Fujifilm XF 50-140: USA: BHphoto / AmazonUS / Adorama / EU: WexUK / WexDE / PCHstore /
OFFICIAL SAMPLES
Fuji added two more high resolution samples taken (by Bert Stephani) with the weather resistant XF 50-140 f/2.8. This time the lens was used wide open at 140mm.
The 2 NEW SAMPLES are:
1) SHOT 1 here: ISO 1600, Dynamic Range 100%, Aperture F2.8, Shutter Speed 1/125, 140mm, Film simulation ASTIA, Lens Modulation Optimizer ON
2) SHOT 2 here: ISO 800, Dynamic Range 100%, Aperture F2.8, Shutter Speed 1/250, 140mm, Film simulation ASTIA, Lens Modulation Optimizer ON
See all the samples here.
FIRST LOOK
The Fujifilm 50-140 LM OIS WR- a first look at thistonybridge: “Focus is superfast, on par with any of the Big Boys’ 70-200/2.8 RPGs. I borrowed a friend’s 80-200/2.8l Red Ring to compare. Yep. Just as fast. Sports togs can now compete.”
Test shots at ivanjoshualoh here, at Giovanni’s Flickr here and also at the Polish site optyczne
UPDATE
Edited versions of the official samples. Image courtesy Bert Stephani (www.bertstephani.com)
89 Responses
From the Bert Stephanis first image, all i can say is that the bokeh is not to my liking. I think i will skip the zoom for now and stick to primes (like the 90mm) unless convinced otherwise when more samples show up.
I have the same feeling. It’s like using my FF 70-200 at f4.2. The background looks often to harsh and distracting. I tried the Nikon 85/1.8G with adapter. Gave me great results.
I own a Nikkor 70-200 F2.8 (and know that we can say the same for Canon), these are standard lenses every event shooter and landscape photographer likes, they are really a dream to work with and the F2.8 allows you to ‘isolate’ subjects in a very interesting manner. To achieve the same DOF management, Fuji should have released a F1.8. Yes, technically this would be possible but here comes APS/C to the limits a lot of people fear: where weight and price go over the FF-solutions. The F2.8 compares to the F4.0 versions of the same Nikkor/Canon glass. Well, even in size I don’t think there is so much difference. I’m already saying for a while that all this chatter over weight and size is a bit exaggerated.
Weight and price already often go over FF equivalents. In particular: 56/1,2 is almost 2x the equivalents from Nikon or Canon in FF. It gets harder to judge slower lenses like the 14/2,8, but Nikon’s f/4 20-21mm lenses were never so large, no so expensive. They are not made today, though.
Which is why APS-C shouldn’t try to compete on equivalents. Small lenses and let photographers use them to the best of that camera’s abilities, not try to match FF. Fujifilm keep telling us that they are as good or better than FF and keep making lenses to equate FF lenses on FF sensors. And we are paying more for what on the larger format, is a budget lens.
56/1,2 let me shoot in lower light than a 85 1.8, getting as much as depth of field…the “equivalent” you are referring isn’t true
I think he was referring to what the 56/1.2 costs compared to an equivalent 85/1.8.
yes, but no way they are equivalent…maybe only speaking about FoV angles. Glass, sharpness, aperture…all of them are pretty different and trust me that a Nikkor 85 1.8 (even the G) isn’t on par, speaking of quality of glass
do not forget the impact of the sensor size….nikon ff with 85 1.8 has still the edge in terms of overall light gathering capabilities as wel as shallower dof than a fuji apsc with 56 1.2….
sensor size has higher impact on fod and light gathering than large(r) aperture lens…
Disagree strongly. Have both and the Nikon produces sharper and nicer images in terms of bokeh in my opinion. They are fully equivalent, since a) FOV b) DOF c) aperture diameter (determines total amount of light entering) are the same when used wide open. It’s less than half the price and even lighter (of course not metal build and not as nice to look at). Due to the smaller sensor, Fuji needs to produce much sharper glass (crop * line pairs/mm), too.
And I disagree even strongerly. I used the older 85mm f1.4 AF-D in my Nikon days, and I far prefer the Fuji 56mm f1.2 in terms of overall image quality. It was the comparison between the two that sold me on the Fuji system.
But thank you for your opinion. It shows people have the right to be wrong here.
The old AF-D lenses aren’t that good. The Fuji is a nice lens, but it is almost 1000 Euros here, so needs to justify this price tag. I like the bokeh of the Nikon G 85 lenses better, I read that many are finding that, too. Fuji even brought out a new version to improve bokeh, but that’s totally subjective, I agree to that.
You’re massively underestimating the “old” AF-D lenses. The 85mm f/1.4 in particular is a hall of fame lens for Nikon and still beats the Fuji XF56mm f/1.2 in IQ, bokeh, tonal resonance, etc.
I know, I own both.
I find the new ones much better. The 1.4D doesn’t get sharp in the corners and trails the G version wide open at 2/3rd of the frame (we like to put our subjects off center quite often, so that’s important to us). Haze, CAs another issue. Still, it’s a very good lens and as sharp in the center.
Never had the issues you’re describing. Have you compared your copy against others?
No. Because of your findings I just did a Google search a few minutes ago to check that. The majority of tests confirmed my findings (photographylife.com, diglloyd, photozone.de). If you mostly use the center portion, it is a great lens. Maybe, real life results show these tests to exaggerate. How does it fair for you when shooting against bright light? Mine showed haze and flare, so I sold it some time ago.
Little haze and minor flare for me when shooting against a bright light source … but then I don’t often shoot into bright light with ANY lens without adding some foreground light (an exception would the AF-S Nikkor 70-200mm f/2.8G ED VR II, which handles strong backlight ambient shooting exceptionally well).
Try these reviews >> http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/108421-USA/Nikon_1933_Telephoto_AF_Nikkor_85mm.html
271 real world reviews, while maintaining an average rating of 5 stars. Flare only mentioned twice … never by pros … and only when not using the supplied lens hood.
Alessandro: the two on their native sensors give as close to equivalent image as possible. The rest is academic. If you choose to believe that your APS-C sensor, at 2,25x smaller than a FF 35mm sensor, delivers as good of noise properties as the larger sensor, then there’s nothing left to talk about.
If you look more objectively, bumping up the ISO of the FF camera to match the noise signature of the APS-C camera will result in exactly the same exposure settings.
The two are as equivalent as can be… except of course that damn price tag on the 56/1,2.
Shooting in a situation that need you to open up your lens at maximum aperture is pretty common…let’s say 3200-6400 ASA. Opening to 1,2 is better than 1,8 obviously. “bumping up the ISO of the FF camera to match the noise signature of the APS-C camera will result in exactly the same exposure settings” it’s pretty much nonsense assertion. 3200 asa is 3200 asa…from wherevere prespective you are watching from
You and me are totally on the same page: it’s why I use my iPhone at ASA 3200. It’s fast f/2,2 lens (not sensor) totally makes it equal to an X100s or what have you with the 23/2 lens.
Okay, maybe a bit worse, but you are right: sensor size and performance is all nonsense.
EDIT: cleared up sensor/lens in the original post.
Ehy, probably you haven’t got something to do, but I’m here working and this thing it’s getting tiring…
Are you here to complain for something? Got a hard day? Really I can’t understand.
At the end of the day, what matters is getting your job done. I don’t know what your job is, don’t really care. I’m here just because, you rant that a Fuji can’t and never can be equivalent of a FF, not in lenses (for cost) nor in quality (for some stupid reasons between FF and APS-C sensors)…what I can tell you? That a client doesn’t care? That the lens or sensor from Fuji are, actually, so good that many and many professionist all over the world use them instead of FF?
Crap, even iPhones are used today for photojurnalism…a lot!
Honestly, we are arguing the same thing, although me from a non-fan perspective. As you and I both know: just about any old sensor and lens will get the job done. No chip on anyone’s shoulder.
I was responding to a like-minded commenter when out of the bushes, you rushed out and attacked me. That said, I took it a bit farther in my reply to EJPB’s post. And I stand by it because it is the way it is.
Good enough isn’t the issue. The issue is that we ARE paying more in the long run for lenses, that on their native small sensors, return the same basic image as semi-budget lenses on larger sensors.
It’s the way it is on all formats. Smaller sensors need faster glass to equate slow glass on large sensors. And that glass is big, and expensive.
I said:
“Which is why APS-C shouldn’t try to compete on equivalents. Small lenses and let photographers use them to the best of that camera’s abilities, not try to match FF.”
Probably, I should have said:
“Which is why APS-C shouldn’t try _just_ to compete on equivalents. Small lenses and let photographers use them to the best of that camera’s abilities, not _just_ try to match FF.”
We haven’t options in small sensor land. We have one option per focal length, and apart from the 27 and 18, none of those options are compact. Most, if not all, cost more than lenses that return similar outputs on larger formats.
And, I am not at work. I’ve not had a bad day.
Bokeh have more to do with subject separation from the background (physical) than only a matter of aperture
You’re confusing bokeh with shallow DOF.
No. Bokeh is the QUALITY of DoF. Also, an aesthetic one (you can like, say, the bokeh of a Leica lens more than the one of a Canon L, even at different apertures).
You can achieve a better bokeh just separating your subject more from the background (physically).
I know what I’m sayin, just because I’m doing this every day at work…
Increasing subject to background distance increases the quantity of the blur, not the quality.
That’s highly subjective though and some backgrounds will blur better or worse than others.
The impression of ‘high-res’ will soon be over when Sony releases the first cameras with one picture sampling. Today they are at least 4 years ahead in the sensor design and graphical bionz processing they use in their present camera lines. Not that I find that news as such so important, I’m not even a Sony fan, but there’s a lot better to do in 2014 with sensors than what Fuji does and in my eyes, this X-trans CFA has been a wrong side-kick. Sony took the lead now, nobody is able to follow the same cutting edge technology and unfortunately our dear old Fuji only seems to be caring about releasing new zooms nobody needs and graphite silver versions of the X-T1. I’ve seen pictures from the A7 with Zeiss prime glass, well – those thinking that the X-series holds some secret magic are really dreaming. What a pity, this status quo in Fuji’s real technology competences and their opposition to have something more premium than APS/C will lead to the same scenario we’ve seen with the TX/GX/S-Pro’s ranges in the past. The nightmare scenario for everyone that spend big $/€ in these X-series: over one or two years, e-bay & co full of X cameras and glass nobody wants, so all available at pocket money. There’s only one message to give to Fuji R&D: make the next technology step in sensor design NOW (no, not in 2016 as your business plan suggest), kill that ridiculous X-trans CFA-project in favor of a proven, traditional Bayer one – or it won’t be required anymore.
“a zoom that none needs” -> speak for YOURSELF, please
“a7 with prime lens” -> sure, there are 3 that value in the lens departement, all way overpriced
Also, let me take note on how a Sony camera became disposable in…well…6 months, with the release of a successor
1K for a 55mm prime is cheap man, go look at the Leica catalog and you’ll appreciate it. It’s only expensive when compared to the crappy mass market lenses, but once you get into serious gear you’ll see its reasonable.
Leica is a boutique camera manufacture trading on past glory that sucks huge sums of money out of gullible rich people looking to show off how wealthy they are, not the best comparison.
Very funny to hear this out of the mouth of somebody who owns a camera without any official e-mount carl/zeiss real fast primes.
Then again, Sony needs money and quickly because they are still near broke and junk rated at Wall Street. Also the sensors are being sold by Sony components division to any OEM partner they want.
I am not afraid these sensors will end up to third party camera makers, faster then your expected 4 years. As a matter of fact probably around the same time Sony will put these sensors in their own camera’s.
What a pointless rant…
I’m speaking as someone who owns both systems. They both have there pro and cons but neither is superior in my opinion.
If you think Fuji makes bad camera’s and lenses, then what’s your problem with Fuji as a brand?
I wouldn’t be bothered with Fuji if they would make crappy camera’s and lenses, unless I would feel threatened, insecure or had buyers regret. So its probably one or more of these three reasons why you need to defend your beloved Sony against another brand.
People should really start to USE gear instead of crying like brats about of it…really it’s getting annoying
As a first wave X-series adopter I think I’ve given Fuji more credits than anyone in this world. I don’t say they make real bad hardware and I really have done everything to love Fuji. But there are a few problems that I just call poor design and engineering. One is I’m no longer having this kind of sensational feeling about the firmware, flexibility of the interface or even the true manufacturing quality. Another one the RAW workflow still sucks and nobody seems to care, the least Fuji R&D themselves. When I got about a year ago awake out of my Fuji dream after a few project disasters all related to the poor AF and low light competences, I started thinking… what am I doing? Why am I taking all these risks and issues just for a logo on my camera? When ANY good (even entry level) DSLR on the shelf does the job in a minute, is 100% reliable and the FF-world is still a (serious) notch better in AF, dynamic range, resolution and DOF management. Having no shutter lag, battery, flash or RAW issues. Also no built quality issues – I went through a few ones that were rather disturbing since Fuji’s after sales service doesn’t seem to exist. It’s for me not even about all these complaints but about the next step… where is it? What is Fuji waiting for, to offer a 30% discount on every camera and lens prior to Christmas? Until something more credible is being released my Fuji X-Pro1 gear stay in a bag I’ll only take to go on travel and occasionally, on a mission where not a lot can go wrong.
I’ll think you should blame your own poor photography skills if you have problems with bad AF and project disasters.
These things are not the fault of a manufacturer but can be blamed to the photographer who doesn’t know what to do and how to handle his gear.
I don’t get these complaints about RAW workflow here in November 2014 – Lightroom 5 does fine 99% of the time. For the other 1% there are 3rd party converters available, it’s not a major hassle to convert a RAF to a tiff in one of these and bring it back to Lightroom for further editing. It really sounds like you should sell your Fuji gear and move on.
No. They do fine for 99% of what you’re shooting and printing. For my landscape work Lightroom 5 will not do the job. It can’t. If there is any green, moss, or other fine organic details, it just smears and ruins the details. This isn’t a big deal for web use, but if printing large at all, which I do very often, it’s unacceptable.
I love my Fuji gear which is why I put up with the workflow, but it is a hassle. I import to Lightroom, flag the picks, open the picks in Iridient, move to photoshop, then back to lightroom. This isn’t a lot for one photo, but it is actually a lot slower than staying in lightroom and photoshop, as you’re dealing with large tiffs. Anyways, I love lightroom, but it doesn’t handle the RAFs as it should.
That’s funny because I shoot quite a lot of landscapes and print them at 16″x12″ which I consider fairly large without problem. There are a few occasions where foliage can get a little mushy and for that there’s Iridient Developer.
Yeah, I don’t think that’s a very large print, though this is subjective. I print a lot at 20×30, which I consider the limit for these sensors at moderate viewing distances. Don’t get me wrong, I love Lightroom, and I don’t want to leave fuji because of what I perceive as a lack of support from Adobe. I just think there is serious room for improvement.
You’re getting to around 150dpi at 20×30 so you’re stretching what you can get out of a 16 megapixel sensor I think. I agree Adobe can always do more, the x-trans rendering in Iridient Developer 3 is fantastic.
Exactly. Iridient is top notch.
Fully agree. I wish Fuji to stay in the battle on the marketplace because they make own great designed cameras and lenses, especially rangenfider styled, but Fuji marketing decisions were really fulishly. Huge amount of X10 and X20 owners expected 1″ sensor that Fuji was going to make, also X-100/X100s owners with 24MP in X-100T, but Fujifilm changed plans and strugle with sellings of these cameras. X-E2 though released almost together with x-T1 is already a “fogotten child” of the company because it decided to force on X-E2 users to move to X-T1. From X-Pro1 Fujifilm has not improved IQ of the sensor, actually they killed better X-Pro1/X-E1/X-100 sensor with worse X-Trans II. They were completaly deaf on huge amount of users reguest to change jpeg engine in cams and to fix many seroius issues… and now you see many used X cameras on sales – in my view this is a result of last Fujifilm decisions and selling new cameras with minor changes and with no sensor improvement. The nightmare scenario is going to happen for Fujifilm if they do not change their strategy and marketing.
Another insecure person that has the need to tell the world how bad a Fuji is over any other brand.
The pictures out of these camera’s tell the story and don’t support your claims.
Maybe you should just move on and buy another brand of camera to see that the grass isn’t greener on the other side. There is no perfect camera, but Fuji comes pretty close 🙂
We’ll talk again over two years. I bet the market-place will look very different by then. But hard to be believe that Fuji will still be a player in what they call so beautifully ‘the imaging market’ if they stay on the present path.
I will dare to take that bet.
Its also very likely that Sony needs to put their imaging division on sale as Sony is still loosing big money as a company in a whole. 😉
Sony is dead. Every one of their consumer electronics divisions, save the Playstation, is losing money.
In ten years they will be nothing more than a parts supplier, if that.
I also dare to take your bet!
Your reaction shows that you are all insecure.
You have good reasons to be insecure about Sony. Sony have never treated their customers with any respect, they will never do so either.
Sony doesn’t care about customer loyalty.
Chances are bigger that Sony once again will dump their customer fan base for yet another system before Fuji will step out of the imaging business.
and meanwhile they make the best mirrorless cameras you can buy. who cares if they drop it and invent something better, just means we buy that next. it’s the early-adopter problem, they take risks when they buy stuff.
maybe you should stick to a Canon t4i or whatever their latest is until the mirrorless market matures.
Oh dear more insecure whinging.
This must be the most insecure post I’ve read this year. I would really like to see your portfolio 🙂
I can understand that you disagree, but I don’t understand why this post should be “insecure”.
on here of course you’d say that, this is fujirumors, but the points stand, the small sensor and 16mp is just not competitive these days, no matter what color you make the dials. Fuji cameras are seriously pretty to look at, but they lack where it counts.
Those test photos prove it, the first looks mushy and horrible at 1600 which isn’t even high ISO. It looks like a compact camera shot it to be honest. The other one is better but there’s no detail when you compare it to something FF.
Both photos here look just fine – not sure where you get mushy and horrible from. Looking at various current cameras using DPreviews ISO comparison tool the Fuji still looks as good or better than much of the competition. All this hand wringing about specs is pointless, go take pictures and be happy. If Fuji doesn’t work for you go buy something else. Specs don’t make good photographs a good photographer does.
A) Sony is in the business of selling image sensors so anyone who wants one will eventually get one in their camera brand of choice.
B) Sony sucks as a camera manufacturer unless you’re content with a kit zoom and one or two crazy expensive Zeiss branded lenses.
C) Good photographers can take amazing pictures with a wooden box with a simple hole drilled in it for the lens, technology only gets you so far.
Again, I’m not a Sony fan, but at least, I see a line in what they are doing now. With Fuji, I still cannot get it what kind of red line they have in their range. It has been confusing from day 1 and it still is.
To give some comments on your post:
A) but they keep the good ones long enough for themselves until they have a newer wave ready. B) Do you really believe this? Fuji glass is only cheap because it’s being discounted all the time (translate it: it doesn’t sell as they should like, Leica or Zeiss never had to discount a lens). The Loxia’s are at 950/1300$, this is a list pricing @ release. I don’t find that an exceptional high price for really premium glass that can last decades. Do the Fujinons have also this ‘age-less’ design… I’m not so sure about this, even more: a bit worried. If you have to rebuy anything in this range between now an 5 years, the Zeiss glass was at a bargain. C) The wooden box: true, but that’s not a digital workflow. If you want to do something similar in this age, you would have to look to something like a Sinar. I’m afraid this ‘hole’ is @ a price that let you forget the Zeiss pricing very quickly.
A) Most sensors are these days ‘good enough’ already so waiting an extra year for a newer design has little impact on anyone. You don’t see Nikon suffering greatly for being “behind the curve” and they use all Sony sensors.
B) Sorry there’s no comparison between Zeiss prices and anything equivalent. Find me a $1000 full frame 50mm f1.8 or 35mm f2.8 from Nikon or Canon. That Fuji offer discounts on their lenses is some how a bad thing? I’m confused here.
C) Point missed. To spell it out – specs don’t make good photographs, good photographers do.
When will you people learn that sensors are now good enough that the sensor doesn’t matter any more? Sony could produce the most fantastic sensor known to man, and if it puts it in one of Sony’s ass-backwards cameras (which of course, it will), it will mean nothing.
No camera system is perfect, and the Fuji system has plenty of flaws. They just happen not to get in the way of my style of picture taking. If they did, well, I wouldn’t be using a Fuji camera and I certainly wouldn’t be hanging out on a site dedicated to Fuji cameras trying to prop up my sagging smugness.
Other camera systems are perfectly fine, but the ergonomics, lens options, menu structure, or some other aspect of design do not fit my requirements. Some of them are so far from my requirements as a photographer, though, they give me pause. For example, I’ve used several Sony cameras, and each one has made me wonder if they were designed for photography, or as some kind of cognitive test for people recovering from head trauma. And no amount of magic-beans sensor would dissuade me from that opinion.
Granted, Sony has a few nice lenses mixed in with the dross. In fact, I think it might even have four good lenses in the range now. None of them are especially fast though (f2.8 primes and f4 zooms) and all of them are extremely expensive, trading off the Zeiss badge. They do appear on eBay occasionally, but not very often because no one would be stupid enough to buy into the system in the first place. I guess that might give them some rarity value.
In my humble opinion.
I’m of the opinion that sensor does still matter in a big way if you do things that are demanding on the sensor (like landscapes or wedding – people forget about how much better some of the sensors are for dynamic range). That said, the ergos of Fuji are what keep me from jumping to Sony, even though I keep thinking about it.
I think a lot of people really pass the fact too easy this is only a very mainstream Sony 16MP APS/C sensor, designed and engineered 5-6 years ago. Nothing special about it, it was used in quite a bit of cameras, none of the really created a kind of ‘reference’ feeling in the market (… and sorry, my feeling is a bit the same. In DR a lot better is available in 2014). I think my criticism is fair, the attack out of proportion. The only thing I wanted to express, if Fuji doesn’t step up NOW to the next level @ the current price level, the X-series will face the same story that happened to the S-PROs. Remember my words. It’s btw not only Sony, the MLIC market is getting very crowded with a lot of premium-focussed players,… even Samsung is getting on this track now.
For Fuji, it would be easy for them to make a change to a better APS-C sensor, as they already have excellent glass and very well designed camera bodies.
For Sony, they continuously wrap very poorly designed camera bodies around good sensors, and lack a decent set of high-quality lenses. The A7r had potential, even with its poorly designed body. However, it has been crippled by its shutter-shake, wobbly mount (it is ridiculous that people are scrambling to switch the wobbly mount with a third-party mount), and other issues. And, while they have some nice lenses, they don’t have many, and most are oversized, which has been an issue for all e-mount cameras (tiny bodies with unbalanced lenses). While I would like the sensor from the A7r (with uncooked Rawson though) in an X-Pro-like body, I wouldn’t buy an A7r because of the issues I listed above.
If Sony keeps innovating and someday designs an exceptional MILC system, which is free of quality-control issues and is supported by a full set of high-quality native lenses, I would somewhat agree with you. However, currently, there is no optimal system in the mirrorless market: Sony is crippled by the issues I mentioned above; M4/3 is decent, but too small of a sensor in my opinion; Fuji has great camera designs, lenses, and film simulations, but is somewhat crippled by lack of excellent raw support.
I think Fuji could resolve this issue easily by upgrading the sensor (Bayer or a better X-Trans sensor (or better yet, the organic sensor, which I have lost hope for) and providing its own bare-bones raw converter or at least the ability to convert the files to 16-bit TIFF in-camera. They could easily have the best MILC system by doing the latter immediately, which is a no-brainer – I can’t believe they are stupid enough to ignore the need for this.
If Fuji doesn’t do those two minor things, and some company steps up and designs an exceptional MILC system (no one has done it yet), I would likely change systems.
At the moment, I have kind of done so with DP Merrills (the best sensor, in my opinion, at lower ISO settings), despite their issues: poor high-ISO performance, annoyingly short battery life, and lack of an EVF. Sadly, I think Sigma has taken a step in the wrong direction with the Quattro (as it is subject to interpolation, not 1:1), and thus won’t design something I would like in the near future.
I would love to see Fuji make an X-series camera with a Fovean (merrill version) or another 1:1 Fovean-like sensor, even if the ISO is only useable up to ISO 800 or 1600, as it would be fantastic in decent light or on a tripod.
Most people, as in practically everyone who takes pictures with a camera, rather than rub themselves up against a specification sheet, really don’t know enough about sensor technology to care about sensor technology. Even the pointless quest for more megapixels is academic for the majority of camera users today, their needs having been comfortable met and exceeded by a 6MP camera of a decade ago. That many still don’t understand this is telling, but aside from a knuckle-dragging ‘more is better’ argument that will not go away, no-one really cares.
You can’t see this because you are too myopic, and are unable to look at a camera as a complete picture-taking tool, and are instead looking at it as parts of an engineering project (this seems to be common among Sony camera users, perhaps the ‘Alpha’ part of the brand name relates to photography’s ‘alpha nerd’ community)
If I could afford a Ferrari, I’d buy a Ferrari. I wouldn’t buy a Ferrari because it runs on Pirelli rubber, I’d buy it because it’s a Ferrari. That’s the level of nuance and discernment that exists outside of bed-wetter land.
If you think my attack is out of proportion, bear it in mind that I haven’t shifted into high gear yet. I’m done with those so insecure of their own decision making process that they feel it necessary to go all high-handed on the decisions of others. I question your motives, your abilities, and even your parentage.
Now, go away or I shall taunt you a third time!
OK. You’re right? Keep on your life with that old Dimage 7i and enjoy the tool!
Thanks for making my point for me. Sony could come up with the most monumentally fantastic sensor on the planet, put it in one of its DSLRs, which would then receive the best reviews ever from every website, magazine, blogger, photographer, and shill on the planet, and it would still not sell as well as some blah Canon or Nikon offering. This is because the mainstream DSLR buyer is now unfeasibly conservative in outlook. Sony’s innovative stance (and although I dislike Sony cameras from a usability/ergonomics standing, the company is innovative) just doesn’t equate to sales.
In effect, Sony manages to come third in a two-horse race.
Yes, Fuji does need to up the megapixel count on its sensor for marketing reasons, because of ‘more is better’ specification hunters. But that’s just a numbers game.
I’d wager that most people who buy a camera think ‘CFA’ means ‘Chartered Financial Analyst’ and really don’t give a damn about the intricacies of these arguments. Most just go with the one that gives them the pretty colours.
While the X-Trans sensor has its faults, bayer sensors are far from optimal as well. Both are subject to interpolation, which results in false details and artifacts – zoom in 100% to an image from any full frame bayer sensor camera and you will see mushy details as well.
If some company could improve the high-ISO performance of a layered sensor without interpolation, like the Fovean sensor in the DP Merrills, that would be optimal. Even though the sensor in the DP Merrills is APS-C, the pixel-level image quality is superior to that from any full frame bayer sensor camera at lower ISO settings, despite only being 15 megapixels, because it is not subject to interpolation.
While I would have liked to see Fuji release the X-Pro 2 with a non-X-Trans full frame sensor, a bayer sensor would not be optimal either. I am looking forward to advancements in 1:1 sensors in the future – and the end of Bayer and Bayer-like sensors.
My only comment is I hope the reviewer was referring to the Canon 70-200 f2.8L as his comparison lens and not the old 1989 vintage micro motored 80-200 f2.8L he mentions. Fuji is in trouble if it only focuses as fast as the 80-200 which was not horrible but certainly wasn’t a sports shooters dream lens as far as focus speed is concerned.
God I can’t wait to get this! I’m done comparing and peeping it’s time to shoot!
Good news: samples shot wide open. And at high ISO. And with LMO ON (for whatever weird reason we needed to know that).
Not so good news: some unpleasant bokeh artifacts, typical for many Fujinon lenses (including big TV Fujinons).
Personal conclusion: for time being, I’ll stick to my primes and a trusty 55-200. It’s dark and not very sharp, but it won’t suddenly overload a background with hysterical lines.
What’s wrong with the bokeh, I’m not sure what artefacts you’re referring to? TBH you can’t judge critically judge bokeh that well from these shots as there are no out of focus highlights that often show up weaknesses in lens design (the dreaded onion rings or bokeh fringing). What I can see here though looks very nice and smooth given quite a busy background and the foreground blur is lovely and smooth.
Sample 1: most noticeable in the corners at the bottom.
Sample 2: model’s hair during focus falloff, top left and near her left ear.
Don’t get me wrong, it’s lovely and smooth, as long as it doesn’t produce crazy ramen noodles. I sold my 60mm macro because I had “noodling” in 7 out of 10 outdoor portraits (56mm is way better, I see “noodling” maybe once in 50 samples).
Ah I see what you mean in sample 2, noodling is a good term for it. I wonder if it’s an x-trans/lightroom processing issue? Still it’s not really noticeable unless pixel peeping.
If your 55-200 isn’t very sharp you should have it serviced. Mine is as sharp as my old Canon 70-200/4L IS.
It’s a tack sharp lens, for a zoom. I just happened to be editing a studio session that I’ve photographed with both 55-200 and 56 prime. In terms of detail and microcontrast, the zoom is not even remotely close to 56. It doesn’t mean that the zoom is not a sharp lens, it’s just not as phenomenal as 56.
that’s contradictory, if it’s tack sharp then it’s the same as the 56, that’s what tack sharp means. maybe it would be better to say the 56 is tack sharp and the 55-200 is not bad. Since they can’t both be tack sharp and “not even remotely close” – that’s utter bollocks. if you wanted sharp you wouldn’t be using a small sensor. you need more than APS-C and more than 16mp to get high microcontrast and tack sharp shots, unless you’re just jacking up the clarity slider as everyone seems to do these days.
You’re a smart one, for a troll. See, no contradiction at all!
This is the funniest, most pathetic post I’ve read on the Internet this week. Especially when you factor in your comments on the images below.
Kudos!
HULK makes up mind: Fgts like b/c aperture ring and unsharpness, save time by not apply filter of hugeblackdickupassness…make worth 1600 of dollars. lel at fuji fegits
Maybe it’s just me but don’t these two additional samples look quite amazing for 2.8 and end of zoom range (140mm) ?
Also given the fact this is using the default camera jpg outputs, there is space for even shaper pictures using ID for example.
XT1 produces crazy noisy compression at ISO1600. Not impressed with the combination. It’s okay camera. Over-rated.
Well, aren’t you a little ray of sunshine!
I have to say though, Fuji seems remarkably good at choosing bad images to show off its products. I’m not convinced I need a lens like this anymore, as my 70-200 VR mostly stayed in the camera bag toward the end of my Nikon days, but I’ll pass judgment in my own time on my own terms, rather than make conclusions based on someone else’s images.
Other shots are available here: http://ivanjoshualoh.wordpress.com/
I’m not thrilled with the bokeh rendering in the images showing it, but the lens itself will be a godsend for me. The 70-200vrii was my most used lens before leaving Nikon. If it lives up to all the performance superlatives reported, it’ll be in my bag (mostly on my camera) as soon as I can possibly get one! I like my 55-200, but the additional speed will be extremely useful where I need it most.
oh, hipsters excited…fegits have telezoom now…oh…such aperture ring…yet such soft pictures…yet so arty…so instagram…boyfriend like…
HULK makes up mind: Fgts like b/c aperture ring and unsharpness, save
time by not apply filter of hugeblackdickupassness…make worth 1600 of
dollars. lel at fuji fegits!
Those photos are definitely not good to show case a signature zoom lenses. For a pro shooter like Bert, I’m very disappointed. Since it’s a portraiture shoot, lighting, background, and subject posing matter most. In these photos, nothing worked for me. Lighting is flat and non-directional with uninterested background. The close-up girl shows no emotion!
The bokeh in the first photo looks ugly at best. I dont’ recall how the other samples look like this. Hope it’s a bad copy!
Bokeh looks kinda swirly to me on the first shot.
The quality of bokeh will not compare well to the 70-200 2.8 IS II in a side by side test. Might be more relevant to compare to the 70-200 f/4 IS. We’ll have to see.
These shots, especially the second one, are horrible photos to use as marketing material. They would be no less horrible if taken with the Nikon or Canon 70-200 f/2.8 because they are flat, boring and awkward.