Thanks for a really useful review (as ever) Andy. I am an Aussie touring Europe and am lugging my XF 8-16mm and, to save weight, left my XT5 at home and have my XS10 which is a bit clunky but light and with excellent IQ. I have been praying for a Fuji 16mm shift lens for my architectural work since trading my heavy Canon with its 24mm and 17mm shifts and buying my first Fuji X camera, an XT2. The 8-16 does a great job in cathedrals etc but the 8mm is going to be so much more practical. I agree it is a shame that it is not f2.8 but I bet that would have needed to come with a significant weight and bulk gain. I think for astro f3.5 will be OK as the cameras now seem to cope with high ISOs that a couple of years ago we would only have dreamed of.
Andy, Thanks for all your advice on the 8mm. I bought it and after a week I realized, I am never using something this wide. I returned it and went to the WR version of the 10-24 which I had the non WR version years ago on my X-T3. Well, let me say on the X-T5 its very very good. I don't understand this idea that the lenses aren't good enough for the X-T5. As we discussed, I used the 16-80 and like that as well. Now the perfect setup for me is the 16-80 10-24 70-300. Can't go wrong with this setup and its light, effective and I'm leaving the Nikon at home most of the time.
Thanks for the comment. I think Fuji messed up a little in the way they presented the whole "optimised lens" thing...I get lots of emails from people who have the assumption that the non optimised lenses like the 10-24mm don't work well or aren't suitable for the 40mp sensor, when in fact all it means is that while they don't get the best out of the sensor, you'll still certainly get better resolution than you would with that lens on the X-T4. Like you I use the 10-24mm and 16-80mm on the XT5 all the time and I'm really happy with them
Great review and samples Andy. Thanks for that. I actually checked out your other suggestions and will go for the Nisi 9mm f/2.8. Half the price of the Fuji, better Focus and according to other reviews does very well too.
SHOULD BE FINE FOR ASTRO: f/3.5 in the wider 8mm focal length should be similar to f/2.8 in 9mm for astro, since sky objects move slower the wider the field of view gets. A longer shutter speed can be used to still keep stars as dots, not trails. Northern lights won't seem to move as fast.
Exactly my thoughts. I used a 12mm on FF with even 4.5 for my first Milky Way shots and it was pretty fine too. f3.5 is a good start especially if Astro is not your main field of photography but more like a "if I get a chance I shoot it" part.
@@AndyMumford I don't shoot Fuji X cameras - have been shooting Canon full frame - but discovered (and really appreciate) your channel since you're shooting the GFX 100S, which I'll be using my Canon EF lenses on soon (and one Nikon), mainly for landscape, but also for some astro. The ultimate combination for astro will likely be the best wide angle full frame lenses being shot on the 100S. But to do that, the built-in, petal shaped lens hoods need to be sawed off, which some camera repairmen will do, thankfully. Then we're no longer stuck in the severely limiting 3:2 aspect ratio, and can use more of the lens' image circle, for those that don't already vignette a lot in full frame, but they'll probably be a lot heavier than this little Fuji beauty, so wouldn't be practical to carry. If you're talking about the Laowa 9mm f/2.8 Zero-D, Photozone/Optical Limits in Germany shows it vignettes by 4 stops, which is the worst I remember seeing in any lens. It's also really soft in the edges wide open. Hopefully, this Fuji 9mm will do better than that, and it will cover more of the sky, which can often be very helpful in astro.
This lens was the reason I kept postponing the decision to get the 10-24. I’m still holding on to my Canon 10-18 + Fringer II since this setup really performs well, especially for video work, but the XF 8mm f/3.5 will complement amazingly well my Viltrox 13mm f/1.4 😃
@@AndyMumford I’m kind of ashamed to admit that I do have, perhaps too much wide angle lenses 😅 besides the ones stated on my comment, I also own the 16-80 and the 16 f/2.8. In my defense I use them all 😄
Thanks so much for the comment, glad you liked the video. I think for anyone who carries a mid range zoom (and so has the focal lengths from 16mm upwards covered) then this is a great lens to carry as a wide option instead of something like the 10-24mm
Very good review sir! Loved that you compared real life samples side by side with it's main competitors.Many thanks 👏👏 I just wondered how it perform against Xf14 and 12mm Samyang only for astrophotography purposes.
Thanks for the great review. I love ultrawide lenses and after leaving Canon full frame I was missing my 12-24 heavily, but the 8-16/2.8 is absolutely not an option - big, heavy and expensive as I would only need it for the 8mm. So this prime is exaclty what I want, since the manual ones are not a real option having several visual impairments (short and far sightened and other tiny problems), so AF is mandatory for me. And of course the image quality is just superb compared to the Nisi or Laowa, which would be the widest options otherwise. Astro on f3.5 "on occassion" should be pretty fine too. Thanks again and thanks for the really great "real life" pictures that resemble also my fields of photography.
Thanks for the comment, glad you enjoyed the video. Yeah, I think this feels like a good ultra wide option to replace something like the 8-16, as long as you don't mind not having f2.8. Astro is technically possible at f3,5 but every stop of aperture is one more stop of ISO, so just for that, I'd like it to be faster (although as I mentioned in the video, the light gathering capabilities across the whole frame aren't that dissimilar to the Laowa)
Always love your reviews and been looking at a ultra wide to compliment my 10-24mm. This could be the lens I look at. f3.5 seems pretty good for the width and could be a good lens to get. As always excellent video. Thanks
Great, clear, just-right review. Have retire before I can sign up for one of your trips. I think this is a great addition and hope to get this and so have a 8, 12, 18, 27, 33, 60, 70-300 XF kit. I would be very interested in a comparison between the Laowa 15mm on the GFX vs this 8mm on the X-T5… I would 16:01 like to have one camera system but now use both XF and GFX… feels like too many choices and cameras.
I give you the 500ths like and subscribe. I enjoyed your proper and fair review of the attractive Fujifilm 8 mm. The point that it’s just F3.5 will not effect the great quality in sharpness and colourbalance. So for me it is the missing standard for my x-t4. Love the compactness of this lens for streetphotography. THNX!
I was really hoping for a bit better minimum focus like the Laowa 9mm I already have. The Laowa is 12cm from sensor while the Fuji is 18cm. The autofocus would help a ton in crowds taking photos or in dances that are a bit fast paced manually focusing with the aperture wide
Hi Andy, I can see some of the pictures were taken with the XS20 and some with the 40 MP XT5. Would you say your very positive conclusion is only referring to the 26MP or also to the 40MP? Thanks a lot, Christian
I used the lens on both cameras, but tended towards the XS20 as I was reviewing that camera at the same time. However the lens is fantastic on the 40mp sensor, for which it’s optimized, and I’m currently using it on a trip with the XT5 and am very happy with it. It’s a high performing lens on any of the current X System line up
Great review Andy, thanks! Finally an UWA prime from Fuji. 8mm is extremely wide, though; would have preferred a 12mm 2.0 or 10mm 2.8. Guess I’ll hang on to my Samyang 12mm 2.0 AF for now….
Thanks for the video. Always great to hear your perspective Andy. I also wish it was an f/2.8, it would have been the perfect lens for nightsky shooting. Really interesting points about the lack of light falloff towards the edges, wouldn’t that make it equivalent to the Laowa 9mm in terms of astrophotography?
Thanks for the comment. Glad you enjoyed the review, and I agree that not being f2.8 was probably an opportunity missed. You saw the comparison with the Laowa at f2.8 in this video and the Laowa is certainly brighter in there centre (maybe half a stop) but considerably darker in the corners. Overall, I suspect the Fuji is getting more light across the frame BUT it's not going to be as bright in the middle, which is most likely where you'll have the milky way. The difference though is certainly less than one stop, so it might be worth it. I certainly would use it for aurora, which is generally much brighter than astro.
The lens is pretty much wider than anything else for the X-mount, besides the huge 8-16mm. With such a wide FOV you can use a longer shutter speed to 'freeze' the movement of the night sky (compared to longer lenses which are brighter).
Thanks for the on-point review. Looks like a lovely lens, and compact to boot! I think it would be OK for astro, especially given it’s sharpness wide open. Some of my favourite night-sky shots have been captured with the Samyang 8mm fisheye f/2.8. The wide field of view gives plenty of head-room with shutter speed while avoiding star-trailing, and I imagine this lens would be the same, making up for the lack of a fast max aperture. I can happily go up to 40 secs with the Samyang on my 24Mp X-pro2, although one might not get away with that on the 40Mp sensor. I might try one in the Autumn. (Night sky season is pretty much over here in the far north of Scotland just now!)
Great fan of your reviews. This one also amazing as usual. Expecting to see a review on Sigma 10-18 for Fuji. And a comparison of wide angle lenses options for Fuji. (Fuji 8mm, Tamron, SIgma )
Thanks so much. I won’t be able to make a comparison like that unfortunately as I’d have to buy the Tamron and Sigma, and it doesn’t make sense to buy them both. I’ll probably just get the Sigma, and if I still have the 8mm (I’m borrowing it at the moment) I’ll be able to compare it with that and the 10-24mm
Thanks for the comment. The 8mm on it's on lacks the flexibility of the 10-24mm, so you lose the ability to shoot less wide, but if you have something like the 16-80, 16-55 or 15-55 then I think it will work as a replacement
Nice overview, some impressive shots of yours in it. Reminds me of my Sigma 8-16 zoom back in the day, which was amazing and frustrating at the same time. When you nail a shot it's like nothing else, but it's just so hard to wrap my head around 8mm ultrawide. Guess i'll pass on this one, although your example pictures at least forced me to put it on the nice to have some day list.
Thanks for the comment, and I'm glad you liked the video. Yeah, ultra wide like this is a challenge, and requires a lot of elements to work together. I took it hiking and came back with lots of shots where almost half of the frame was just empty blue sky.
I noticed in the treated image at 8:00, you were getting some gulleys, or white trim at the edges of things. I see it on the top of the upper black umbrella near the 30 sign. Now, I've spent mucho time cleaning this kind of stuff up from my jpegs shot with a pocket Canon Elph 310 years after I shot them, and did retouch for a living for many years at a custom lab. So, thank god for the dark tool setting on the copy and paste tool...But the shot has to be important to work on it. Have to say that Topaz Photo AI turned a lot of those 12 meg files into 30 meg files. (Even after getting rid of that layer it gives them)
Hi Andy. Thanks for the video. XF 10-24 OIS WR versatile and looks the same in corners. Having OIS seems to be an advantage for photos and videos as well.
Thanks for the comment. If the 10-24mm looked the same in the corners I think that must be down to YT compression, because there's a significant difference. OIS shouldn't make any difference here as all those images were shot on a tripod with a cable release.
I agree, they look the same. YT compression would affect both lenses equally, so if 8mm was way sharper we would be able to see that. I own 10-24 and XH2s and I must say it's very sharp from corner to corner. From f5.6 to 11 it's super sharp and I can't tell any difference. From f16 up it's getting a bit softer. If anyone wants to see I have a Google Drive folder with some test shots.. jpgs and raw. All straight from the camera, hand held, unedited drive.google.com/drive/folders/1oNqPJXSdfVQgBTJl92G7XT7xTs4ohckd?usp=sharing
Andy, great review!! Yes, we all wish it was a little faster. What about the Zeiss 12mm f/2.8 for astrophotography? I haven't tried the Zeiss, although I'm thinking about it. Do you have any experience with the Zeiss? In the end, I might end up getting both the Fuji 8mm and the Zeiss 12mm for their different strengths...
Thanks for the comment Gerald. I haven't actually tried the Zeiss and have heard and read very little about it's performance, so I can't comment on it. Just to add to the mix, there's also the Tamron 11-20 f2.8 now as well. I haven't tried it yet, but probably will at some point
The field of view between these 2 lenses is so huge. The wider lens will allow you to use a longer shutter speed in astro, so the 2/3 stop advantage will be gone.
I recently purchased the Laowa 9mm and have been quite disappointed by the vignetting, which is on the order of two stops difference in the corners. Stopping down to f8 or f11 doesn't remove the problem. I am really interested in the new Fuji 8mm as it seems to expose far more evenly across the from. Thank you for this direct comparison!
great review andy, but when you compare the lenses, in my opinion the fuji 8mm looks very bright and more color accurate...i think the final review is to field test it and do astrophotography and compare the results, thanks again!
Thanks for the comment. The Fuji is certainly more colour accurate....it's noticeable when you see it compared side by side, and the brightness across the frame is impressive. Even the GF20-35 vignettes a little wide open, and that's a $2500 lens
Hi Andy..thanks. I have the 8-16mm and it's phenomenal lens. NISI make a filter kit too and it's good. I also have the Viltrox 13mm 1.4 too ...i dint understand how it couldn't have been 2.8 or even 1.8. But I'm glad they have released an ultra wide lens.
Thanks for the comment. I have mixed feelings about the 8-16 as its an undeniably brilliant lens, but it's massive! To put it into context, the GF20-35, an ultra wide zoom for the GFX, is smaller and lighter, despite having to cover a sensor 4 times larger and has a similar build and level of image quality. The 8-16mm is a tiny bit wider and faster, but I'm pretty sure that if Fuji redesigned it today they could make it a smaller lens. There are filter kits, but they're also big and cumbersome, and you lose the ease of just being able to screw on a polariser or ND in a couple of seconds. As for this lens...I mean, I'm sure they must have considered making it f2.8, but for some reason chose not too. It's an odd decision and a pity, because I think it's an opportunity missed.
Andy I agree with you, if they at least made it 2.8 I would consider buying it, for 300 euro I bought a 9mm nisi, is perfect but manual focus, is 2.8 and makes sunstars from F/2.8 which is a deal in low light cityscape Photography. In the end Nisi offers much more for less money, Nisi continues to share my work on IG and i will continue to use that lens ❤ 8-16mm has good IQ but is the enemy of the landscape photographer, too big, too heavy, dedicated filters, not fast enough for flawless milkyway shots. IQ difference with 10-24mm close to zero if you use any AI algorithm to emphasize sharpness on the 10-24mm
Your last point is spot on here! And most Fuji photographers I talked to agree with that. They would have made a beast of a lens at f2.8. But it would have shadowed the 8-16mm, so this is a pure commercial decision and has nothing to do with consumers' need. Otherwise, thanks for the video!
I'm not so sure about that - pretty much every prime that Fuji make is at a focal length that's also covered by a zoom. People buy both the 16mm f2.8 prime as well as the 16-55mm f2.8 zoom, and that same 16mm prime is also covered by the other end of the 8-16mm f2.8 zoom as well as the 16-80mm, so there's no reason why 8mm should be a special focal length that Fuji don't want to replicate in a prime. Especially given that there are quite a few 3rd party options out there - it's better to cannibalise your own sales than have a competitor do it. It's more likely that Fuji had a set of requirements about image quality, cost and size/weight, and this gave them the best results across those 3 criteria.
Very well done and detailed review you made and beautiful photos you taken despite having just one week 'deadline' to coincide with Fuji X summit announcement. I owned Viltrox 13mm f1.4 lens and decided to just hold on from selling it to upgrade to the new 8mm f3.5 for now. The new 8mm lens is so tempting but the thoughts of having to still fork out a few hundreds dollar more after selling my viltrox lens only to get f3.5 seems not feasible. I am just a hobbyist photographer, not even pro. The viltrox 13mm is already good enough (in fact waayy good enough!) for me to capture wide angle scenery
Thanks for the comment. The Viltrox is an excellent lens and if you're happy with it then there's no need to change. It's probably an easier lens to use than the 8mm as well...13m is a nice focal length and 8mm does have it's limitations
I'm going to get one and shoot some Milky Way cores and long exposure astro shots and report back, because I bet we can still get some amazing stuff with this, not to mention all star trackers out there will be happy to know this weighs so little, its so practical and hiking-friendly cmpared to the bazooka the 8-16 is
@@AndyMumford After some testing out in the wilds, it performs remarkably well. There is no chroma smearing wide open at 3.5, and little to no star distortion. You can do up to 13s of exposure at ISO800 (X-T5) before getting star trails/smearing. The biggest two things I found challenging are compositions, since it is so wide you get a ton of environment to plot around, and secondly the lens flares considerably, even from the moon, even if the light source is perpendicular to the lens, you'll still get quite sizeable flares happening in your frame. I would not shoot with this lens without it's hood, and with any light sources being behind you at least. But I still really enjoyed its performance, focusing was quick and easy, and I bet it performs even better with a star tracker. For something like Auroras and Milky Way cores, it'd be insanely fun to shoot with.
I didn't get to try to the new app, but I was just talking with someone from Fuji Portugal who showed it to me, and from what I can see, the speed of connection is really nice. I've heard about the geo tagging features, but not seen it in action
@@AndyMumford thanks. The old app was so so for connection and transfer. Not sure any Camera manufacturer has really nailed a good app. So this could be Fuji time to shine! I often find the map feature in lightroom useful for Drone images and wished to have same functionality from my camera. So if this works smoothly and can keep connected all day to record geo data then it will be a big win for me.
Hi Andy, another great video (liked) and long time subscriber here. I guess you don’t still have a copy of the 8-16 mm to compare against the 8 mm end? I bought this after your excellent comparison with the 10-24. The 8-16 is big and heavy, but my goodness, it is a truly fine lens! I’ve just had four days in Florence where I carried my xt-4 around wit the 8-16, the wonderful new 18, the amazing new 33 and the new 56 (which I have n’t spent enough time with yet. I took the fabulous 90mm with me but it did n’t leave the hotel room, and the 16-55 (?) f2.8, stayed at home and I think I’ll sell because the new primes is this range are so good. I might get new 8 mm to eventually pair with an Xe-5 as part of a small set up, and now I’ve seen the review of the new Leica Q3 and I won’t be buying that, I have more cash to spend on Fuji gear :-)
Thanks for the comment, glad you enjoyed the videos. It's been so long since I used the 8-16 that I really don't think I can offer any fair comparison.
For years, I was hoping Fuji would make a 12mm at 2.0 or 2.8. But now it is a moot point for me. I have the Laowa 9mm, but often it is too wide…. and the vignetting. (My next lens up in focal length is the Fuji 16/2.8). Based upon great reviews and focal length coverage and light weight, I’ve ordered the Sigma 10-18mm and am waiting for it to arrive. I already have Sigma’s 18-50mm and am happy with that, especially for the size/weight. I’ve had the Fuji 55-200mm since it was new and am happy with it, but I might change to the 70-300 for its several advantages. For my backpack, it’s a nice set of small zooms: Sigma 10-18, Sigma 18-50, and Fuji 55-200 or 70-300. Are you still carrying just the 10-24 and 55-200 for most of the time? How often do you add the 8mm or 9mm or 12mm prime? Same question for 35mm prime to fill the gap? Thanks for your honest and well made reviews!
Thanks Andy for this really interesting review in the real world.. as always ! Do you plan to compare it to the 8-16, which I own and love, at 8mm, as it’s the sole Fuji lens that wide ?
Pretty sure. The 8mm was pre-launch and so Lightroom won't have the lens adjustment profile yet. Besides, it's pretty much the only wide angle lens I've seen with such a clear image across the frame. The GF20-35mm (on the GFX) still has some light fall off and that's with the lens adjustment profile
Hey Andy - thanks for the excellent review ! .. I am concidering buying this lense soon (as a wedding photographer) - indeed the Astrophotography is not my field of photography - but I do shoot couples sometime with burst of stars etc. - my question now - why do you think, with the F3.5 it wouldnt been an option compared to the 2.8 ? .. I mean, I would need only a little bit more time (shutter speed) to compensate .. but what you mean, is that the stars than get these "shifted stars" effect, is that right? .. Thanks for your answer!
Thanks for the comment. For astro with a wide angle lens, you really don't want to shoot longer than 20 seconds or the stars start to blur. It's also nice to avoid shooting wide open if you can as lenses are often a little softer wide open, so in real terms you'd be using this lens at f4 for astro, which means a very high ISO. f2.8 is really the outer limit and you're better with an f1.4 or 1.8.
Thanks for sharing. Not enough content in this lens right now. If I can make one criticism… every time you set your hands down on the table there’s an audible “thunk” in the audio. It may not be noticeable on mobile, but using bass heavy earbuds and on a home theatre system for large screen viewing, it is quite obvious and distracting.
Thanks Andy, often you comment on your plans for the lens. Will you take it along on some of your trips? I love the idea of this lens but feel like I would still need the 10-24 for its range.
I think this lens will probably replace the 10-24mm on any trip I make where I'm taking a mid range zoom as well. With the 16 to 80, you just have a gap between 8 and 16, but in my experience with the 10-24, I shoot most stuff either at 10 or 24mm, so I don't think I'd miss that gap.
Complimenti belle foto . Sono un fotoamatore uso Fuji XH1 e come grandangolare il 14 f2.8 ottimo peccato non WR . Questo 8mm f 3.5 credo sarà il prossimo acquisto 👋👋.
Great review, thank you. As an amateur landscape photographer, if I already own the xf 10-24mm, what benefits are there to get the 8mm? Would it be worth it?
Thanks for the comment. The benefits are relatively small...there's slightly better image performance, and the fact that it's smaller and lighter, but you lose the flexibility of a zoom. For me, I tend to use the 10-24 either at 10mm or 24mm 95% of the time, so if I have a 16-55 or 16-80 with me, then the 8mm will replace the 10-24 and be small and lighter, and so less to carry
Merci beaucoup pour cette review , j'attendais cette avis avant de l'acheter, mais vu son prix je préfères le Nisi 9mm f2,8 car moins cher, plus lumineux et proche en performance.
Hi Andy, I’m currently shooting with an X-T3 body and have an interest in shooting pano’s, so I have a question. Current wide lens is the 14 2.8 and for wider frame the 10-24 XF zoom. As I’ll be shooting at 16x9 format, what would your thoughts be on trying one of the 9mm Ultra Wides available, the Fuji 8mm is out of my reach. Geoff Howard
I've tried both the NiSi 9mm and Laowa 9mm, and neither really impressed me that much. I am very curious about the new Sigma 10-18mm f2.8 which is light, small and really affordable, so I'll be trying that out soon. I would wait for the reviews of that lens to come in (it's out next week so they'll start appearing then) and then decide
Hi Andy, Thanks for your response, though I think you may have misread. I already own the 10-24 & the 14mm lenses, What I wondered was, would 9mm add any extra width that would be worth the outlay, but your comment suggests 'no', so I think it will be the zoom for the angle of view while the 14 if the speed is required. Again, many thanks. I think, save the cost and use it towards the T5 body.@@AndyMumford
Great review and I put a lot of weight behind your opinion. As an architectural photographer I'll put one on order, especially as I sold the 8-16 a couple of years ago for the reason you state: it is so large as to be impractical but I have missed the 8mm (12mm equiv) fov. There is one thing which intrigues me. I've never done astrophotography, what is the obsession with f2.8 vs slower aperture lenses? Does half a stop really make that much difference?
Thanks so much for the comment, and for me this is a great lens to replace the 8-16mm if you pair it with something like the 16-55 or 16-80. With astrophotography light levels are very low and too get the milky way to show up you need to get as much light onto the sensor as possible. However, your shutter time is limited because anything longer than 15 or 20 seconds (it depends on the focal length) and the stars will move and be recorded as small trails (like a curved dash) rather than a point. So because your shutter speed is limited your two factors are aperture and ISO. The higher the ISO, the more noise, so a faster aperture means you can shoot with a lower ISO and get a cleaner image. Typically for astro your ISO will start at around 3600 or 5000, even with f2.8, and so every half a stop you lose of aperture needs to be regained by adding to the ISO, increasing the noise. To be honest, f2.8 is already at the edge for shooting astro, f2 or f1,4 (on the Viltrox for example) are better, so while it's possible with an f3,5 lens, you're going to be shooting at a higher ISO than is really preferable, even if it's just half a stop.
@@AndyMumford Interesting and thanks for explaining. Although it may not be too wide, I'd think of using my 18f1.4 if I had to do astro. It is a shame that Fuji can't give us a refresh of the 14 with a f2 or f1.8. I'd like that just for landscape let alone astro.
So is this lens part of the optimized for 40megapixel sensor lens? the samyang/rokinon 12mm is so bad on the XT5 for me, worked fine on the older sensor, so this might be a good option if it is "optimized"
When you were comparing lenses for vignetting, did you have lens corrections in Lightroom disabled? So that the software would not pick up automatically built-in lens corrections that are applied by the camera via lens profile? Or via Lightroom itself via its own lens profile?
It’s a pre launch lens so Lightroom doesn’t have the lens info to calibrate it yet. It’ll come in the next LR update. But even so, I’m interested in how the lens performs in the real world and comparing the outputs I’d actually get from the lens when shooting. I’d never turn off lens correction in LR for my actual photography and so I’m not really interested in how a lens performs without it.
@@AndyMumford If LR doesn't have a lens profile there will be a manufacturer lens profile embedded in the raw file usually, or applied in camera to the generated TIFF or JPEG files (which cannot be undone, of course). The resaon I'm asking about this, is that the vignetting you see in the other lenses can also be corrected in post, one just has to do it manually and it won't be as accurate. The more vignetting needs to be corrected, the more noise there will be in corners. That's why personally I do see value in comparing how much vignetting there is before lens corrections are applied: it gives an indication of how much more noise can be expected in corners. I hope my explanation is clear enough! 🙂
Ciao Andy, nice one I was waiting for your review as I enjoy your style, how do you feel this tiny beast in comparison with the 8-16? I know don’t keep it and that dimensionally and weight wise the 8mm wins but in you opinion given previous images with the 8-16? Initially I was reluctant but having seen the first samples (not all bc some samples are really……hum… s…..) I’m thinking about trading the 8-16 and the nisi filter kit for this especially bc I think it could be the best uwa xompanion to the viltrox 13mm that is a beast of a lens and really the go-to lens in the dolomites (imho) thank you so much Cheers
Thanks for the comment. It's been so long since I used the 8-16mm that I can't honestly give any idea of how they compare. For the size and weight of this though, and the fact that you don't need a massive filter kit, I think this a fantastic alternative. Even if it's not as sharp as the 8-16, I suspect the difference is very small
@@AndyMumford thank you so much. I’ll probably give it a try. If you still have it, the lens hood bayonet of this 8mm is equal to the 18mm? So the hood are compatible? I know that the lens hood of the 18mm is too long but it’s for a specific purpose
Not to nit pick but you said the Laowa was 1 stop brighter and you thought it was 1/2 stop difference. 2.8 to 3.5 is actually 2/3 of a stop which is close to what you suspected the difference is. Great video Andy! I am on the fence here. Just got back in to the Fuji system as a primary camera with the X-T5 and am torn on wide angle lenses. Being a Nikon Z7 shooter (razor sharp, contrasty and almost perfect glass), I am always a little disappointed in the glass coming from Fuji. Most of their lenses start to fall apart at 40 MP but I understand they are correcting all of this over time. I’m just waiting on a replacement for the 16-80 (my favorite lens) that actually fully holds up to this new sensor. Fingers crossed! I’d shoot the GFX to get the amazing glass but I don’t want the weight or the lack of range in the focal lengths. One of the reasons I am so excited about the Fuji system moving to 40 MP is that I can leave the Z7 and its heavy lenses at home and carry a lightweight system that still allows me to make large prints without AI or some other technology to fudge the resolution to be usable in a large print. But back to this range of lens, I’d sure love a refresh on the 10-24 that actually brings its resolution up to the new sensor. That would be great. I’m worried that with the 8mm 3.5 I will be missing such a huge range of focal lengths that I will regret the purchase. Any thoughts on this too long and rambling post? 😊
Thanks for the comment. To be honest I don't really feel the same way about the Fuji glass at 40mp and shoot with the 10-24 and 16-80 on the XT5 quite often. Admittedly I can't compare it with the Z7 as I haven't use it, but I do also shoot with the GFX, and while there is obviously an increase in quality, you would expect a $2500 lens in a medium format 100mp sensor to be better than an $800 lens like the 10-24mm. However, when I want to go light I'm happy to go with the XT5 and the lenses I mentioned above. I think in your case the 8mm would be a great idea along with something like the 16-55mm as I don't think you miss the range between the two lenses that much.
@@AndyMumford Thanks for the reply! I of course said that about fuji glass but I also shoot with the 16-80 regularly and frankly love it. I did get back in to the Fuji gear because I love the light weight and versatility. I only really see much of a difference between the Nikon and Fuji on prints over 17x22. With careful sharpening I can do a 24 inch print without too much trouble. I also have to say I love the way the Fuji cameras function. They just make sense to me. Thinking about my comments, I think I do worry a bit too much about the absolute resolution abilities. IF I want something ultra sharp, I need to just put up with the weight and size of the Nikon setup just as you said about the GFX gear. And about the 10-24, when I had that lens a few years ago I really did enjoy it and wonder if I would regret using it on the X-T5 but as you said, the 8mm might just be the ticket.
@@AndyMumford Just received the 8mm and though its very wide (Widest I have shot with is 14 on 35mm) and the image quality out of this lens is pretty astounding. Happy for your advice Andy!
I’ve tried… tried… and tried… to like and use super wide angle lenses. I have the XF 10-24, I have the 12 mm rokinon f2.8, I even have the Laowa 17 mm f4 for the GFX… and I just don’t use them… ever! I just can’t get interesting images from the wide angle aspect. The GFX lens is course awesome for indoors shots, but beyond that limited use case, I find it difficult to re-commit to wide angles.
It's definitely an acquired taste. I know A LOT of photographers who never shoot wider than 16mm (on the APS-C, so 24mm equivalent) and I completely understand that. I wasn't aware of a Laowa 17mm f4 for the GFX. I have a Laowa 19mm f2.8, which is OK, but like most Laowa lenses, isn't as bright as it's supposed to be and vignettes. 17mm on the GFX is incredibly wide..it would be something like a 13mm equivalent.
When I used to shoot weddings (a long long time ago) I used to really enjoy using the Nikon 17-35mm f2.8. It can be challenging compositionally, but it also created some of my favourite images.
800 is a good price, but i was hoping for more like 600. The 8-16 is fantastic, but i guess the R WR steps this lens up a price point instead of being a budget version like an XC lens. I've been using the laowa 9mm but it's just not sharp enough for me, unless you really stop down, and the manual focus can be somewhat annoying if you are trying to take close-up photos. But most of the time just leave it locked near Infinity. Mine focuses past infinity though which is annoying. I'm guessing this lens probably wouldn't have that problem. The big benefit though of the laowa is how tiny it is. I wasn't even going to bring it on my trip to Japan, but I carried it around in my backpack for a month because I simply couldn't not pack it, yes I can take ultra wide photos with my phone, but with the camera it's awesome as well. I definitely got some shots that made it worth bringing because of how small and unintrusive it is.
I think for the quality of the lens, the price is pretty much fair enough...the brightness across the frame is very impressive. I have the GF20-35mm and that vignettes a little wide open, and that's a $2500 lens. It really is a step above the Laowa, and as you say, focusing with that was always fussy. It is a bit bigger though
Great review! Question: Do you still have this lens in your possession, and if so, would you be willing to sell it to me? I bought a bad copy and yours looks almost perfect. Thank you.
Good video thanks for sharing your thoughts. It's just that I think you place too much value on the maximum aperture. F3.5 is an "in between" stop between F2.8 and F4 so that's just half an exposure value less than F2.8
Thanks for the comment. The thing about maximum aperture is that for people who shoot astro or aurora, every half stop matters because you can't get that extra half stop of light by increasing shutter time (it blurs the stars) so it has to go on ISO, which increases noise..even if only half a stop.
@@AndyMumford Fair enough, but if you have to lighten the corners in post processing because a lens vignettes heavily, you will get increased noise too...
All these astro and landscape comments are fine for that crowd, but I'm guessing that a major target market will be vloggers who want a walk-and-talk lens to use on all the X-S20s Fuji is hoping they'll buy. Those people need a light, compact lens that will be easy to balance, and the half-stop difference between f/2.8 and f/3.5 is completely trivial to them (and to most other users, tbh…) I figure Fujifilm has pretty much hit the bulls-eye for that use case.
Well I'm a landscape photographer, so I'll always look at any piece of equipment from that perspective. I did wonder if Fuji saw this as a vlogging lens, especially as it's launched with the XS20, which they're marketing heavily towards vlogging, but personally I think it's a bit too wide, and for that they'd have been better off updating the 14mm. Most vlogging cameras aren't quite so wide if you look at things like an iPhone or DJI Pocket 2...8mm is going to give a lot of distortion of the arm holding the camera and you're head will be quite small in the frame. This video was shot at around 14mm with the camera only a little more than an arm length away from me, and you can see it's really wide.
As you say - 8mm is very wide and it makes you wonder if they could have made it f2.8 had they made the lens 9 or 10mm - it would still have been pretty wide
I've wondered this a lot myself. Obviously they'll have explored the possibilty and at some point rejected it. We'll never know why, but I suspect it's a combination of wanting to keep the size, weight and cost down, and maintain the high quality. The lack of vignetting really is impressive. Even the GF20-35mm vignettes a little wide open and that's a $2500 lens
Not really. The comparison makes no sense unless you're comparing what you actually get in your final image output. In real world shooting it would make no sense for anyone to shoot with the camera profiles turned off, so why compare an image like that?
I'm surprised why so many people wish it was F2.8 instead of F3.5 ! The majority of people will buy this for landscape, architecture or interiors - not Astro. I bought it for real estate interiors to compliment my 16-55, and it's amazing. I believe it's overpriced though - it should be closer to 600 than 800 based on the value of other Fuji lenses. However, compared to the system I used before, XF lenses cost significantly less.
I think its because all of the third party lenses in the same focal length are at least f2.8. The Rokkinon 12mm is f2, the Viltrox 13mm is f1.4, and the NiSi and Laowa 9mm are f2.8. Most landscape photographers at some point will want to shoot either astro or aurora, and every half stop matters in reducing noise
Yeah, I guess it was a combination of optical quality x size and weight x price, and to make it this sharp at f2.8 would have necessitated it being bigger, heavier and more expensive
Thanks for a really useful review (as ever) Andy. I am an Aussie touring Europe and am lugging my XF 8-16mm and, to save weight, left my XT5 at home and have my XS10 which is a bit clunky but light and with excellent IQ. I have been praying for a Fuji 16mm shift lens for my architectural work since trading my heavy Canon with its 24mm and 17mm shifts and buying my first Fuji X camera, an XT2. The 8-16 does a great job in cathedrals etc but the 8mm is going to be so much more practical. I agree it is a shame that it is not f2.8 but I bet that would have needed to come with a significant weight and bulk gain. I think for astro f3.5 will be OK as the cameras now seem to cope with high ISOs that a couple of years ago we would only have dreamed of.
Thanks for the comment. At some point I'd like to try it with astro...it'll certainly work for aurora
Very detailed review, with some fabulous images. I hope you’re well, Andy.
Thanks for the comment Peter, glad you enjoyed the review. All well here
Thanks for introducing the new Fuji lens. 🙏👍👍👍
Thanks for the comment, glad you enjoyed the video
Excellent review Andy. Thank you
Thanks for the comment David, glad you enjoyed the review
Andy, Thanks for all your advice on the 8mm. I bought it and after a week I realized, I am never using something this wide. I returned it and went to the WR version of the 10-24 which I had the non WR version years ago on my X-T3. Well, let me say on the X-T5 its very very good. I don't understand this idea that the lenses aren't good enough for the X-T5. As we discussed, I used the 16-80 and like that as well. Now the perfect setup for me is the 16-80 10-24 70-300. Can't go wrong with this setup and its light, effective and I'm leaving the Nikon at home most of the time.
Thanks for the comment. I think Fuji messed up a little in the way they presented the whole "optimised lens" thing...I get lots of emails from people who have the assumption that the non optimised lenses like the 10-24mm don't work well or aren't suitable for the 40mp sensor, when in fact all it means is that while they don't get the best out of the sensor, you'll still certainly get better resolution than you would with that lens on the X-T4. Like you I use the 10-24mm and 16-80mm on the XT5 all the time and I'm really happy with them
Bought this lens your pod cast made the decision easier, thank you!
Thanks for the comment, glad the video was useful. Enjoy the lens
Solid review. Very informative, thanks.
Thanks for the comment, glad it was useful
Thanks Andy. I've been thinking about getting a super-wide lens for my XT-4 that's small, light and practical. This one looks ideal. Great review.
Thanks for the comment, glad you found it useful
0:22 stunning photo! A great capture!
Thanks so much 🙏
@@AndyMumford I feel the same about that photo, where is it? Dolomites or outside of Europe?
Great review and samples Andy. Thanks for that. I actually checked out your other suggestions and will go for the Nisi 9mm f/2.8. Half the price of the Fuji, better Focus and according to other reviews does very well too.
Have fun with it
You’ve been asking for this for a while haven’t you. I cannot wait to get my hands on it to compliment my xt2 and XH2
Yeah, I've been curious about this for a while. Have fun with it
SHOULD BE FINE FOR ASTRO:
f/3.5 in the wider 8mm focal length should be similar to f/2.8 in 9mm for astro, since sky objects move slower the wider the field of view gets. A longer shutter speed can be used to still keep stars as dots, not trails. Northern lights won't seem to move as fast.
Exactly my thoughts. I used a 12mm on FF with even 4.5 for my first Milky Way shots and it was pretty fine too. f3.5 is a good start especially if Astro is not your main field of photography but more like a "if I get a chance I shoot it" part.
@@DanysNet And those of us that use a tracker don't really care about shutter speed. This lens will fit right into my nightscape usage.
Indeed, and in comparing it with the Laowa f2.8, I'm not at all convinced that the Laowa has one more stop of light gathering capability
@@AndyMumford I don't shoot Fuji X cameras - have been shooting Canon full frame - but discovered (and really appreciate) your channel since you're shooting the GFX 100S, which I'll be using my Canon EF lenses on soon (and one Nikon), mainly for landscape, but also for some astro. The ultimate combination for astro will likely be the best wide angle full frame lenses being shot on the 100S. But to do that, the built-in, petal shaped lens hoods need to be sawed off, which some camera repairmen will do, thankfully. Then we're no longer stuck in the severely limiting 3:2 aspect ratio, and can use more of the lens' image circle, for those that don't already vignette a lot in full frame, but they'll probably be a lot heavier than this little Fuji beauty, so wouldn't be practical to carry.
If you're talking about the Laowa 9mm f/2.8 Zero-D, Photozone/Optical Limits in Germany shows it vignettes by 4 stops, which is the worst I remember seeing in any lens. It's also really soft in the edges wide open.
Hopefully, this Fuji 9mm will do better than that, and it will cover more of the sky, which can often be very helpful in astro.
Interesting point thanks =)
What these wides make me think of is those fashion pics from the 60's, with those tall skinny models shot from the ground up.
haha, that's a very specific thing to be reminded of...
Thanks, Andy, very helpful!
Thanks for the comment, glad the review was useful
Hi Andy, so will you pick viltrox 13mm f1.4 or 8mm f3.5 for your next trip?
It really depends on the trip. If I know I'm going to shoot astro then the Viltrox, for any other trip then the 8mm
@@AndyMumford is there a scenario for you that 13mm is not wide enough for you?
Hello, Thanks for the info and your insights.
Thanks for the comment, glad you enjoyed the video
This lens was the reason I kept postponing the decision to get the 10-24. I’m still holding on to my Canon 10-18 + Fringer II since this setup really performs well, especially for video work, but the XF 8mm f/3.5 will complement amazingly well my Viltrox 13mm f/1.4 😃
This is a lovely lens and I reckon I think if you've got something like the Viltrox 13mm or the XF16-55 or 16-80, you probably don't need the 10-24mm
@@AndyMumford I’m kind of ashamed to admit that I do have, perhaps too much wide angle lenses 😅 besides the ones stated on my comment, I also own the 16-80 and the 16 f/2.8. In my defense I use them all 😄
Very interesting. I'm looking at the Fringer II with Canon lenses. What Fuji camera body are you using, if you don't mind my asking? Thanks!
Excited. A small, wide angle prime. I would much rather carry this around than one of the zooms.
Thanks for the Video.
Thanks so much for the comment, glad you liked the video. I think for anyone who carries a mid range zoom (and so has the focal lengths from 16mm upwards covered) then this is a great lens to carry as a wide option instead of something like the 10-24mm
Very good review sir! Loved that you compared real life samples side by side with it's main competitors.Many thanks 👏👏 I just wondered how it perform against Xf14 and 12mm Samyang only for astrophotography purposes.
Thanks for the comment....unfortunately I don't have the Samyang nor the 14mm to compare it against.
@@AndyMumford it's alright I know that I asked too much 😀
Thanks for this review! Coming to Lisbon and Madeira in late August… may bring this for landscape in Madeira 😊
Enjoy your time in my city. I hope you like hot weather because Lisbon can be an oven in August
Looks like a nice lens, could be an addition to my kit. thanks for sharing.
Thanks for the comment
Thanks for the great review. I love ultrawide lenses and after leaving Canon full frame I was missing my 12-24 heavily, but the 8-16/2.8 is absolutely not an option - big, heavy and expensive as I would only need it for the 8mm. So this prime is exaclty what I want, since the manual ones are not a real option having several visual impairments (short and far sightened and other tiny problems), so AF is mandatory for me.
And of course the image quality is just superb compared to the Nisi or Laowa, which would be the widest options otherwise. Astro on f3.5 "on occassion" should be pretty fine too.
Thanks again and thanks for the really great "real life" pictures that resemble also my fields of photography.
Thanks for the comment, glad you enjoyed the video. Yeah, I think this feels like a good ultra wide option to replace something like the 8-16, as long as you don't mind not having f2.8. Astro is technically possible at f3,5 but every stop of aperture is one more stop of ISO, so just for that, I'd like it to be faster (although as I mentioned in the video, the light gathering capabilities across the whole frame aren't that dissimilar to the Laowa)
Always love your reviews and been looking at a ultra wide to compliment my 10-24mm. This could be the lens I look at. f3.5 seems pretty good for the width and could be a good lens to get. As always excellent video. Thanks
Thanks for the comment, glad you enjoyed the video
Great, clear, just-right review. Have retire before I can sign up for one of your trips. I think this is a great addition and hope to get this and so have a 8, 12, 18, 27, 33, 60, 70-300 XF kit.
I would be very interested in a comparison between the Laowa 15mm on the GFX vs this 8mm on the X-T5…
I would 16:01 like to have one camera system but now use both XF and GFX… feels like too many choices and cameras.
Thanks for the comment, glad you enjoyed the video
I give you the 500ths like and subscribe. I enjoyed your proper and fair review of the attractive Fujifilm 8 mm. The point that it’s just F3.5 will not effect the great quality in sharpness and colourbalance. So for me it is the missing standard for my x-t4. Love the compactness of this lens for streetphotography. THNX!
Thanks so much for the comment, and for subscribing. Much appreciated
Hi Andy, many thanks! It will be mine as soon as it will be available in Italy!!!
Enjoy it
Thank you for a nice review, Andy. You need a boom arm for your mic, it picks up your hand gestures from the table.
Thanks for the comment. Boom is on the to-do list
Lisbon. Really one of my favourite cities.
Indeed, it's a lovely city...a lot busier than it used to be, but there's nowhere else I'd prefer to live
I was really hoping for a bit better minimum focus like the Laowa 9mm I already have. The Laowa is 12cm from sensor while the Fuji is 18cm. The autofocus would help a ton in crowds taking photos or in dances that are a bit fast paced manually focusing with the aperture wide
The autofocus is certainly a lot easier than trying to use the manual focus on the Laowa quickly
How do you manage to get 12cm away from dancers. Must be very intimate shots.
Hi Andy, I can see some of the pictures were taken with the XS20 and some with the 40 MP XT5. Would you say your very positive conclusion is only referring to the 26MP or also to the 40MP? Thanks a lot, Christian
I used the lens on both cameras, but tended towards the XS20 as I was reviewing that camera at the same time. However the lens is fantastic on the 40mp sensor, for which it’s optimized, and I’m currently using it on a trip with the XT5 and am very happy with it. It’s a high performing lens on any of the current X System line up
Great review Andy, thanks! Finally an UWA prime from Fuji. 8mm is extremely wide, though; would have preferred a 12mm 2.0 or 10mm 2.8. Guess I’ll hang on to my Samyang 12mm 2.0 AF for now….
Thanks for the comment. I'm hoping that we get something like that when they eventually update the 14mm
Thanks for the review of the fuji 8mm.What astro lense do you recommend ? Have been using the fuji 10-24 mm.
Thanks so much for the comment. I use the Viltrox 13mm f1.4 for astro photography
@@AndyMumford Thanks for the heads up you've save me about AU$700
Thanks for the video. Always great to hear your perspective Andy. I also wish it was an f/2.8, it would have been the perfect lens for nightsky shooting.
Really interesting points about the lack of light falloff towards the edges, wouldn’t that make it equivalent to the Laowa 9mm in terms of astrophotography?
Thanks for the comment. Glad you enjoyed the review, and I agree that not being f2.8 was probably an opportunity missed.
You saw the comparison with the Laowa at f2.8 in this video and the Laowa is certainly brighter in there centre (maybe half a stop) but considerably darker in the corners. Overall, I suspect the Fuji is getting more light across the frame BUT it's not going to be as bright in the middle, which is most likely where you'll have the milky way. The difference though is certainly less than one stop, so it might be worth it. I certainly would use it for aurora, which is generally much brighter than astro.
The lens is pretty much wider than anything else for the X-mount, besides the huge 8-16mm. With such a wide FOV you can use a longer shutter speed to 'freeze' the movement of the night sky (compared to longer lenses which are brighter).
Thanks for the on-point review. Looks like a lovely lens, and compact to boot! I think it would be OK for astro, especially given it’s sharpness wide open. Some of my favourite night-sky shots have been captured with the Samyang 8mm fisheye f/2.8. The wide field of view gives plenty of head-room with shutter speed while avoiding star-trailing, and I imagine this lens would be the same, making up for the lack of a fast max aperture. I can happily go up to 40 secs with the Samyang on my 24Mp X-pro2, although one might not get away with that on the 40Mp sensor.
I might try one in the Autumn. (Night sky season is pretty much over here in the far north of Scotland just now!)
Thanks for the comment Mark. I'd have liked to have tried it for astro, but there's not really much chance of that where I live
Great fan of your reviews. This one also amazing as usual. Expecting to see a review on Sigma 10-18 for Fuji. And a comparison of wide angle lenses options for Fuji. (Fuji 8mm, Tamron, SIgma )
Thanks so much. I won’t be able to make a comparison like that unfortunately as I’d have to buy the Tamron and Sigma, and it doesn’t make sense to buy them both. I’ll probably just get the Sigma, and if I still have the 8mm (I’m borrowing it at the moment) I’ll be able to compare it with that and the 10-24mm
Really nice review. Do you suggest this 8mm instead of 10-24mm for real estate photography?
Thanks for the comment. The 8mm on it's on lacks the flexibility of the 10-24mm, so you lose the ability to shoot less wide, but if you have something like the 16-80, 16-55 or 15-55 then I think it will work as a replacement
Nice overview, some impressive shots of yours in it. Reminds me of my Sigma 8-16 zoom back in the day, which was amazing and frustrating at the same time. When you nail a shot it's like nothing else, but it's just so hard to wrap my head around 8mm ultrawide. Guess i'll pass on this one, although your example pictures at least forced me to put it on the nice to have some day list.
Thanks for the comment, and I'm glad you liked the video. Yeah, ultra wide like this is a challenge, and requires a lot of elements to work together. I took it hiking and came back with lots of shots where almost half of the frame was just empty blue sky.
@@AndyMumford Sounds about right 😄
I noticed in the treated image at 8:00, you were getting some gulleys, or white trim at the edges of things. I see it on the top of the upper black umbrella near the 30 sign. Now, I've spent mucho time cleaning this kind of stuff up from my jpegs shot with a pocket Canon Elph 310 years after I shot them, and did retouch for a living for many years at a custom lab. So, thank god for the dark tool setting on the copy and paste tool...But the shot has to be important to work on it. Have to say that Topaz Photo AI turned a lot of those 12 meg files into 30 meg files. (Even after getting rid of that layer it gives them)
The images here have been compressed into the 4k timeline of the video and then compressed again for RUclips. Topaz do make good software though
Hi Andy. Thanks for the video. XF 10-24 OIS WR versatile and looks the same in corners. Having OIS seems to be an advantage for photos and videos as well.
Thanks for the comment. If the 10-24mm looked the same in the corners I think that must be down to YT compression, because there's a significant difference. OIS shouldn't make any difference here as all those images were shot on a tripod with a cable release.
I agree, they look the same. YT compression would affect both lenses equally, so if 8mm was way sharper we would be able to see that. I own 10-24 and XH2s and I must say it's very sharp from corner to corner. From f5.6 to 11 it's super sharp and I can't tell any difference. From f16 up it's getting a bit softer. If anyone wants to see I have a Google Drive folder with some test shots.. jpgs and raw. All straight from the camera, hand held, unedited drive.google.com/drive/folders/1oNqPJXSdfVQgBTJl92G7XT7xTs4ohckd?usp=sharing
@@soundtempleAU i am not a pixel peeper but the difference was night and day in the video as well. you can't tell the difference at minute 11:28?
yeah there's a bit, you right@@bosiefoobar
Andy, great review!! Yes, we all wish it was a little faster. What about the Zeiss 12mm f/2.8 for astrophotography? I haven't tried the Zeiss, although I'm thinking about it. Do you have any experience with the Zeiss? In the end, I might end up getting both the Fuji 8mm and the Zeiss 12mm for their different strengths...
Thanks for the comment Gerald. I haven't actually tried the Zeiss and have heard and read very little about it's performance, so I can't comment on it. Just to add to the mix, there's also the Tamron 11-20 f2.8 now as well. I haven't tried it yet, but probably will at some point
The field of view between these 2 lenses is so huge. The wider lens will allow you to use a longer shutter speed in astro, so the 2/3 stop advantage will be gone.
@@AndyMumford Thank you Andy, I will also keep the Tamron lens in mind.
@@opalyankaBG Thank you Yoan!! Yes, the 8mm is very much wider than the 12mm. Thank you for the reminder, it's much appreaciated.
@@gvz1538 No problem :) Don't forget about the Samyang 12mm f/2 as well, it's another good lens for astro.
I recently purchased the Laowa 9mm and have been quite disappointed by the vignetting, which is on the order of two stops difference in the corners. Stopping down to f8 or f11 doesn't remove the problem. I am really interested in the new Fuji 8mm as it seems to expose far more evenly across the from. Thank you for this direct comparison!
Thanks for the comment, glad you enjoyed the video
great review andy, but when you compare the lenses, in my opinion the fuji 8mm looks very bright and more color accurate...i think the final review is to field test it and do astrophotography and compare the results, thanks again!
Thanks for the comment. The Fuji is certainly more colour accurate....it's noticeable when you see it compared side by side, and the brightness across the frame is impressive. Even the GF20-35 vignettes a little wide open, and that's a $2500 lens
Hi Andy..thanks. I have the 8-16mm and it's phenomenal lens. NISI make a filter kit too and it's good. I also have the Viltrox 13mm 1.4 too ...i dint understand how it couldn't have been 2.8 or even 1.8. But I'm glad they have released an ultra wide lens.
Thanks for the comment. I have mixed feelings about the 8-16 as its an undeniably brilliant lens, but it's massive! To put it into context, the GF20-35, an ultra wide zoom for the GFX, is smaller and lighter, despite having to cover a sensor 4 times larger and has a similar build and level of image quality. The 8-16mm is a tiny bit wider and faster, but I'm pretty sure that if Fuji redesigned it today they could make it a smaller lens. There are filter kits, but they're also big and cumbersome, and you lose the ease of just being able to screw on a polariser or ND in a couple of seconds.
As for this lens...I mean, I'm sure they must have considered making it f2.8, but for some reason chose not too. It's an odd decision and a pity, because I think it's an opportunity missed.
Andy I agree with you, if they at least made it 2.8 I would consider buying it, for 300 euro I bought a 9mm nisi, is perfect but manual focus, is 2.8 and makes sunstars from F/2.8 which is a deal in low light cityscape Photography. In the end Nisi offers much more for less money, Nisi continues to share my work on IG and i will continue to use that lens ❤
8-16mm has good IQ but is the enemy of the landscape photographer, too big, too heavy, dedicated filters, not fast enough for flawless milkyway shots. IQ difference with 10-24mm close to zero if you use any AI algorithm to emphasize sharpness on the 10-24mm
Your last point is spot on here! And most Fuji photographers I talked to agree with that. They would have made a beast of a lens at f2.8.
But it would have shadowed the 8-16mm, so this is a pure commercial decision and has nothing to do with consumers' need.
Otherwise, thanks for the video!
I'm not so sure about that - pretty much every prime that Fuji make is at a focal length that's also covered by a zoom. People buy both the 16mm f2.8 prime as well as the 16-55mm f2.8 zoom, and that same 16mm prime is also covered by the other end of the 8-16mm f2.8 zoom as well as the 16-80mm, so there's no reason why 8mm should be a special focal length that Fuji don't want to replicate in a prime. Especially given that there are quite a few 3rd party options out there - it's better to cannibalise your own sales than have a competitor do it. It's more likely that Fuji had a set of requirements about image quality, cost and size/weight, and this gave them the best results across those 3 criteria.
@@AndyMumford good points. Then let's hope they finally come up with a wide prime that opens at 2.8.
Very interesting review. Have you tested the Meike 10mm f2?
I haven't, no
Very well done and detailed review you made and beautiful photos you taken despite having just one week 'deadline' to coincide with Fuji X summit announcement. I owned Viltrox 13mm f1.4 lens and decided to just hold on from selling it to upgrade to the new 8mm f3.5 for now. The new 8mm lens is so tempting but the thoughts of having to still fork out a few hundreds dollar more after selling my viltrox lens only to get f3.5 seems not feasible. I am just a hobbyist photographer, not even pro. The viltrox 13mm is already good enough (in fact waayy good enough!) for me to capture wide angle scenery
Thanks for the comment. The Viltrox is an excellent lens and if you're happy with it then there's no need to change. It's probably an easier lens to use than the 8mm as well...13m is a nice focal length and 8mm does have it's limitations
I'm going to get one and shoot some Milky Way cores and long exposure astro shots and report back, because I bet we can still get some amazing stuff with this, not to mention all star trackers out there will be happy to know this weighs so little, its so practical and hiking-friendly cmpared to the bazooka the 8-16 is
Curious to know how you got on
@@AndyMumford going to Pinnacles National Park this weekend in CA for some testing and Bortle 2 skies 👍
@@AndyMumford After some testing out in the wilds, it performs remarkably well. There is no chroma smearing wide open at 3.5, and little to no star distortion. You can do up to 13s of exposure at ISO800 (X-T5) before getting star trails/smearing. The biggest two things I found challenging are compositions, since it is so wide you get a ton of environment to plot around, and secondly the lens flares considerably, even from the moon, even if the light source is perpendicular to the lens, you'll still get quite sizeable flares happening in your frame. I would not shoot with this lens without it's hood, and with any light sources being behind you at least. But I still really enjoyed its performance, focusing was quick and easy, and I bet it performs even better with a star tracker. For something like Auroras and Milky Way cores, it'd be insanely fun to shoot with.
Great to get your feedback Andy, did you get to try the new app and its geo logging features?
I didn't get to try to the new app, but I was just talking with someone from Fuji Portugal who showed it to me, and from what I can see, the speed of connection is really nice. I've heard about the geo tagging features, but not seen it in action
@@AndyMumford thanks. The old app was so so for connection and transfer. Not sure any Camera manufacturer has really nailed a good app. So this could be Fuji time to shine! I often find the map feature in lightroom useful for Drone images and wished to have same functionality from my camera. So if this works smoothly and can keep connected all day to record geo data then it will be a big win for me.
Hi Andy, another great video (liked) and long time subscriber here. I guess you don’t still have a copy of the 8-16 mm to compare against the 8 mm end? I bought this after your excellent comparison with the 10-24. The 8-16 is big and heavy, but my goodness, it is a truly fine lens! I’ve just had four days in Florence where I carried my xt-4 around wit the 8-16, the wonderful new 18, the amazing new 33 and the new 56 (which I have n’t spent enough time with yet. I took the fabulous 90mm with me but it did n’t leave the hotel room, and the 16-55 (?) f2.8, stayed at home and I think I’ll sell because the new primes is this range are so good. I might get new 8 mm to eventually pair with an Xe-5 as part of a small set up, and now I’ve seen the review of the new Leica Q3 and I won’t be buying that, I have more cash to spend on Fuji gear :-)
Thanks for the comment, glad you enjoyed the videos. It's been so long since I used the 8-16 that I really don't think I can offer any fair comparison.
For years, I was hoping Fuji would make a 12mm at 2.0 or 2.8. But now it is a moot point for me. I have the Laowa 9mm, but often it is too wide…. and the vignetting. (My next lens up in focal length is the Fuji 16/2.8). Based upon great reviews and focal length coverage and light weight, I’ve ordered the Sigma 10-18mm and am waiting for it to arrive. I already have Sigma’s 18-50mm and am happy with that, especially for the size/weight. I’ve had the Fuji 55-200mm since it was new and am happy with it, but I might change to the 70-300 for its several advantages. For my backpack, it’s a nice set of small zooms: Sigma 10-18, Sigma 18-50, and Fuji 55-200 or 70-300. Are you still carrying just the 10-24 and 55-200 for most of the time? How often do you add the 8mm or 9mm or 12mm prime? Same question for 35mm prime to fill the gap? Thanks for your honest and well made reviews!
Thanks for the comment. I'm looking at the Sigma too, it looks almost too good to be true
Thanks Andy for this really interesting review in the real world.. as always ! Do you plan to compare it to the 8-16, which I own and love, at 8mm, as it’s the sole Fuji lens that wide ?
Thanks for the comment. I don't actually have the 8-16 to compare it to or I would have done, as I think it's an interesting comparison
Nice review- regarding lack of light falloff wide open - are you sure LR wasn’t automatically applying a baked in lens adjustment profile?
Pretty sure. The 8mm was pre-launch and so Lightroom won't have the lens adjustment profile yet. Besides, it's pretty much the only wide angle lens I've seen with such a clear image across the frame. The GF20-35mm (on the GFX) still has some light fall off and that's with the lens adjustment profile
thx Andy
Thanks for the comment
Hey Andy - thanks for the excellent review ! .. I am concidering buying this lense soon (as a wedding photographer) - indeed the Astrophotography is not my field of photography - but I do shoot couples sometime with burst of stars etc. - my question now - why do you think, with the F3.5 it wouldnt been an option compared to the 2.8 ? .. I mean, I would need only a little bit more time (shutter speed) to compensate .. but what you mean, is that the stars than get these "shifted stars" effect, is that right? .. Thanks for your answer!
Thanks for the comment. For astro with a wide angle lens, you really don't want to shoot longer than 20 seconds or the stars start to blur. It's also nice to avoid shooting wide open if you can as lenses are often a little softer wide open, so in real terms you'd be using this lens at f4 for astro, which means a very high ISO. f2.8 is really the outer limit and you're better with an f1.4 or 1.8.
Thanks for sharing. Not enough content in this lens right now.
If I can make one criticism… every time you set your hands down on the table there’s an audible “thunk” in the audio.
It may not be noticeable on mobile, but using bass heavy earbuds and on a home theatre system for large screen viewing, it is quite obvious and distracting.
Thanks for the comment, glad you found the video useful
Thanks Andy, often you comment on your plans for the lens. Will you take it along on some of your trips? I love the idea of this lens but feel like I would still need the 10-24 for its range.
I think this lens will probably replace the 10-24mm on any trip I make where I'm taking a mid range zoom as well. With the 16 to 80, you just have a gap between 8 and 16, but in my experience with the 10-24, I shoot most stuff either at 10 or 24mm, so I don't think I'd miss that gap.
@@AndyMumford Hmm, the 8mm with 16-80 and 70-300 would make quite a trio.
Complimenti belle foto . Sono un fotoamatore uso Fuji XH1 e come grandangolare il 14 f2.8 ottimo peccato non WR . Questo 8mm f 3.5 credo sarà il prossimo acquisto 👋👋.
Thanks for the comment, glad you enjoyed the review
Great review, thank you. As an amateur landscape photographer, if I already own the xf 10-24mm, what benefits are there to get the 8mm? Would it be worth it?
Thanks for the comment. The benefits are relatively small...there's slightly better image performance, and the fact that it's smaller and lighter, but you lose the flexibility of a zoom. For me, I tend to use the 10-24 either at 10mm or 24mm 95% of the time, so if I have a 16-55 or 16-80 with me, then the 8mm will replace the 10-24 and be small and lighter, and so less to carry
Thank you Andy. Less to carry is nice, less weight is better for the back 😁
How does this 8mm work for group photos in a tight space?
Merci beaucoup pour cette review , j'attendais cette avis avant de l'acheter, mais vu son prix je préfères le Nisi 9mm f2,8 car moins cher, plus lumineux et proche en performance.
Hi Andy,
I’m currently shooting with an X-T3 body and have an interest in shooting pano’s, so I have a question. Current wide lens is the 14 2.8 and for wider frame the 10-24 XF zoom. As I’ll be shooting at 16x9 format, what would your thoughts be on trying one of the 9mm Ultra Wides available, the Fuji 8mm is out of my reach.
Geoff Howard
I've tried both the NiSi 9mm and Laowa 9mm, and neither really impressed me that much. I am very curious about the new Sigma 10-18mm f2.8 which is light, small and really affordable, so I'll be trying that out soon. I would wait for the reviews of that lens to come in (it's out next week so they'll start appearing then) and then decide
Hi Andy, Thanks for your response, though I think you may have misread. I already own the 10-24 & the 14mm lenses, What I wondered was, would 9mm add any extra width that would be worth the outlay, but your comment suggests 'no', so I think it will be the zoom for the angle of view while the 14 if the speed is required. Again, many thanks. I think, save the cost and use it towards the T5 body.@@AndyMumford
Great review and I put a lot of weight behind your opinion. As an architectural photographer I'll put one on order, especially as I sold the 8-16 a couple of years ago for the reason you state: it is so large as to be impractical but I have missed the 8mm (12mm equiv) fov.
There is one thing which intrigues me. I've never done astrophotography, what is the obsession with f2.8 vs slower aperture lenses? Does half a stop really make that much difference?
Thanks so much for the comment, and for me this is a great lens to replace the 8-16mm if you pair it with something like the 16-55 or 16-80.
With astrophotography light levels are very low and too get the milky way to show up you need to get as much light onto the sensor as possible. However, your shutter time is limited because anything longer than 15 or 20 seconds (it depends on the focal length) and the stars will move and be recorded as small trails (like a curved dash) rather than a point. So because your shutter speed is limited your two factors are aperture and ISO. The higher the ISO, the more noise, so a faster aperture means you can shoot with a lower ISO and get a cleaner image. Typically for astro your ISO will start at around 3600 or 5000, even with f2.8, and so every half a stop you lose of aperture needs to be regained by adding to the ISO, increasing the noise. To be honest, f2.8 is already at the edge for shooting astro, f2 or f1,4 (on the Viltrox for example) are better, so while it's possible with an f3,5 lens, you're going to be shooting at a higher ISO than is really preferable, even if it's just half a stop.
@@AndyMumford Well one could take the plunge with a star tracker and then you could shoot the 10-24mm at f4 Thanks for a very useful review
@@AndyMumford Interesting and thanks for explaining. Although it may not be too wide, I'd think of using my 18f1.4 if I had to do astro. It is a shame that Fuji can't give us a refresh of the 14 with a f2 or f1.8. I'd like that just for landscape let alone astro.
So is this lens part of the optimized for 40megapixel sensor lens? the samyang/rokinon 12mm is so bad on the XT5 for me, worked fine on the older sensor, so this might be a good option if it is "optimized"
It's not stated directly, and I'm not even sure where the list is online anymore, but it's a safe assumption that all new lenses will be.
When you were comparing lenses for vignetting, did you have lens corrections in Lightroom disabled? So that the software would not pick up automatically built-in lens corrections that are applied by the camera via lens profile? Or via Lightroom itself via its own lens profile?
It’s a pre launch lens so Lightroom doesn’t have the lens info to calibrate it yet. It’ll come in the next LR update.
But even so, I’m interested in how the lens performs in the real world and comparing the outputs I’d actually get from the lens when shooting. I’d never turn off lens correction in LR for my actual photography and so I’m not really interested in how a lens performs without it.
@@AndyMumford If LR doesn't have a lens profile there will be a manufacturer lens profile embedded in the raw file usually, or applied in camera to the generated TIFF or JPEG files (which cannot be undone, of course).
The resaon I'm asking about this, is that the vignetting you see in the other lenses can also be corrected in post, one just has to do it manually and it won't be as accurate.
The more vignetting needs to be corrected, the more noise there will be in corners.
That's why personally I do see value in comparing how much vignetting there is before lens corrections are applied: it gives an indication of how much more noise can be expected in corners.
I hope my explanation is clear enough! 🙂
Ciao Andy, nice one I was waiting for your review as I enjoy your style, how do you feel this tiny beast in comparison with the 8-16? I know don’t keep it and that dimensionally and weight wise the 8mm wins but in you opinion given previous images with the 8-16? Initially I was reluctant but having seen the first samples (not all bc some samples are really……hum… s…..) I’m thinking about trading the 8-16 and the nisi filter kit for this especially bc I think it could be the best uwa xompanion to the viltrox 13mm that is a beast of a lens and really the go-to lens in the dolomites (imho) thank you so much
Cheers
Thanks for the comment. It's been so long since I used the 8-16mm that I can't honestly give any idea of how they compare. For the size and weight of this though, and the fact that you don't need a massive filter kit, I think this a fantastic alternative. Even if it's not as sharp as the 8-16, I suspect the difference is very small
@@AndyMumford thank you so much. I’ll probably give it a try. If you still have it, the lens hood bayonet of this 8mm is equal to the 18mm? So the hood are compatible? I know that the lens hood of the 18mm is too long but it’s for a specific purpose
Not to nit pick but you said the Laowa was 1 stop brighter and you thought it was 1/2 stop difference. 2.8 to 3.5 is actually 2/3 of a stop which is close to what you suspected the difference is. Great video Andy! I am on the fence here. Just got back in to the Fuji system as a primary camera with the X-T5 and am torn on wide angle lenses. Being a Nikon Z7 shooter (razor sharp, contrasty and almost perfect glass), I am always a little disappointed in the glass coming from Fuji. Most of their lenses start to fall apart at 40 MP but I understand they are correcting all of this over time. I’m just waiting on a replacement for the 16-80 (my favorite lens) that actually fully holds up to this new sensor. Fingers crossed! I’d shoot the GFX to get the amazing glass but I don’t want the weight or the lack of range in the focal lengths. One of the reasons I am so excited about the Fuji system moving to 40 MP is that I can leave the Z7 and its heavy lenses at home and carry a lightweight system that still allows me to make large prints without AI or some other technology to fudge the resolution to be usable in a large print. But back to this range of lens, I’d sure love a refresh on the 10-24 that actually brings its resolution up to the new sensor. That would be great. I’m worried that with the 8mm 3.5 I will be missing such a huge range of focal lengths that I will regret the purchase. Any thoughts on this too long and rambling post? 😊
Thanks for the comment. To be honest I don't really feel the same way about the Fuji glass at 40mp and shoot with the 10-24 and 16-80 on the XT5 quite often. Admittedly I can't compare it with the Z7 as I haven't use it, but I do also shoot with the GFX, and while there is obviously an increase in quality, you would expect a $2500 lens in a medium format 100mp sensor to be better than an $800 lens like the 10-24mm. However, when I want to go light I'm happy to go with the XT5 and the lenses I mentioned above.
I think in your case the 8mm would be a great idea along with something like the 16-55mm as I don't think you miss the range between the two lenses that much.
@@AndyMumford Thanks for the reply! I of course said that about fuji glass but I also shoot with the 16-80 regularly and frankly love it. I did get back in to the Fuji gear because I love the light weight and versatility. I only really see much of a difference between the Nikon and Fuji on prints over 17x22. With careful sharpening I can do a 24 inch print without too much trouble. I also have to say I love the way the Fuji cameras function. They just make sense to me. Thinking about my comments, I think I do worry a bit too much about the absolute resolution abilities. IF I want something ultra sharp, I need to just put up with the weight and size of the Nikon setup just as you said about the GFX gear. And about the 10-24, when I had that lens a few years ago I really did enjoy it and wonder if I would regret using it on the X-T5 but as you said, the 8mm might just be the ticket.
@@AndyMumford Just received the 8mm and though its very wide (Widest I have shot with is 14 on 35mm) and the image quality out of this lens is pretty astounding. Happy for your advice Andy!
I’ve tried… tried… and tried… to like and use super wide angle lenses. I have the XF 10-24, I have the 12 mm rokinon f2.8, I even have the Laowa 17 mm f4 for the GFX… and I just don’t use them… ever! I just can’t get interesting images from the wide angle aspect. The GFX lens is course awesome for indoors shots, but beyond that limited use case, I find it difficult to re-commit to wide angles.
It's definitely an acquired taste. I know A LOT of photographers who never shoot wider than 16mm (on the APS-C, so 24mm equivalent) and I completely understand that. I wasn't aware of a Laowa 17mm f4 for the GFX. I have a Laowa 19mm f2.8, which is OK, but like most Laowa lenses, isn't as bright as it's supposed to be and vignettes. 17mm on the GFX is incredibly wide..it would be something like a 13mm equivalent.
Thanks for the great review. The f3.5 is a unfortunately a deal breaker for me.
Thanks for the comment. Indeed, it's a shame it doesn't have a faster aperture
I really want this lens as a wedding and event photographer. F3.5 is not a deal breaker for me at all.
When I used to shoot weddings (a long long time ago) I used to really enjoy using the Nikon 17-35mm f2.8. It can be challenging compositionally, but it also created some of my favourite images.
@~15:20, the difference between f3.5 and f2.8 is 1/2 stop, not 1 stop. 1 stop from f2.8 would be f4.0. Not a big deal though. Subscribed.
Thanks for the sub
I wish you would compare to the 8-16
I don't have one. If you have a copy you want to lend me, I'd happily do a comparison 😉
800 is a good price, but i was hoping for more like 600. The 8-16 is fantastic, but i guess the R WR steps this lens up a price point instead of being a budget version like an XC lens.
I've been using the laowa 9mm but it's just not sharp enough for me, unless you really stop down, and the manual focus can be somewhat annoying if you are trying to take close-up photos. But most of the time just leave it locked near Infinity. Mine focuses past infinity though which is annoying. I'm guessing this lens probably wouldn't have that problem.
The big benefit though of the laowa is how tiny it is. I wasn't even going to bring it on my trip to Japan, but I carried it around in my backpack for a month because I simply couldn't not pack it, yes I can take ultra wide photos with my phone, but with the camera it's awesome as well. I definitely got some shots that made it worth bringing because of how small and unintrusive it is.
I think for the quality of the lens, the price is pretty much fair enough...the brightness across the frame is very impressive. I have the GF20-35mm and that vignettes a little wide open, and that's a $2500 lens. It really is a step above the Laowa, and as you say, focusing with that was always fussy. It is a bit bigger though
Great review! Question: Do you still have this lens in your possession, and if so, would you be willing to sell it to me? I bought a bad copy and yours looks almost perfect. Thank you.
Thanks for the comment, glad you liked the review. I no longer have the lens, I borrowed it for the review
nice!
Thanks so much
Good video thanks for sharing your thoughts. It's just that I think you place too much value on the maximum aperture. F3.5 is an "in between" stop between F2.8 and F4 so that's just half an exposure value less than F2.8
Thanks for the comment. The thing about maximum aperture is that for people who shoot astro or aurora, every half stop matters because you can't get that extra half stop of light by increasing shutter time (it blurs the stars) so it has to go on ISO, which increases noise..even if only half a stop.
@@AndyMumford Fair enough, but if you have to lighten the corners in post processing because a lens vignettes heavily, you will get increased noise too...
All these astro and landscape comments are fine for that crowd, but I'm guessing that a major target market will be vloggers who want a walk-and-talk lens to use on all the X-S20s Fuji is hoping they'll buy. Those people need a light, compact lens that will be easy to balance, and the half-stop difference between f/2.8 and f/3.5 is completely trivial to them (and to most other users, tbh…) I figure Fujifilm has pretty much hit the bulls-eye for that use case.
Well I'm a landscape photographer, so I'll always look at any piece of equipment from that perspective.
I did wonder if Fuji saw this as a vlogging lens, especially as it's launched with the XS20, which they're marketing heavily towards vlogging, but personally I think it's a bit too wide, and for that they'd have been better off updating the 14mm. Most vlogging cameras aren't quite so wide if you look at things like an iPhone or DJI Pocket 2...8mm is going to give a lot of distortion of the arm holding the camera and you're head will be quite small in the frame. This video was shot at around 14mm with the camera only a little more than an arm length away from me, and you can see it's really wide.
Honestly, they shouldve made it slightly larger to get it to f2.8 because everything else is perfect
Yeah, I can’t disagree
As you say - 8mm is very wide and it makes you wonder if they could have made it f2.8 had they made the lens 9 or 10mm - it would still have been pretty wide
I've wondered this a lot myself. Obviously they'll have explored the possibilty and at some point rejected it. We'll never know why, but I suspect it's a combination of wanting to keep the size, weight and cost down, and maintain the high quality. The lack of vignetting really is impressive. Even the GF20-35mm vignettes a little wide open and that's a $2500 lens
to compare native to non native glass, the (in body) camera profile corrections must be off. apples to apples.
Not really. The comparison makes no sense unless you're comparing what you actually get in your final image output. In real world shooting it would make no sense for anyone to shoot with the camera profiles turned off, so why compare an image like that?
I'm surprised why so many people wish it was F2.8 instead of F3.5 ! The majority of people will buy this for landscape, architecture or interiors - not Astro. I bought it for real estate interiors to compliment my 16-55, and it's amazing. I believe it's overpriced though - it should be closer to 600 than 800 based on the value of other Fuji lenses. However, compared to the system I used before, XF lenses cost significantly less.
I think its because all of the third party lenses in the same focal length are at least f2.8. The Rokkinon 12mm is f2, the Viltrox 13mm is f1.4, and the NiSi and Laowa 9mm are f2.8. Most landscape photographers at some point will want to shoot either astro or aurora, and every half stop matters in reducing noise
I would go a step further and say Fujifilm should also release a 8mm f/2.
Indeed, but sadly I can't see it happening now. Hopefully the 14mm will get a refresh and they'll make it a 12mm f2 or something
@@AndyMumford I'll gladly pay for a good quality 12mm f2 =)... but also the samyang is good enough LOL... ahh too many choices with this hobby!
Confused why it's 3.5... :/ I do concert photography in low light and would love to be able to use it for some fish eyed stuff
Yeah, I guess it was a combination of optical quality x size and weight x price, and to make it this sharp at f2.8 would have necessitated it being bigger, heavier and more expensive