Fuji 8-16 f2.8 vs Fuji 10-24 f4 Review | Why 8-16 is not worth $2k!
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 28 авг 2024
- Now Available!
MAVEN FILTERS - Color-Coded Magnetic Photography Filters
(Circular Polarizers, UV, ND Filters, Step-Up Rings, and more)
www.mavenfilte...
****************************************************************
Im not here to tell you to run out and buy the latest and greatest just because. I prefer to "measure and report". Thank you to BH photo for their continued support, links to these lenses can be found below:
TL/DW - The 8-16 f2.8 is an incredibly well built Fuji XF Pro Red Label lens, but with 20 lens elements it has some limitations in both sharpness as well as exposure. You won't see them unless you are shooting side by side with the 10-24 f4 and really pixel peeping, but at $2000 ($1000 more than the 10-24 f4), I don't think its worth it unless you are a professional making money with your photography. IMO the 8-16 2.8 should be priced around $1100.
Michael's training videos:
Fuji X-T2 Crash Course
canontrainingv...
Fuji X-T3 Crash Course
canontrainingv...
PRIVACY and DISCLOSURE:
* Michael The Maven is a participant in the B&H Photo Video affiliate program that provides an advertising commission if you purchase through our links.
* If you purchase something from my affiliate links, I will get a small commission with no extra cost to you.
* Everything stated here is my opinion, and I sometimes make mistakes. I will never recommend a product I do not either use, truly love or think would be the best fit for the situation (often determined by budget).
Fuji X-T3
www.bhphotovid...
Fuji 8-16 f/2.8
www.bhphotovid...
FUJIFILM XF 10-24mm f/4
www.bhphotovid...
Michael's "Maven Straps" here:
SKINNY
Black
www.amazon.com...
WIDE
Black:
www.amazon.com...
Army Green:
www.amazon.com...
Orange:
www.amazon.com...
Blue:
www.amazon.com...
Desert Camo:
www.amazon.com...
Thanks Michael for the shout out. It was really appreciated. Thanks to all your followers who had such nice comments about my service in Vietnam Cambodia and Laos. As far as your photographic knowledge is concerned, Son you leave me in the dust.
Thank you Dad! I love you!
Semper Fi brother. I was with the 3rd battalion 26th Marines, Khe Sanh 1967-68
I love how he talked about you being sort of hardass when he was young but still see you two have great relationship. As a guy who didn't really have a role model in a father and had to learn the things on the go, it is awesome.
Thanks for the review...and the explanation of f-stop vs t-stop...finally understand. And thanks for including your father! I have a Minolta SRT-101 from the Vietnam era and still occasionally use it...so very light.
Great Review. I found you through Andrew and Denae. I own the 10-24mm f4 and tested the 8-16mm f2.8 for several hours, but just wasn't convinced to get it, even though it was, and it now, $500 off at B&H. Also, the OIS on the 10-24mm f4 is AMAZING. I shot a photo straight up handheld after a long day of the Eiffel Tower, very unstable, and when I returned home from my trip realized I had shot it at 1/10 of a second! Detail in the photo is wonderful. Plus, you can put filters on it, and I LOVE that I can shoot wide, then super wide, and then "normal" like an X100 camera, all without changing lenses. I wish it was WR and had an aperture ring (this was Fuji's first zoom that WASN'T a variable aperture, so I guess they used the same aperture ring). But it's a great lens. Some don't like the size or weight, but after shooting with the 16-55mm f2.8 most of the time, the 10-24mm f4 is compact and lightweight.
Thank you for the thorough paces you put these two lenses through. Thanks to your dad as well!
Great point about the T-stops! Also a mystery to me why that very important info is left out. Great review, MM.
Probably because T-stops are only more important when it comes to matching video exposure. However, T-stops do not equate to DoF. A T2 on 2 different lenses of equal focal lengths can have 2 different DoF.
With photography, the DoF is far more important in determining the look than the T-stop. Most manufacturers probably assume that we would be ok with pushing ISO or post processing to compensate. Also modern sensors are powerful enough that 1 stop adjustments mean nothing.
However I do agree that the 8-16 is way too overpriced, as is with majority of Fuji's lenses. I own an XT4, but will never buy a single Fuji glass. Intending to sell the XT4 within 1-2 years and move to full frame. Full frame glass is almost always more cost efficient below telephoto ranges, which I rarely use anyway.
Thank you so very much for the comparison. I've learned two things. 1. I'm keeping my 10-24mm. 2. Your Dad is a cool dude!
He’s the coolest! :)
What I would like to see is an update to the 10-24 f4: a marked f-stop ring, some weather resistance and maybe a linear motor. Otherwise, I think you raise a lot of valid points.
Amen- the 10-24 is far from perfect, but if anything I came away from this being more impressed with it that I thought I would.
@@MMaven i think it came out in 2014 or 15. what are the odds fuji updates, or replaces the 10-24 or 16-55 THIS year??
Your wishes came true!
Intense analysis! Much appreciated!
Thank you. Even after so many years of the release of the video. You've been saving me $1,000
I am very satisfied with Fuji 10-24mm,excellent lens.
Nice video, Michael, and great to see your Dad. Respect to ALL Vietnam Vets. I loved thatKonica too. I have an X-T3 as well as a lot of film cameras of about the same age as your Dad’s one. I use them from time to time and several of them do look VERY similar to the Fuji. Thanks for posting and keep them coming.
I own both the 18-55 and 16-55 and i think you'll get similar results if you test them.The kit lens is brighter.That sharp corners of the 8-16 are very tempting though...
That would make sense. Probably worth a look!
My X-T2 actually has an option, buried in the menus, to display T-Stop instead of F-Stop. It is buried pretty good, but look for it if you have not seen it.
It’s true! I’ve seen it but I haven’t tested it to see how it matches up...my guess is that it doesn’t! Lol 😂 I’ll take a look though
I gotta look into it.
Do you know if the x-t3 has this option as well? Can't find anything on google
@@anonymousl5150 It should still be there. In the Menu- Go into the "Wrench Icon." From there- "User Settings." Then keep scrolling-Feature is called "Aperture Unit For Cinema Lenses."
@@anonymousl5150 Once you get into the "Wrench-> User Settings, it is under "Screen Setup" of all places. Damn Fuji menus!!!! ha ha
Oh good, I'm not the only one! I'm a retired Navy Chief parajumper and I raised my boys the same as you. They even grew up in Navy bunkbeds! Room inspections while standing at attention, white glove test, and push-ups for failures (with loads of laughter too!), the whole nine yards. They turned out pretty good so it couldn't have been all that bad ;-)
Thanks for the review. I shoot an X-H1 for video. Gotta admit, a lot it went straight over my head but I enjoyed it. Hooaahhh! Ps. Love the paracord straps. I'll get myself one soon!
Buying the 10-24 lens. I'm seeing this in Nov. 2020 - Your reviews are still the best. I buy my gear based on reviews done by folks in RUclips but I always come back to two of you a) Omar Gonzales for practical common sense advice for non professionals, and YOU for more scientific information and additional tips. Thank you much!
Thank you Reb!
This is the most sophisticated lens review that I've ever seen. Great job!
This 8-16 lens just amazing ! fuji really knows how to design lens
Still too expensive. You could buy a Sony 16-35 GM or Sigma 14-24 for full frame at the same or lower price.
Fuji lenses don't make sense in terms of pricing.
Pls re-watch the video, only if 8-16 was more than half a stop brighter than 10-24 at matching focal length then it would better buy than 10-24.
I'd buy the 8-16 just for the wide angle but what really pissed me off is the hood you can't take. Besides my clothing business and a streetwear sessions, I love long exposures. No option to install filter mount....wrrr great points. I am going for the 10-24
Thanks for the review, always interesting to see your reviews which (as far as possible) seem to be based on scientific methods. I'm not a Fuji-user, but if I was - and interested in edge to edge sharpness (which I often am) then my main interest would be performance at medium apertures (F5.6-F11) at the common focal lengths - 10-16mm. You certainly touched on that, but seem to concentrate at the widest focal lengths for both lenses.
Not that the performance at the widest settings are uninteresting, but for anyone who consider upgrading from 10-24 to get better IQ I'd say the performance at 10mm could be really important. Of course, some/many would be more interested in the shorter focal lengths too, but some examples on 10mm with both would be interesting.
As for cooked RAW files (T-stop/vignetting compensation etc). Certainly possible, but many RAW converters would also compensate automatically based on the metadata embedded in the files.
Thx man...great info. Absolutely loved how you shared your experiences with your wonderful father♡
Aloha
The light test idea is genius
He is using capture one, he could have disabled the manufacturer’s corrections in the application. No need for a 3D printed adapter
infamous fuji iso cheat + this t-stop cheat = close to 2 stops of higher iso one must use, if he wants same shutter speed (compared to non-cheating crop body + system)... it is sad that noone tests this, obviously fuji wont quit it before it gets called out!
I didn’t know about it. Do you have any articles I could read up on??
Your dad looks like a great person. He's also got a little bit of a Chuck Norris vibe going on! Thanks for the upload.
Someone did mentioned about your video in thier ultra wide angle lens for fuji. This video is awesome
Top notch content man. Thank you again you nailed it.
Fuji is practically giving away the XH1 w/ grip and the 8-16 for $2300. The XH1 was an $1,800 body just a little over a year ago. It's such an amazing and unjustifiably downplayed camera body. In any case, I already own the 10-24 and the biggest advantage to the 10-24 IMHO is the extra reach. It's my first ultra wide as I usually take close up candid type shots. I recently took it to NYC w/ my XT3. The 15-35mm range was perfect for street photography in the city. Extremly versatile. Images were sharp, vibrant, and offered such a different field of view than I was used to. Now it's one of my favorites as I learn to shoot with it. Awesome lens for this amateur. 👍
No one does it better thank you Michael 👍
Thank you for your support Longrider!
to test whether or not the camera was boosting the lenses, why not just unrotate them while still mounted? You'd have them where they should be, but also sever the electronic connection and any baked in profiles.
Hi Micheal! I always enjoy your reviews and the fact they are objective and data-driven. I have to take exception to your testing protocols, and conclusions, that the 8-16 is not worth $2K vs. the 10-24. I've shot with this lens and the 10-24, and with all due respect, the 8-16 is a _significantly_ superior lens, optically. The 10--24 is notably soft at the corners and I've noted unit-to-unit variation in the 10-24s I've used. Also, please compare apples to apples; compare both lenses at the same apertures as Gordon Laing did in his review. Your introducing noise and variance into your your test comparing one lens at f/2.8 and another at f/4. Also, the 8-16 is perfectly rectilinear and this is a significant engineering acheivement for a lens as wide as 8mm. This is NOT easy to do. As for the plastic lens shade "petal", a metal one can get bent in use in the real world and a plastic one cannot. A bent metal lens shade would intrude into the FOV of the lens, this is why plastic is a better material for use in the real world. Last point: MTF charts are not simulations; they are based on actual measured data, by definition. This is like saying a DOE is a simulation, when in fact, it is just the opposite, its transfer function is based on real-world, measured data. Just a note: I plan to buy the 8-16mm f/2.8 for my professional real estate and architectural photography business.
Im not sure you completed watched the entirety of this video (that took a very long time to put together). Ive mentioned many of the things you are taking exception with. (We actually agree). It is definitely not a stop brighter than the 10-24 f4. It's definitely not sharper in the corners at 2.8. And it is definitely not a perfectly flat focal plane as demonstrated. More coverage yes, but is that coverage sharper in the corners? I didn't see it. So... tell me in what way we actually disagree, because the reticulinarity was mentioned.
I did compare both lenses at the same aperture in many of my tests. Maybe you didnt catch these?
"MTF charts are not simulations; they are based on actual measured data, by definition" this is not always true, it depends on the company. The best way to get realistic MTFs between copies is what Lens Rentals does, where they test multiple copies and come to averages. Ive yet to find any lens in existence that is "perfect" from copy to copy.
What a great review! Thank you very much for your time. I'll test my lenses for T stop with your "paper roll" technic!
Ooh that H1 is nice, super clean. Think we need a review of that baby.
venom5809 1997. 37 000 miles. LOL. When Hi inspects they wave thru. LOL. Hawaiians love this truck.
You can clearly see that 8-16mm's micro contrast is much better. I bought 10-24mm for landscape photography and I was absolutely disappointed with its overall performance. Theres no way i'd make a larger print with 10-24mm and sell at a price i sell. So I was going to buy 8-16mm when they announced, until I found out about its price. So I bought Zeiss 12mm f2.8, the quality of this lens and the image that comes out of this lens is absolutely stunning. All the detail and sharpness it retains even when zoomed in at 200%-300% is just stunning. And the image has some what 3d feel to it, possibly because it produces very good micro contrast. Anyways, one day when 8-16mm price drops, I may purchase. Thank you for thus video!
Good points. I feel like the 8-16 is trying to do too much as a zoom. We really want it for wider focal lengths, but it feels that it is over engineered and ends up holding it back from doing what it was intended to do- shoot beautiful wide shots at 2.8.
Phil Jones65 100% agree
I have news for you... if you think your work is so important that the 10-24mm's optical quality isn't enough, but you still can't afford the more premium 8-16mm lens, then your photography isn't as important or valuable as you think it is.
@@JeremyGalloway You should probably watch the video in its entirely, I clearly defined the differences between paid professionals who need that higher quality and beginning photographers who dont. It pays to watch it all. Thanks!
@@MMaven I did watch the entire video. I wasn't directing this at you, rather at SeanKimStyle. Sorry if that was unclear. My point is, if he isn't a pro, then the 10-24mm is more than adequate. On the other hand, if he IS a pro, then it shouldn't be a problem to pay more for a premium lens. If he isn't earning enough income to to afford the gear that his work requires, then maybe he's not at the level he thinks he is at.
Hi Michael !
I'm very grateful to you, that's a great video and it helps a lot !
Just bought the X-H2 and wanted to know if I would buy the 10-24mm or the 8-16mm...
Another one I have to look at is the 13mm by Viltrox !
Take good care and thank you !
Colin
One would guess that the fstop is an average for the larger part of the frame. So the 10-24 needs to be too brighter in the center to compensate for the vignetting against the more even 8-16.
Excellent review. Wish other reviewers will do something similar.
holy MAVEN, that 8-16mm at F8 is nothing but sexy sharpness.
You save my money! Thanks for great review.
True T-stop should be mentioned by every lens manufacturer for thier lenses
Agreed!!
Just literally watched video from Andy Mumford where he uses 10-24 for years and even he was saying its much softer in corners throughout the focal range so the others doesn't find it sharp enough.
Something mismatch in your findings really
That hummer says "tough Dad" that should have been the licence plate , lol
ThePandaPhotographer Thanks so much. I was happy tho with “ Combat Vet”. LOL.
what about for video? I am looking to go from Canon to Fujifilm for my video work and lens I use 95% of the time for video on Canon is 16-35 f 2.8. I would have gone with XT3 already long time ago, but I feel that they don't have a good lens I could use and that's holding me back. 10-24 seems too dark, to be my all around all purpose run and gun lens (especially on an aps-c body) and 8-16 would be headache to use an nd filter with. what are your thoughts? I definitely use the most FF 16 mm and 35mm equivalent focal lenghts and feel like Fujifilm doesn't offer good options for what i need. If they had 10-24mm f 2.8, i would definitely consider fujifilm or what do you think, could 10-24 f4 be a decent option?
Konica had its own bayo mount? If it was a 42 screw you could use that lens on your Fuji. Probably preachin to the choir here but the old lenses are fun to use. Good vid.
That’s a pretty great idea- I might try that!
Wow this is news to me. I owned the 10-24mm before selling my Fujifilm kit and investing into Nikon. I've also read that fuji files come out half to two thirds underexposed compared to other brands.
It is true .
I still have fuji alongside nikon today .
Thanks for showing the lenses, and especially for a sobering take on the 8-16. I think you are a little off on the "lens conspiracy". Camera manufacturers embed metadata so RAW converters can compensate for distortion, vignetting and other defects. In some RAW developers, this can be disabled, but Lightroom (Classic) won't let you do this. It will, however, provide a notice saying "Built-in Lens Profile applied".
Thank you for the testing. You've got me thinking now...
This was a really interesting and well done video, particularly in regard to T-stops. (And I enjoyed meeting your dad.) FWIW, I believe Raw Therapee allows you to view RAW files w/o the manufacturer's corrections so that is probably the easier way to go. Fuji definitely uses software correction with their RAF files.
It was interesting to see that your samples from the XF 10-24 didn't show nearly the corner softness that seems prevalent in other reviews of this lens, RUclips or otherwise. You do point this [corner sharpness or lack thereof] out in your concluding comments. For me, this corner softness (and inexplicable lack of a marked aperture ring) on the 10-24 leave me reluctant to purchase it. The weight and lack of reasonably-priced and sized filter options make the 8-16 a hard sell too. I guess what I really want is a 10-24 F4 Mk II with improved IQ, marked aperture ring, weather sealing and linear motors. I have a feeling I'm going to be waiting a while.
Thank you for the heads up on RAW Therapee! I will check it out! And I agree with you on the 10-24, feels like both have qualities we want in one lens. Did you see they went on sale shortly after I published this video?
@@MMaven Yes, that's actually what is creating the temptation to pick up one or the other. They're both discounted by 25%. What to do?!? The smart answer is probably to do nothing-but I do love a bargain...
Hi Michael, very nice analysis of the lenses, as for what you said at 15:40, yes, fuji lenses do get help by the camera, in fact raf files get distortion profiles backed in, as it is for CA removal and vignetting.
Vittorio Sergi It seemed so. Here’s a blasphemous question for you....do you think they get an ISO bump? In the RAW file? This is what I’d ask Fuji Engineers
Vittorio Sergi I didn’t know it happened in the RAW files but suspected when I tested these lenses
What I would like to see is some shots from your dad's Hexanon on (any) Fuji body - it may not be as "clinically" sharp as the new Fuji's but I think you might come away impressed ( especially at a 50+ yr old lens ) - I shoot a 50mm 1.7 on my X-T20 and it produces some lovely results...all it would cost is a $20 adapter...
Konica , OMG- I LOVE YOU
I've watched a comparison between the 10-24 and the 12mm samyang F2, and noticed the same: the fuji lens seems to be brighter than the samyang. So maybe it's just about the 10-24 being brighter than normal, and not the 8-16 being darker?
Fuji has sensible menu and ergo system - makes you fight the camera less.
Whoa, very nice tech analysis.. I learned.
THE PRICE DROPPED TO $1500 on the 8-16 f2.8!!!!!
Troy Moss 😎😎😎
Talk about a CAMERA CONSPIRACY *cue music*
I’’m still good. Saw a lot of agent orange. God Bless.
All i want is the perfect mobilephone
Is the 10-24 closer to an f/3.2- f/3.5 lens?
your dad is really cool man. great video. shoot some film with that Konica :)
Curious if you’d suggest one over the other for sports/action establishing shots. I shoot cycling and would like to shoot some wide interior shots.
Great review and sorry I comment too many time but I like to comment as I'd watch
wow, 20 lenses in that lens body, whoa (the song) whoa
Anyone caught the maven walk (timeline 7:26) the man with a plan
They are both on sale now. $749 for the 10-24 and $1,499 for the 8-16. Worth it at $1,499 instead $1,999?
Where is the sale??!!
Column Wheel you are way late buddy, better wait until Christmas!
I see what you mean now. I've had the lens about a week and it already seems to be a little darker than my 16 Prime. Even when the histogram says that it's the right exposure it still seems dark
It’s a great lens for what was meant to do, but it’s not as perfect, bright or as sharp to justify the full $2000 cost,
How much do you think its worth the price?
Eye opening review. Thx Michael
Yes, that is correct about copies of the same lens, my copy just might not be as sharp as your copy and your copy might not as soft as mine. (#facts)
Love your channel - Great video, but 200% disagree. Your problem is that you are comparing it to the 10-24mm f4 but these lenses differ completly in design and construction. 8mm is much wider than 10mm. Can't fight optics and physical laws, this wide, some compromises must be made, way more than at 10mm. I believe a fair comparison would be vs other 8-16mm lenses like the Sigma one.
Regarding the light gathering, very interesting observation.
Is the 8-16 is worth $2K? I believe it is, considering the engineering and precision required for such a lens.
Now, a different question: is the 8-16mm worth $1000 over the 10-24mm? It depends on the needs of the user. If you need 8mm, there is no other option anyway. If you do not need 8mm, then probably not.
It doesn’t sound like you watched this video in its entirety. You may want to do so before commenting. The reticulinearity and wideness of the 8-16 were specifically praised.
I did watch the video in its entirety. I did not say you didn't praise the 8-16mm. You could have, though, it was not my point. What I said is that it's not fair to compare it to the 10-24mm. And I gave my personal opinion that this lens is worth $2k if you need the specifics offered by this lens, and on that I said I disagreed with you saying it's not worth $2k. I hope I am allowed to.
Sacha Martin you are allow to say whatever you want, however if you say I didn’t say something and I clearly did, I’ll point that out. That’s the heart of the matter.
I agree, but I don't see what I'm saying that is not correct. You are comparing the two lenses, it is in your title. You also say it's not worth $2k, which also is in your title.
Sacha Martin lol? You literally said the same thing in your first comment. “It is worth $2k, but maybe not vs the 10-24” ??- sounds like you agree. Or not. Who knows. I’ll be more specific: $2k for a lens that gives you 2mm more coverage, soft corners at 2.8, 1/2 stop more light, that you need to stop down to get the most out of? Really? That’s worth an extra $1,000 to you? Then by all means go ahead! I’ll buy mine used or when the price drops.
Saving our $$$$$$
Does the A on the aperture ring have a definite click when selecting?
did you update the software on the lenses as well as the camera. December 2018 fujifilm updated the firmware.
It was recorded in early Dec, so no.. what fixes do you believe the firmware would have added.
19:28 unless you live in not so developed country where in camera stores you often be denied in even touching the lens, let alone adapting to your camera body
When are you doing a real world X-T3 review? And are you a fuji user?
For interiors which is the best lens?
im strongly considering the Xt4 coming from sony a6400 world. (might keep a6400). been looking into a lot of fuji lenses and i hear they are announcing 3 more yet this year 2020. im not sure i like the 2 kit lens offerings they have at the moment. definitely getting the 16 1.4 fuji. considering the 10-24 for real estate. considering the 16-55 2.8
Michael, for this video and info... Liked and Sub'd. Thank you!
I do prefer the starburst on the 8-16mm
Wow 67 thumbs down. This guy went above and beyond to test an expensive hyped lens to fit the wholly trilogy. I’ll just stick to using my 16 prime and avoid both for now 😂 thanks man 🙏
Hoooooah!!!! You’re dad is hardcore!!! 🌟🌟🌟🌟🌟 I know now where your discipline comes from!! He has an outstanding mustache!
😂🙌🏻he’s the best dad I could ever hope for!
Michael The Maven
🌟🌟🌟🌟🌟
I got a 8-16 today...But they are on sale now for 15 hund. I did a few test shots at f8 with camera very low to the ground. It does look a little soft in the corners
It’s a great lens, but it does have some limits. Sale price is better
for now, compare with RF1535 2.8, XF816 that price is really ridiculous....
I’m hoping the next Sony A7000 to have body like these cameras
The 8-16mm have way more better flares control Witch worth 500dollars . It’s focal range and f2.8 worth another 500dollars more.😄
Amazing video! Thanks a lot!!!
Great content. I'm a photographer and my son is also a photographer. I also come from a military family, although I am the lone chicken hawk who never served. :-)
Just a question... what is the mid-peripheral center area you keep mentioning? Is it just slightly off the center of the frame?
Yes. Just outside of center
@@MMaven Thanks! Another question: I just got the 10-24mm a few days ago, and although the IQ is good at the wide end, I have found it to be horrendous at 24mm f/4. Nothing like what you show in the video. Could I have a bad copy?
Jeremy it’s definitely possible. Whenever I get a new lens I test it to make sure it’s a good copy. If it isn’t I send it back.
@@MMaven I bought it used from B&H, so I might return it. I guess the original owner sold it to B&H in the first place because it was a bad copy. Thanks for the responses
Absolutely fantastic info.
Mr Maven. If you were buying into a new camera system today, which would buy and why?
Boy that’s a tough question! I’m not sure....I guess it would depend on the subject matter and budget mostly.
Your dad affected by agent orange from Vietnam? I'm a viet vet too.
Can interiors be shot with 8 by 16
Wow. Science... I like it!
Theoria Apophasis on life support..
John Smith
Hoax Master = Theoria Apologists
That guy is a real stupid
Facts can be wrong but not opinions. Opinions are opinions, there is no right or wrong opinion.
Phil Jones65 well, you may be right but it should go both ways and is a larger question. Some reviewers and websites are largely funded by affiliate links and kickbacks from brands, so it also raises question on bias.
@@Innovate-pq9ci I definitely think there is affiliate link abuse out there, including skewed reviews the main thing is disclosure that the FTC requires (and it has to be done properly) otherwise I don't think is a problem, but heres the deal- anyone who is putting content on youtube is benefiting - affiliate links or not. RUclips has paid advertising which many channels use to monetize their channels, others straight up ask for donations, others use it to promote their products so in the end they are still being paid for their opinions, and this it comes back to disclosure and being honest.
many thanks for this comprehensive and interesting video. Always i want to buy a amazing lens. And thx to you i understand the 8-16 mm is not so good about light, and the distortion is computer corrected. So of course the price is too much high.
now all the body (xt4 or Xpro 3) cost almost like a canon ... so now it's a bit sad to put so much dollars in fujifilm when you can get an amazing eos 5 for 3000 or 4000 dollars...
of course i like fuji a lot, lens, jpeg quality, xpro 1. bUT NOW EVERYTHING changed. And lens and body are much more expensive. + 600 -+700 dollars @fujifilm ... what are you doing??
awsome vid !
805g for a lens is heavy but sigma take the cake in that department
20 elements, can't be light unfortunately.
great review!!!
Thank you Juan
I have both lenses.. sorry but your testing in this video is way off. The 8-16mm is LIGHT YEARS APPART from the 10-24! Sharpness, detail, lack of optical flaws, light gathering.. yes yes it's big expensive unbalanced on most Fuji bodies blah blah blah. I don't blink between the two which one to choose when IQ is what I'm looking for. You are comparing Lexus against Toyota and claiming they are basically the same car with even some advantages for the Toyota and that no one needs a Lexus. No one needs one in fact, no one even needs a Toyota.. just walk by foot and all problems solved.
It's 1600 now is it worth 1600? ;-)
I think it is! Its 2.8 through out
Tou have very cool dad
Please compare it to Sony 12-24G.
I have compared the 12-24 to the 16-35. Both are great, but expensive!
Timeline 8:36 - they look the same to me sharp and clean
ThePandaPhotographer look in the top right corners. RUclips compressed a little as well, but this is my point, if it’s $1000 more, shouldn’t it $1000 better?
Great review - thanks. Can you explain why you moved the lenses further from the body? I don't understand the purpose.
Because the camera recognizes that it’s a specific Fuji lens and starts applying software changes to the image. Things like distortion, CA, vignettung etc are all cleaned up artificially when this happens and I was suspicious the 8-16 might be getting an ISO bump as well
@@MMaven ah ok - thanks. It would be good if you could do that without having to change the distance to the sensor, by somehow insulating one or more electrical contacts.
@@gregsullivan7408 Yeah like a piece of tape or something. Heres the thing tho, once communication stops all kinds of screwiness happen. I basically had to treat them as macro lenses to get them to focus.
aww your dad!
He’s my hero