@@atselykovskiy But Jordan should be 500m away to make the most cinematic experience. I want talking head shots that look like the opening scene of The French Connection.
This video may have just convinced me to get a telephoto lens for video lol. Definitely not as long as a 500, but a 300 sounds very doable! The compression is so uniquely beautiful
Telephoto lenses dimensions are dictated by front lens diameter for the most part, much less so by the field covered. Having made a killer sharp, fairly lightweight lens for medium format, Fujifilm has made a wise choice offering it for x-mount. Now they “only”have to get the concerning autofocus issues solved…
Sadly AF-C in Fuji is lacking in this gen. But these two lenses look amazing. They are both well priced and particularly the 500mm looks just gorgeous.
I'd love to know what changes they made for the X mount version of the 500mm. I wonder if they considered just offering a speed booster adapter with AF for the GFX version. Who cares about weight savings when what matters is light and reach?
I find the 500mm a little disappointing on X-mount -- I thought the whole idea was that we were getting APS-C-specific glass, so it could be as small/compact as possible for the given focal length; instead it covers a sensor with roughly 4x as much surface area... Also, F5.6 is pretty fast on medium format, but on APS-C... I get the benefit of saving on R&D costs, but this paired with the ongoing AF issues on X-mount really starts to sting.
This lens is so good on a 102MP 44x33 sensor, though, that I highly doubt it's going to fail at 40MP APS-C. That's only about 22% more resolution linearly.
The GFX 500mm review on the Chris Frost channel was the first time I could see separate inner lines on his lens chart test. There's plenty of resolving power there.
Be interesting to see a comparison of the Fuji 16-55mm with the equivalent Sigma version or indeed the Tamron 17-70mm. When the 1st version of the lens came out, Fuji had a lens monopoly, so it would be interesting to know what know you are getting for the ~$500 apart from an aperture ring.
Even the Mki version of the lens was generally better than the sigma. And buying used they were actually a similar price. While the weight and size savings is very welcome now, and on the face of it the price is fair - substantially cheaper than the old version launched for in real terms - you have to really want its advantages for that money.
It is sad that it does not has OIS, but compared to the Sigma it should be at least equally sharp, with better rendering, faster AF and it is weather sealed. I'm sure that we will get videos comparing the two from youtubers in due time.
I would like ANYONE to make now x1.4 TC handle and x2.0 TC handle (especially this second one..) to see how it performs at 1000 mm f11, for my field 1200 mm is bare minimum and I would like to stop cropping my resolution half, from 900 mm.
Love you guys but kind of wish we could skip the “first look pre production” videos. They don’t really bring much to the table because you can’t talk about the meat and potatoes of the topic “do you want to buy this lens?” without actual testing and evaluation.
2.02 "FUJIFILM high end professional general purpose zoom for X mont camera" ... Well better to fix the AF first. Otherwise No meaning in getting getting this glass.
With modern mirrorless, there's plenty that can change. Algorithms for focus by various aspects, same with aperture control, distortion, vignetting, OIS, ...
@@A.Edilbi I don't know your background, but for example, distortion correction info comes from the lens and is fed to the body. Algorithms related to the correction can affect sharpness. It's not like the old days where light goes through the glass straight to be set in film. Now the image processed to make up for glass shortcuts. There's been issues like with OIS in the post that have also affected image quality, etc Chris' statement was just a short hand way, without listing every nuance that could change in the final production lens.
@Paul_Rohde distortion correct and vignette correction are dismissed when they review the lens .they shoot in raw and show us the distortion and vignette so the firmware is irrelevant. I never once discussed something with a photographer and get annoyed by their answers
Fuji: sorry we gave you a full frame sized lens for APS-C. We fixed it now and won't ever make that mistake again. Also Fuji: do you want a medium-format sized lens for your APS-C camera?
Same lens for a 44x33mm image circle on a 24x16mm sensor ... without being able to use it on both. What's the point of using APS-C if not even the lenses are smaller anymore? That's just silly.
@@djstuc In my understanding when you design a lens for a much smaller image circle at the same (not equivalent) focal length and f-stop, you need less light to go through. A design specific to that smaller image circle could be quite a bit thinner at the very least. I'm happy to learn but I don't think that's a myth. (?)
@@noenken as I said, LONG TELEPHOTO lenses do not follow this same philosophy, it only applies to more standard lenses. This subject has been covered many times, the image circle is of much less importance at these focal lengths, check out these lenses from any manufacturer and they are all much the same.
Remember, although they're the same mm, their AOV are different. If the two lenses were made for the same AOV, they would be rather different sizes, and completely different lenses in construction. This lens does have elements tailored for APS-C, so they aren't fully the same and interchangeable.
@@Paul_Rohde Nope, it is exactly the same lens. There are diagrams for both on their respective product pages and the entire optical design is identical. The only difference is the mount and layout of switches and the lens foot. Even the majority of the housing is the same. fujifilm-x.b-cdn.net/wp-content/uploads/2024/10/XF500mmF5_6_lensDanmen-1.jpg vs. fujifilm-x.b-cdn.net/wp-content/uploads/2024/05/gf500_img11-1.jpg
I wonder what an APS-C only 500 f/5.6 would look like. Probably even lighter, smaller and cheaper. While it's cool they're making this lens available for X-Mount, I can't help but feel like you're paying a hefty premium, considering it's actually for Medium format.
Long teles, at least starting at 135 mm, if not earlier, don't get lighter or cheaper when building them for a smaller sensor. So, no, I don't think you need to wonder. There's not going to be a substantial difference.
Likely made with both MF and APS-C in mind when designing. Also, the benefit in terms of size with smaller sensors doesnt really translate when talking about super telephoto lenses, just look at the 100-400 and 150-600, that were made just for APS-C. Those are actually heavier than this lens.
With all the other brands with apsc for longer reach you’re stuck with full frame lens. So at least this has been modified a bit for apsc. But if you look at the Fuji 200 mm f2 what a gorgeous hunk of apsc glass.
I feel like that 40g could basically just be the different lens mount? If they're the same lens, it's nice for Fujifilm's production efficiency but then it means X-mount users miss out on what could have been a much lighter lens if the glass was reduced for the much smaller image circle possibly.
When your focal length gets long enough, The size of a lens is dictated mostly by the focal length and aperture. 500/5.6=89.3mm minimum size, basically. Maybe a couple of the rear elements could have been slightly smaller, but it certainly would not have been "much lighter" if designed purely for XF. This lens is lighter than the Olympus 300/4, despite being designed for GF! With long lenses you basically get image circle size for free, and in fact it is very typical for the image circle of zoom lenses to get way larger as you zoom in.
There is maybe a difference to the glass close to the mount, but the front of the lens will be the same regardless of sensor size, believe it or not. This is because at long focal lengths the diameter of the aperture has to be very large, and the elements required for that are going to cover just about any sensor size.
Why would anybody buy a lens that's designed to cover a medium format circle to use in on an APS-C body? If it was designed for an APS-C body it would be much smaller, lighter and cheaper
I don't know why I am watching this. I don't own any Fujifilm cameras.
do you need to own fujifilm camera to watch video like these?
Same. Most of these shows (and I love this show) but they feed GAS syndrome....
I watch because I like these dudes
Soon you will…
Yeah, I just watch to see the both of them 😅
We definitely need more 500m talking head segments.
That was 500mm
@@atselykovskiy Is this actually 500mm or 1000mm equiv to full frame 500mm?
@@atselykovskiy But Jordan should be 500m away to make the most cinematic experience.
I want talking head shots that look like the opening scene of The French Connection.
@@crhuynh8 This is 765mm FF equivalent
@@crhuynh8 considering its image circle it is at least 395mm FF equiv
Moving BILF to BILPH was a masterstroke of genius. 👍
That taped floating filter 🤣
This video may have just convinced me to get a telephoto lens for video lol. Definitely not as long as a 500, but a 300 sounds very doable! The compression is so uniquely beautiful
Lumix Leica 200mm. You're welcome.
Telephoto lenses dimensions are dictated by front lens diameter for the most part, much less so by the field covered. Having made a killer sharp, fairly lightweight lens for medium format, Fujifilm has made a wise choice offering it for x-mount. Now they “only”have to get the concerning autofocus issues solved…
This is correct and should be pinned! The sigma 500mm 5.6, 95mm front element. Nikon 500mm, 95mm. Not a coincidence.
Will be interested if you do a side by side comparison of the mk1 and mk2 to see just how much better the mk2 is
Wow, extreme Toneh.
Fantastic Tony balls
Sadly AF-C in Fuji is lacking in this gen. But these two lenses look amazing.
They are both well priced and particularly the 500mm looks just gorgeous.
Traded in my 16-55 I for the new model. Always loved it but it definitely can feel very heavy. Looking forward to the lighter weight!
Nice job Fujifilm! Bring more, especially XF 23mm f2.0
Obsessed by your clean my Mac ad 😅
Bro had me laughing so hard with the BILPH comment! Thank you
Waiting for more Toneh samples.
The cinema can be ours
It will be interesting to do comparison between Fuji 16-55/2.8II and Pentax DA*16-50/2.8 PLM
Loving the 500mm
I wonder how the new 16-36 will feel on the upcoming XM-5
What 16-36?
I meant 16-55 lol
I'd love to know what changes they made for the X mount version of the 500mm. I wonder if they considered just offering a speed booster adapter with AF for the GFX version. Who cares about weight savings when what matters is light and reach?
I find the 500mm a little disappointing on X-mount -- I thought the whole idea was that we were getting APS-C-specific glass, so it could be as small/compact as possible for the given focal length; instead it covers a sensor with roughly 4x as much surface area... Also, F5.6 is pretty fast on medium format, but on APS-C... I get the benefit of saving on R&D costs, but this paired with the ongoing AF issues on X-mount really starts to sting.
I need to get my hands on that 500mm 😍
A very good medium format lens may not have sufficient definition for a high MP APS-C sensor. Looking forward to an in-depth test.
This lens is so good on a 102MP 44x33 sensor, though, that I highly doubt it's going to fail at 40MP APS-C. That's only about 22% more resolution linearly.
The GFX 500mm review on the Chris Frost channel was the first time I could see separate inner lines on his lens chart test. There's plenty of resolving power there.
Would love to see production unit tested with the yet to be released new firmware that suppose to fix the AF pulsing issue.
Video starts at 1:40 for Microsoft Windows users.
The ad was great. Don't miss it, seems like something that could happen for real 😅
@@amermeleitorthere, I have changed my comment.
@@shang-hsienyang1284 😅 I don't even use Apple products. But I liked the ad. It's funny!
On the episode of BILPH hunters
When is the 16-55 being released?
Be interesting to see a comparison of the Fuji 16-55mm with the equivalent Sigma version or indeed the Tamron 17-70mm. When the 1st version of the lens came out, Fuji had a lens monopoly, so it would be interesting to know what know you are getting for the ~$500 apart from an aperture ring.
Even the Mki version of the lens was generally better than the sigma. And buying used they were actually a similar price.
While the weight and size savings is very welcome now, and on the face of it the price is fair - substantially cheaper than the old version launched for in real terms - you have to really want its advantages for that money.
Love the ad
Ooohh a bigger great white sharp Fujinon lens
2:52 Leading '0' corresponds to 2020 year of manufacture
Bilph?! Oh my~ 😂
Dang that 500mm can shoot the fleas of a dog.
Jordan's Xm5 setup just disappears behind the 500mm lens.😮
You should have snug in a photo of Jordan's favorite non-waterfowl bird.
My first NEW car cost $2600.
What is a "noct"?
I wish they added stabilization at that price to the zoom lens… is it 2x better than Sigma.
It is sad that it does not has OIS, but compared to the Sigma it should be at least equally sharp, with better rendering, faster AF and it is weather sealed.
I'm sure that we will get videos comparing the two from youtubers in due time.
I would like ANYONE to make now x1.4 TC handle and x2.0 TC handle (especially this second one..) to see how it performs at 1000 mm f11, for my field 1200 mm is bare minimum and I would like to stop cropping my resolution half, from 900 mm.
18mil f2 mkii when?
At around 3:30 it’s not sharp.
🤡
Birds I'd like to photograph lol
Love you guys but kind of wish we could skip the “first look pre production” videos. They don’t really bring much to the table because you can’t talk about the meat and potatoes of the topic “do you want to buy this lens?” without actual testing and evaluation.
2.02 "FUJIFILM high end professional general purpose zoom for X mont camera" ... Well better to fix the AF first. Otherwise No meaning in getting getting this glass.
Anyone else distracted by the shrubbery stuck to Chris' jacket? 😊
Changes to the filter size is annoying..I know I know step up rings 😮
All the gems in this video!! Next level guys!!!
Bo-KAY or BO-kah ... I say BO-kah just to irritate people 🤪
That focus hunting in the long shot is really awful
Why they don't allow you to test the lens ? It's not like firmware that they can change something. No it's final .that's the lens
With modern mirrorless, there's plenty that can change.
Algorithms for focus by various aspects, same with aperture control, distortion, vignetting, OIS, ...
@Paul_Rohde he literally said " we can't test sharpness and bokeh " those are image quality. Not lens performance. Can't be changed with firmware
@@A.Edilbi I don't know your background, but for example, distortion correction info comes from the lens and is fed to the body. Algorithms related to the correction can affect sharpness. It's not like the old days where light goes through the glass straight to be set in film. Now the image processed to make up for glass shortcuts. There's been issues like with OIS in the post that have also affected image quality, etc Chris' statement was just a short hand way, without listing every nuance that could change in the final production lens.
@Paul_Rohde distortion correct and vignette correction are dismissed when they review the lens .they shoot in raw and show us the distortion and vignette so the firmware is irrelevant. I never once discussed something with a photographer and get annoyed by their answers
@@A.Edilbi cool
Bokeh was the weakest point of the old 16-55mm. A sterile look.
So you search the Dark Web for warning sign images? C’mon Chris! Up your game!
The dreadful Fuji autofocus is really showing at some points, they really need to fix their software...
First
Wow, from 3:24, AF is hunting back and forth continuously on his face. Looking at his left eye and chin. I literally shocked.
He is squinting pretty hard, to be fair.
You’re using footage taken with a 500mm lens to bash the video tracking AF😂
The only thing shocking here is how utterly ridiculous that is.
@@gijspeters5866 His entire head facing front is fully in the frame for a reasonably long time. You know what that means.
@@JohnJHPark What does it mean, exactly?
I have seen crazy AF hunting on Fuji for sure but that ain't it bro.
Fuji: sorry we gave you a full frame sized lens for APS-C. We fixed it now and won't ever make that mistake again.
Also Fuji: do you want a medium-format sized lens for your APS-C camera?
It's a 500/5.6 sized lens, not a medium format sized lens. You basically get image circle for free at those long focal lengths.
Yeah, I know. It was just a joke.
Same lens for a 44x33mm image circle on a 24x16mm sensor ... without being able to use it on both.
What's the point of using APS-C if not even the lenses are smaller anymore? That's just silly.
Long telephoto lenses do not shrink in size with different sensors, this myth needs to end.
@@djstuc In my understanding when you design a lens for a much smaller image circle at the same (not equivalent) focal length and f-stop, you need less light to go through. A design specific to that smaller image circle could be quite a bit thinner at the very least. I'm happy to learn but I don't think that's a myth. (?)
@@noenken as I said, LONG TELEPHOTO lenses do not follow this same philosophy, it only applies to more standard lenses. This subject has been covered many times, the image circle is of much less importance at these focal lengths, check out these lenses from any manufacturer and they are all much the same.
Remember, although they're the same mm, their AOV are different. If the two lenses were made for the same AOV, they would be rather different sizes, and completely different lenses in construction. This lens does have elements tailored for APS-C, so they aren't fully the same and interchangeable.
@@Paul_Rohde Nope, it is exactly the same lens. There are diagrams for both on their respective product pages and the entire optical design is identical. The only difference is the mount and layout of switches and the lens foot. Even the majority of the housing is the same.
fujifilm-x.b-cdn.net/wp-content/uploads/2024/10/XF500mmF5_6_lensDanmen-1.jpg
vs.
fujifilm-x.b-cdn.net/wp-content/uploads/2024/05/gf500_img11-1.jpg
16-55 with no OIS is just sad but love the size
the fuji xf 500mm should had been $2500 and smaller than the gf 500mm 😬. its bigger than the sigma 500mm for the sony and the nikon 400mm 4.5
I wonder what an APS-C only 500 f/5.6 would look like. Probably even lighter, smaller and cheaper. While it's cool they're making this lens available for X-Mount, I can't help but feel like you're paying a hefty premium, considering it's actually for Medium format.
🤣🤣🤣
Long teles, at least starting at 135 mm, if not earlier, don't get lighter or cheaper when building them for a smaller sensor. So, no, I don't think you need to wonder. There's not going to be a substantial difference.
Likely made with both MF and APS-C in mind when designing. Also, the benefit in terms of size with smaller sensors doesnt really translate when talking about super telephoto lenses, just look at the 100-400 and 150-600, that were made just for APS-C. Those are actually heavier than this lens.
@@Triforian this makes no sense, bigger image circle definitely means bigger glass elements.
With all the other brands with apsc for longer reach you’re stuck with full frame lens. So at least this has been modified a bit for apsc. But if you look at the Fuji 200 mm f2 what a gorgeous hunk of apsc glass.
Bird shots, good. Ad skit, not funny.
They forgot to add the laughter track!
I feel like that 40g could basically just be the different lens mount? If they're the same lens, it's nice for Fujifilm's production efficiency but then it means X-mount users miss out on what could have been a much lighter lens if the glass was reduced for the much smaller image circle possibly.
When your focal length gets long enough, The size of a lens is dictated mostly by the focal length and aperture. 500/5.6=89.3mm minimum size, basically. Maybe a couple of the rear elements could have been slightly smaller, but it certainly would not have been "much lighter" if designed purely for XF. This lens is lighter than the Olympus 300/4, despite being designed for GF! With long lenses you basically get image circle size for free, and in fact it is very typical for the image circle of zoom lenses to get way larger as you zoom in.
There is maybe a difference to the glass close to the mount, but the front of the lens will be the same regardless of sensor size, believe it or not. This is because at long focal lengths the diameter of the aperture has to be very large, and the elements required for that are going to cover just about any sensor size.
Check the TTArtisan 500mm f6.3 for full frame. It is very similar in size to this one.
Why would anybody buy a lens that's designed to cover a medium format circle to use in on an APS-C body? If it was designed for an APS-C body it would be much smaller, lighter and cheaper
No, stop with these myths. Long telephoto lenses do not differ in size between formats.
No OİS is a no go even if its a very good lens
Compact and light weight is more important. Especially for a 16-55mm lens....
Except canon, no camera brand produce a 24-70 equivalent that has OIS. Besides most of camera bodies already have IS nowadays
@@Aozaka Panasonic has a 24-70 equivalent that has OIS.
500 at f5.6? So more comparable to an 800 at f8-11?