Work on my X100T vs. X100S vs. X100 piece is still in progress, but having more time with the X100T has made it apparent that the only reason I’d reach for the X100T isn’t the new OVF. It’s not the bigger LCD. It sure as hell isn’t Classic Chrome. It’s WiFi.
I can’t say I don’t enjoy the other features and improvements made to the X100 line, but for $300-400 or so, I could live without ⅓ stop aperture adjustments, extra exposure compensation, the picture review button being in the wrong place, you get the idea.
I came to the conclusion early that the X100T isn’t a must-upgrade camera for X100S owners, and I stand by that 100%. If you already have an X100S, and WiFi capability isn’t imperative, I’d say stick with what you have. Additionally, if you don’t already have and X100S and WiFi isn’t a feature you’d miss, save yourself a few hundred units of your favourite currency and grab an X100S. It’s still a great camera that captures the same image quality, and at it’s current price, it’s a steal.
This morning I woke up early to do some shooting with my new 50-140mm f/2.8. I figured I might as well throw the 10-24mm f/4 in my bag as well to round out my focal range. It occurred to me right then how great a combo the 10-24mm and 50-140mm is. Add in the fantastic 35mm f/1.4, and all your focal length bases would be very well covered.
This might be the most ideal kit available from Fuji, and would probably remain that way even after the 16-55mm f/2.8 comes out if it weren’t for one thing.
I’ve griped about this before, but this morning was another reminder of how much I wish Fuji had made this weather resistant. I packed my bag, jumped in the car, and upon exiting the garage, discovered it was drizzling quite heavily. I was undeterred thanks to the 50-140mm, but I thought to myself “Whelp, guess I won’t be using the 10-24mm.”
That sucks. Especially since as the 16-55mm f/2.8 approaches, I find myself thinking more and more that I’m going to prefer having the 10-24mm f/4. It zooms internally like the 50-140mm f/2.8, it shares the same 72mm filter thread,1 and it goes quite a bit wider than the 16-55mm f/2.8.
FUJINON XF 10-24mm f/4 R OIS II WR
Rumours of Fuji releasing a Mark II version of their 35mm f/1.4 abound,2 but just last week they’ve shown their willingness to re-issue lenses with Mark II versions of their XC lenses. I also asked one of Fuji’s engineers about the possibility of re-issuing a weather sealed version of the 10-24mm f/4 with weather sealing, to which he replied it was possible, but the lens mmight be slighty larger. I’d take a slight bump in size on a lens like that if it I could use it unfavourable weather any day. Here’s hoping.
Fuji has announced their pro standard zoom, the FUJINON XF 16-55mm f/2.8 R LM WR. This is a lens a lot of us have been waiting for, myself included. While I, along with many other people didn’t particularly love their standard zoom lenses from Canon or Nikon, they are workhorses, built for taking photos. Lots of photos. And with their weather sealing, standard zooms can quickly find themselves being the only lens in a photographer’s bag.
The big question will not only be how this lens stacks up against other standard zooms on the market, but how it will perform compared to Fuji’s other zoom offerings in the focal range, the 18-55mm, and 18-135mm. These are already great pieces of glass, but as we know, there is a pretty wide gap between the humble kit lens and the at least one prime. I’m very curious to see if the 16-55mm f/2.8 closes that gap, and you better believe I’ll be finding out as soon as I can get my hands on one.
We can already make some “on paper” comparisons between the new 16-55mm f/2.8 and other zooms. Let’s have a look.
Preorder the 16-55mm f/2.8 at Amazon US, B&H Photo, or Aden Camera.
|Announced||January 6, 2015||September 6, 2012||June 16, 2014|
|Released||February 2015||December, 2012||August, 2014|
|Lens Construction||17 elements
3 extra low dispersion
1 extra low dispersion
4 aspherical elements
2 anomalous dispersion lenses
|35mm Equivalent||24 - 84mm||27 - 84mm||27 - 205mm|
|Aperture Range||ƒ/2.8 - ƒ/22||ƒ/2.8 - ƒ/22||ƒ/3.5 - ƒ/22|
|Maximum Aperture||Constant 2.8||Variable 2.8 - 4||Variable 3.5 - 5.6|
|Focus Range||0.3m - Infinity||30cm wide, 40cm telephoto - Infinity||0.45m - Infinity|
|External Dimensions||83.3 diameter x 106.0mm - 129.5mm||65mm diameter x 70.4mm - 97.9mm||75.7mm diamtetre x 97.8mm - 158mm|
Approx. 712.5 with caps and hood*
346g with caps and hood
529.5g with caps and hood
|Weather Sealed||Yes, 14 points||No||Yes, 20 points|
|Optical Image Stabilization||No||Yes||Yes|
|Autofocus Speed||0.06 seconds||Slower||0.10 seconds|
*Unfortunately, the weights we have so far exclude the caps, and hood. I can weigh both the rear cap and 77mm front cap via the 10-24mm f/4, but I have to estimate the hood’s weight. I used the 21g of 10-24mm f/4 as my estimate.
Fuji 16-55mm f/2.8 vs. 18-55mm vs. 18-135mm weight
Here’s how the weights stack up in chart form:
Yep, that 16-55mm f/2.8 is gonna be a beast. That’s what a constant ƒ/2.8 aperture gets you though.
Fuji 16-55mm f/2.8 vs. Canon and Nikon
Next we’ll compare Fuji’s 16-55mm f/2.8 to its full frame equivalents, the Nikon 24-70mm f/2.8, the Canon 24-70mm f/2.8 L, and the Canon 24-70mm f/4 L.
Even though the 16-55mm f/2.8 is one of Fuji’s heftier lenses, it’s still significantly lighter than the f/2.8 zooms from either Nikon or Canon. Remarkably, it’s actually heavier when compared to Canon’s f/4 standard zoom. I’ll have to compare the build quality between those two zooms.
Mirrorless vs. DSLR zooms
What is equally interesting for me is how a complete, mirrorless zoom kit fairs against the DSLR systems available from the big guys, Nikon and Canon. For these next charts, I chose the lightest 35mm camera available from each brand at the time of writing, the Nikon D610, and the Canon 60D.
For reference, here are the lenses included in each kit:
Nikon 35mm Slow: 16-35mm f/4, 24-70mm f/2.8, 70-200mm f/4
Nikon 35mm Fast: 14-24mm f/2.8, 24-70mm f/2.8, 70-200mm f/2.8
Canon 35mm Slow: 16-35mm f/4, 24-70mm f/4, 70-200mm f/4
Canon 35mm Fast: 16-35mm f/2.8, 24-70mm f/2.8, 70-200mm f/2.8
As you can see, Nikon’s offerings are a little less complete than Canon’s, and weight a little more. I apparently had chosen the wrong brand when it came to weight before moving to mirrorless. Even compared to Canon’s lightest option, a complete zoom kit from Fuji will still run you almost ¾ of a kilogram, or over a pound and a half in weight. The reduction in weight only gets better compared to the other options. I also opted for the “heavy duty” support setup on both of the “Fast” versions for 35mm due to their increased weight. You can read more about those in my Heavy Issues article which will updated to include the 16-55mm f/2.8 shortly.
Mirrorless vs. DSLR APS-C
I’m sure there are some out there ready to take me to task for comparing Fuji’s APS-C-based system to 35mm DSLRs. As it turns out, things don’t get much better for the chunky DSLR by moving down to the APS-C bodies, assuming comparable lens quality and capabilities are a necessity.
For these kits I’ve chosen:
Nikon: 10-24mm, 17-55mm f/2.8, 70-200mm f/4
Canon: 10-24mm, 17-55mm f/2.8, 70-200mm f/4
A 50-140mm equivalent no APS-C DSLRs doesn’t exist, so I’ve opted for the lighter option, the 70-200mm f/4. Arguably this isn’t the most accurate option, but once the crop factor is taken into account, the bokeh-factor should be mostly balanced out. In any event, we’re still looking at ½ to ¾ of a kilogram in weight by moving to mirrorless.
So there you have it. I must say I’m a little surprised by how heavy the 16-55mm f/2.8 is, but ultimately, these pro zooms are intended to be workhorses, or as means of replacing multiple primes. I can very easily see myself traveling with two X-T1s, with the 16-55mm f/2.8 attached to one, and the 50-140mm f/2.8 attached to the other. The kind of travel I do often means extended hiking in inclimate weather. Not having to change lenses, being totally weather sealed, and weighing less than what I would have been carrying in my DSLR days with only a single body is pretty appealing.