I came from Canon and Nikon system back in DSLR era, the one thing that struck me when I started to use Fuji cameras was that, the cheap XC lenses like 16-50 and 50-230 perform really really well. Their higher end lenses are great too, but at such prices they don’t wow me as much as the XC lenses. Today I am more wowed by cheap third party brands like Viltrox.
I love Fujifilm lenses! 😊 For me it's the rendering, especially 35mm1.4 & 18mmf2. I've tried almost all Fujifilm lenses accept a few of the zooms. But I don't use zooms accept 55-200mm which I love. But I love cheap vintage lenses for Fujifilm, especially the Konicas.
Also talking about sensors, I wish manufactures made square sensors - maybe modelled on film 6x6 medium format size. Having a true square native would be awesome IMO
The only one thing I hate of Fuji lenses are their lens hoods. Weak plastic, it has been 3 lens hoods I had to replace from my 16-55 2.8..... Outside of that Fuji lenses are pretty solid.
It's an iconic lens. People have been crying out for a replacement for mirrorless since forever, but I think that was answered recently by the 28-45/1.8 (basically a Full frame equivalent). It looks like Sigma are not that interested in really putting much effort into the APS-C line :(
Have you tested for light loss with the step down rings? I think Fuji went to over engineering because as more videographers came on line and started testing lenses for light transmission the fuji lenses were dimmer than the FF in the previous generation for light transmission at the same aperture opening, which makes sense because the FF lenses have physically larger optics. Ultimately, I think Fuji is just shooting for not lagging behind in video light transmission conversion. I’m definitely eyeing that Sigma 50mm-100mm though.
Completely agree. I’ve been saying for years Fuji needs to capitalize on the f2 primes and revamp the f2.8 zooms. Also the 1.4 primes but with 2 lines; one for clinical sharpness (landscape, architecture, Astro) and another for character (street, portrait, documentary). Idk who’s making decisions over there but they’ve made some major boners including but not limited to: 8mm (too wide & slow), 30mm (zero working distance effectively making it half macro & f2.8 on APSC at that focal length is meh), 150-600 (f5.6-8 on APSC for lowish light nature / fast moving wildlife is abysmal & used on 40 megapixel crop sensor diffraction kicks if you stop down)… just disappointed overall with the decisions they’ve made and rolling out flagship XH2s with mediocre AF for the same price or more than FF counterparts I had to jump ship and sell my Fuji gear earlier this year. Just got a steep discount on canon r6ii… f4 zooms roughly same cost as Fuji f4/2.8 zooms for landscape & wildlife… probably pick up some legacy EF primes for more creative / portrait work. I think the decision to go MF instead of FF also resulted in the problems they’re having. They’d be much more dominant if they had focused their efforts on one mount for two sensor sizes.
Well it's a lot bigger and heavier than the 16 hehe. It seems very sharp at 14 (more than at 20), I have not really tested in the ways of distortion, colours and contrast much, but I do a lot of post processing so for my intents it is not critical. The point here is that you have little choices, you go for Viltrox 13/1.4, this 14-20/2 or the XF14/2.8.
Not sure a TC works with Viltrox? Do they have one? Viltrox are fine, no issues really except right now they are not doing zooms, or putting in better motors than stepping for their line up (even when they are trying to make clear distinctions such as LAB and Pro range). They are at least providing super fast glass (1.2) as well as slower but perhaps better AF glass at 1.4 and 1.7. This strategy is more my point in the Fuji range, its all middle of the road stuff.
@@SummersSnaps yeah I found the 75 to be long enough for most things given that it's 112 mm focal length and I use an XT5 so if I need to crop in a little bit I'm still getting decent images. I thought you could use a normal TC with viltrox lenses, but I don't know about that. I'll find out
@@jandzoe9249 And that's all I've really been meaning to say. I've had to go outside of native for faster zooms and paying for it in terms of AF.C video performance. It does get annoying after awhile and makes you look at other options/brands... Considering how over engineered a lot of their lenses are (I am not at all surprised a mkII of the 16-55/2.8 is 37% lighter), it makes me feel we really could get some f2 zooms natively, if they tried.
Their lenses aren't over-engineered, it's the complete difference. They accept too many compromises. Their R&D ressources are too limited. There wasn't a single relevant new prime lens since 2022. It took almost a decade to update the 16-55mm and an MK II of the 50-140mm - announced September 2014 - isn't even at the horizon. That's ridiculous. Profitability is a very short sighted main goal. Selling the old stuff as long as possible. "Good enough" - their standard for AF performance too - isn't a convincing benchmark. In the beginning, you said, you don't care too much about weight and then you mention the weight of lenses being too sharp over and over again. I won't buy any lens with significant sharpness deficits. Sharpness from corner to corner isn't a deficit. Compared with Nikon or Sony lenses, not a single XF lens sets here any record. Nikon is also using a lot of stepping motors in their lenses. Fujifilm isn't the only one, but their motors are very noisy, that's why I returned my 56/1.2 WR immediately. Unacceptable at this ridiculous price point. Even the Viltrox lenses are better here (75/1.2, 23/1.2l). And speed isn't part of their DNA.
I meant over engineered on the lenses they do make, but yes absolutely under producing glass period (hence when I said they have taken their foot off the gas). Where are their tele primes, we have 90/2 and 200/2, that's it! And I meant from a job perspective, wielding a fast zoom that is heavy, I can cope with, as I need the speed more and am willing to put up with the weight. But I know they could make fast light glass if they relaxed a little on their scoring, not everything has to be so clinical and perfect from the get go, many of us are happy to stop down the lens to get better performance, but the trend of late is to have lenses that stopping down does nothing to improve quality. Great! I hear you say, but that performance wide open comes with a cost, both in the financial sense, weight, size and in the case of the 56/1.2 an inferior AF motor. A very bizarre direction indeed. Like I said, its an astro lens first and foremost (where wide open IQ matters and AF does not).
That lens was a consideration, and I think there is nothing wrong with a lot of the direct mirrorless 3rd party glass. Like Viltrox, Sigma 18-50/2.8, heaps of options. But for what environments I find myself in, I am "happy" to cope with additional size and weight of lenses if they deliver on speed, so the Tokina 14-20/2 won out. The only sad thing is, every EF lens adapted to the Fuji (via the Fringer III) is not supported for VIDEO AF.C options inside the camera. That doesn't mean it doesn't have AF.C, just I can't control the transition speed etc, so its very limited and basic in this regard. So I either get the speed with some nice zooms like the 14-20/2, 18-35/1.8 or 50-100/1.8, but limited video support, or I get native and 3rd party zooms which are all slower but do support video properly.. gah!
@@SummersSnaps That makes sense; I can see why you're frustrated. I used to shoot real estate and family portraits for paid work, but these days, I shoot for fun, so I mostly use my Zeiss 32 1.8 and Sigma 10-18 2.8 for travel and street. Thanks for sharing.
this is why I've been more impressed with third party chinese lenses lately the build and image quality is catching up and at an affordable price. In a few years we probably don't need to shoot native. Fuji should watch out!
OK, I hit the clickbait. Fuji 50-140 is one of the most phenomenal lenses I've ever used, period. And I'm finding the 16-80 surprisingly good and useful.
Hey, 50-140 is awesome! No complaints here. But I do need something faster at times for my work (hence 50-100/1.8). Honestly, if the Fringer III adapter supported the in camera AF.C commands I'd be so happy, instead I find myself needing to own both for different tasks and this makes the value price of the Fuji system go a bit downhill for me. Still... it makes you think... if you consider how many step down rings you can get away with before an ill effect, then I am not at all surprised they managed to make an updated 16-55/2.8 37% lighter. I bet the same could happen to the 50-140! Or... how about they also get making me some 14-45/2 and 50-140/2, be it the same size as current versions or even a little bit larger. I would totally be down with that! Time and time again I try and make the point that I love that there are small lenses for X Mount, I just wish they also did some huge fast ones for the users that need it. Then we're all happy :)
Fuji certainly made some strange strategic decisions recently that have impacted their loyal users. 😢 Sony, Sigma and Tamron are bringing lots of really innovative lenses to market with versatile focal lengths and fast apertures.
I own both 23 mm f1.4 LM and 23 f2 , 33 f1.4 and f2 and both 50 f1 and f2 and 56 f1.2. Not sure what are you talking about but line is pretty much covered by Fujifilm itself and not to mention other option in that range. F1.2 23 and 33 would be bulky and I do not see any advantage of such lens over f1.4
The same advantage that exists over 1.4 lenses, it's the same rationale just greater scope. I just like the 50/1 and 50/2 approach. I think patrons like yourself owning the fujicrons and 1.4 variants are fewer. It's not that the 1.4's are bad, I use the word 'goldilocks' deliberately, its kinda sweet spot. But its a bit like sensor sizes, APS-C, FF and MF. If you own APS-C there's an argument to be had to getting a MF as well, the two formats are very different and produce different looking images. If owning FF then going to ASP-C or MF is less inclined because the difference going up (or down) from that middle sweet spot is less. I would have liked to have seen a 23/1, 33/1 and 56/1 (all with LM) along with the 23/2, 33/2 and 50/2, if not f1 then f1.2. SIRIU managed it with stepping motors at 1.2, IQ is of course not as good, but then the lenses are still very compact and light for f1.2. Considering how over engineered the 56/1.2 is, I genuinely believe if they made lenses for APS-C coverage then they could easily manage it. Perhaps you just need to stop from f1.2 to f2 to get that clinical look, but at 1.2 its still razor sharp and devoid of CA in the center. This absolutely could be done, they just don't want to spend that much R&D on glass for their customers.
Optically I really like the 50-140, AF performance is also really one of the best (better than the 90/2 in my tests). I just wanted to highlight how over engineered their lenses are, its like we're using FF glass on APS-C sensors. I used to own a 50/1.2 FF lens that was smaller and lighter than the 56RWR. If they genuinely crafted lenses for APS-C we'd have smaller and lighter stuff, I'm not at all surprised to hear they managed a 37% reduction in size and weight of their upcoming 16-55/2.8 mkII.
The purpose of the fx system is not to have ultra fast zoom lenses. If that is a dealbreaker for you, almost any full frame or even the gfx system is more suited to your needs. Low light is an inherent problem of any crop system and fuji has solved this by providing an excellent range of ultra fast prime fx lenses. If you still insist on not using any of those then you will obviously be better served by a platform that provides that.
Perhaps the point of the video escaped you? I do shoot many of their primes and zooms, I just wanted to highlight that I found some fast zooms that work semi well within the system (and some that people are probably unaware of). I also point out that I think their 50/1 and 50/2 strategy was good but short lived, I wished they'd done the same concept across all their primes and not just a single stop of difference between the 1.4's and 2's. In terms of systems there is no perfect one. I enjoy many Fuji benefits that keep me here, such as the affordability of owning 2x stacked sensor cameras (a tech I very much need). I state many times my own case usage, accept and respect f2.8 zooms are plenty fast for other users and intents. It's an opinion piece only, but it does feel to me they are a little lost in direction. If they want to break into the pro market (which they have stated numerous times) then they need to pick up the pace a little. Way too many body releases and not enough lens development. We only have two tele primes for X mount since forever (90/2 and the unaffordable 200/2).
@@SummersSnapsI did listen to you grievances, and I am addressing them specifically. I'll give this another go: I can understand that people find it more exciting to see new lenses than camera bodies arrive to the system, but that doesn't change the actual purpose and character of the fx system - which is unmistakingly a budget oriented, lightweight trickle down version of the gfx platform. If this platform doesn't natively support the exact type of lenses that you need for your job, why not simply use a system that supports that specific need? FX is not a pro lineup, and never was. If you want large, heavy lenses that fit you specific need, why not use them with one of the larger and heavier system that supports them natively? If you must use native lenses on the fx system, and you must shoot in low light, there is not much else to do than use double bodies with each their appropriate prime, ie a 16 or 18 1.4, and a 56 1.2 (or even the 50 1.0 if you want to go full retard). If that for some reason doesn't sit right with you, adapting these full frame sigmas and tokinas will do the job, even if you don't get the fuji quality rendering properties of the glass, but there it is. Or if you want better lowlight performance in both body AND lenses, but you don't want to leave fuji, just step up to the gfx lineup. Sure its more expensive and heavier than fx, but so are all pro systems today. And the gfx is actually designed to solve the very problem you are describing, ie. delivering beautiful portraiture, also in low light conditions.
@@b00ty Ok, so to simply answer your question, it is basically a disagreement with what we consider to being 'FX pro'. I personally call a stacked sensor camera a professional tool, and when you consider the cost difference moving away from XH2S to full frame stacked sensor then it becomes a conversation of business sense. For me there is no financial path to buying 2x full frame stacked sensor cameras vs 2x XH2S, and the stacked sensor is instrumental for my particular line of work (I understand and accept that it is not a need for all professionals). The problem here I think is that Fuji spread themselves thin by offering SO many bodies that clearly are aimed at beginners and enthusiasts, that the brand can be mistaken as a 'fun play thing', and very capable cameras like the XH2S are forgotten. It is quite a capable professional tool and I would be doing a huge disservice to my clients replacing with GFX system. Having said that, if I did not need stacked sensor cameras then I would have left already, I don't really understand professional fujifilm owners using XT5 and XH2, I think better value would be had with something full frame. It is the stacked sensor tech here, the XH2S is quite a niche product, especially at its price. Here, in this video, I am championing for the Fujifilm owners who are in that more professional field, where we can see already other options out there (fast zooms) yet they still choose to play very safe. Fuji clearly want to be seen as a professional camera company, stealing some of the Canikony users, but they really need to step up if they really want to tempt users away. First they need competent AF, then they need to give professional lenses. The new 16-55/2.8 red badge has no OIS, yet their cheap plastic XC line does. Size and weight issues for OIS? I really don't think so, they just making silly mistakes, lacking in vision and genuine direction. So in the end it can be a frustrating experience, a love hate dynamic, but in reality that is very true for a lot of camera brands and models. There is no perfect camera.
@@SummersSnaps That is very interesting, you do get your point across. But you do understand that this possible second camera body does not have to be a full price, brand new xh2s, right? Anyway I think the main issue that stops fuji from releasing the fast zooms you want, is price and weight. Faster lenses are more expensive, and the fact that fuji has put their foot down and refuse to only release incrementally pricier lenses every year is a good think in my opinion. In terms of what it is, ie. the 10-24 f4 is already overpriced, imagine what that thing would cost if it was f 1.2. And the new 16-55 is even more expensive, and its still only 2.8. The fx lineup is still for us enthusiasts and amateurs, we can actually afford it and be able to carry the glass without getting herniated. Those are all good things in my book. I love the fact that mobility, weight and price are still factors that fuji care about. Ie the new 18-55 could have been faster, and it could have been stabilized, but then it would be both bigger, heavier and more expensive - the exact things fuji are trying to avoid. Sure the old 18-55 is still preferred by many (myself included), but it does not render the full resoulution of these new stacked sensors you seem to must have, and thats the only reason the new lens was launched: so that they had a kit lens that actually can render the full readout of these new, stacked sensors. So yet again, I implore you to explore a system that has actual native support for the glass that you claim to depend upon. You and fuji seem to not agree on what the fx lineup should be, and thats okay. Im just telling you, in case you actually hadn't noticed
You must have missed the part where I talk extensively about the 56/1.2RWR, or that I mention I own the 14/2.8, 16/1.4, 90/2 and owned the 23/2 and 50/2? Oh and I'm filming with the Zeiss Touit 32/1.8. Yeh.. its purely a zoom fest here... :/
@@SummersSnaps was mostly joking ;) To me zooms just aren't real lenses. I get they're necessary for certain applications (events for example), but I will never use them personally, and I don't think about them when thinking about a lens range.
22:50 I love this Lens
Absolutely. Regardless of where I go in the future, I think I will always keep some Fuji body for this lens alone. It's that worth it.
Fair and insightful criticism of the new 56mm f1.2 II.
I came from Canon and Nikon system back in DSLR era, the one thing that struck me when I started to use Fuji cameras was that, the cheap XC lenses like 16-50 and 50-230 perform really really well. Their higher end lenses are great too, but at such prices they don’t wow me as much as the XC lenses. Today I am more wowed by cheap third party brands like Viltrox.
I also own the Sigma 10-18 f2.8 for wide angle shots,very nice lens
Hi, I just stumbled on this video. Happy to have been some kind of inspiration for this video. I'm watching it right now
Thanks for stopping by Luca.
You raise some valid points. Fuji is my favorite brand. I use Fujis for everything except sports.
I love Fujifilm lenses! 😊 For me it's the rendering, especially 35mm1.4 & 18mmf2. I've tried almost all Fujifilm lenses accept a few of the zooms. But I don't use zooms accept 55-200mm which I love. But I love cheap vintage lenses for Fujifilm, especially the Konicas.
Just found your channel. Great topic and i appreciate the perspective
Also talking about sensors, I wish manufactures made square sensors - maybe modelled on film 6x6 medium format size. Having a true square native would be awesome IMO
Hell yeah!
The only one thing I hate of Fuji lenses are their lens hoods. Weak plastic, it has been 3 lens hoods I had to replace from my 16-55 2.8..... Outside of that Fuji lenses are pretty solid.
Indeed, and inconsistent for build quality and tightness. My XF90 is tight, the 56/1.2RWR (from day one) has always been weak to click into place.
Fujifilm definitely needs an Art line! I hope they listen to your comments!
Often I use my Voigtlander lenses on my Fujis, especially for portraits. Wonderful results.
Must admit, I really want to try that Sigma 18-35!
It's an iconic lens. People have been crying out for a replacement for mirrorless since forever, but I think that was answered recently by the 28-45/1.8 (basically a Full frame equivalent). It looks like Sigma are not that interested in really putting much effort into the APS-C line :(
Those Sigma duo 1.8 zooms really needs to be re-issued in their native mirrorless mounts.
Unfortunately I think their recent 28-45/1.8 for full frame was it. APS-C is getting left behind...
@@SummersSnaps agree, seems like Fujifilm is only at it.
Nice little DA limited plug their 😅. I have the 35mm macro. It's a delight on the KP. Been curious about the whole line now.
35mm Macro is a special lens indeed. Very impressive.
The Viltrox’s f1.4 and f1.2 are very good for low light and have decent AF
Have you tested for light loss with the step down rings?
I think Fuji went to over engineering because as more videographers came on line and started testing lenses for light transmission the fuji lenses were dimmer than the FF in the previous generation for light transmission at the same aperture opening, which makes sense because the FF lenses have physically larger optics.
Ultimately, I think Fuji is just shooting for not lagging behind in video light transmission conversion.
I’m definitely eyeing that Sigma 50mm-100mm though.
I agree with You with almost all findings 👍
Completely agree. I’ve been saying for years Fuji needs to capitalize on the f2 primes and revamp the f2.8 zooms. Also the 1.4 primes but with 2 lines; one for clinical sharpness (landscape, architecture, Astro) and another for character (street, portrait, documentary). Idk who’s making decisions over there but they’ve made some major boners including but not limited to: 8mm (too wide & slow), 30mm (zero working distance effectively making it half macro & f2.8 on APSC at that focal length is meh), 150-600 (f5.6-8 on APSC for lowish light nature / fast moving wildlife is abysmal & used on 40 megapixel crop sensor diffraction kicks if you stop down)… just disappointed overall with the decisions they’ve made and rolling out flagship XH2s with mediocre AF for the same price or more than FF counterparts I had to jump ship and sell my Fuji gear earlier this year. Just got a steep discount on canon r6ii… f4 zooms roughly same cost as Fuji f4/2.8 zooms for landscape & wildlife… probably pick up some legacy EF primes for more creative / portrait work. I think the decision to go MF instead of FF also resulted in the problems they’re having. They’d be much more dominant if they had focused their efforts on one mount for two sensor sizes.
can you make a video on your Tokina 14-20, interested as having it as my wide angle lens instead of the 16mm 1.8
Well it's a lot bigger and heavier than the 16 hehe. It seems very sharp at 14 (more than at 20), I have not really tested in the ways of distortion, colours and contrast much, but I do a lot of post processing so for my intents it is not critical. The point here is that you have little choices, you go for Viltrox 13/1.4, this 14-20/2 or the XF14/2.8.
my DA* 11-18 pairs perfectly fits with my newly purchased SigArt 18-35
75 1.2 with a TC ? ...I've shot viltrox at events ....the 200 F2? Viltrox 13 1.4?? What's your issue with Viltrox?
Not sure a TC works with Viltrox? Do they have one?
Viltrox are fine, no issues really except right now they are not doing zooms, or putting in better motors than stepping for their line up (even when they are trying to make clear distinctions such as LAB and Pro range). They are at least providing super fast glass (1.2) as well as slower but perhaps better AF glass at 1.4 and 1.7. This strategy is more my point in the Fuji range, its all middle of the road stuff.
@@SummersSnaps yeah I found the 75 to be long enough for most things given that it's 112 mm focal length and I use an XT5 so if I need to crop in a little bit I'm still getting decent images. I thought you could use a normal TC with viltrox lenses, but I don't know about that. I'll find out
@@SummersSnaps TC doesn't work on viltrox 75 1.2
The lens I’m currently lusting after is the Tamron 17-70 f2.8
I own it and it has been one of the best buys for me. But I also wish there was a native zoom with a wider aperture for some occasions.
@@jandzoe9249 And that's all I've really been meaning to say. I've had to go outside of native for faster zooms and paying for it in terms of AF.C video performance. It does get annoying after awhile and makes you look at other options/brands...
Considering how over engineered a lot of their lenses are (I am not at all surprised a mkII of the 16-55/2.8 is 37% lighter), it makes me feel we really could get some f2 zooms natively, if they tried.
what are you using to film this video, the lens camera combo is elite
XH2S+Touit 32/1.8
Their lenses aren't over-engineered, it's the complete difference. They accept too many compromises.
Their R&D ressources are too limited.
There wasn't a single relevant new prime lens since 2022. It took almost a decade to update the 16-55mm and an MK II of the 50-140mm - announced September 2014 - isn't even at the horizon. That's ridiculous. Profitability is a very short sighted main goal. Selling the old stuff as long as possible. "Good enough" - their standard for AF performance too - isn't a convincing benchmark.
In the beginning, you said, you don't care too much about weight and then you mention the weight of lenses being too sharp over and over again. I won't buy any lens with significant sharpness deficits. Sharpness from corner to corner isn't a deficit. Compared with Nikon or Sony lenses, not a single XF lens sets here any record.
Nikon is also using a lot of stepping motors in their lenses. Fujifilm isn't the only one, but their motors are very noisy, that's why I returned my 56/1.2 WR immediately. Unacceptable at this ridiculous price point. Even the Viltrox lenses are better here (75/1.2, 23/1.2l). And speed isn't part of their DNA.
I meant over engineered on the lenses they do make, but yes absolutely under producing glass period (hence when I said they have taken their foot off the gas). Where are their tele primes, we have 90/2 and 200/2, that's it!
And I meant from a job perspective, wielding a fast zoom that is heavy, I can cope with, as I need the speed more and am willing to put up with the weight. But I know they could make fast light glass if they relaxed a little on their scoring, not everything has to be so clinical and perfect from the get go, many of us are happy to stop down the lens to get better performance, but the trend of late is to have lenses that stopping down does nothing to improve quality. Great! I hear you say, but that performance wide open comes with a cost, both in the financial sense, weight, size and in the case of the 56/1.2 an inferior AF motor. A very bizarre direction indeed. Like I said, its an astro lens first and foremost (where wide open IQ matters and AF does not).
What about the Sigma 10-18 2.8? Could you fit that lens into your workflow?
That lens was a consideration, and I think there is nothing wrong with a lot of the direct mirrorless 3rd party glass. Like Viltrox, Sigma 18-50/2.8, heaps of options. But for what environments I find myself in, I am "happy" to cope with additional size and weight of lenses if they deliver on speed, so the Tokina 14-20/2 won out.
The only sad thing is, every EF lens adapted to the Fuji (via the Fringer III) is not supported for VIDEO AF.C options inside the camera. That doesn't mean it doesn't have AF.C, just I can't control the transition speed etc, so its very limited and basic in this regard. So I either get the speed with some nice zooms like the 14-20/2, 18-35/1.8 or 50-100/1.8, but limited video support, or I get native and 3rd party zooms which are all slower but do support video properly.. gah!
@@SummersSnaps That makes sense; I can see why you're frustrated. I used to shoot real estate and family portraits for paid work, but these days, I shoot for fun, so I mostly use my Zeiss 32 1.8 and Sigma 10-18 2.8 for travel and street. Thanks for sharing.
@@jtes1442 Touit 32 is unbelievably good. How so many leave it out of the conversation I'll never understand..
@@SummersSnaps The Touit 32 is criminally underrated.
this is why I've been more impressed with third party chinese lenses lately the build and image quality is catching up and at an affordable price. In a few years we probably don't need to shoot native. Fuji should watch out!
OK, I hit the clickbait. Fuji 50-140 is one of the most phenomenal lenses I've ever used, period. And I'm finding the 16-80 surprisingly good and useful.
Hey, 50-140 is awesome! No complaints here. But I do need something faster at times for my work (hence 50-100/1.8). Honestly, if the Fringer III adapter supported the in camera AF.C commands I'd be so happy, instead I find myself needing to own both for different tasks and this makes the value price of the Fuji system go a bit downhill for me. Still... it makes you think... if you consider how many step down rings you can get away with before an ill effect, then I am not at all surprised they managed to make an updated 16-55/2.8 37% lighter. I bet the same could happen to the 50-140! Or... how about they also get making me some 14-45/2 and 50-140/2, be it the same size as current versions or even a little bit larger. I would totally be down with that!
Time and time again I try and make the point that I love that there are small lenses for X Mount, I just wish they also did some huge fast ones for the users that need it. Then we're all happy :)
Fuji certainly made some strange strategic decisions recently that have impacted their loyal users. 😢 Sony, Sigma and Tamron are bringing lots of really innovative lenses to market with versatile focal lengths and fast apertures.
Yep, the innovation seems well and truly seated on the FF sensor.
I own both 23 mm f1.4 LM and 23 f2 , 33 f1.4 and f2 and both 50 f1 and f2 and 56 f1.2. Not sure what are you talking about but line is pretty much covered by Fujifilm itself and not to mention other option in that range. F1.2 23 and 33 would be bulky and I do not see any advantage of such lens over f1.4
The same advantage that exists over 1.4 lenses, it's the same rationale just greater scope. I just like the 50/1 and 50/2 approach. I think patrons like yourself owning the fujicrons and 1.4 variants are fewer. It's not that the 1.4's are bad, I use the word 'goldilocks' deliberately, its kinda sweet spot. But its a bit like sensor sizes, APS-C, FF and MF. If you own APS-C there's an argument to be had to getting a MF as well, the two formats are very different and produce different looking images. If owning FF then going to ASP-C or MF is less inclined because the difference going up (or down) from that middle sweet spot is less.
I would have liked to have seen a 23/1, 33/1 and 56/1 (all with LM) along with the 23/2, 33/2 and 50/2, if not f1 then f1.2. SIRIU managed it with stepping motors at 1.2, IQ is of course not as good, but then the lenses are still very compact and light for f1.2. Considering how over engineered the 56/1.2 is, I genuinely believe if they made lenses for APS-C coverage then they could easily manage it. Perhaps you just need to stop from f1.2 to f2 to get that clinical look, but at 1.2 its still razor sharp and devoid of CA in the center. This absolutely could be done, they just don't want to spend that much R&D on glass for their customers.
When white looks green-yellowish and colors are weak, then it's Fuji.
Prolly just my grading. Fuji is actually biased towards magenta and struggles to be corrected properly by tools like Xrite Colour Passports.
That is why I left Fuji.
😢
Fuji is in total mess that the company seems to be lacking direction.
That I agree.
Well there are other lens manufacturers, too, who could make those lenses. Don't have to blame Fujifilm for everything.
The primes are OK, the rest - meh...
Optically I really like the 50-140, AF performance is also really one of the best (better than the 90/2 in my tests). I just wanted to highlight how over engineered their lenses are, its like we're using FF glass on APS-C sensors. I used to own a 50/1.2 FF lens that was smaller and lighter than the 56RWR. If they genuinely crafted lenses for APS-C we'd have smaller and lighter stuff, I'm not at all surprised to hear they managed a 37% reduction in size and weight of their upcoming 16-55/2.8 mkII.
The purpose of the fx system is not to have ultra fast zoom lenses. If that is a dealbreaker for you, almost any full frame or even the gfx system is more suited to your needs. Low light is an inherent problem of any crop system and fuji has solved this by providing an excellent range of ultra fast prime fx lenses. If you still insist on not using any of those then you will obviously be better served by a platform that provides that.
Perhaps the point of the video escaped you? I do shoot many of their primes and zooms, I just wanted to highlight that I found some fast zooms that work semi well within the system (and some that people are probably unaware of). I also point out that I think their 50/1 and 50/2 strategy was good but short lived, I wished they'd done the same concept across all their primes and not just a single stop of difference between the 1.4's and 2's.
In terms of systems there is no perfect one. I enjoy many Fuji benefits that keep me here, such as the affordability of owning 2x stacked sensor cameras (a tech I very much need). I state many times my own case usage, accept and respect f2.8 zooms are plenty fast for other users and intents. It's an opinion piece only, but it does feel to me they are a little lost in direction. If they want to break into the pro market (which they have stated numerous times) then they need to pick up the pace a little. Way too many body releases and not enough lens development. We only have two tele primes for X mount since forever (90/2 and the unaffordable 200/2).
@@SummersSnapsI did listen to you grievances, and I am addressing them specifically. I'll give this another go:
I can understand that people find it more exciting to see new lenses than camera bodies arrive to the system, but that doesn't change the actual purpose and character of the fx system - which is unmistakingly a budget oriented, lightweight trickle down version of the gfx platform.
If this platform doesn't natively support the exact type of lenses that you need for your job, why not simply use a system that supports that specific need? FX is not a pro lineup, and never was. If you want large, heavy lenses that fit you specific need, why not use them with one of the larger and heavier system that supports them natively?
If you must use native lenses on the fx system, and you must shoot in low light, there is not much else to do than use double bodies with each their appropriate prime, ie a 16 or 18 1.4, and a 56 1.2 (or even the 50 1.0 if you want to go full retard). If that for some reason doesn't sit right with you, adapting these full frame sigmas and tokinas will do the job, even if you don't get the fuji quality rendering properties of the glass, but there it is.
Or if you want better lowlight performance in both body AND lenses, but you don't want to leave fuji, just step up to the gfx lineup. Sure its more expensive and heavier than fx, but so are all pro systems today. And the gfx is actually designed to solve the very problem you are describing, ie. delivering beautiful portraiture, also in low light conditions.
@@b00ty Ok, so to simply answer your question, it is basically a disagreement with what we consider to being 'FX pro'. I personally call a stacked sensor camera a professional tool, and when you consider the cost difference moving away from XH2S to full frame stacked sensor then it becomes a conversation of business sense. For me there is no financial path to buying 2x full frame stacked sensor cameras vs 2x XH2S, and the stacked sensor is instrumental for my particular line of work (I understand and accept that it is not a need for all professionals).
The problem here I think is that Fuji spread themselves thin by offering SO many bodies that clearly are aimed at beginners and enthusiasts, that the brand can be mistaken as a 'fun play thing', and very capable cameras like the XH2S are forgotten. It is quite a capable professional tool and I would be doing a huge disservice to my clients replacing with GFX system. Having said that, if I did not need stacked sensor cameras then I would have left already, I don't really understand professional fujifilm owners using XT5 and XH2, I think better value would be had with something full frame. It is the stacked sensor tech here, the XH2S is quite a niche product, especially at its price.
Here, in this video, I am championing for the Fujifilm owners who are in that more professional field, where we can see already other options out there (fast zooms) yet they still choose to play very safe. Fuji clearly want to be seen as a professional camera company, stealing some of the Canikony users, but they really need to step up if they really want to tempt users away. First they need competent AF, then they need to give professional lenses. The new 16-55/2.8 red badge has no OIS, yet their cheap plastic XC line does. Size and weight issues for OIS? I really don't think so, they just making silly mistakes, lacking in vision and genuine direction.
So in the end it can be a frustrating experience, a love hate dynamic, but in reality that is very true for a lot of camera brands and models. There is no perfect camera.
@@SummersSnaps That is very interesting, you do get your point
across. But you do understand that this possible second camera body does not have to be a full price, brand new xh2s, right?
Anyway I think the main issue that stops fuji from releasing the fast zooms you want, is price and weight. Faster lenses are more expensive, and the fact that fuji has put their foot down and refuse to only release incrementally pricier lenses every year is a good think in my opinion. In terms of what it is, ie. the 10-24 f4 is already overpriced, imagine what that thing would cost if it was f 1.2. And the new 16-55 is even more expensive, and its still only 2.8.
The fx lineup is still for us enthusiasts and amateurs, we can actually afford it and be able to carry the glass without getting herniated. Those are all good things in my book. I love the fact that mobility, weight and price are still factors that fuji care about. Ie the new 18-55 could have been faster, and it could have been stabilized, but then it would be both bigger, heavier and more expensive - the exact things fuji are trying to avoid. Sure the old 18-55 is still preferred by many (myself included), but it does not render the full resoulution of these new stacked sensors you seem to must have, and thats the only reason the new lens was launched: so that they had a kit lens that actually can render the full readout of these new, stacked sensors.
So yet again, I implore you to explore a system that has actual native support for the glass that you claim to depend upon. You and fuji seem to not agree on what the fx lineup should be, and thats okay. Im just telling you, in case you actually hadn't noticed
Mans complains fuji makes bad lenses. Proceeds to show zooms only.
You must have missed the part where I talk extensively about the 56/1.2RWR, or that I mention I own the 14/2.8, 16/1.4, 90/2 and owned the 23/2 and 50/2? Oh and I'm filming with the Zeiss Touit 32/1.8. Yeh.. its purely a zoom fest here... :/
@@SummersSnaps was mostly joking ;)
To me zooms just aren't real lenses. I get they're necessary for certain applications (events for example), but I will never use them personally, and I don't think about them when thinking about a lens range.
@@ChrisThe1 Sorry, this video bombed in some domains with a lot of hate, hard to separate those being facetious and those sincere, my bad.