kit is an adapted 105mm f/2.8 Nikkor macro lens in case I want to shoot telephoto landscapes or close-up nature shots.
8:48 minimum focus distance is measured from the sensor of the camera, not from the front of the lens. The sensor location was indicated by the circle mark (with a straight line) in the top of camera body
You’ve probably answered this a lot Andy but do you focus stack with many of your photos? Your photos are just the most gorgeous I’ve seen and you’re a real advocate for Fuji 😊
Thanks so much for the comment and the kind words. I almost never need to focus stack with the X system, but with the GFX, which has much less depth of field, I have to focus stack a lot
Alway a great presentation from you, Andy. The landscape shots are just superb especially the ice cave. I'll keep the older version. I am definitely keen to find out about the 70-300mm lens as I would love to buy it. Hope you will be able to resume your workshop soon. Will drop you an email to get your thoughts on a couple of things. Thank you Andy. Odile
Great review, Andy, and I'm enjoying the new R WR version as well. I carry similar gear to you, except I also keep a 35mm f2 in my bag just in case I need something halfway between 24 and 50mm (this has happened once!)
Thanks for this video. I have the original, and this reassures me I don't really need to get the WR version. I would do it for say €100 to 200, but it seems it would run me much more than that. And seeing your amazing photography and if you used this for 5 years without issues, that's good enough for me. Plus, a €15 rain cover probably will protect more than WR in extreme conditions anyway.
Hi Nathan, glad you found the video useful. Actually, it's now about 6 and a half years with the original non WR version of this lens, and it's still going strong
Thanks. I've been happily using mine one year now -- and learned some things about it from this vid. It can produce dramatic images. A primary use for me is railcars up close (15 feet) at night with flash. Like you, I keep it around f/7.1. Even so, I'm often finding sharper and punchier results with the Zeiss 12mm f/2.8 -- and even better with Fuji 16mm f/1.4 when I can get away with a narrower shot. I'd love to have the external aperture ring, but not worth buying a new lens for.
Thanks fo rate comment. I'd love it if Fuji could produce a really wide f2.8 prime like 12mm or 10mm because the 14mm just isn't wide enough in a lot of cases
This video finally answered a longstanding question of mine: What happened to that grid of artwork that used to be above your couch and later your white cabinet? It is off-camera to your left! (I think the photo works better above the cabinet.) I have to admit that I'm bummed about the new 10-24. Instead of addressing the old 10-24's optical weaknesses, Fuji chose to just recycle the same design. I'm glad you mentioned this. Perhaps they are too focused on the GFX system right now. As a result, Fuji users are still faced with the same choice they had with the old version: a 10-24 that is smaller, lighter, cheaper, filter-compatible, and with a wider zoom range vs the 8-16 with higher, much more consistent IQ across the frame, the aperture range, and the zoom range. (I feel like you undersold the 8-16 in this respect.) I had really hoped that in the many years since Fuji introduced the original 10-24, they would have been able to improve on its image quality. Your use case is kind of unique in that you don't carry a 24-70mm equivalent with you when you travel. If you did, it would likely be the better choice for most of the 16-24 mm range just based on IQ. To be clear, I'm not second-guessing your choice for your own kit. My point is that the extra focal range of the 10-24 is less valuable for someone who carries a 16-55, for example, given that the optical performance of the 10-24 isn't particularly stellar as you approach 24mm. One question you didn't answer is whether both the original and the new version of the 10-24 had that soft lower right corner. It would be interesting to know if that was sample variation or something that is present in every lens. Great vid!
Ah, Timothy...I replied to a comment below before I saw this one. So yes, the decoration in the apartment got changed around. The grid artwork are actually framed Amazonian Indian head-dresses and they got move the living room while the print got moved to above the cabinet. If you've seen any of my older videos, the table where I work used to be in that other side of the apartment and the cabinet was there with the print above it. The living room was near the windows (where the table is now) but they got switched round because there's more light near the windows, but after we moved the furniture we never got around to moving the wall decorations because getting all of the frames for the head dresses level was really tricky...and so we kept putting it off :-) Still, its done now. With the 8-16mm, it's not that I undersold it...I never really intended to talk about it as I didn't want this to be a comparison video between the two (rather the old and new versions of the 10-24mm), but I ended speaking about it because I felt that I couldn't not talk about it, and did say it has better image quality. My feeling though is that they are very different beasts. I've already talked about it in the other comment I made, and you're right, my use case is different because I don't take a mid-range zoom (I've owned them in the past and then never used them...I simply don't shoot in that focal range unless I'm doing environmental portraits, and for that I use the 35mm 1.4) I'm also quite different to a lot of people because I really don't care all that much about image quality...I mean, it's important to me, but not near the top of my list of priorities. As I said in my other comment, there's always a compromise at some level...by using APS-C we're making a compromise, and so "good enough" is different for everyone. For me, I think it's perhaps lower than many people as when I ditched my Nikon D800E (and I had all the f2.8 lenses for when I shot weddings) I never looked at Fuji's "best" lenses like the 16mm, the 16-55mm or the 50-140mm, just the ones that worked best for me. it's one of the wonderful aspects of photography though that we're all catered for, but I do agree with you about the 10-24mm...I would have been happier if Fuji remade the lens with better optics....but more than anything, as I said below, a 10mm f2.8 prime would be the lens I most want from Fuji.
@@AndyMumford Thanks for taking the time to elaborate on your thoughts. I think your approach to gear makes a lot of sense. My wife, a teacher, would say you're better adjusted. :-)
Thanks for review 🙌 I have a new WR version for half a year and I have a some claims to it. I'm an outdoor blogger and this is my main lens for video with XS10. I like it very much, stabilization in a pair with camera works fine, you can shoot a lot from the hands. But the focus can breathe in the video and it's not very nice. And the aperture ring try to run away at one stop on the easiest touch. It is enough to accidentally touch the ring and it quietly, without a clique like it should be for the next stop, goes from 4 to 4.5. Just 1.5 mm is enough and here you have 4.5. It’s unpleasant to see such child's problem on the updated and quite expensive version of the lens, because from the other end of the ring there is a new locking system for A. So it’s necessary to constantly check if you shoot at 4. But I’m very often shoot at 4🤷♂️ Perhaps I have a defective lens, but if not, then they are all like this 😂
Dunno, I no longer have the lens as I just borrowed it from Fuji for a few weeks. I didn't shoot video with it, so I don't know about breathing, but I didn't notice the aperture ring moving. The one I used was pretty stiff
Thanks so much for this video. I watched a few other reviews of the 10-24mm and didnt realise there was a mark 2 - which fixes all the issues I had with the old version (WR and the aperture ring). The new versions is a bit more expensive but I will probably go with the newer once since the old version has 1mm less on the wide end (not sure if that was just your copy though).
My favorite part of it all is being able to get a very lightly used non-wr 10-24 for around $500. However if I lived in Seattle or London I would’ve considered making the jump.
I’m more concerned about dust/sand than spray when it comes to WR. Otherwise nice to see that I will not need to upgrade my 10-24. Good info, thank you for sharing.
Coming from Pentax where most things are weather sealed, and having dabbled in the RX100 M6 until it got water damaged fairly easily after 2 months of use, I can not buy equipment without weather sealing anymore. They've sold me on this!
Thanks for the video Andy, very informative and detail, I fully agree with you people with the non WR no need to upgrade it's only about the peace of mind. The 10-24 old or new version it's a God send for Landscape Photographer because optically and built are top notch...👍
Great video, as always. I am looking at this zoom lens with great interest and admire your honesty comparing the two. My wallet definitely wants the older model yet the new aperture ring and WR status kinda sways it for me to spend that little bit extra. I'll have the same quality image but with peace of mind and a lighter bank account, what's not to like!
Being the proud owner of the MKI version and having followed your wise advices about covering the engraved texts in front of the lens with black tape I was wondering if the guys from Fuji have been this time smart enough to address this known issue of the previous model... Cheers from the northern coast of Spain.
Thanks for the comment, really glad you enjoy the videos. No, the white text is still there on the front of the lens. I don't have a problem with it anymore since I stopped using square filters, it only seemed to be an issue with square filters...possible because the sit further away from the front element.
Super real-life review, Andy. I was very interested to hear about your lack of problems with the original non-sealed version. Were you using it on a weather-sealed body?
Thanks so much for the comment, glad you liked the review. I've used it on loads of cameras from the XT10 all the way up to the XT4. I use quite a lot of lenses like the XF55-200 that aren't weather sealed, and various cameras like the XS10 and XT30 regardless of weather conditions and have never had issues with any of them.
@10:30 the video caption you had is "mage Quality" :P I know you meant 'Image Quality' Also, thanks very much for this review, been waiting for this video from you since it was announced since I know you use the 10-24mm for a lot of your landscape shots.
@@AndyMumford Very helpful and very useful actually. I much prefer the "here's what I do with the lens" approach vs "here's the tech specs" approach most reviewers take. I do enjoy both landscape and astrophotography, so I plan on getting both the 10-24 and 8-16 at some point.
10-24mm on APSC is 16-36mm on FF, which is a popular focal range for wide angle zooms. It would be impressive, however, for Fuji to come up with a 5.5-12mm wide angle zoom, like Canon's 11-24 for Full Frame cameras.
The conversion rate is x1.5, so the 10-24 is 15-36mm equivalent, and the Fuji 8-16mm is 12-24mm equivalent, so almost identical to the Canon in focal length
Thanks for the detailed review. I think I might pick up a used copy of the old one. Mostly just looking at getting a wide zoom to shoot selfie shots with my girlfriend. Did consider switching systems, but the hassle of selling (and at a loss) bugged me. I really wish it was a f/2.8 instead of f/4. Would have been more viable for indoor shooting.
@@AndyMumford Actually not so much. The Tamron 11-20 f/2.8 for Sony aps-c is rather decently sized with only 67mm filter thread, and $100 cheaper. It lacks ois but I'll take 1 more stop over the ois any day. My only gripe with Sony is they are soulless machines. I enjoy photography much more with Fuji cameras, moreso than I thought I ever would.
What a wonderful review, both in manner and depth of presentation and in your selection of beautiful landscape photos from the original version of the lens. I’ve purchased several Fujifilm bodies and lenses over the last few years and have referred to your videos both before and after each purchase (deciding which body or lens to get and then using your reviews as references while learning to get the most out of the gear). I suspect that, even though Fujifilm does not specify any significant internal updates for the refreshed lens, there are nevertheless modernizations in the coatings (in particular the the front element for water shedding) which could account for slight differences and improvements. Also, the motors and mechanisms may have changed (thus the weight reduction), accounting for the minimally wider field of view at 10mm. Your apartment and patio are lovely, by the way.
Thanks so much, glad you enjoy the videos and find them useful, and interesting comments on how the lens may have changed...I never thought of that, but I suspect you might be right about the coatings. With the change in focal length, I'm wondering if that's just my version as I had the optics recalibrated by Fuji after I dinged it and it started to be a little soft, and I wondered if that was could be the cause. And thanks for your comments on the apartment..the patio will look better in a month or so when Spring comes along
Another great video...I wish Fuji left OIS switch on, and they improved flare resistance on new version. You haven't mentioned, I guess they improved how hood attaches to the lens, the old one is not the smoothest, and it varies between different copies. It's my favorite Fuji lens too.
Thanks so much, glad you enjoyed the review. I didn't attach the lens hood because I honestly never use them. The field of view is so wide, and so the lens hood so small to keep out of the field of view that they are next to useless in shading the lens. Particularly as they're at the widest at the top and bottom, and most landscape shooters are shooting when the sun is low and the light coming from the side. It's more effective if you're shooting with a tripod to use your hand to shade the lens.
@@AndyMumford Wow, that was quick replay, thanks. There are situations when I use the hood, mostly without, but old lens hood is kind of weird, especially when you're attaching it backwards, hopefully they followed 16-80, to improve that mechanism.
@@DjCjFoto I agree with @Andy Mumford most landscape Photographer left out the hood especially doing with stacked filters like multi ND or GND, imho using hands for anti flares are more practical and fast...😁
@@DjCjFoto By the way, I saw your email, but I seem to have lost it (my inbox has been snowed under these last days), but to answer your question here, I will make sure I test the 70-300mm at f5.6 :)
@@AndyMumford I would really like to know how it performs at 300mm/f5.6, how comparable it is to XF100-400mm at 400mm/f5.6, and 55-200 at 200mm/f4.8. That kind of lens should be strong at long end wide open. I can take it to be weaker at short end, it's used mostly for landscape, so you can step down to f7.1/8, but for wild life, when fast shooter speeds are used, f5.6 is curtail. Thank you so much for your effort!
Interesting, if fairly minor upgrade which I’m sure will please many Fuji shooters. I had the same experience of some images being soft on one side (LHS) and sent it back to Fuji who replaced a lens group, but it was the same when it came back. I didn’t drop or knock the lens. My feeling was that this had something to do with the OIS not always going back to the correct position when switched off as it looked like lens decentering. It only happens on some images and always when I had the camera on a tripod with OIS turned off. Maybe using it with a body with OIS and leaving the OIS turned on would fix it, but I used an X-T3.
I have the 14mm 2.8. I haven't used it for landscapes yet, but I plan to soon. From the little time that I've had with it I can tell you that optically it is beautiful and it is super sharp.
I used to have the 14mm, it's a great lens, super sharp, although slow to focus. I sold it though because it wasn't wide enough to replace the 10-24mm and not wide enough for astro. I really wish Fuji would make a fast 10mm or 12mm prime
One of my first lenses. I find it great for landscapes. High IQ. I find the 21mm (equivalent) focal length to be very nice. It's wide enough for most landscapes without making you deal with excessive perspective distortion if your camera isn't perfectly level.
It's one of those lenses that isn't talked about. I kind of like that because it makes it stand apart from the crowd. I am interested in this new 10-24mm.
I feel for ya brother, l walk my dog in the local park each morning, as we get our walk I pick up the train left behind by slugs. The park has trash cans with lids but the slugs toss their water bottles and food bags on the ground I try to keep 8park clean for the local wild life, there is also a steam on the boarder of the park, I have been photographing the local wood ducks,this spring I spotted a female duck with six chicks, I use a fujifilm X H2 with the 100-400 to photograph them.
excellent stuff as always Andy. I love my 10-24 and it's my goto lens for video on my X-T3. I shan't be changing just for the WR though. I just wish Fuji would make an equivalent for the GF system
Thanks so much, glad you enjoyed the video. Yes, I'm thinking about taking the GFX on a couple of trips with me and one of the things that puts me off is the limited choice at wide angle.
Ah, that would make sense...but still, I think it's closer than Fuji claim. The lens is about 11cm, plus the distance to the sensor...maybe 1cm, so 12 cm plus the 7cm I measured is still quite a bit less than 24cm.
@@AndyMumfordok that's interesting. Btw I'm not even shooting fuji but love your videos. You have a very calm attitude which makes the videos relaxing to watch 👍🏻
Looking at Flickr images plus your video, I have a sense that sunstars are (much?) better on the new version. What do you think? I've only got this from reviews & others' pictures. I'm not yet a Fuji owner but I aim to be. . Your reviews are very helpful, particularly as you walk long distances over wild terrain to take photos, so you really take into account weight & practicalities.
Not saying you've got a bad plan, Amaurie, but Andy doesn't really stress the main benefit of the 8-16 in this video, which is IQ. The 8-16 has superior IQ. It's certainly sharper toward the edges and corners, and its IQ is generally more consistent across the frame, across the aperture range (until you become diffraction-limited), and the zoom range. That's not to say the 10-24 wouldn't be good enough for your own use case. Andy obviously feels that the other benefits of the 10-24 outweigh the 8-16's IQ advantage.
Indeed the 8-16mm is certainly better optically, and I stressed that in my review. The thing with image quality though is what's "good enough" because there's always something better (for example the GFX system has better IQ than my X Series) so everything is about that point of compromise that you're willing to make between different factors like quality, convenience, weight and cost. For me the 8-16 is severely limited by it's size and weight, but then again, I always carry two bodies and a drone with a couple of batteries, so if you're not carrying that, then the weight isn't really an issue. Likewise I only take two lenses, a tele on one body and a wide angle on the other, and with the 8-16mm I'd lose a focal range that I shoot in a lot (the 16-24mm range), which would mean taking a 3rd lens, which then adds more weight. For me the extra quality doesn't make the extra weight and inconvenience worthwhile, but that's just me, it's just my personal point of compromise...it's why I choose to shoot with the 55-200 instead of the 50-140 and don't bother with any primes (apart from the 35mm 1.4, which I love), but I can understand that everyone is different. Personally, I wish Fuji would make an ultra wide fast prime like a 10 or 12mm f2 with the sharpness and speed of the the 8-16mm, but the size and weight of a prime.
Hi Amaurie, I think it depends a lot. First of all, what are you upgraded from to the X-T4? If you don't need IS or the flip around screen then the X-T3 is every bit as good as the X-T4 (I actually know a couple of people who switched back after upgrading because they hated the XT4 screen). As Timothy below said, the 8-16mm is a super sharp lens, but you know that as you already have it, and you've shot with the original 10-24mm, so you know the difference in quality. Do you feel you'll miss the quality of the 8-16mm? Another possibility is picking up an older version of the 10-24mm if you can live without the weather sealing and aperture ring (both of which I know I can), and then you could perhaps keep both lenses.
@@AndyMumford IQ is not really the reason why I bought the 8-16mm in the first place. I bought it because I wanted one lens for everything meaning that I could shoot landscapes and Astro too because of the 2.8 aperture. I loved the 10-24mm and to be honest it’s not like I’m blown away with the IQ of the 8-16mm. I could easy go back to the 10-24mm and be happy with it. So now on the XT4, I’m coming from the XT3 and it might sound silly and stupid but I was shooting the other day with the XPro3 and I was using Classic Neg and when I switched to the XT3 and I didn’t have the Film Sim I felt I lost the mood of the photos that I was taking. Yes, I applied the Film Sim later in C. One but I didn’t feel the same. I just felt that it was time to upgrade now since I could get a decent amount for my XT3 now that is not on sale and not wait later for a new camera to come and then I have to spend more in the long wrong. Sometimes I tried to maximize sales and upgrade accordingly if you know what I mean
Thanks so much. It has a name but I forget, but it's actually an "earthquake cage". Lisbon was devastated by a huge earthquake in 1755 and the houses built in the 150 years after (my building is from around 1800) that have these wooden frames that go all the way through the house and are designed to flex in an earthquake. Usually you don't see them as they are inside the walls, but we knocked down some of the interiors walls in the apartment to connect rooms and let more light through, and decided to leave the structure because it's a part of the houses history...you can still see the chips from the axe strikes from when the trees were cut down almost 200 years (because it was supposed to be hidden in a wall the wood wasn't treated or plained or sanded at all). Now buildings are all made from concrete structures and these structures aren't used any more.
I've had my original 10-24 completely completely submerged in sea with my Fuji xt3 and kase filters..... Still working like new since then..... No upgrade for me
@@timothylinn yes, my tripod leg gave way when I was away from camera and the whole lot was under the incoming waves for about 10 seconds...my heart sank.... But I'm still using both nearly 2 years later
@@garymacleod5071 I would have stroked out in that situation. I'm glad your story has a happy ending. The F-Stoppers guys were filming a segment along the shore of Puerto Rico a couple years ago--maybe you saw it--when a wave came up and splashed their high-end Nikon body. It totally ruined it. IIRC, they had forgotten to replace a little rubber cover on the bottom of the camera after removing a battery grip and this created a vulnerability that allowed the salt water to take out the camera almost immediately.
@@timothylinn no I didn't see that, but another friend had his Nikon d810 land in a small puddle and it was instantly dead..... Only issue I had was grains of sand in/ around dials... But blew them out and been like new since.... Wrote to Fuji to tell them and they didn't seem interested tho
Awesome video, will be sticking with my old 10-24 as I live in Los Angeles so we hardly ever have rain or any type of crazy weather in California lol. Will you be reviewing the 70-300 coming out this month? I saw the release date change to ship the 15th so I’m hoping to get it in the next 2-3 weeks
Hi Andy, thanks for the consistent high quality videos. You mentioned the lens performs best at 10/12 mm, would it not be better to just get a 12mm prime if the rest of the lengths arent being used? thanks!
Thanks for the comment. Well, the lens performs at it's best at 10-12mm, but that doesn't mean it's unusable or not very good at other focal lengths. I use the whole of the zoom range and it's fine, it's just at it's best at 10-12mm.
I chanced upon your video and my comments may be coming in late. :) I humbly disagree that the 10-24mm is "plenty sharp" as you often described it in your video. If you concentrate only at the centre, then definitely it's "plenty sharp". Most lenses perform very well in the centre. The main concern is really in the corners. As with your findings, I notice a sample copy that, for reasons unknown, the right corners are particularly soft even when stopped down. At f4, it gets pretty bad, especially at the bottom corner. As a landscape photographer, I do find this to be an issue as I would want corner to corner sharpness when stopped down.
Hi andy. Have you tested this lens with the H2 or T5 40mp sensor? As ts a older lens optical design I'm wondering if it can resolve the full potential of the sensor.
I've used it with the XT5 pretty much since the camera came out. I can't tell you whether it resolves the full potential of the sensor or not...but I've been perfectly happy with the results and there's certainly a lot more resolution than with the XT4
@@AndyMumford thanks for your update :) I sold my 10-24 some years ago but I’m starting to feel the Need to have something wider and the WR version seems the be the obvious choice. I do find it strange that Fuji kept the same optical formula as this is was one of the oldest lens on the X line.
Great review and beautiful photos, thank you! The non-WR was my first Fuji lens as well -- still feels like I hit the jackpot every time I pick it up. I'm not sure if this has been asked,.. but could the reduced angle at 10mm on the older version be related to the correction profiles? At 10mm I'm able to slightly widen the RAW in Capture One vs. the assigned profile, although the distortion increases.
I'm not sure, it may be. Although it should still the same for both lenses in the same software. Someone else said that they noticed a difference in 2 versions of the old one, so it could just be manufacturing variation
Wonderful photos, but I want to know if you have videos that recommend filters for fuji, or explain which ones you use or recommend for landscape photography
Glad you enjoyed the video. Funny you should say that about the filters as my previous video was all about filters ua-cam.com/video/aG8bf0gXo6Q/v-deo.html Hope you find it useful
I’ve gone through two copies of the older version both with heavy decentering. I’ve read somewhere that the original design was really prone to shifting lens elements in some conditions. I gave up on it. Might give the WR a change in the future.
Great video! I am using the Fuji X-T200 primarily in video mode with the standard lens. As UA-cam vloggers, it is hard to stand the camera up and back far enough while we are doing a food review for our heads and food to still be in the picture.. So thinking a wider angle lens might just do the trick.. However you mention it might not be the best lens for shooting stars.. would that be similar to any nighttime video, such as videos of fireworks etc.? We do want a nice crisp, in focus video when videoing and night. Our other big issue is we cannot use the flip out viewscreen while focusing on us talking in conjunction with our Crane M2 gimbal so I am wondering if the built in stabilization from a lens like this could allow us to discontinue using the gimbal? Ideally, we want stable on-the-go vlogging as well as the ability to stand up the camera on a joby to get us and the food in a shot at once! It's been a tricky problem so far!! Thanks so much! :-)
Thanks for the comment. Fireworks are much much brighter than stars so you’ ll probably be fine with this lens. As for the built in stabilization replacing a gimbal, it really doesn’t. It’s helpful to remove shake when hand holding and standing still, but if you make any movements with the camera it’s nothing like the smoothness you’ll get with a gimbal
@@AndyMumford Much appreciated! Hmm.. So do I need an camera with IBIS instead of throwing money into a lens? Basically the only issue I have with using the gimbal is I cannot pop out my viewfinder to face us when vlogging particularly at a table. The Crane M2 doesn't allow you to lock the gimbal, which would solve the issue.. when the viewfinder is popped out, the gimbal can no longer handle it and goes into 'tilt' mode for lack of a better term.. I suppose if I had the wide angle lens I mentioned we would likely be in the shot even with a gimbal. Final Q: Would a lens like this solve the horrid auto-focus with the standard lens?
Today I realize that the combination of 10-24mm and 55-200mm is prefect for landscape photography. Thx for your sharing. But I owned the 16-80mm right now. Should I go for a 10-24mm or a Laowa 12mm f2.8 instead? (Their prices are similar in Hong Kong) Which will be your choice?
I own this lens and really like it aswell! One small problem that i sometimes have is purple fringing in high contrast areas, somehow these are also hard to fix in capture one. Any tipps?
Not sure. I actually recorded a section on CA/purple fringing for this review but left it out to stop the review from becoming overly long. I didn't see a problem though in really high contrast
Thank you for this great video!!! I've had the original 10-24 for almost 5 years now and have made many images I love with it. I would love to know if you have problems with dust. I live in the Sonoran Desert and, even though I keep it well-capped on both ends, dust gets in literally just days after receiving it back from the Fujifilm service center. It happens so quickly that I actually figured out how to clean the rear group myself so that I can cut down on lost work due to it being at the service center. I've also noticed a lot of bloom in the highlights when on architectural jobs. I almost wonder if I just have a bad copy of the lens or if you've experienced these issues as well.
Thanks for the comment, glad you enjoyed the video. I've never had problems with dust getting in the lens to be honest. I have used it in some really dusty environments like Iceland, but that's just been on trips there and not the extended amount of time yours must be exposed to it living there. The other things is that I only use 2 lenses (10-24 and 55-200) on most landscape trips, and I have two bodies, so the lenses are never removed in the field
@@AndyMumford Thanks so much for your reply! That makes a lot of sense - I do have several bodies as I make my income doing commercial work, and I never thought to simply keep the lenses on two of them when I'm out doing landscape jobs. The dust certainly accumulates the most when I'm swapping primes out at things like weddings and events, during which I usually get a few wide images with the 10-24. Thanks again for the reply and wonderful videos!
I haven't really used the 16mm for landscapes, so can't give an honest comparison. The 16mm is certainly sharper, but it lacks the flexibility, and for me, 16mm isn't really wide enough for some of the shots I like to to
@@AndyMumford I know that Sigma is producing now lenses for Fuji X mount, I didn't know about Tamron. But I'm French and in France the Tamron price is between 800/899€. For more 100€, I can buy the Fujinon... I will wait and hope for Sigma's wide angle zoom. Thanks for the news and your nice work on UA-cam.
That’s exactly what it is. A fisheye lens is called that because it produces that round image, and to capture such a wide focal length the front element needs too be quite bulbous (also like a fishes eye)
It would be nice if you make a revision of third party lenses like sigma 11-20 f 2.8 (335 gr) or sigma 17-50 f 2.8 (300 gr) more or less😊 ... Thanks anyway for all your content
I think you're thinking of Tamron, not Sigma. It would be nice to review those lenses, but reviewing those lenses would mean buying them, and I only buy lenses if I feel I'm going to need it in my photography. Both those lenses look nice, but at the moment I have similar lenses that I'm happy with.
Great review Andy, thank you! I have a quick question: do you use protective filters such as UV Filters to protect your lenses? You mentioned you use either ND or Polarizer lenses… so do they screw onto the protective filter, assuming you use them? Thank you.
@@AndyMumford Thank you for your quick response. I’m getting settled to sell my Nikon gear and replace with Fujifilm’s X Series. Your advice has REALLY helped me.
Hello Andy, starting to learn landscape photography. I want to start with one lens to go with a Fuji x-t4/5 body. What would your recommendation be? Thank you.
I just wanted to say thank you for everything you do!
Thanks so much, I'm really glad you enjoy the videos
The photo of the ice cave never fails to fill me with awe and wonder. Thanks for reviewing the lens, I was surprised to see that there's an ever so slight difference in focal range.
Thanks for the comment, glad you enjoyed it...and yes, the ice cave is something special. As for the difference in focal length, I wonder if it's just my copy. As I said I had mine fixed when I noticed a lack of sharpness and wonder if something happened then. Who knows?
@@AndyMumford Do you suppose that Fuji updated the built-in correction with the new version? That would explain the difference. It would be interesting to compare the two images without correction and see if the difference persisted.
@@timothylinn I hadn't thought of that!
在@@AndyMumford
yeah that picture was amazing!
Excited for the 70-300 review, especially compared to the 55-200
I'll be starting with it next week and hopefully should have the review up in 2 weeks
@@AndyMumford Yes! waiting for this review too! Hopefully you will test it with the TC as well. Can't wait.
Waiting on the same! Even thou i already pre-ordered 30-700 since i still had the return window open for 55-200
@@AndyMumford I can't wait!
I have the 16-80mm and it would make sense to get the 70-300mm, but it all depends on if IQ is as good as the 55-200mm.
@@zemekiel the 70-300 is sharper than 55-200 and after 135mm the difference is quite significant
Thank you, I love watching your reviews. You have a nice calm style with a good pace, your technical knowledge and thoroughness is really great. Please keep making these videos.
I shall be keeping my original 10-24mm, but good to know that there is a slightly improved version.
Thanks so much for the comment, really glad you find the videos so useful.
0:29 Your landscape photos are amazing!
Thanks so much for the comment, glad you enjoy the images
Great review. Just bought a mint old version. Very helpful.
Thanks for the comment. It's a great lens, enjoy it
Thanks a lot for the review Andy! The minimum focus distance is the distance between the sensor and the subject, that's why you were able to shoot at distances of 7-10cm from the front of the lens :)
Thanks for the comment. A number of people have mentioned that about the focus distance. Even so, the lens is about 9cm long, plus 1cm to the sensor and then 7 cm from the front of the lens to the subject...it's still considerably less than the 24cm Fuji claim
What an amazing review, Andy! Thank you very much :)
Thanks so much, glad you found it useful
Thank you, yet another great review! And a treat seeing your lovely photos from the Faroe Islands, Cheers!
Thanks so much for the comment, glad you enjoyed the review. And yes, the Faroe Islands are spectacular
Amazing pictures Andy! Great gear and practical review. Cheers (Obrigado!)
Thanks so much, glad you enjoyed it (Abraço)
I own this lens, the WR version specifically. One of the interesting tests performed on this lens and the 8-16mm F2.8 was T Stop assessment. What was found is that the difference in light transmission between the two lenses is not as big as you'd think. It's half a stop difference in reality between the two lenses, not the expected full stop. A lot of glass in the 8-16 which damages the light transmission. The 8-16 is quite a bit sharper though, especially at the edges.
I shoot on Fuji X Mount and Sony E Mount full frame. I don't currently own an ultrawide on Sony, so I am very happy using the 10-24 for that. Only downside then is I need to bring two camera systems on trips abroad to cover the full focal range. Advantages and disadvantages there. I'll take my A7IV set up next trip as usual with three lenses and then strip my X-T3 down to the bare essentials, remove the battery grip and just bring the body with the 10-24 to cover the very wide shots. Pop a tripod plate on it and bring a couple of spare batteries. Probably won't take much more room up in my bags than a nice F2.8 ultrawide FF lens.
Thanks for the comment, that’s interesting to find out
To say that your images are stunning is a understatement….Fuji got it right for you to highly recommend this lens….Thank you for the advice..😎
Thanks so much for the comment, glad you enjoyed the video
Getting mine this weekend! Can't wait to shoot it for fashion. I love your landscape work! Bravo!!!
Thanks so much for the comment, really glad you found it useful. I'm sure you'll love the lens
Thank you so much. Shooting nature since 20 years. But this will be my first super wide angle zoom. Seems to be the perfect compromise. Focal range, image quality, weather resistance and price.
Thanks for the comment. It's a great lens, you'll love it
Thanks Andy,
I’m just about to buy into the Fuji System and your reviews are really helping me decide what I need 👍
Thanks so much for the comment, really glad to know the videos are useful. Good luck with the Fuji system, I'm sure you'll be happy with it
Thanks Andy for this excellent lens review!
You should get paid from Fuji, there's no better way to sell lenses than having a review accompanied by such epic pictures.
Haha, thanks so much I'm glad you found it useful. Well, I'm an ambassador for Fuji and they sent me this lens for review, and it's always nice to be able to get to try new stuff
Just had a look at your portfolio on your website and have to say it looks magical.
Thanks so much, really glad you enjoyed my work
Great review as always Andy. I went through two copies of the original lens after watching your reviews. Unfortunately, both of my copies suffered from the often mentioned softness in the corners....as in really soft. I gave up and sold both. I now use the Viltrox 13mm and the amazing Fuji 18mm F1.4 (maybe the sharpest lens I've ever owned). I do miss the zoom feature, but that's about all. I really wish Fuji would update the old 18-55 kit lens to their newer standards...that would be a lens I would buy in a heartbeat. Keep up the great work!
Thanks so much for the comment
Great review thank you! its been very helpful in me deciding. FWIW close focus distance is measured from the sensor not the end of the lens :)
Thanks for the comment. A number of people have mentioned that about the focus distance. Even so, the lens is about 9cm long, plus 1cm to the sensor and then 7 cm from the front of the lens to the subject...it's still considerably less than the 24cm Fuji claim
Nice review Andy. I went with the newer version as my first 10-24 lens due to the minor improvements. My thoughts were just as you summarized: either lens would serve me well for many years.
Thanks for the comment, glad you enjoyed the review. I'm sure you'll love the lens, it really is awesome
yeah! i agree with that
Great review and as always great pictures! For me the previous version is better value for money especially second hand but it’s nice to see fujifilm upgrading their lenses!
Thanks, glad you enjoyed the review. And yeah, I agree, the older version is better value in most cases
Thank you for another great review, and may I add that your photographs are just stunning! Very inspirational. I'll try to book one of your workshops now :)
Thanks so much for your comment, really glad you enjoyed the video and my work. I’d love to see you on one of my workshops, drop me an email if there’s anything you’re interested in
The previous version is my all time favourite lens. I don't feel the need to upgrade but if mine ever breaks I'll be getting one. The proper aperture ring is the best feature imho.
Yeah, it's my favourite lens too
I agree. Of all the improvements that Fuji did make, the marked aperture ring is the nicest. Why the original 10-24 didn't get one has always been a question. It is the only fixed-aperture zoom that didn't have that.
Finally somebody explained in a lense review why focus breathing matters - the others just state it and go on as if it would be a musthave in all situations
Thanks for the comment. Yes, focal breathing is important for anyone who’s shooting focal stacked images
Great review. That's my Christmas and birthday sorted out.
Cheers for the comment, enjoy the camera
No problem. I've got the Tamron 17-70 f2.8 as my everyday walkabout. Looking to get into landscape a bit more. The 10-24 looks ideal. Thanks again.
Awesome review as usual! Thanks a lot! Can't wait for the 70-300mm review from you!
Thanks so much, I'm hoping to have it ready in a couple of weeks
@@AndyMumford maybe you could do me a favor and have a short test if the 70-300 is any good for some really casual bird shootings? Just from an amateur perspective. Maybe a good all around er. Thanks a lot!👍
going to antarctica and felt like i had to upgrade to WR. Thanks for saving me a bundle.
Thanks for the comment, glad the video was useful
Thank you for your honest review!
Thanks so much, glad you found it useful
I have previously shot with Nikon's 14-24mm which was a fantastic landscape lens. Now you make me really want to test this 10-24mm. I just bought a Fujifilm Camera as I have to learn, really like Fujifilm . 👍🙂
Thanks so much, glad you found the video useful
Fujifilm is an awesome system!
Wow, I didn't read your title at first, so when you said WR, I like thought wait, what ? Those are some great up grades to this lens. lighter, and focus closer, and f-stops, I am stoked. very good review and some of the best images anywhere on UA-cam. Thank You.
Thanks for the comment, glad you enjoyed the review
Thanks for the excellent review, which was well-presented and easily understood. I must admit to being somewhat disappointed after my own recent evaluation of my new 10-24mm Fujinon lens. I’m not a techie with a lab, but this last weekend I made 111 shots on a tripod outdoors (no wind, also no UV filter) using the self-timer to ensure no vibration from pressing the shutter on my Fuji X-T4. I mulled over returning the lens but after reading many online reviews it seems what I’ve found is characteristic of the lens. My 111 shots were made at a variety of focal lengths, from 10-24, with many in between. I’m not talking about edge softness. My eye focused primarily towards the center portions of the images, which contained a variety of buildings, signs, stone inscriptions on building fronts, and sometimes flowers in the foreground. I will try to avoid using this lens at f-16 or f-22. Yes, I know about diffraction. One wonders why they make lenses capable of f-22 or f-16 if the laws of physics are inevitably gong to render the images soft. I will only use these settings if required to achieve long exposure times to show flowing water or other blurred motion effects. Other reviewers confirm optimum performance at f-5.6 and f-8, and I agree. The lens has other positive features. It is well-built, of good metal construction. I will keep it as I move from Canon to Fuji, to lighten my load.
I've always found the best aperture for sharpness and depth of field is f7.1 I very rarely go above f11
Great review! Surprising that they have slightly different focal lengths on the wide end that I don’t think anyone else has mentioned before.
Thanks so much, glad you found it useful. I honestly don't know about the focal length...I'm wondering if it might be that when i sent my copy to Fuji to have the optics realigned that something changed then
Great comparation and also wide angle lens talk. Finally we can move more freely in Lisbon and around.
I'm just seen for sony aps-c a new tamron 11-20mm f2.8 as been announced and because of your videos I'm feel very tempted to get it. I have sigma 16, 56 f1.4, sony 16-55 f2.8 and 70-350mm F4.5-6.3. in many ocasions the 16mm (FF24) felt short, the tamron would cover the only range that i don't get.
Keep the good work and have fun
Thanks so much, glad you enjoyed it
Great video Andy. My 10-24 is a real workhorse and I’ve never once been disappointed with it. Love the shots of the Iceland canyon!! Cheers, Hamish
Haha, you love those shots because you're in them Hamish! I actually have some where I photoshopped you out, but I prefer these because of the scale and that little splash of red.
As for the lens, it's a superb lens...probably the lens I've used most in all my years as a photographer, and the build quality is great. Glad you enjoyed the video, hope you're safe and well
My original copy still works, but some of the updates make the mk ii really tempting!
The aperture ring is really nice :-)
Thanks for the review and the beautiful images.
For scenic landscapes with my Fuji X mirrorless digital, I use the 16-55mm f/2.8 and the Zeiss 12mm f/2.8. I never considered the 10-24mm f/4 because it was too slow for my non-landscape shooting. The third lens I add to my scenic/landscape kit is an adapted 105mm f/2.8 Nikkor macro lens in case I want to shoot telephoto landscapes or close-up nature shots.
Thanks for the comment, glad you enjoyed the video
8:48 minimum focus distance is measured from the sensor of the camera, not from the front of the lens. The sensor location was indicated by the circle mark (with a straight line) in the top of camera body
You’ve probably answered this a lot Andy but do you focus stack with many of your photos? Your photos are just the most gorgeous I’ve seen and you’re a real advocate for Fuji 😊
Thanks so much for the comment and the kind words. I almost never need to focus stack with the X system, but with the GFX, which has much less depth of field, I have to focus stack a lot
Thanks for the review, very helpful
Thanks so much, glad it was useful
Alway a great presentation from you, Andy. The landscape shots are just superb especially the ice cave. I'll keep the older version. I am definitely keen to find out about the 70-300mm lens as I would love to buy it. Hope you will be able to resume your workshop soon. Will drop you an email to get your thoughts on a couple of things. Thank you Andy. Odile
Hi Odile, I hope you and Philip are well. I hope we can start the workshops soon too. Drop me an email any time :)
Great review, Andy, and I'm enjoying the new R WR version as well. I carry similar gear to you, except I also keep a 35mm f2 in my bag just in case I need something halfway between 24 and 50mm (this has happened once!)
I also have the 35, but mine is the f1.4. It’s a wonderful lens
Thanks for this video. I have the original, and this reassures me I don't really need to get the WR version. I would do it for say €100 to 200, but it seems it would run me much more than that. And seeing your amazing photography and if you used this for 5 years without issues, that's good enough for me. Plus, a €15 rain cover probably will protect more than WR in extreme conditions anyway.
Hi Nathan, glad you found the video useful. Actually, it's now about 6 and a half years with the original non WR version of this lens, and it's still going strong
Thanks. I've been happily using mine one year now -- and learned some things about it from this vid. It can produce dramatic images. A primary use for me is railcars up close (15 feet) at night with flash. Like you, I keep it around f/7.1. Even so, I'm often finding sharper and punchier results with the Zeiss 12mm f/2.8 -- and even better with Fuji 16mm f/1.4 when I can get away with a narrower shot. I'd love to have the external aperture ring, but not worth buying a new lens for.
Thanks fo rate comment. I'd love it if Fuji could produce a really wide f2.8 prime like 12mm or 10mm because the 14mm just isn't wide enough in a lot of cases
Railcars up close at night with flash? That's really interesting. Are your images online?
@@timothylinn Yes, they are. And when I post a link my reply is removed. Interesting.
@@senior_ranger That’s odd. I wasn’t aware that posed a problem either.
@@timothylinn I found your Flickr so sent the link there!
This video finally answered a longstanding question of mine: What happened to that grid of artwork that used to be above your couch and later your white cabinet? It is off-camera to your left! (I think the photo works better above the cabinet.)
I have to admit that I'm bummed about the new 10-24. Instead of addressing the old 10-24's optical weaknesses, Fuji chose to just recycle the same design. I'm glad you mentioned this. Perhaps they are too focused on the GFX system right now. As a result, Fuji users are still faced with the same choice they had with the old version: a 10-24 that is smaller, lighter, cheaper, filter-compatible, and with a wider zoom range vs the 8-16 with higher, much more consistent IQ across the frame, the aperture range, and the zoom range. (I feel like you undersold the 8-16 in this respect.) I had really hoped that in the many years since Fuji introduced the original 10-24, they would have been able to improve on its image quality.
Your use case is kind of unique in that you don't carry a 24-70mm equivalent with you when you travel. If you did, it would likely be the better choice for most of the 16-24 mm range just based on IQ. To be clear, I'm not second-guessing your choice for your own kit. My point is that the extra focal range of the 10-24 is less valuable for someone who carries a 16-55, for example, given that the optical performance of the 10-24 isn't particularly stellar as you approach 24mm.
One question you didn't answer is whether both the original and the new version of the 10-24 had that soft lower right corner. It would be interesting to know if that was sample variation or something that is present in every lens. Great vid!
Ah, Timothy...I replied to a comment below before I saw this one. So yes, the decoration in the apartment got changed around. The grid artwork are actually framed Amazonian Indian head-dresses and they got move the living room while the print got moved to above the cabinet. If you've seen any of my older videos, the table where I work used to be in that other side of the apartment and the cabinet was there with the print above it. The living room was near the windows (where the table is now) but they got switched round because there's more light near the windows, but after we moved the furniture we never got around to moving the wall decorations because getting all of the frames for the head dresses level was really tricky...and so we kept putting it off :-) Still, its done now.
With the 8-16mm, it's not that I undersold it...I never really intended to talk about it as I didn't want this to be a comparison video between the two (rather the old and new versions of the 10-24mm), but I ended speaking about it because I felt that I couldn't not talk about it, and did say it has better image quality. My feeling though is that they are very different beasts. I've already talked about it in the other comment I made, and you're right, my use case is different because I don't take a mid-range zoom (I've owned them in the past and then never used them...I simply don't shoot in that focal range unless I'm doing environmental portraits, and for that I use the 35mm 1.4)
I'm also quite different to a lot of people because I really don't care all that much about image quality...I mean, it's important to me, but not near the top of my list of priorities. As I said in my other comment, there's always a compromise at some level...by using APS-C we're making a compromise, and so "good enough" is different for everyone. For me, I think it's perhaps lower than many people as when I ditched my Nikon D800E (and I had all the f2.8 lenses for when I shot weddings) I never looked at Fuji's "best" lenses like the 16mm, the 16-55mm or the 50-140mm, just the ones that worked best for me. it's one of the wonderful aspects of photography though that we're all catered for, but I do agree with you about the 10-24mm...I would have been happier if Fuji remade the lens with better optics....but more than anything, as I said below, a 10mm f2.8 prime would be the lens I most want from Fuji.
@@AndyMumford Thanks for taking the time to elaborate on your thoughts. I think your approach to gear makes a lot of sense. My wife, a teacher, would say you're better adjusted. :-)
thank you for that!pretty useful
Thanks for review 🙌
I have a new WR version for half a year and I have a some claims to it. I'm an outdoor blogger and this is my main lens for video with XS10. I like it very much, stabilization in a pair with camera works fine, you can shoot a lot from the hands.
But the focus can breathe in the video and it's not very nice. And the aperture ring try to run away at one stop on the easiest touch. It is enough to accidentally touch the ring and it quietly, without a clique like it should be for the next stop, goes from 4 to 4.5. Just 1.5 mm is enough and here you have 4.5.
It’s unpleasant to see such child's problem on the updated and quite expensive version of the lens, because from the other end of the ring there is a new locking system for A.
So it’s necessary to constantly check if you shoot at 4. But I’m very often shoot at 4🤷♂️
Perhaps I have a defective lens, but if not, then they are all like this 😂
Dunno, I no longer have the lens as I just borrowed it from Fuji for a few weeks. I didn't shoot video with it, so I don't know about breathing, but I didn't notice the aperture ring moving. The one I used was pretty stiff
Thanks so much for this video. I watched a few other reviews of the 10-24mm and didnt realise there was a mark 2 - which fixes all the issues I had with the old version (WR and the aperture ring). The new versions is a bit more expensive but I will probably go with the newer once since the old version has 1mm less on the wide end (not sure if that was just your copy though).
It's a great lens, you'll be happy with it
This paired with the upcoming 70-300 could be a nice combo.
I've just done a review of the 70-300...i think they go quite well together, although it's a big gap between 24 and 70mm
My favorite part of it all is being able to get a very lightly used non-wr 10-24 for around $500. However if I lived in Seattle or London I would’ve considered making the jump.
That's a really good deal! Yeah, to be honest I think you're as well with the Mk1 unless you really really want those aperture markings
rightt! it makes sense
I’m more concerned about dust/sand than spray when it comes to WR. Otherwise nice to see that I will not need to upgrade my 10-24. Good info, thank you for sharing.
I think the WR gives a fair bit of piece of mind
@@AndyMumford it does, but as you pointed out - you can get by without it. It is a nice lens though.
yeah! same here
Coming from Pentax where most things are weather sealed, and having dabbled in the RX100 M6 until it got water damaged fairly easily after 2 months of use, I can not buy equipment without weather sealing anymore. They've sold me on this!
It's a solid lens, and I've since used it in some really harsh conditions and it's been fine
if the focus speed is similar - its can be good to know to pick up the 1st version at a lower cost for 2nd hand markets as well.
The focus speed is identical as far as I could tell
Excellent review
Thanks so much, glad you like it
Now I'm trying to remember the ois differences....I guess it's nap time! Nice to see pro work.
Thanks so much
On your advice I have bought the XF 10-24mm.The Flinders Rangers In South Australia will be getting a serious look over with this lense in July.
Thanks for the comment, glad you enjoyed it. Have fun with the lens
Thanks for the video Andy, very informative and detail, I fully agree with you people with the non WR no need to upgrade it's only about the peace of mind. The 10-24 old or new version it's a God send for Landscape Photographer because optically and built are top notch...👍
Thanks so much, glad you enjoyed the video. Indeed, it's just a great lens
Great video, as always. I am looking at this zoom lens with great interest and admire your honesty comparing the two. My wallet definitely wants the older model yet the new aperture ring and WR status kinda sways it for me to spend that little bit extra. I'll have the same quality image but with peace of mind and a lighter bank account, what's not to like!
Glad you enjoyed the video and found it useful. You can't go wrong with either version really, it's just a great lens
exactly!sometimes you have to go with the more considerate option and you would be surprised how it can be just as good as the expensive one!
Being the proud owner of the MKI version and having followed your wise advices about covering the engraved texts in front of the lens with black tape I was wondering if the guys from Fuji have been this time smart enough to address this known issue of the previous model... Cheers from the northern coast of Spain.
Thanks for the comment, really glad you enjoy the videos. No, the white text is still there on the front of the lens. I don't have a problem with it anymore since I stopped using square filters, it only seemed to be an issue with square filters...possible because the sit further away from the front element.
good point!
My OIS 10-24 mk1 perfectly fits with my old XT-20: wide combo when neither dust nor rain ;)
Yeah, I'm still super happy with the 10-24 Mk 1
Super real-life review, Andy. I was very interested to hear about your lack of problems with the original non-sealed version. Were you using it on a weather-sealed body?
Thanks so much for the comment, glad you liked the review.
I've used it on loads of cameras from the XT10 all the way up to the XT4. I use quite a lot of lenses like the XF55-200 that aren't weather sealed, and various cameras like the XS10 and XT30 regardless of weather conditions and have never had issues with any of them.
@10:30 the video caption you had is "mage Quality" :P I know you meant 'Image Quality' Also, thanks very much for this review, been waiting for this video from you since it was announced since I know you use the 10-24mm for a lot of your landscape shots.
Thanks for pointing that out...I'm terrible for typos, but it's fixed now. Glad you enjoyed the review, hope it was useful
@@AndyMumford Very helpful and very useful actually. I much prefer the "here's what I do with the lens" approach vs "here's the tech specs" approach most reviewers take. I do enjoy both landscape and astrophotography, so I plan on getting both the 10-24 and 8-16 at some point.
10-24mm on APSC is 16-36mm on FF, which is a popular focal range for wide angle zooms. It would be impressive, however, for Fuji to come up with a 5.5-12mm wide angle zoom, like Canon's 11-24 for Full Frame cameras.
The conversion rate is x1.5, so the 10-24 is 15-36mm equivalent, and the Fuji 8-16mm is 12-24mm equivalent, so almost identical to the Canon in focal length
I just saw a WR for 650 USD and im really tempted
That's a good deal
Thanks for the detailed review. I think I might pick up a used copy of the old one. Mostly just looking at getting a wide zoom to shoot selfie shots with my girlfriend.
Did consider switching systems, but the hassle of selling (and at a loss) bugged me. I really wish it was a f/2.8 instead of f/4. Would have been more viable for indoor shooting.
It’s a great lens. F2.8 would be lovely, but it would make the lens a lot bigger, heavier and more expensive
@@AndyMumford Actually not so much. The Tamron 11-20 f/2.8 for Sony aps-c is rather decently sized with only 67mm filter thread, and $100 cheaper. It lacks ois but I'll take 1 more stop over the ois any day. My only gripe with Sony is they are soulless machines. I enjoy photography much more with Fuji cameras, moreso than I thought I ever would.
What a wonderful review, both in manner and depth of presentation and in your selection of beautiful landscape photos from the original version of the lens. I’ve purchased several Fujifilm bodies and lenses over the last few years and have referred to your videos both before and after each purchase (deciding which body or lens to get and then using your reviews as references while learning to get the most out of the gear). I suspect that, even though Fujifilm does not specify any significant internal updates for the refreshed lens, there are nevertheless modernizations in the coatings (in particular the the front element for water shedding) which could account for slight differences and improvements. Also, the motors and mechanisms may have changed (thus the weight reduction), accounting for the minimally wider field of view at 10mm. Your apartment and patio are lovely, by the way.
Thanks so much, glad you enjoy the videos and find them useful, and interesting comments on how the lens may have changed...I never thought of that, but I suspect you might be right about the coatings.
With the change in focal length, I'm wondering if that's just my version as I had the optics recalibrated by Fuji after I dinged it and it started to be a little soft, and I wondered if that was could be the cause.
And thanks for your comments on the apartment..the patio will look better in a month or so when Spring comes along
Thank you Andy.
Another great video...I wish Fuji left OIS switch on, and they improved flare resistance on new version. You haven't mentioned, I guess they improved how hood attaches to the lens, the old one is not the smoothest, and it varies between different copies. It's my favorite Fuji lens too.
Thanks so much, glad you enjoyed the review. I didn't attach the lens hood because I honestly never use them. The field of view is so wide, and so the lens hood so small to keep out of the field of view that they are next to useless in shading the lens. Particularly as they're at the widest at the top and bottom, and most landscape shooters are shooting when the sun is low and the light coming from the side. It's more effective if you're shooting with a tripod to use your hand to shade the lens.
@@AndyMumford Wow, that was quick replay, thanks. There are situations when I use the hood, mostly without, but old lens hood is kind of weird, especially when you're attaching it backwards, hopefully they followed 16-80, to improve that mechanism.
@@DjCjFoto I agree with @Andy Mumford most landscape Photographer left out the hood especially doing with stacked filters like multi ND or GND, imho using hands for anti flares are more practical and fast...😁
@@DjCjFoto By the way, I saw your email, but I seem to have lost it (my inbox has been snowed under these last days), but to answer your question here, I will make sure I test the 70-300mm at f5.6 :)
@@AndyMumford I would really like to know how it performs at 300mm/f5.6, how comparable it is to XF100-400mm at 400mm/f5.6, and 55-200 at 200mm/f4.8. That kind of lens should be strong at long end wide open. I can take it to be weaker at short end, it's used mostly for landscape, so you can step down to f7.1/8, but for wild life, when fast shooter speeds are used, f5.6 is curtail. Thank you so much for your effort!
Interesting, if fairly minor upgrade which I’m sure will please many Fuji shooters. I had the same experience of some images being soft on one side (LHS) and sent it back to Fuji who replaced a lens group, but it was the same when it came back. I didn’t drop or knock the lens. My feeling was that this had something to do with the OIS not always going back to the correct position when switched off as it looked like lens decentering. It only happens on some images and always when I had the camera on a tripod with OIS turned off. Maybe using it with a body with OIS and leaving the OIS turned on would fix it, but I used an X-T3.
That's an interesting comment about the OIS affecting the sharpness David. I never found out what it was but that seems very possible
Nice ! What do you think about xf 14mm 2.8 for landscape photography ?
I have the 14mm 2.8. I haven't used it for landscapes yet, but I plan to soon. From the little time that I've had with it I can tell you that optically it is beautiful and it is super sharp.
I used to have the 14mm, it's a great lens, super sharp, although slow to focus. I sold it though because it wasn't wide enough to replace the 10-24mm and not wide enough for astro. I really wish Fuji would make a fast 10mm or 12mm prime
One of my first lenses. I find it great for landscapes. High IQ. I find the 21mm (equivalent) focal length to be very nice. It's wide enough for most landscapes without making you deal with excessive perspective distortion if your camera isn't perfectly level.
It's one of those lenses that isn't talked about. I kind of like that because it makes it stand apart from the crowd. I am interested in this new 10-24mm.
I feel for ya brother, l walk my dog in the local park each morning, as we get our walk I pick up the train left behind by slugs. The park has trash cans with lids but the slugs toss their water bottles and food bags on the ground
I try to keep 8park clean for the local wild life, there is also a steam on the boarder of the park, I have been photographing the local wood ducks,this spring I spotted a female duck with six chicks, I use a fujifilm X H2 with the 100-400 to photograph them.
Great Thanks 😊
Thanks so much for the comment, hope you found it useful
Andy great video! Just wanted you to know the 10-24 amazon link isn't working.
Thanks for letting me know, I've sorted it out now. Glad you liked the video
@@AndyMumford Anytime Andy and thank you for the video :)
excellent stuff as always Andy.
I love my 10-24 and it's my goto lens for video on my X-T3. I shan't be changing just for the WR though.
I just wish Fuji would make an equivalent for the GF system
Thanks so much, glad you enjoyed the video. Yes, I'm thinking about taking the GFX on a couple of trips with me and one of the things that puts me off is the limited choice at wide angle.
@@AndyMumford I've got the 23 which you should try if you haven't already. it equates to around 18mm so fairly wide but is super, super sharp.
As far as I know the close focusing distance is the distance from the object to the sensor plane, that's why you could get that close.
Ah, that would make sense...but still, I think it's closer than Fuji claim. The lens is about 11cm, plus the distance to the sensor...maybe 1cm, so 12 cm plus the 7cm I measured is still quite a bit less than 24cm.
@@AndyMumfordok that's interesting. Btw I'm not even shooting fuji but love your videos. You have a very calm attitude which makes the videos relaxing to watch 👍🏻
Looking at Flickr images plus your video, I have a sense that sunstars are (much?) better on the new version. What do you think? I've only got this from reviews & others' pictures. I'm not yet a Fuji owner but I aim to be. .
Your reviews are very helpful, particularly as you walk long distances over wild terrain to take photos, so you really take into account weight & practicalities.
I honestly can't say, I no longer have the lens and never tried a sunstar with it
fuji is the way to gooo!
Awesome. I’m considering getting the 10-24mm WR. I loved the original and if I sell the 8-16mm I can use the rest to upgrade to the XT4
Not saying you've got a bad plan, Amaurie, but Andy doesn't really stress the main benefit of the 8-16 in this video, which is IQ. The 8-16 has superior IQ. It's certainly sharper toward the edges and corners, and its IQ is generally more consistent across the frame, across the aperture range (until you become diffraction-limited), and the zoom range. That's not to say the 10-24 wouldn't be good enough for your own use case. Andy obviously feels that the other benefits of the 10-24 outweigh the 8-16's IQ advantage.
Indeed the 8-16mm is certainly better optically, and I stressed that in my review. The thing with image quality though is what's "good enough" because there's always something better (for example the GFX system has better IQ than my X Series) so everything is about that point of compromise that you're willing to make between different factors like quality, convenience, weight and cost. For me the 8-16 is severely limited by it's size and weight, but then again, I always carry two bodies and a drone with a couple of batteries, so if you're not carrying that, then the weight isn't really an issue. Likewise I only take two lenses, a tele on one body and a wide angle on the other, and with the 8-16mm I'd lose a focal range that I shoot in a lot (the 16-24mm range), which would mean taking a 3rd lens, which then adds more weight. For me the extra quality doesn't make the extra weight and inconvenience worthwhile, but that's just me, it's just my personal point of compromise...it's why I choose to shoot with the 55-200 instead of the 50-140 and don't bother with any primes (apart from the 35mm 1.4, which I love), but I can understand that everyone is different. Personally, I wish Fuji would make an ultra wide fast prime like a 10 or 12mm f2 with the sharpness and speed of the the 8-16mm, but the size and weight of a prime.
Hi Amaurie, I think it depends a lot. First of all, what are you upgraded from to the X-T4? If you don't need IS or the flip around screen then the X-T3 is every bit as good as the X-T4 (I actually know a couple of people who switched back after upgrading because they hated the XT4 screen). As Timothy below said, the 8-16mm is a super sharp lens, but you know that as you already have it, and you've shot with the original 10-24mm, so you know the difference in quality. Do you feel you'll miss the quality of the 8-16mm? Another possibility is picking up an older version of the 10-24mm if you can live without the weather sealing and aperture ring (both of which I know I can), and then you could perhaps keep both lenses.
@@AndyMumford IQ is not really the reason why I bought the 8-16mm in the first place. I bought it because I wanted one lens for everything meaning that I could shoot landscapes and Astro too because of the 2.8 aperture. I loved the 10-24mm and to be honest it’s not like I’m blown away with the IQ of the 8-16mm. I could easy go back to the 10-24mm and be happy with it. So now on the XT4, I’m coming from the XT3 and it might sound silly and stupid but I was shooting the other day with the XPro3 and I was using Classic Neg and when I switched to the XT3 and I didn’t have the Film Sim I felt I lost the mood of the photos that I was taking. Yes, I applied the Film Sim later in C. One but I didn’t feel the same. I just felt that it was time to upgrade now since I could get a decent amount for my XT3 now that is not on sale and not wait later for a new camera to come and then I have to spend more in the long wrong. Sometimes I tried to maximize sales and upgrade accordingly if you know what I mean
There is now the Viltrox 13mm 1.4!
Hi Andy , great review as usual. Do you think this lens would sit well on the X-T30 as the grip is more shallow than on the X-T4?
I think it would be fine. It's the same size more or less as the 55-200, and I've used that on the XT30 many many times
Great review Andy! Looks like the Sunstars are improved over the original lens… does that match your experience?
Thanks Julius, glad you enjoyed it. I forgot to compare the sunstars, but it does look a little nicer
unrelated to photography, I like that white wooden room divider/pillar structure. Kind of unique, don't really see that in buildings anymore.
Thanks so much. It has a name but I forget, but it's actually an "earthquake cage". Lisbon was devastated by a huge earthquake in 1755 and the houses built in the 150 years after (my building is from around 1800) that have these wooden frames that go all the way through the house and are designed to flex in an earthquake. Usually you don't see them as they are inside the walls, but we knocked down some of the interiors walls in the apartment to connect rooms and let more light through, and decided to leave the structure because it's a part of the houses history...you can still see the chips from the axe strikes from when the trees were cut down almost 200 years (because it was supposed to be hidden in a wall the wood wasn't treated or plained or sanded at all).
Now buildings are all made from concrete structures and these structures aren't used any more.
@@AndyMumford oh wow historic buildings, that is pretty cool, only in Europe where people still live in buildings built centuries ago.
I've had my original 10-24 completely completely submerged in sea with my Fuji xt3 and kase filters..... Still working like new since then..... No upgrade for me
It's a super tough lens...I expect mine to last me a good many more years
Submerged in salt water? If so, it is pretty remarkable that everything still works.
@@timothylinn yes, my tripod leg gave way when I was away from camera and the whole lot was under the incoming waves for about 10 seconds...my heart sank.... But I'm still using both nearly 2 years later
@@garymacleod5071 I would have stroked out in that situation. I'm glad your story has a happy ending. The F-Stoppers guys were filming a segment along the shore of Puerto Rico a couple years ago--maybe you saw it--when a wave came up and splashed their high-end Nikon body. It totally ruined it. IIRC, they had forgotten to replace a little rubber cover on the bottom of the camera after removing a battery grip and this created a vulnerability that allowed the salt water to take out the camera almost immediately.
@@timothylinn no I didn't see that, but another friend had his Nikon d810 land in a small puddle and it was instantly dead..... Only issue I had was grains of sand in/ around dials... But blew them out and been like new since.... Wrote to Fuji to tell them and they didn't seem interested tho
Awesome video, will be sticking with my old 10-24 as I live in Los Angeles so we hardly ever have rain or any type of crazy weather in California lol. Will you be reviewing the 70-300 coming out this month? I saw the release date change to ship the 15th so I’m hoping to get it in the next 2-3 weeks
Thanks for the comment. I already have the 70-300mm with me (it's a pre-release the Fuji lent me) and I should have the review out in two weeks
@@AndyMumford awesome looking forward to your review!
I have also beat the shit out of my 10-24 for five years & never had an issue but I guess more is almost always better.
Hi Andy, thanks for the consistent high quality videos. You mentioned the lens performs best at 10/12 mm, would it not be better to just get a 12mm prime if the rest of the lengths arent being used? thanks!
Thanks for the comment. Well, the lens performs at it's best at 10-12mm, but that doesn't mean it's unusable or not very good at other focal lengths. I use the whole of the zoom range and it's fine, it's just at it's best at 10-12mm.
I chanced upon your video and my comments may be coming in late. :)
I humbly disagree that the 10-24mm is "plenty sharp" as you often described it in your video. If you concentrate only at the centre, then definitely it's "plenty sharp". Most lenses perform very well in the centre.
The main concern is really in the corners. As with your findings, I notice a sample copy that, for reasons unknown, the right corners are particularly soft even when stopped down. At f4, it gets pretty bad, especially at the bottom corner.
As a landscape photographer, I do find this to be an issue as I would want corner to corner sharpness when stopped down.
Hi andy. Have you tested this lens with the H2 or T5 40mp sensor? As ts a older lens optical design I'm wondering if it can resolve the full potential of the sensor.
I've used it with the XT5 pretty much since the camera came out. I can't tell you whether it resolves the full potential of the sensor or not...but I've been perfectly happy with the results and there's certainly a lot more resolution than with the XT4
@@AndyMumford thanks for your update :) I sold my 10-24 some years ago but I’m starting to feel the Need to have something wider and the WR version seems the be the obvious choice. I do find it strange that Fuji kept the same optical formula as this is was one of the oldest lens on the X line.
Great review and beautiful photos, thank you! The non-WR was my first Fuji lens as well -- still feels like I hit the jackpot every time I pick it up. I'm not sure if this has been asked,.. but could the reduced angle at 10mm on the older version be related to the correction profiles? At 10mm I'm able to slightly widen the RAW in Capture One vs. the assigned profile, although the distortion increases.
I'm not sure, it may be. Although it should still the same for both lenses in the same software. Someone else said that they noticed a difference in 2 versions of the old one, so it could just be manufacturing variation
Thanks for awesome review and amazing photos ! an advise for ND filter (for video) ? Thank you !
Thanks for the comment. For video you probably want a variable ND filter. Moment make some really nice ones
Wonderful photos, but I want to know if you have videos that recommend filters for fuji, or explain which ones you use or recommend for landscape photography
Glad you enjoyed the video. Funny you should say that about the filters as my previous video was all about filters ua-cam.com/video/aG8bf0gXo6Q/v-deo.html Hope you find it useful
@@AndyMumford haha it's true you have a video on this topic and I hadn't seen it, thanks again and what an incredible photographic work
I'm curious if you are planing to test/review new Tamron 11-20 f2.8 for Fuji? Seems like interesting alternative to Fuij 10-24
Maybe, it depends if I can get hold of one
Thank you Andy! You mentioned the Laowa 9mm f2.8 in the video. Do you recommend that lens over the Samyang 12mm f2 for astro in the Fuji system?
I don't know, i haven't tried the Samyang yet, but I might pick one up in the summer.
@@AndyMumford thanks!!
10-24 is a very nice focal length for landscape. Sony 10-18 is less versatile so I end up using the 16-55 f/2.8 10 times more often than the 10-18.
Yeah, that little bit extra makes a difference
I’ve gone through two copies of the older version both with heavy decentering. I’ve read somewhere that the original design was really prone to shifting lens elements in some conditions. I gave up on it. Might give the WR a change in the future.
*chance
I think that's what happened to mine, but since I got it fixed it's been OK
@@AndyMumford do you think the new design might have fixed that issue?
Great video! I am using the Fuji X-T200 primarily in video mode with the standard lens. As UA-cam vloggers, it is hard to stand the camera up and back far enough while we are doing a food review for our heads and food to still be in the picture.. So thinking a wider angle lens might just do the trick.. However you mention it might not be the best lens for shooting stars.. would that be similar to any nighttime video, such as videos of fireworks etc.? We do want a nice crisp, in focus video when videoing and night. Our other big issue is we cannot use the flip out viewscreen while focusing on us talking in conjunction with our Crane M2 gimbal so I am wondering if the built in stabilization from a lens like this could allow us to discontinue using the gimbal? Ideally, we want stable on-the-go vlogging as well as the ability to stand up the camera on a joby to get us and the food in a shot at once! It's been a tricky problem so far!! Thanks so much! :-)
Thanks for the comment. Fireworks are much much brighter than stars so you’ ll probably be fine with this lens. As for the built in stabilization replacing a gimbal, it really doesn’t. It’s helpful to remove shake when hand holding and standing still, but if you make any movements with the camera it’s nothing like the smoothness you’ll get with a gimbal
@@AndyMumford Much appreciated! Hmm.. So do I need an camera with IBIS instead of throwing money into a lens? Basically the only issue I have with using the gimbal is I cannot pop out my viewfinder to face us when vlogging particularly at a table. The Crane M2 doesn't allow you to lock the gimbal, which would solve the issue.. when the viewfinder is popped out, the gimbal can no longer handle it and goes into 'tilt' mode for lack of a better term.. I suppose if I had the wide angle lens I mentioned we would likely be in the shot even with a gimbal. Final Q: Would a lens like this solve the horrid auto-focus with the standard lens?
Today I realize that the combination of 10-24mm and 55-200mm is prefect for landscape photography. Thx for your sharing. But I owned the 16-80mm right now. Should I go for a 10-24mm or a Laowa 12mm f2.8 instead? (Their prices are similar in Hong Kong) Which will be your choice?
I'd go for the 10-24mm as it's more flexible.
I own this lens and really like it aswell!
One small problem that i sometimes have is purple fringing in high contrast areas, somehow these are also hard to fix in capture one.
Any tipps?
Not sure. I actually recorded a section on CA/purple fringing for this review but left it out to stop the review from becoming overly long. I didn't see a problem though in really high contrast
Thank you for this great video!!! I've had the original 10-24 for almost 5 years now and have made many images I love with it. I would love to know if you have problems with dust. I live in the Sonoran Desert and, even though I keep it well-capped on both ends, dust gets in literally just days after receiving it back from the Fujifilm service center. It happens so quickly that I actually figured out how to clean the rear group myself so that I can cut down on lost work due to it being at the service center. I've also noticed a lot of bloom in the highlights when on architectural jobs. I almost wonder if I just have a bad copy of the lens or if you've experienced these issues as well.
Thanks for the comment, glad you enjoyed the video. I've never had problems with dust getting in the lens to be honest. I have used it in some really dusty environments like Iceland, but that's just been on trips there and not the extended amount of time yours must be exposed to it living there. The other things is that I only use 2 lenses (10-24 and 55-200) on most landscape trips, and I have two bodies, so the lenses are never removed in the field
@@AndyMumford Thanks so much for your reply! That makes a lot of sense - I do have several bodies as I make my income doing commercial work, and I never thought to simply keep the lenses on two of them when I'm out doing landscape jobs. The dust certainly accumulates the most when I'm swapping primes out at things like weddings and events, during which I usually get a few wide images with the 10-24. Thanks again for the reply and wonderful videos!
How does the 10-24 compare with 16mm f1.4 for lanscapes
I haven't really used the 16mm for landscapes, so can't give an honest comparison. The 16mm is certainly sharper, but it lacks the flexibility, and for me, 16mm isn't really wide enough for some of the shots I like to to
Wonderful lens but according to me, too expensive. Hope Sigma will produce 10-20 ou 12-24 for Fuji...?
I don’t know about Sigma, but it’s jiggly likely Tamron will launch the 11-20mm f2.8
@@AndyMumford I know that Sigma is producing now lenses for Fuji X mount, I didn't know about Tamron. But I'm French and in France the Tamron price is between 800/899€. For more 100€, I can buy the Fujinon... I will wait and hope for Sigma's wide angle zoom. Thanks for the news and your nice work on UA-cam.
Maybe a strange question, but it seems a big difference with my 7.5mm fisheye, is that because the flat frontglas instead of the dome shape?
That’s exactly what it is. A fisheye lens is called that because it produces that round image, and to capture such a wide focal length the front element needs too be quite bulbous (also like a fishes eye)
@@AndyMumford so a big difference with the 10mm ”normal” lens! Thank you!
It would be nice if you make a revision of third party lenses like sigma 11-20 f 2.8 (335 gr) or sigma 17-50 f 2.8 (300 gr) more or less😊 ... Thanks anyway for all your content
Or even the viltrox 17-70 f2.8 (525 gr)😊
I think you're thinking of Tamron, not Sigma. It would be nice to review those lenses, but reviewing those lenses would mean buying them, and I only buy lenses if I feel I'm going to need it in my photography. Both those lenses look nice, but at the moment I have similar lenses that I'm happy with.
You're right it was Tamrom 🤭 sorry. It's a shame you don't have access to those lenses because your reviews are excellent. Maybe in the future
Great review Andy, thank you! I have a quick question: do you use protective filters such as UV Filters to protect your lenses? You mentioned you use either ND or Polarizer lenses… so do they screw onto the protective filter, assuming you use them? Thank you.
Thanks for the comment, glad you liked the review. I never use UV filters at all
@@AndyMumford Thank you for your quick response. I’m getting settled to sell my Nikon gear and replace with Fujifilm’s X Series. Your advice has REALLY helped me.
Hello Andy, starting to learn landscape photography. I want to start with one lens to go with a Fuji x-t4/5 body. What would your recommendation be? Thank you.
It really depends on what you like to shoot. A wide angle like the 10-24mm is a really good place to start
@@AndyMumford thanks.