I’m pleased to announce that Rico Pfirstinger is right now working on a 56mm vs 56mm APD comparison, that will go online as soon as Rico finished it.
And even more, he told me that he is working on a First Look that will go online tomorrow, January 6th. Now, given the fact that trusted sources told me that the XF 16-55mmF2.8 WR will be announced tomorrow, you can guess what the first look will be about.
The time? Usually Fuji announces new gear at around midnight NY-time. I know it exactly, because every time there is a new product launch, I change the schedule of lessons with my colleagues in order to have a bit more time to make the live blogging in the morning here in Europe… but this time I’m still on holiday 😉
Oh yes, the live blogging. I’ll be here, ready to start it as soon as the lens will be announced (around midnight in New York). I’ll provide you with everything that’s worth to be known about this lens by constantly updating the live blogging with fresh links and useful information about it… but I guess that, as usual, it’s here on Fujirumors that you’ll find the best overview/first look about this lens, thanks to Rico’s X-Pert Corner Special! So stay tuned.
40 Responses
Sounds great, Patrick. Moment of truth – about this special lens that so many were waiting for. Now that the OIS question had been answered (almost), let’s see the IQ – XF 16-55mm F2.8 – as sharp as a prime lens (really?!?!?).
I think of the sharpness as if printed side by side it will be impossible to tell the difference 99.9% of the time. Will it look as good as the 56 prime? For me it will as I never shoot wide open. I like the whole head, shoulders sharp.
I don’t own the XF 56mm, but I have the XF 18mm and XF 35mm. I know and hear the 35mm is really sharp. So, let’s hope XF 16-55mm will be pretty close, so when my XF 18mm and XF 35mm remain at home, I will not see the difference.
The 35 IS sharp but also has a very nice rendering (IMHO) the 56 1.2 is even sharper and cleaner center to corner.
The 50-140 has raised the bar to what belongs sharpness in zoom lenses… I’d expect the 16-55 to get at least the same results, otherwise I’d be disapponted. The sharpness of a prime? maybe not, but it should better get pretty close to it 😉
The 55-200 was already very sharp stopped down though. . . what will make difference to me on the 16-55 are the ‘intangibles’ – color, micro contrast, booked, etc. Fuji has already proven to be masters of sharpness, but as we see with the 50-140 there are some compromises.
As excited as I am to test this lens sometime soon, I doubt there are any more surprises, we know it is Fuji (which means it will be best 16-55 ever made) and I am glad it does NOT have OIS, that only means better battery life and crisp images if you know how to use a camera.
I was hoping for that OIS (Fuji did excellent job with OIS), but when Fujifilm management said that no OIS could only mean the best IQ, well… I trust them and hope for the best IQ such a standard zoom can possibly have today.
There is very nice comparison of 56 vs. 56 APD here:
http://www.fujivsfuji.com/56mm-1pt2-vs-apd/
(I have not seen this being linked from FR, but I don’t follow regularly).
Unfortunately Fujifilm did put only single apodization filter in the lens. If they had put in two, the bokeh could be even smoother – I have explanation in diagram here: http://jtra.cz/stuff/essays/bokeh/index.html#apodizationdiy
The loss of light would be significant. I still prefer the non-apd version.
I lost interst in Fuji since new Fujinon lenses turned out to get bigger and bigger – 56/1.2, 23/1.4, two monsters like 50-140/2.8 & 16-55/2.8, and a new but big too16/1.4…this is a ridiculous trend. I went to Fuji mirrorless because of the idea of small and light photo tool and fast working AF lenses but all these reasons failed now and I had to sold my loved X-E2 with two lenses I only liked 18/2 and 35/1.4. With this silly trend of bringing big and monster lenses I do not see my future with Fuji ans sens to stay with mirrorless, though I was really happy when X-Pro1 and X-E1 were introduced – it was so new and different. Now it also seems Fuji lost interest with its RF styled cameras – very poor firmware uprgreds for X-E2 compared to X-T1, no X-Pro2 for so long period of time – and focuses mainly on X-t1 style that I do not like. I just notice that Nikon D750 + 4 primes I want or Canon 6D + 4 same fl primes weight only 0,5kg more than Fuji X with small grip it needs + 4 primes. Fuji killed the argument of the weight benefit.
Sadly so true!!! I guess you compared the 20,35,50 and 85 1.8 + d750 vs xt1 and equivalent primes 14,23,35 and the 56….
Every system has own advantages and disadvantages…..smaller ovf vs. bigger evf, better flash vs. crappy flash, one slot vs dual slot, full frame bayer sensor with more resolution vs xtrans aps-c etc…
Its up to you and us which system we do wanna choose….
1. I could be wrong but the 56 1.2 is smaller than the Nikon 85 1.8G and catches more light. And those two are equivalent in their respective systems. Also note that the Fuji is better build than the all plastic Nikkor.
I don’t see how really fast glass can be very small. I wish it was possible … but I believe there’s a optical & mechanical limit there.
2. “very poor firmware uprgreds for X-E2 compared to X-T1” still there ARE upgrades and new features, may be not what you would like but they exist, that cannot be denied. Please tell who else in the big names does that ? And if Fuji was not interested why on earth would they still supply upgrades ? I am convinced that the most profit generated is from additional glass, not from bodies so their financial interest would be to perfect existing bodies as much as technically possible, which I believe they do.
3. Weight and Size: I had a pro D2 line of bodies (X and HS) and they cannot be compared to Fuji X in size & weight. And I find the smaller Nikon bodies awkward to use. Which is only to say that some of us can be pleased whilst other are not.
I see the X-T1 along with the X-100T as a test bed for a future Xpro2. I am (totally selfishly) very pleased that Fuji concentrates for the time being on the X-T1 as I cannot use the X100 line nor the Xpro line due to poor eyesight. Just bought it and I could not be happier.
Fuji lenses are good, Nikon G1.8 are also good, both system have some plastic. It was not this point I wrote about. I could point out many benefits of FF (D750/6D) over Fuji X, with noisy Fuji lenses, and other issues, but is was not my intention here. It was only one aspect: weight. With this ridiculos trend of bringing big lenses it does not make any sens to stay with mirrorless like Fuji, since the DSLR like D750 and 6D with comperative lenses weight just 0,5kg more. The size is also not that bigger anymore. New Fuji 50-140mm f/2.8 lens weights more (20%) than Canon 70-200 f/4L. It des not make sens to stay with mirrorless with this giant lenses, it’s better to get small and light DSRL like D750/6D with have exellent AF, FF, DR compared to Fuji.
The new 50-140 is, I agree, something of a monster – I never used Canon glass so I can’t judge; but it is at least 30% lighter than the Nikkor 70-200 2.8 or 80-200 2.8 I used to own; it’s OIS is nearly twice has good as the Nikkor’s and it is WR . (and I compare with those for the quantity of light, not the DOF;
If I was to compare to the f/4 Nikkor I would have added that in my limited tests it seemed to be -many- miles ahead in sharpness and color rendering).
It has been created for a somewhat limited (pro ?) market who needs that kind of features; There are already one or two lighter alternative – agreed with variable aperture but much much better quality (both build and optics) than the equivalent 70-300 Nikkor VR.
All this to say that it is difficult to really compare two systems from different manufacturers. I move in 2014 from Nikon to Fuji and see no reason not to be happy. And I accept you may feel otherwise
50-140mm f/2.8 can be compared only to f/4 FF lenses, not to f/2.8, because you get the same DOF: APS-C Fuj f/2.8 = FF f/4. You overrate differences in shrpness and in colour renderig between Fuji vs Canon L vs Nikon lenses, all of them stay high on this point, and FF – almost 2x bigger sensor – gives even more details, tonality, etc. With D750 & 6D size, Fuji with its big and monster lenses is losing most benefits that stayed at the begining of mirrorless introduce. If Fuji would have released small lenses like 18/2 ( AF works much faster than lenses with f/1.4 or 56/1.2 which is the slowest in AF performance), and new 55/2, 23/1.8, 16/2, than it makes sens to stay with it. Otherwise most benefits are on DSLR side. I even do not compare D750 AF performace or 6D AF with Fuji because it’s precipice, both focuses -3EV, Fuji 0EV. Again – weight differense is about 0,5kg. I went to Fuji because of weight benefit – probably most others too – and it’s not the argument any more.
I disagree with 50-140 vs f/4 but that’s beside the point.
I owned the Nikkor 80-200 2.8 and 70-200 2.8 VRII and I find the 50-140 much sharper; but that again is /my/ point of view.
You went to Fuji because of weight difference; I appreciate the motivation, but it seems to be a somewhat narrow argument to change systems. That was only part of my motivation. And from what I have read here and there I am not the only one.
If your Fuji gear does not push you to go out an make images anymore, Go and buy a D750 or a 6D or or a second had D700 or D800. There are plenty around or whatever makes you happy and for Pete’s sake ENJOY it!
I do a lot of back country hiking and I have to say going for a full day with the X-T1 and the 10-24mm is much more enjoyable than the D600 and 16-35mm f/4 – gear is lighter, takes up less room in the back pack (and not problems with oil spots). Bonus is that the 10-24mm is so much sharper corner to corner than the 16-35mm Nikkor. Really depends on what you’re using the camera for though, how far you want to pack your gear, how big of a bag you want carry.
I really wouldn’t know what can ever be wrong with the AF-S 70-200mm F2.8. It’s one of the best zoom lenses I’ve ever used and I don’t have ANY issue with the VRII, which works very, very well. Compared to this, f.i. the Fujinon 55-200mm (which I also own) is a very mediocre performer. Not the same sharpness (in particular at its zoom limit), slow AF, hunting in low light,…? There must be really a lof of Fuji salesmen writing in this blog.
Breathe slowly … again … there! much better!
Now re-read what I wrote
Where did I compare the Nikkor AFS 70-200 2.8 to the Fujinon 55-200 ? – I compared the 55-200 to the Nikkor 70-300VR
Where did I write that there was anything wrong with the Nikkor ? – Nowhere
Two wrongs don’t make a right, or so they say.
As for the assertion about “Fuji Salesmen” I thought this was a grown up discussion; I must have been mistaken
Valid points but be caeful with point 1….for me…the Fullframe sensor is over twice as big as the apsc sensor even the lenses of the fuji have larger aperture and let in more light 1.2 vs 1.8 the sensor size can easily compensate the smaller aperture in terms of light gathering……so personally the fullframe combo will still have the edge in terms of total light gathering……..
Fujinons built beter than Nikkors… forget it. It’s all plastic inside. The Nikkors I used lasted for ages, even the plastic ones. With my first XF-lenses, I had one broke (guarantee, 2 months repair time) and one the got disassembled…just by sitting in my bag (!). It all just looks a bit better, as I keep on saying, this is just compact camera quality. And that Fujinon might capture more light, it focusses a lot slower and it has about the same DOF with that damned crop factor sensor.
I stand by what I said about build quality – look at the 85 1.8G G= Plastic w/o aperture ring; and although it is a fine glass, to /my/ tastes I get a much nicer result with the Fuji 56. and that to me is what is the most important.
“with that damned crop factor sensor” => why curse it ?
It certainly does not come as a surprise. Fuji sells APSC camera and has several times stated that they are not planning otherwise. It’s not as if they sneaked in a crop sensor behind your back.
“G= Plastic w/o aperture ring” – quoting KR – that’s last thing we need really 😉
I don’t need no KR 🙂
PS Please help me support my …..
This nice little baby combo weights less than a Nikon D750… 🙂 I’m also doing perfectly fine without the grip. I couldn’t be more happy after my switch from Nikon. Different people, different needs 🙂 If you want it small, you have the choice. If you wanna go bigger, add the grip and a 50-140. You have the choice, right?
Personally I’d choose X-T1, 23 1.4+56 1.2, over a D750, 35 1.8+85 1.8 anyday.
Did you switch from Nikon D750??? Most people buy a few lenses, than the total weight and size are not that different. I tried X-T1 with 56/1.2 lens, it’s very slow AF combo, especially in lower light. In good light it perform just good. X-T1 body itself can seriously compate with D750 only in weight, not in performance, it’s really huge difference. But yes, people have different needs.
“It’s really huge difference…” Alrighty then 🙂 I got rid off my D600, and couldn’t be happier! But then again, I got tired of the size of the camera. I also much rather prefer the handling of the X-T1, absolutely perfect for street shooting. I also prefer Fuji glass rather than Nikkor 1.8G lenses. But hey, that’s me! Btw, all I’ll ever need is 23 1.4 and 56 1.2.
You cannot compare D600 with D750…..;)
D750 is just because of the AF going to -3EV a different beast, one stop better low light performance as well etc.
Also i have to agree with sienos statement fx sensor can easily compensate the smaller aperture of the nikkor lenses…..so i think sieno is right the bigger sensor/size has a bigger impact on the light gathering capabilites than the larger aperture of the lenses….
Well, tried the D750 and all, but not for me… Some like CaNikon, others Fuji. Let’s just focus on the images, shall we? All systems has advantages and disadvantages, right? At least for me, I don’t miss my Nikon and Canon FF cameras.
I have two of each (X-T1 and D750) and several lenses. You are correct – AF on the Fujis is not fast in low light. It may be faster with the new 2.8 zooms, but then you’re sacrificing light and using an F/4 equivalent lens.
I have a Nikon system for one purpose – to shoot weddings. The D750 has the world’s best AF, is much more solid-feeling than the X-T1, and works with a professional flash system. Fuji and flash don’t mix.
For all of my other photography, including stuff for my own family, I use my Fuji kit. It’s smaller, looks cooler, and I love the way the images look out of the camera, with minimal cooking. The Nikon RAWs are more robust, but they take work to really polish.
The majority of the people on this site don’t need a DSLR system in 2015, and Fuji/some other mirrorless would be a better fit. My Nikon kit is a ~$12,000 tool that shoots weddings @ $2-3,000 each, easy to justify as long as I’m doing a couple dozen a year. But if I were to get out of that business, my Nikons would be on eBay the next day.
Well my experience is the opposite. I went to Fuji X because a wanted a lighter, RF-alike system. Since day one I have been suffering from AF-problems, bugs, quirks, FW but also hardware issues (I completely lost my believe in Fuji’s QC, sorry). For about 6 months I couldn’t even develop these fabulous Fuji X RAF’s in a decent way – and the ‘cooking’ (as you call it) is even today delivering a mediocre quality, lacking detail, but also the the DR is in my eyes not ‘waw’. I completely disagree that the Nikon RAWs require a more dedicated workflow and the Nikon/Sony FX sensors are really better performers than Fuji X – not the least in clean ISO behavior. Sorry to say, but I really noticed how many people were using the wrong workflow, software and related automation to come to the best optimum result. A small detail… how many Nikon users are with a serious methodology performing lenses corrections? Loading the correct pre-sets including curves back into the camera? Performing the right lens corrections in post? Taking care of a decent (not fully automated) AWB control? Shoot, shoot, shoot, and yes, in that case the Fuji might deliver a better result than a $12000 system.
I certainly agree with what you say about the Nikons – the workflow is much more straight-forward and, because of that I think, results in superior RAW processing and (often) superior images. This is why is use Nikon for my weddings…I want the best for my clients, even if it’s a bit more work for me. But I’lladmit that I’m constantly re-evaluating this (even after just buying two D750!) and things like electronic shutter, making the X-T1 now totally silent, bode well for Fuji. It will be interesting to see where we are in another two years.
Sorry to hear about your Fuji troubles, I think if a user expects pro-DSLR performance (handling, speed, build quality) they will be dissappinted as you have been. But for many users they don’t need cameras that can focus on the dark, shoot 11fps and survive a 2m drop, so Fuji performance is OK for many.
Dear Fujifilm,
Why not release two different version of the 16-55- one with stabilization and one without. That way, those who prefer higher IQ can purchase without and those who prefer a few extra stops of hand-holdability can purchase with.
Have you tried the 18-55? It’s pretty much what you want, with the added bonus of being much smaller.
Why not learn to understand English? It’s pretty much the language you need to understand before replying to my message.
In case you lack the mental capacity to get comprehend, catering to both those who prefer stabilization and to those who prefer higher IQ has nothing to do with what I have tried or what I would “pretty much” want.
‘to get comprehend’
Your Englsh, Bo Diddley, is somewhat less than par.
Okay that was a mistake. I meant to delete “get”. So that has nothing to do with my English. I still don’t understand how my proposal of Fujifilm releasing two versions of a product has anything to do with what I have tried or what I want. I mean, how did you come up with your response? Did you just take some drugs and read a few imaginary sentences that weren’t really there? Admit it, you’re not going to seriously stand by your comment. Now please stop the cyber-bullying. I was merely making a suggestion for Fujifilm. And for the rècord, I prefer the 16-55 without stabilization.
Size and fuji? Yes, 56mm and 10-24mm are not small lenses – but then again – you have to obey the laws of physics when it comes to optics – and both lenses are Brilliant. When I wanna go light I have the possibility of putting the 27mm on my ex2 and keep the camera in the pocket of my jacket – something I could never do with a DSLR