noimmunity
scratch my niche
18/2 lens review
35/1.4 lens review
60/2.4 lens review
The short story is that both the 35 and the 60 are very impressive, the 18 less so.
35/1.4 lens review
60/2.4 lens review
The short story is that both the 35 and the 60 are very impressive, the 18 less so.
Better review than I expected regarding the 18mm. So confused if I should grab that lens or not. I've decided to at the very leats wait for more info.
noimmunity
scratch my niche
For myself, I'll confess to being actually pretty impressed by the 18. At $600 and barely 100 grams, it punches way above its weight.
The relative corner softness could well be desirable for many types of photography where you want to thematize a central subject.
I'm still hoping though for a wide solution, either native X or M-adapted, that would provide corner-to-corner sharpness for landscape.
The 60/2.4 is definitely my next purchase.
Benjamin Marks
Veteran
Interesting. I think that the M-adapter and performance of M and LTM lenses (particularly wides given the camera's crop factor) will be where the rubber really meets the road for a lot of long time RF shooters. It is certainly what I am interested in seeing. Is that a bit of veiling flare on the 18 and the 35? So hard to tell on the web . . .
Thanks for the links. Very interesting.
Ben
Thanks for the links. Very interesting.
Ben
As a fan of tessars and heliars, I understand... but not for a 27mm lens. I hope its overblown (its shortcomings that is) and the samples around the net are user error and not reality.
celluloidprop
Well-known
I'm wondering if the 18mm's corner fringing will be a non-issue once people can work the files in Aperture/LR4. LR4's CA tools didn't appear to do anything to a JPG I tried, but that could well be user error.
The 35mm resolution figures seem to be pretty absurd (in a good way), though I don't understand how it rates relatively low in the corners, from what I've seen it gets corner to corner sharp at f/2.8.
The 35mm resolution figures seem to be pretty absurd (in a good way), though I don't understand how it rates relatively low in the corners, from what I've seen it gets corner to corner sharp at f/2.8.
f16sunshine
Moderator
Nice links Jon thank you!
I'm excited about pairing that 60mm on an XP1 with an x100 around my neck.
Seems like the perfect set for the events I get invited to shoot.
Could be good buys 5Dii for event shoots
I'm excited about pairing that 60mm on an XP1 with an x100 around my neck.
Seems like the perfect set for the events I get invited to shoot.
Could be good buys 5Dii for event shoots
I wonder what the next lens they will release is. I'm excited about the 28mm (42mm equiv) pancake.
willie_901
Veteran
The artfacts I have seen look like purple fringing which is not the same class of artifact as lateral CA. So I don think it's user error.
The fringing only appears in areas of high contrast. Has anyone seen fringing where the contrast difference is low?
The drop off in corner sharpness doesn't bother me as much as the fringing does.
I think I will wait to see how the ACR lens profile performs.
Many high speed lenses have purple fringing in high contrast areas on digital cameras. Even expensive lenses like the Noctilux. It would have to be a real lemon to have it in low contrast scenes. By the way, the 23mm X100 lens has it at times in extremely high contrast scenes (e.g. overcast sky between tree limbs, etc.).
willie_901
Veteran
JS,
This fringing (not lateral CA) is a ubiquitous problem. But in the past couple of years it seems to be much less of an issue.
I must report I have not seen this on the X100. I do not doubt your observation at all. Maybe I haven't looked closely enough or maybe we use different apertures.
In my experience over exposure makes this worse, but the 18/2 seems to have significant artifacts when overexposure is not present.
You probably read on another forum the suggestion that the Fujinon 18/2 is not intended to be a landscape lens. The purpose is reportage/candid work ant that's why it's a f 2 lens. I'm not convinced this was Fuji's intent, but in practice this seems to be the case. I think the 18/2 will be great for B&W work in low light (EV 4 - 6). If I buy this lens, that's how I'll use it.
Spyro
Well-known
same here... not too fussed about corner sharpness personally but some colour aberrations can really do my head in. Also I'd like to test a couple of wide Ms before I make up my mind.
gavinlg
Veteran
I'm guessing the 18/2 is a reportage lens. Not really designed for landscapes and infinity subjects. Remember there is a 14mm f2.8? coming too - that will be the landscape lens for sure.
Either way, I really don't think the 18mm is bad anyway - it looks pretty good to me in fact.
Either way, I really don't think the 18mm is bad anyway - it looks pretty good to me in fact.
It happens at wide open apertures on digital cameras the most. I see it with most fast lenses on the M9 and once in awhile on the X100 at f2.
I doubt Fuji made this lens with a particular function in mind such as reportage... and I'm not really sold that a lens for reportage doesn't need edge to edge sharpness (just as I'm not sold that landscapes require perfect lenses). Perhaps if you only put your subject in the middle of your frame always, the 18mm will work, but that wouldn't be smart. I also doubt that Fuji intended this lens to only be used in low light. I could be wrong, but I'm thinking it is just hard to make a 18mm f/2 lens for $600 that is of high quality.
Some of the samples from this lens are just poor. I hope I'm wrong once I get to use it. I'm just not optimistic at this time...and I'm not even that hard on lenses and don't really care about pixel peeping. Something just seems off with the 18mm at times.
j j
Well-known
Less of a problem now due to software autocorrect. Perhaps RAW processing is not yet getting the best out of the 18mm? Or maybe it's just not a great lens as with (so the Internet tells me) Sony and Samsung 16mm lenses?