with so many people complaining about this lens's few shortcomings, it's refreshing to hear such high praise as well as usage recommendations. i've had this lens for probably around 18 months now and love it, but your video somehow made me feel even better about the purchase.
Really a very fine review, Dustin. I really appreciated your thoroughness and also the demonstration that an f/2.8 is an f/2.8 lens with respect to exposure, regardless of sensor size (no light meter has an input for sensor size, for example). I also found your comments about the price being reflective of the engineering and manufacturing challenges of a lens of this specification to be accurate and insightful, so props there, too. The majority of folks do not have a very good understanding that the price of a lens is dependent on it's _engineering specification,_ *not* the camera sensor size. Light microscope objectives are very small lenses that project very small image circles, but can cost tens of thousands of dollars, for example. Nor do the majority of folks understand the challenges, resources, effort, and cost it takes to manufacture a lens of this particular engineering specification, particularly an 8mm f/2.8 lens that is _perfectly rectilinear._ That is a significant engineering accomplishment. Having shot extensively with this lens, I find it to be superb, and in addition to the applications, you mentioned, it makes for an outstanding lens for real estate and architectural photography, as well. Cheers, Stephen.
@@DustinAbbottTWI Cheers, Dustin! And, boy, you can say that again. I come from a highly technical product development career in biotech (molecular biologist and Design for Six Sigma Master Black Belt), and used to teach my fellow scientists and engineers how to design, develop and manufacture complex products, from DNA Forensics tests used at crime scenes to DNA sequencers, how to "design in" quality & functionality into complex products. I've found the lay public knows very, very little about the considerable efforts in engineering, R&D, development and transfer to manufacturing that it takes to manufacture truly superior products. Raytheon, Allied Signal, and Honda Motor know how to do that. Fujifilm does, too. Cheers, Dustin.
@Phil Jones65 The transmittance is "fit for purpose" so while there may a statistically significant difference between the T stop and the F stop, there is not a practically significant one. And its practically significant differences that matter in the real world.
Really curious how this week compare to the Tamron 15 to 30 G to on my Nikon. I have currently bought a Fuji film XT5 and I’m using the 13 mm 1.4 which I really love but I want that ultra wide look….
How do you Control the Aperture from the Camera? I have two lenses with Aperture rings and I can't get the camera to change the aperture when the Lens is set to A. I changed the setting regarding to this in my X-T3 Menu but it haven't worked so far. From what I read online this can't be done from the camera when you have a lens with a Aperture Ring.
The recent price drop to $1500 USD is a great deal. The features and quality of this more premium red badge lens is phenomenal. I picked up last week and really have enjoyed the early usage of this lens.
If we take into consideration that a full frame sensor of the same generation will have roughly a 1 stop ISO advantage over its APSC counterpart, then we can directly compare this Fuji 2.8 lens to a full frame f4. The extra stop of light on the apsc lens would be canceled out by the extra stop ISO advantage of the full frame.
@@DustinAbbottTWI Not saying that you are wrong, the f2.8 apsc will gather more light than a FF f4 all else being equal. The point is that you could make up for that stop of light deficiency on FF by raising the ISO by 1 stop and still get similar results in terms of noise.
That will depend on the camera in question, which introduces nearly endless variables. My point is that this lens DOES have an advantage over an F4 lens designed for full frame and isn't the same from an engineering perspective.
Excellent review as always Dustin! Thank you so much for covering Fuji! My copy of this lens is coming next week and we will be taking it to the Andes it in just a few weeks. We will be making stills and movies documenting cycling in the Andes and we will also do some Astrophotography. Yes, FF noise levels would be great, yes, the autofocus during video might become annoying at times, but for hybrid shooting, the XT-3 delivers as few others can. Combined with the superb controls and the low price for the body, this makes for an amazing kit. Did I mention internal 10-bit 4K 60fps recording? The price for this lens is absolutely fair and almost a bargain. Now if only Sigma and Tamron would start making Fuji glass ... I would never look back at Canon. Greetings!
Seeing you include the Takumar in your test Dustin, what are some of the sharpest vintage lenses in your opinion for 50, 85, 135mm that compete with modern glass, wide open?
Most of the Takumars are pretty good, though I don't know of hardly any of them that are as corrected as today's best lenses. What many of them have, however, is great color and overall rendering. I'm a fan of some of the Helios/Jupiter lenses, too, and obviously a lot of classic Zeiss glass is very good.
Thanks for the video... Excellent content!! 👌🏽 With the astro comparison i actually liked how Fuji rendered the night sky with a slight blueish tint..Is this because of a difference in the color science, sensor?
I'm in Toronto 4-5 times a year. I've never really considered doing a workshop there, though it is doable. Best case scenario would be a local to host/organize the event. I do business with at least three major distributors in TO (Tamron, Sigma + Zeiss + Sony, and Fuji).
For exteriors yes, for interiors, you don't want to go that wide, because distortions will "lie" about real proportions of the space you're photographing. For interiors don go with wider than 20mm FF or 14mm on APS-C camera. Ideally, around 24mm FF or 16mm on APSC,
So, what you're saying is (I'm translating for who didn't understand ;) , that a f/2.8 on a crop sensor means more depth of field (less bokeh) compared to a full frame f/2.8. But does NOT mean loss of light, when the lens is designed for that size of sensor. Right?
That's essentially correct. An F2.8 aperture is the same size whether on a full frame or APS-C sensor camera. The sensor doesn't behave identically, but the amount of light that reaches the sensor isn't different.
Nothing have to be "designed" for anything. Any lens is the same in any sensor in terms of light gathering (Excluding of course focal reducers and teleconverters in between).
@@DustinAbbottTWI - The amount of light per unit area is the same, but the "amount of light that reaches the sensor" is different since the total amount of light is higher because the area is greater.
@@gregoryfricker9971 And this can be seen in the nightsky shot, where, while both show the same brightness, the sony image is cleaner (less noise). So the supposed lens advantage gets neglected by the camera it's mounted onto. So I would say this lens on it's system is equivalent to those 12-24 f4 on their own.
16:07 I initially heard it as "Zeiss Badass 40mm f2" and thoght the "Badass" was a compliment to the Zeiss'es IQ. :D BTW such naming would have been way more intertaining than those boring letters such as R LM WR =)))
Excellent video! Wanting a wide angle for events and concerts I was really on the fence between the new 10-24 and the 8-16. But having less distortion is a huge thing for the kind of stuff that I do. I will buy one :)
Dustin, here is the "correct" conversion from DX to FX. It should also take into account ISO as well. Typical DX sensors perform one stop worse than FX analogs. Focal length: multiply by 1.4 (one stop), e.g. 8mm --> 12mm Aperture: multiply by 1.4 (one stop), e.g. f/2.8 --> f/4 ISO: multiply by 2 (one stop), e.g. ISO 1600 --> ISO 3200 If you take one exposure on DX and another on FX with these conversions on a sensor from the same generation you should have very comparable results. So Fuji's XF 8-16mm F2.8 really establish parity with full frame 12-24 f/4 lenses.This is unlike Fuji's 16-55 f/2.8 which is NOT equivalent to the full frame classic 24-70 f/2.8, but is equivalent to 24-80 f/4. Great review as always.
I think I just got through demonstrating that this is not actually correct. You can do everything you just said in a vacuum and it makes sense, but this lens does NOT behave like an F4 lens (nor does any other APS-C lens on an APS-C camera) as I've visibly demonstrated.
@@DustinAbbottTWI I have to disagree. Let me make sure we are on the same page here. The idea of the conversion is based on the idea of getting visibly the same image using DX vs FX systems (same position, same shutter speed). #1. Focal length and aperture conversion. This is based on getting identical perspective AND identical depth of field. Here one has to refer to the depth of field calculators. I can get more into this, but let me assume that you agree with this. #2. ISO conversion. This is a consequence of using different apertures (one stop slower on FX). To compensate for this ISO has to be higher on FX. Conveniently, one stop is exactly the difference in low light performance between FX and DX. The comparison you made in the video DIDN'T use the above conversion. You used the same aperture and same ISO. You could not observe the difference in depth of filed in the night shot because of the working distances. Among the above bullets #1 is the most typical to be mentioned (people sometimes forget about aperture conversion). #2 is really a consequence of #1 and also conveniently takes care of the other discrepancy between DX vs FX low-light sensor performance.
After switching from Nikon to Fuji i didn't know which lens to buy for my real estate jobs,first option was the fuji 10-24,second samyang 12mm,third laowa 9mm and fourth this one... I found one Samyang 12mm brand new on ebay for £180 and was the best decision of my life,so small,light and sharp,im coming from lenses like Tamron 15-30 and Irix 11mm but i don't miss them...I'm sure is a fantastic lens but too big for my xt3 and £1800 i think is super overpriced even if you make this money from a wedding...I'll say fair price would be around £950 considering the laowa,samyang and fuji 10-24... Thanks Dustin
I think the little Samyang 12mm is a great lens. Sunstar is a little boring, and there is some lateral CA, but it is so sharp and has very nice close focus abilities.
I think you should update your methodology when it comes to Fuji lenses. Testing only post software correction doesn't make this review very comparable to your reviews for other systems. You could for example load the RAWs into another developer like C1 just to give the viewers a quick glance how the results look without the correction Adobe forces on us. I think this would be a fairer assessment for distortion and vignetting. And in this case maybe would have revealed that at 8mm this lens is basically a fish eye
I do debate with that myself, though the reality is that no one is going to see uncorrected results unless they specifically look for them, which makes examining them somewhat pointless.
@@DustinAbbottTWI i disagree. While I agree that most people look at corrected results understanding the corrections is really important for some types of photography. Vignetting correction for example comes with the drawback of higher noise (essentially higher ISOs) in the corner. This is really important for astrophotograpgy since under such extreme conditions it really makes a difference if you need another two stops of vignetting correction. To a lesser extend that also applies to distortion. Because it tells you if the corners can improve by stopping down or if distortion correction will always steal some corner sharpness
@@DustinAbbottTWI I know Fuji makes excellent lens and so far I am very happy with them...I was comparing it to my EF Tamron 15-30mm price of $1300 for a full frame which has similar built. I recently bought the XT3 and I am so happy I don't to go around with my heavy gear for a casual photography day. And still get beautiful images. Now, with all that said, I will continue to use my 5D4 for professional work. You just cannot go wrong with Canon. :)
Fair points. I too have the Tamron, but comparing a lens with a maximum focal length of 15mm to one with an equivalent focal length of 12mm is not a fair comparison. The requirements of engineering for 12mm and for 15mm are two very different things.
with so many people complaining about this lens's few shortcomings, it's refreshing to hear such high praise as well as usage recommendations. i've had this lens for probably around 18 months now and love it, but your video somehow made me feel even better about the purchase.
I'm glad to have helped out.
What an awesome review.
No fluff and straight to the point.
Thanks
You're welcome.
Really a very fine review, Dustin. I really appreciated your thoroughness and also the demonstration that an f/2.8 is an f/2.8 lens with respect to exposure, regardless of sensor size (no light meter has an input for sensor size, for example). I also found your comments about the price being reflective of the engineering and manufacturing challenges of a lens of this specification to be accurate and insightful, so props there, too. The majority of folks do not have a very good understanding that the price of a lens is dependent on it's _engineering specification,_ *not* the camera sensor size. Light microscope objectives are very small lenses that project very small image circles, but can cost tens of thousands of dollars, for example. Nor do the majority of folks understand the challenges, resources, effort, and cost it takes to manufacture a lens of this particular engineering specification, particularly an 8mm f/2.8 lens that is _perfectly rectilinear._ That is a significant engineering accomplishment. Having shot extensively with this lens, I find it to be superb, and in addition to the applications, you mentioned, it makes for an outstanding lens for real estate and architectural photography, as well. Cheers, Stephen.
Thanks, Stephen. It's nice when viewers "get it", as there are some lenses that the general audience doesn't "get".
@@DustinAbbottTWI Cheers, Dustin! And, boy, you can say that again. I come from a highly technical product development career in biotech (molecular biologist and Design for Six Sigma Master Black Belt), and used to teach my fellow scientists and engineers how to design, develop and manufacture complex products, from DNA Forensics tests used at crime scenes to DNA sequencers, how to "design in" quality & functionality into complex products. I've found the lay public knows very, very little about the considerable efforts in engineering, R&D, development and transfer to manufacturing that it takes to manufacture truly superior products. Raytheon, Allied Signal, and Honda Motor know how to do that. Fujifilm does, too. Cheers, Dustin.
@Phil Jones65 The transmittance is "fit for purpose" so while there may a statistically significant difference between the T stop and the F stop, there is not a practically significant one. And its practically significant differences that matter in the real world.
Excellent point as to why Fuji would make this lens. I’m glad they did. I continue to be impressed by Fuji glass.
Enjoy your lens
Can u make videos which gimbal is best for Fuji xt2 , xt3 and xt4 thanks
Really curious how this week compare to the Tamron 15 to 30 G to on my Nikon. I have currently bought a Fuji film XT5 and I’m using the 13 mm 1.4 which I really love but I want that ultra wide look….
I would say this lens has more distortion, but it also pretty similar to the 15-30 in many ways.
How do you Control the Aperture from the Camera? I have two lenses with Aperture rings and I can't get the camera to change the aperture when the Lens is set to A. I changed the setting regarding to this in my X-T3 Menu but it haven't worked so far. From what I read online this can't be done from the camera when you have a lens with a Aperture Ring.
If you have the aperture ring on A, it should work fine. That's been my experience. Make sure you are completely on "A" and not one click off.
Your videos have the best ASMR effect ever. Watch you every night to relax. :)
That's interesting. Glad to bring some peace into your life.
Amazing video. The fullframe to APS-C comparison is spot on! Well done!
Glad it was helpful!
Hi which gimbal u using for Fuji
My current gimbal of choice is the Zhiyun Crane 2S.
The recent price drop to $1500 USD is a great deal. The features and quality of this more premium red badge lens is phenomenal. I picked up last week and really have enjoyed the early usage of this lens.
The $500 price drop really changes the math on this lens, for sure.
Thank you Mr Abbott. Beautiful house.
Thank you
I sold my Canon 11-24 and looking forward for this lens after switching to Fuifilm. Thanks for the review!
Not quite as wide, but arguably more useful - and the faster aperture is a nice bonus.
Thank you Dustin. I m so proud That you are a Postor also. You are a Pastor and Earth Based. I like this combination. Best wishes from Switzerland.
Thank you, Volker
If we take into consideration that a full frame sensor of the same generation will have roughly a 1 stop ISO advantage over its APSC counterpart, then we can directly compare this Fuji 2.8 lens to a full frame f4. The extra stop of light on the apsc lens would be canceled out by the extra stop ISO advantage of the full frame.
Umm, I demonstrate that this argument is patently false in this review. That's just not true.
@@DustinAbbottTWI Not saying that you are wrong, the f2.8 apsc will gather more light than a FF f4 all else being equal. The point is that you could make up for that stop of light deficiency on FF by raising the ISO by 1 stop and still get similar results in terms of noise.
That will depend on the camera in question, which introduces nearly endless variables. My point is that this lens DOES have an advantage over an F4 lens designed for full frame and isn't the same from an engineering perspective.
Is there a way to fit this lens on a GFX 100?
Not to my knowledge.
So is that Takumar a radioactive or non-radioactive one? The IQ sure looks nice...
Radioactive.
great review and video...what tripod were u using? thanks
That's actually a Moza Air gimbal. you can find a review of it on my channel
Excellent review as always Dustin! Thank you so much for covering Fuji! My copy of this lens is coming next week and we will be taking it to the Andes it in just a few weeks. We will be making stills and movies documenting cycling in the Andes and we will also do some Astrophotography. Yes, FF noise levels would be great, yes, the autofocus during video might become annoying at times, but for hybrid shooting, the XT-3 delivers as few others can. Combined with the superb controls and the low price for the body, this makes for an amazing kit. Did I mention internal 10-bit 4K 60fps recording? The price for this lens is absolutely fair and almost a bargain. Now if only Sigma and Tamron would start making Fuji glass ... I would never look back at Canon. Greetings!
Yes, it would be great if Fuji got more third party (autofocus) support.
Thank you Dustin. Again GREAT video and GREAT information. Do you think it will be possible to test out the Mitakon 35 f0.95?
My immediate schedule is full, but we'll see for the future.
Seeing you include the Takumar in your test Dustin, what are some of the sharpest vintage lenses in your opinion for 50, 85, 135mm that compete with modern glass, wide open?
Most of the Takumars are pretty good, though I don't know of hardly any of them that are as corrected as today's best lenses. What many of them have, however, is great color and overall rendering. I'm a fan of some of the Helios/Jupiter lenses, too, and obviously a lot of classic Zeiss glass is very good.
Thanks for the video... Excellent content!! 👌🏽
With the astro comparison i actually liked how Fuji rendered the night sky with a slight blueish tint..Is this because of a difference in the color science, sensor?
I tend to cool night sky images a bit as I find it more pleasing.
Cheers Dustin ! THX from Toronto
Toronto is a great city for photography. Great looking buildings, the lake, and some great green spaces.
I'm in Toronto 4-5 times a year. I've never really considered doing a workshop there, though it is doable. Best case scenario would be a local to host/organize the event. I do business with at least three major distributors in TO (Tamron, Sigma + Zeiss + Sony, and Fuji).
And another one from Toronto. And I have the XF 8-16mm already, Great sale price on it at the moment.
Minus 25, luxury, “we would dream about living in that heat”. (Monty Python Yorkshireman sketch)
:)
Good for architecture?
Not bad. There's a bit of distortion at 8mm, but it didn't show up too badly.
For exteriors yes, for interiors, you don't want to go that wide, because distortions will "lie" about real proportions of the space you're photographing. For interiors don go with wider than 20mm FF or 14mm on APS-C camera. Ideally, around 24mm FF or 16mm on APSC,
@@DustinAbbottTWI I thought this lens was expensive because it's distortion-free?
Sure but how would this lens work with the crop at 4K 60? Think it’d be good to shoot video at 12-14 mm with the crop?
So, what you're saying is (I'm translating for who didn't understand ;) , that a f/2.8 on a crop sensor means more depth of field (less bokeh) compared to a full frame f/2.8. But does NOT mean loss of light, when the lens is designed for that size of sensor. Right?
That's essentially correct. An F2.8 aperture is the same size whether on a full frame or APS-C sensor camera. The sensor doesn't behave identically, but the amount of light that reaches the sensor isn't different.
Nothing have to be "designed" for anything. Any lens is the same in any sensor in terms of light gathering (Excluding of course focal reducers and teleconverters in between).
That’s not entirely true. The amount of light per unit area is the same but the larger sensor has more total light
@@DustinAbbottTWI - The amount of light per unit area is the same, but the "amount of light that reaches the sensor" is different since the total amount of light is higher because the area is greater.
@@gregoryfricker9971 And this can be seen in the nightsky shot, where, while both show the same brightness, the sony image is cleaner (less noise). So the supposed lens advantage gets neglected by the camera it's mounted onto. So I would say this lens on it's system is equivalent to those 12-24 f4 on their own.
16:07 I initially heard it as "Zeiss Badass 40mm f2" and thoght the "Badass" was a compliment to the Zeiss'es IQ. :D
BTW such naming would have been way more intertaining than those boring letters such as R LM WR =)))
LOL - I think you may not be the first to say that.
I wish this had OIS like the 10-24 (or 10-24 was WR) much like the lens on the other end the 50-140
It would be nice, particularly since so few Fuji bodies have IBIS
The new 10-24mm is now WR!
Excellent video! Wanting a wide angle for events and concerts I was really on the fence between the new 10-24 and the 8-16. But having less distortion is a huge thing for the kind of stuff that I do. I will buy one :)
Enjoy!
Dustin, here is the "correct" conversion from DX to FX. It should also take into account ISO as well.
Typical DX sensors perform one stop worse than FX analogs.
Focal length: multiply by 1.4 (one stop), e.g. 8mm --> 12mm
Aperture: multiply by 1.4 (one stop), e.g. f/2.8 --> f/4
ISO: multiply by 2 (one stop), e.g. ISO 1600 --> ISO 3200
If you take one exposure on DX and another on FX with these conversions on a sensor from the same generation you should have very comparable results.
So Fuji's XF 8-16mm F2.8 really establish parity with full frame 12-24 f/4 lenses.This is unlike Fuji's 16-55 f/2.8 which is NOT equivalent to the full frame classic 24-70 f/2.8, but is equivalent to 24-80 f/4.
Great review as always.
I think I just got through demonstrating that this is not actually correct. You can do everything you just said in a vacuum and it makes sense, but this lens does NOT behave like an F4 lens (nor does any other APS-C lens on an APS-C camera) as I've visibly demonstrated.
@@DustinAbbottTWI I have to disagree. Let me make sure we are on the same page here.
The idea of the conversion is based on the idea of getting visibly the same image using DX vs FX systems (same position, same shutter speed).
#1. Focal length and aperture conversion. This is based on getting identical perspective AND identical depth of field. Here one has to refer to the depth of field calculators. I can get more into this, but let me assume that you agree with this.
#2. ISO conversion. This is a consequence of using different apertures (one stop slower on FX). To compensate for this ISO has to be higher on FX. Conveniently, one stop is exactly the difference in low light performance between FX and DX.
The comparison you made in the video DIDN'T use the above conversion. You used the same aperture and same ISO. You could not observe the difference in depth of filed in the night shot because of the working distances.
Among the above bullets #1 is the most typical to be mentioned (people sometimes forget about aperture conversion). #2 is really a consequence of #1 and also conveniently takes care of the other discrepancy between DX vs FX low-light sensor performance.
After switching from Nikon to Fuji i didn't know which lens to buy for my real estate jobs,first option was the fuji 10-24,second samyang 12mm,third laowa 9mm and fourth this one... I found one Samyang 12mm brand new on ebay for £180 and was the best decision of my life,so small,light and sharp,im coming from lenses like Tamron 15-30 and Irix 11mm but i don't miss them...I'm sure is a fantastic lens but too big for my xt3 and £1800 i think is super overpriced even if you make this money from a wedding...I'll say fair price would be around £950 considering the laowa,samyang and fuji 10-24... Thanks Dustin
I think the little Samyang 12mm is a great lens. Sunstar is a little boring, and there is some lateral CA, but it is so sharp and has very nice close focus abilities.
I think you should update your methodology when it comes to Fuji lenses. Testing only post software correction doesn't make this review very comparable to your reviews for other systems.
You could for example load the RAWs into another developer like C1 just to give the viewers a quick glance how the results look without the correction Adobe forces on us.
I think this would be a fairer assessment for distortion and vignetting. And in this case maybe would have revealed that at 8mm this lens is basically a fish eye
I do debate with that myself, though the reality is that no one is going to see uncorrected results unless they specifically look for them, which makes examining them somewhat pointless.
@@DustinAbbottTWI i disagree. While I agree that most people look at corrected results understanding the corrections is really important for some types of photography.
Vignetting correction for example comes with the drawback of higher noise (essentially higher ISOs) in the corner. This is really important for astrophotograpgy since under such extreme conditions it really makes a difference if you need another two stops of vignetting correction.
To a lesser extend that also applies to distortion. Because it tells you if the corners can improve by stopping down or if distortion correction will always steal some corner sharpness
The focusing during video sounds almost identical to the Samyang 35mm f/2.8 FE lens during video. Kind of like an angry Geiger counter.
LOL @ your description :)
The only thing I don't like about this lens is its price. At $1500 is a little steep.
It is pricey. To be fair, though, a lens like this is expensive to develop and manufacture.
@@DustinAbbottTWI I know Fuji makes excellent lens and so far I am very happy with them...I was comparing it to my EF Tamron 15-30mm price of $1300 for a full frame which has similar built.
I recently bought the XT3 and I am so happy I don't to go around with my heavy gear for a casual photography day. And still get beautiful images. Now, with all that said, I will continue to use my 5D4 for professional work. You just cannot go wrong with Canon. :)
Fair points. I too have the Tamron, but comparing a lens with a maximum focal length of 15mm to one with an equivalent focal length of 12mm is not a fair comparison. The requirements of engineering for 12mm and for 15mm are two very different things.
I shoot Canon and Fuji...I ended up buying it for that price $1,499 since Canon (11-24 F4) is at $2,700.
The UK your looking at £1500 which for an Aps-c system is extortionate regardless of how good the lens is.
I just purchased this lens for $1,499...it's pretty sharp and good quality but...I'm having buyers remorse =(
And why is that?
@@DustinAbbottTWI I felt like I should've bought the 10 - 24?
If you are buying from a place you can return (or do a rental) and compare the two for yourself.
@@DustinAbbottTWI by the way, your house is so beatiful! 👍
@@lbcitylacounty90810 Thank you very much. We consider ourselves very blessed - we saved for many years before the build.