Great review as always. I don’t fully agree with your conclusion that if you’re looking for the best ultra wide on Fuji, this is it. Yes, it is more ridiculously expensive, large, heavy and won’t take filters, but I’m still hopelessly biased for the 8-16 f2.8 I keep in my bag vs this. Don’t use it every day, but when I do…there’s nothing quite like it. This is close though and might grab this prime one day when I want a lighter load when shooting on the street.
@@djstuc I don't think you understood my question. The corners are sharp at f/3.5, but become blurry at f/5.6. That's not normal for lenses. Are you suggesting that fisheye lenses lose corner sharpness when stopped down?
Could be a few things. Tests were done with the test cart being quite close to the camera, thus shot at close focus distance (which is not the usual case for a UWA lens). Also, focus shift could be an issue here.
@@SquirrelHybrid Yes I agree, the green leafs in the background were considerably sharper, whereas the test chart with high contrast "went weird" in some unusual manner. I have not seen this before.
Fuji is still luxury brand when we talk about lenses and feeling in hand, build Quality... Used experience are amazing. But we must to know that are still Just APSC and Fuji must really think about their prices of cameras and lenses which is too expensive. There are no logic to pay 1000€ for every lens that you want.
Alternatively, given the high prices of the premium native glass, you might opt for the Viltrox lenses that come at half the cost and perform marvels in terms of optics and built quality!
I don't understand why anybody thinks lenses designed for "just" APSC sensors have less value than "full frame" lenses. The design and development costs that go into producing these lenses are no different than any other major camera brand.
@@4Kandlez The reason why people think APS-C lenses should be less expensive is because the equivalent full-frame lenses can be acquired for less money. I still agree with you though that the high prices are justified to the extent tha Fuji employs high built quality and sophisticated optical formulas that have to be even better optimised for higher pixel densities of APS-C sensors. Furthermore, ultrawide angle optics are more challenging to produce on crop sensors than on full-frame sensors.
I really wish this lens had closer focusing distance, it could have been a blast using it for macro video and photos with lots of environment visible for a very dramatic look
I have had this lens for @ 3 months, it is amazing and worth the price. The sharpness and contrast are brilliant. The non fuji brands all suffer from worse poor corner performance. The 10-24 can't compete on the 40 mp sensors anymore and has worse corner performance. Check out Andy Mumford's review for a different sort of testing and perspective. I especially like the small size, allows me to have a very portable landscape kit that has extreme range (8, 18 and 35 lenses in a tiny bag). I just did some photography in a cave where the 13 mm viltrox would have not been wide enough, and that lens is not weather sealed. Get the best glass you can afford.
Agree. I've had it since release and it's a really fun lens to use. Makes you have to be careful in portrait mode not to get your feet in the shot! But it's sharp enough, stood up to a few English named storms, and able to take my Nisi M75 filters. I'm super happy with mine.
Somehow I felt this review didn't cut it like usual reviews or something else is playing in my head. The optic review (field curvature) portion was never mentioned by Chris, who usually never misses anything important like this. Nearly £800 for a plastic len is VERY MEAN by Fujifilm indeed!
@@auong4044 Yeah, you're right. It's a nifty lens with nice image quality, but at 800 it could have been at least an f2. 450 for this one feels like a more balanced price, especially considering you can get a similarly wide angle lens for far less. The laowa 9mm f2.8 seems to be better priced. No autofocus sure, but, with this kind of lens you don't always need it. I managed to get a good hit rate with moving subjects and a 35mm f1.7 lens, so, it's probably fine at the end of the day
@@tankivulture148 Yes. I'm also considering the Laowa 9mm F2.8 also reviewed by Chris. I was shocked to learn from another RU-vid channel that he finds fitting it to the mount was very very tight after 2 returns. Scary isn't! I'm sitting on the fence for now.
I am sorry to disagree but I found the edge distortion on this lens unusable. Benches in a park located at the edge of shot were horribly distorted and extended making the final image look surreal. I much prefer the 8-16 f2.8. Though more expensive it’s a much better lens and more versatile.
Lol, was just looking at this lens earlier today and had a moment, would be nice if Chris had reviewed this lens... Agree with you on the price. 500 or max 600 would be a better fit for something like this.
Kind of obvious Fuji knows who can write this lens off as a business expense and who can't. Thus, ultra wide for indoor real estate means no bargain... I have the Laowa 9mm, and it's like taking a 2 year old to the Opera. You don't just aim and shoot. These may be rectilinear, but you'll be figuring out the height and angle of the lens before shooting..a new class to pass. But consider shooting video with this lens with the edges cropped, ala the frame size of the film The Cranes Are Flying. You'll lose the distortion but gain the flex of deep depth of field while moving the camera. This was already available using wides on live television broadcasts going way way back to Rod Sterling's The Comedian with Mickey Rooney. Everything live, going from wide to closeup and always in focus. But no distortion from the format cropping the sides.
I love your reviews and I have a request. Tokina atx-i 11-20mm F2.8 CF for Canon EF mount. I used this lens on the 90D and Loved it. Would like to see how it hold up on the R7 in your opinion. The older Tokina’s were kind of crap but the 11-16mm 2.8 and the 11-20mm are something special. These could be more popular since Canon is coming out with slower lenses for the RF system.
I tried one once on my R7, but it really did not play well at all with the canon EF-RF adapter. There was alot of movement in the adapter, making the lens loose infinty focus and gain extreme chromatic abberations. That might have just been an issue with my lens and adapter combi, your milage may vary
Tengo grandes dudas en que lente pillarme, entre el Fuji 8-16mm f2,8 y el 8mm f3,5. La diferencia de precio peso, y poder usar filtros es significativa a favor del 8mm, Mi duda es el resultado que exista entre los dos en la nitidez de los extremos ¿Me pueden ustedes ayudar sobre si existe diferencia en los extremos en nitidez ? Es mayormente para interiores y exteriores de monumentos y si ese paso de luminosidad merece ir a por el 8-16 ?? (Seria para usarlo con la XT4 y XH2)
This is quite a unique lens, a bit too slow for my liking but intriguing. What would you say is the closest comparable on Sony Full Frame, the Pergear 14mm F/2.8 (being 2mm narrower but much faster), or anything else? (great review of it btw).
I own the Voigtländer 10mm HyperWide Heliar for e-mount. This lens have electronic contacts and communicate very well with the Sony, especially in case of ibis. I love this lens👍
The Fuji line-up is really missing a more affordable ultra wide angle lens. I'm still keeping my old Canon 7D because there's no (price-wise) equivalent to the EF-S 10-18mm STM, maybe an XC version of the XF 10-24 could fill that gap. Currently I can only hope to find a used XF 10-24 at a good price.
You do find the XF 10-24 at a good price! Depending on whether you care about wheather sealing you can opt for a first generation XF 10-24 at a price of 400EUR or less. I bought the newer XF 10-24 for around 700EUR, also a fairly good deal and lower than the current retail price of this 8mm :)
Man these Fuji jpegs look like @$$. I have seen a clear sharpness difference with your test chart when testing Fuji cameras vs others. The jpeg from your Fuji camera just look smeared water color painting and lack details. Compare these with the images from Sony A7s, Canon EOS Rs, Nikons etc....those look tack sharp with tons of details.
