16-55 OIS: Typo or not?
Ok, let’s start with the missing OIS on the 16-55. It’s known that the majority of X-shooters would like to have a stabilized lens. But a couple of weeks ago, at photokina, Fuji said that the 16-55 won’t feature OIS in order to keep it smaller and improve IQ (although, can’t we simply turn the OIS switch to “off”, if we worry about the IQ degradation?). So, no OIS.
However, in a recent Fuji event in Malaysia, Fuji showed a mock-up of the 16-55 and, just look at the image above, Fuji wrote 16-55 f/2.8 OIS. Now, I think it is a typo, and it wouldn’t even be the first time it happens (remember the 18-135 f/3.5-4.8 shown at CP+ in February, while in fact it is 5.6 at the long end?). So, don’t have too much hope for a stabilized lens… I think it’s just another typo. The lens mock-up itself has no OIS switch and marking. But of course, hope dies last.
And thanks a lot to those FR-readers who provided images to Fujirumros!
XF 50-140 samples and more first impressions on the upcoming X-gear
Shot with XF50-140mm f2.8 at 54mm, f3.2, 1/38secs
image courtesy: nextimelah.gr
nextimelah.gr (The Malaysian Technographer) was at the Fuji event in Malaysia, and wrote a blog post with his impressions about the upcoming X-gear. He owns an X-M1 and had also a brief time with the XF 50-140, shared some samples on his blog, and his fist impressions are:
“Although a brief time with it, I have already some opinions of the lens. While it looks huge on my X-M1, it’s surprisingly lighter than it looks OIS works really well, and although I did not test it beyond 1/42 secs at 140mm the LCD was very stable when composing Focusing was fast and accurate even on my X-M1. Definitely faster than my XC 50-230mm lens.“
He also mounted the XF 16-55 f/2.8 WR and XF 140-400 OIS WR mock-ups on his little Fujifilm X-M1. Here are a few images, but many more can be seen and read at nextimelah.gr.
CONSIDER that these are just mock-ups. The final size can change. Also the weight of the final lenses will very likely be different as the one of the mock-ups.
XF 50-140 – USA: BHphoto / AmazonUS / Adorama / EUROPE:WexUK / WexDE / PCHstore /
_ _ _
Fujifilm X-M1 + XF 140-400 OIS WR
_ _ _
XF 50-140
49 Responses
Unfortunately I don’t think it’s as simple as turning the switch to off – the inclusion of one or more floating elements in the design mean that no matter if OIS is on or off, it will always degrade the performance vs. a fixed element.
so, no matter if you turn OIS on or off, the elements will move, always? Seems I’ve learned something new, thanks.
Well I think the elements are effectively locked in place when OIS is switched off, but obviously they will more than likely be very slightly out of alignment, thus reducing critical image sharpness. Obviously with a lens without floating elements, it can be more precisely tuned at the factory as the elements can’t move around. At least that’s my understanding… 🙂
oook, got it. Nevertheless, I’d like an 16-55 with OIS 😉
It seems quite a few people agree with you. I guess Fuji figured people who wanted ois would choose the excellent 18-55 , being only a stop slower at the long end. Personally I wouldn’t buy either. I chose Fuji for the primes! Keep up the good work! 😀
I agree, I also went with Fuji for the primes, with such a great range it seems an obvious choice.. I did grab the 18-55 for convenience and won’t be upgrading so I am not Fuji’s market for the 2.8 zoom..
I will say that the problem for Fuji is all the competition tends to offer ois these days in their standard 2.8 zooms, that or sensor stabilisation which I greatly prefer as then lenses can all be designed without degradation.. So there will always be detractors making comparisons and complaining, I do feel though people wanting the ultimate optical quality should look to the primes, I very much don’t the zoom can ever match each of the price at their respective focal lengths..
Doubt not don’t.. Meh
Looking at this poll, I wouldn’t say I’m alone with my wish http://www.fujirumors.com/poll-ois-16-55mmf2-8-90mmf2-yes/
That doesn’t seem to be the case in Nikon’s lens design. There was extensive testing (I think on photographylife.com, but it was a while ago) concerning VR, with mixed results. IQ degradation varied, it wasn’t really that bad even in the worst case scenarios (which were tripod use by the way, handheld the IQ gain was really small).
If I recall correctly, the final word was to turn off VR for lenses when on tripod (except the few lenses that can detect tripod use automatically), leave it on for handheld.
There was no indication that removing VR entirely would further improve IQ compared to the OFF position. I would assume the same is true for OIS, but who knows?
http://photographylife.com/proof-that-vibration-reduction-should-first-be-stabilized
Further thoughts from the author is in the comment section (hand-held use). In summary, his recommendation is VR OFF for tripod or when shutter speed is > than 1/focal length. VR ON for slower shutter speeds, but give the VR system time to stabilize, that way the IQ impact is negligible (not field relevant). The way I shoot (back button focusing in continuous focus mode) this is always the case. No evidence that the presence of VR in OFF position afffects IQ in any measurable way.
I don’t need OIS. Constantly turned off with the kit lens. I’d replace that immediately with a smaller 16-55 without OIS.
Same with me. In addition I pefer fixed lenght Zooms.
I have no OIS on my lenses, so I can live without it. But it would be great to have it. Anyway, if Fujifilm says OIS would degrade the IQ, well I hope that this 16-55mm would be on par with my XF18mm and XF 35mm in terms of IQ. I really would like to see this lens, mounted on my X-Pro1 and delivering the best images Fujifilm can offer!
What would be the weight of that beautifull fat 140-400 mm lens ?
Like to see the 50-140mm next to the 140-400mm mounted on camera.
Seeing that green “Evolution to Revolution” poster the 140-400mm must be very light-weighted 🙂
It comes with a whole bunch of helium balloons that help hold it up.
LOL, you know how to get attention !
Heard it’s a tad less than 1kilo…
Looking forward to the XF140 – 400mm.
Me too wondering if they got it right and the lens stays the same Length as it zooms, Sure looks short to get 400 out of it?
I think I read that it will stay the same length as it zooms. If so, that will be fantastic.
I’m too old school to even shoot below 1/focal length even with OIS 🙂
Which is not nearly enough for high-res sensors even if you multiply it by 1.5 for APS-C crop. It is good for 1.5mpix only (1000 lines per picture height), and only if your hands are pretty steady.
I would have thought the person running a fuji rumors website would have a better understanding of how OIS affects image quality……..
Oh, well, sorry, I just know OIS can affect negatively the IQ (more or less, depending on which OIS mode you use). And I thought that turning it off, you prevent eventual IQ degradation. But you are free to enlighten me, I normally embrace and warmely welcome new information, knowledge and truths, especially if they are better than mine.
So, I’m all ears 😉
When I first got my XE2 with 18-55 OIS I always engaged OIS and was initially not happy with the results. I get sharper images with OIS off and only use it when my shutter speed is very slow.
While OIS does reduce imagine quality in the way that it works, and this can be undone by turning it off, there is also a reduction in image quality that results simply from having an extra element that would otherwise not be necessary.
Why cannot stabilization be done by moving one of already present elements?
I used to want OIS in the 16-55 2.8, but now that I think about it, I would much rather not have OIS if it makes it smaller, lighter, and less expensive. If I wanted to have to pay $1600 for 2.8, I would just have bought a D610.
Same, initially I wanted OIS but would prefer a smaller, cheaper form factor.
On D610, you can have f/4, OIS, cheaper that the future Fuji and better low light too.
I actually think about making that switch all the time. Still not sure I want to go back to a dSLR sized body. I like that with my Fuji I will sometimes grab it “just in case,” although maybe I should just get an RX100 to go with the D610.
Hopefully those mockups aren’t what they’re referring to when they say smaller and lighter because 16-55 looks pretty big for being so small and light.
I don’t see the need for OIS in a 16-55 2.8 lens.
Never use it below 1/200s at the long end then. High ISO, here you come.
How can you tell if it’s a typo? The 16-55 says OIS while the 50-140 does not, and we know the 50-140 WILL have OIS, while the Fuji reps at Photokina said the 16-55 will not.
Have a quick peek at adorama, it is listed as new release with the name “Fujifilm XF 16-55 F2.8 R LM IOS WR LENS”
Adorama either has information or just guesses, it would however business wise be unwise to take the gamble.
Maybe old news but the 16mm and 90mm are also already listed.
Well, from my humble point of view… none of the primes has OIS and nobody died or even complained much about it. Fuji teams are extremely conscious of the need for IQ before anything else, so I trust them to make the right choice at the end.
If this 16-55 is getting even close to the quality of the primes in the same focal length, that would be so wonderful that it’s worth giving up OIS, I think…
for 2.8 and up I feel it will need stabilization just check out your own 18 to 55 and see that it will always choose slow shutter speeds. So you will need that if your trying to go low light.
I sure wish Fuji changes their mind and puts OIS on the 16-55 2.8. If I want a small lens I would just use a prime.
I was in a Fuji event yesterday in Singapore. No OIS on the mockup 16=55lens showed. By the way the 90mm compared to the 56mm.
Regarding the coming 90mm lense. I am disappointed, they should made it faster, like f/1.4. It would be equivalent to the stellar 135mm f/2. 90mm at f/2 would be the same entrance pupil as the 56/1.2. So same subject isolation (i am considering subject far away) considering the same framing. Besides more compression I don t see the added value there. Please fuji make it 1.4. 85mm on 24×36 is not that big!
if you frame the shot equally, the 56/1.2 provides even shallower DOF, only if you frame the shot similarly AND use the same aperture you will get the same DOF.
who knows? Maybe with that size it finally will be a 1.4. For a f2 it is really, really fat.
A 85/1.4 for X-Mount would be either fatter or longer than a 85/1.4 for a dslr.
Why?
If it is the same design, they need to compensate the flange distance difference of about 2.5 cm. To make it shorter they need a telephoto design, which requires a larger diameter.
wow, that image of the woman is blurry. I have an Xt1 and it loves to pick slow shutter speeds I see. Their glass either needs to be fast or need stabilization it’s a must.
Yes, absolutely no showcase of great performance of this lens. Some earlier images from Rico Pfirstinger from an eagle didn’t convince me either. Hope production model is better. Hope dies last.
Without OIS, on non-stabilized body it is useless.