A very informative and honest review. As a happy owner of the XF10-24 f/4, I find it difficult to justify the price tag and as you pointed out, the lack of reasonable filter attachment options. Those straight lines though... pure magic!
Excellent review again... I really hope, Fuji refreshes 10-24mm at some point, making it WR, and with F-scale imprinted. The other option would be, to release a 10mm F2.8 prime. If laowa can do it, what stops Fuji. That 8-16mm lens looks amazing by IQ, but it's big, and expensive like hell. On top of that limitations with filters..
Thanks for the comment, I'm glad you like the videos. You're right about a 10mm f2.8 prime. There'd be a huge demand for a lens like that and I'm not sure why Fuji don't go any wider than 14mm with their primes.
Brilliant review, totally professional and without gimmicks. One thing has decided me against buying this lens - it is enormous, and I've already sold my Pentax gear because of the weight. I wouldn't like to have to carry that great hulking thing around with me! I do wish Fuji would make this lens in f4. That's not a negative point about the review, it is relevant and confirmed my feeling - and saved a lot of money too! Thank you. Oh, and I disagree with you about the picture through the fence. it's my favourite!
Hi Andy! Thanks for the great video! I just got one 2 days ago and I truly LOVE it! I have a Nikon D850 and the Nikkor 12-24 2.8 and this is truly a sharper lens and as you stated, no distortion. I have no problem spending money on a good product and this is excellent. I know it's big but I am used to using a full frame system and it's still smaller and sharper. The 56 1.2 is amazing, great portrait lens and is super sharp. Thanks again for the review!
Congrats on 100k subs! Really enjoyed this review, I just ordered a used XF8-16mm, looking forward to putting it through its paces with my X-T3 and H2S soon!
Hey Andy, could you do a video expanding on what you said about 24mm being good for stitching panoramas? As in how you compose based on the focal length you're using.
Hi Andy, I shot with this lens for an entire morning at the Fujifilm Festival in Venice, CA in October and I 100% concur with you assessment across the board. It is an absolutely spectacular lens, and to see a lens this wide that is perfectly rectilinear with no distortion across the frame, even at 8mm is truly impressive. Just a fantastic lens. I plan to buy one for my real estate photography business.
I just received my copy and I must agree that it is a chunky lens but if you own and don't mind the Viltrox 75mm then this lens shall be fine. The IQ out of it is superb and the lens passed the sniff test. : )
Hi Andy I am your fan, but one thing I have to say is according to the reviews of some websites, the distortion at 8mm of this lens is extremely huge (about 8% barrel distortion). As we know barrel distortion is common on most ultra wide angle lenses. We see no distortion on your photos because the in-camera correction and built-in lens profile did the magic... But this lens is not perfect optically... Just my opinion...
Any lens distortion is dealt with in camera, and so while it may not be optically perfect, the in lens correction means that to all intents and purposes it may as well be. As the image doesn't need to be cropped to be corrected, for any practical shooting purpose the lens has effectively zero distortion.
**It’s dealt with in jpgs, but not in raw, as per usual, far as I’m aware. You’d still need correction if you need straight(er) lines such as for interior design or architecture work if shooting in raw.
@@BrewReview No, it's dealt with in RAW as well. I use both Lightroom and Capture One and the RAW images have the in-camera correction applied with no loss of resolution. The images I showed were RAW images.
Thanks for this Andy it has just confirmed that I can stick to my 16-55mm + Lee filters. Most of my stuff is at or between 18 to 24mm so I never really bothered about the 10-24mm as here in the West of Scotland it rains most of the time. Great review Andy and difficult to understand why Fuji used a fixed hood and non threaded lens, bit like the Nikon 12-24mm (I think) where the lee attachment is enormous.
Thanks for the review. I always appreciate your forthright opinions. Perhaps due to RU-vid compression, I could really not actually see much of a difference between 8-16 and 10-24 lensi. Not mentioned in your review was the substantial price gap. I want to love this lens, but the value does not seem to be there. Lack of filters a definite deal breaker for me. Love Fuji quality. Cheers.
Yes, it’s a problem with looking at fine detail in videos. It’s a full resolution screen capture that’s then resized to a full HD timeline and then compressed for RU-vid. The difference is quite significant in the corners though...particularly on the upper right (this could be my copy of the lens though...it’s always been pretty soft there, although I’ve had it checked out by Fuji)
@@AndyMumford Would you be willing to let the viewers download your RAW images in comparisons like these? It would probably help demonstrate the differences in sharpness and details if we could see the full images.
Hi Sean, I've uploaded a .zip file to Google Drive which you should be able to download to get the full size RAF files from drive.google.com/file/d/1WkNLFR8ORHqmrnt1NpesWICS8BqYs-qj/view
I love your wonderfully practical take when you do gear reviews, quite refreshing. The weight/size/cost and lack of ability to use "standard" filters ruled this out for me. I had heard on one of the Fuji FB channels about a Fuji-specific 150mm solution being worked on that had some promise, but for me the thought of carrying a special-purpose filter set "just" for that lens added more cost/size/weight and that doesn't sound promising. I will say this: it seems to me that this lens is a lot like the XF16-55mmF2.8 w.r.t. (a) build, and (b) quality - I have that for my "walk around" lens and it is wicked sharp - ridiculously so, but, of course it is a bit heavy for my landscape walks (I use the 10-24 + 35mmF2 to cover up to 50mm). Thanks for sharing your thoughts, Happy New Year!
Happy New Year to you too Alan, I'm glad you like the videos. Since I made the video I've found out that Lee do actually make a filter holder for 150mm filters www.leefilters.com/index.php/camera/system-sw150 It's a bigger holder and bigger filters, so added to the increased bulk of the lens it's a fair bit more to carry around
The Fuji 8-16f2.8 is one of the legendary Fuji-X lenses. You can compare this lens directly with wide angle zoom lenses from any other manufacturer regardless of sensor format and the Fuji 8-16 is competitive in terms of image quality and blows away the competition in terms of price.
as every time - great video!The downsides of this lens appear to be equal with those on my Nikon 14-24 2,8 (which I sold after having enjoyed it for a year) = size + weight + price + use of filters (meanwhile offerings available) vs. amazing optical results.As size + weight have been the main reason for me to move from fullformat DSLR to Fuji (making it a pleasure to travel light), this lens will not find it's way into my ownership.
Indeed, it’s a great lens but its bigger than a lot of full frame wide angle zooms and, like you, it’s the reason I moved away from full frame in the first place
It's true that you can use filters on Fujinon 8-16 / 2.8, its SW 150 Mk II system from LEEfilters. Fujinon lens costs 2,000 euros (regular price), LEE system filter holder & adapter for a specific lens is about 300 euros, plus every STOPER (no matter if Little, Big or Super) in the IRND version is another over 450 euros per piece, standard is 150 euros. Apart from the size of the set, only with filters for very long exposures, it costs from 450 (holder + lens adapter + one dense gray filter) to approx. 1700 euro (a set for one lens with 3 INRD gray filters). At this price, you can buy Fuji XT3 together with Fujinon 10-24 / 4 and either use the Leefilter 100 system already owned by the photographer or purchase it at half the price for the SW 150 MkII system. The question is whether at least one percent of RU-vid users are able to distinguish pictures taken 10-24 from those made 8-16. a lot of fun with shooting everyone
Hey mate, great video as always. I love the comparison you made. The Fujifilm system is improving really fast, and this new piece of glass is absolutely terrific. For my kind of photography prospective and travelling light as much as possible, I'll probably stick with my 10-24mm which I love so much. The 8mm focal length is huge for an APS-C sensor, and people that are in love with architectural photography, this is the best ultra-wide angle lens I've ever seen. For landscape photos I prefer to stitch more images together having a more compressed prospective of the elements in the frame. Anyway, have a nice one my friend and I'm really looking forward to catching up with you in the Dolomites next week. All the best!
Hi mate, it's a big lens (as you saw when you were here) and not really ideal if you want a small, light kit. Really looking forward to the Dolomites next week. How's the weather forecast?
@@AndyMumford the weather is good these days. There isn't so much snow compare to the last year, but in the next few days we should have really great conditions :) Fingers crossed! All the best mate
I got this lens based in large part on your review and it is indeed spectacular. So much so that I used my X-T3 to shoot a mountain landscape that involved a fairly strenuous predawn hike, versus bringing the heavier GFX 50S. The resulting image was wonderful. I had agonized over using the X-T3 vs the GFX, but finally decided to go for it and decide once and for all whether the X-T3 and 8-16 were up to the challenge for landscapes and they proved they are. Not as awesome as the GFX, for sure, but still excellent. Very happy with this lens and APS-C camera. Oh and if I know I'm going to need filters I bring the 10-24. Thanks!
Hey, Andy. Phil Norton, a photographer in England, made a high quality adapter to fit a NISI filter onto an Olympus 7-14mm which has the same issues as the XF8-16. I have no idea if it would work on your lens, but might be a place to start exploring. Thanks for your videos and really appreciate your photos! Happy New Year. Jim
Hi Jim, actually both Lee and NiSi have filter holders for the lens. I didn't know when I recorded the video, but I've since updated the description with links to both. By the way, this isn't my lens....I just borrowed it from Fuji for the review and have given it back since. Happy New Year to you too.
With the differences I saw in the pictures you demonstrated being so small, I would never bother with the size of this 8-16. Especially at twice the price.
Best review of the 8-16 I have seen yet. My romance with Fuji has just begun. In December, I got the XT-3 (after months of salivating) and the 16-55. Can't say this lens is for me. I would more likely break "trinity" and get the 10-24 to complement the 16-55. The 8-16, 16-55, and 50-140 would be some triumvirate though.
Hi Daniel, thanks for the review. At the end of the day, while I really loved this lens, it's not for me either (I borrowed it for the review) and the 10-24mm will remain my wide angle zoom. I switched to Fuji to save size and weight, and as I'm making more and more video and hence take additional equipment with me, lighter and smaller has become even more important.
The difficulty with attaching filters for long exposures is what puts me off getting this lens. Plus, I seldom shoot at ultra-wide focal lengths … 24mm ( in full frame ) is usually the widest I shoot. Otherwise it looks a superb lens.
Since I made this someone has commented that Lee actually do have a filter holder for it, but it's for 150mm filters www.leefilters.com/index.php/camera/system-sw150 Like you said though, if 24mm is as wide as you shoot then the XF16-55 has the comparable image quality and build at a focal range that's more useful for you.
Thanks so much Salva, glad you enjoyed the video. There'll probably be another Iceland workshop in 2020, we're looking into our plans for next year now. Have a great new year yourself, all the best for 2019
Hi Ivan, thanks for the comment, glad you liked the video. I actually use a Gitzo Traveller 1545T with the 82TQD ball head. I honestly can't recommend a tripod with a low budget as I've always believed that a tripod is something that you should invest in. A good one will last you forever, and see you through countless different bodies and lenses. Having said that, I know people who say good things about Benro tripods, which are a fair bit less expensive than Gitzo.
Another great video and review. I was sold up until the mention of the filter restriction! What a shame! I look forward to your next video. Cheers and happy new year Andy!
Hi Andy, thanks for the comment, glad you like the video. Someone in the comments section sent me a link to a Lee holder which will fit the lens, but of course it's for 150mm filters www.leefilters.com/index.php/camera/system-sw150
Nicely done Andy. I use both an X-H1 and a Nikon D750. I got myself the Tamron 15-30mm for my D750 which shares a similar design (a bulbous front element with no filter thread and a built in lens hood). I bought that Tamron lens because NiSi made a 150 mm filter adaptor that clamps around the lens hood. The minute I discover that NiSi will be making a similar adaptor for the XF8-16mm f/2.8 lens both will be going straight in my basket 👍🏼
Filter kits for this lens are also available from Fotodiox: fotodioxpro.com/products/wpcore-fx816f28 I do agree with Andy's assessment about the sharpness - this is better than any of the ultra-wide zooms I've ever used from Canon, Nikon, or Sony.
Thanks, Andy, an insightful review. It's quite a lens, but not being able to use filters is a deal-breaker for me. I can't understand why they would put an unremovable lens hood on this. Happy New Year! Looking forward to your videos in 2019.
Thanks Robert, glad you like the video, and happy new year to you too. Since I published the video a couple of people have pointed out that Lee make a 150mm adaptor which fits this lens www.leefilters.com/index.php/camera/system-sw150 It's pretty big and bulky (like the lens) but there is a solution for people who want it
4.53 Dont you find it strange with the same settings the exposure is almost exactly the same. Michael the Maven did a good experiment showing that although the 8-16 has a wider aperture, the actual light passing through all those extra elements might mean it ends up with a similar t-stop, so people may not be getting that extra light they think of for 2.8.
@@miljo2146 It should be brighter because its an f.2.8 aperture. I was emphasising the difference and relevance of t-stop over f-stop. Do you understand?
@@seamydobbsno1 no it shouldn't be brighter because he's shooting at f11 and exact same exposure. Try to find a setting on a light meter where you have to put in the open aperture of the lens. Makes no sense.
Another great YT video Andy. I love using my 10-24, The 8-16 looks like it may soon make a hole in my bank account, the extra field of view and sharpness are incredible. 👍
Looks good -- I use the 10-24 and this clearly looks better. BUT: I probably wouldn't want to carry it, and losing the long end would be a bummer for that weight. The real answer is for them to put out a 8mm prime lens, since that's really what we're buying it for. We could then carry it + the 10-24 and have the best of all worlds. Right now, my favorite wide angle lens is a 8mm fisheye, especially for architecture because I love being creative with the distortion. But I'd love a prime 8mm wide angle the same size.
Have you tried the Laowa 9mm f2.8? It's cheap, small and surprisingly good, but like you say, I'd love for Fuji to make a super-wide prime as the 14mm just isn't wide enough.
Great Video Andy. I'm not a Fuji shooter but I do love your landscape tutorials to check out your stunning images. I remember you saying that you switched to Fuji to reduce the weight of your kit - but this lens weighs more than my 5d. I'm not criticising or contradicting Andy but I have been trying to figure out a lighter kit myself after spinal surgery. And carrying my 10007.3g 70-200 2.8L isn't much fun. So I know you saved weight on the camera but that is so heavy for a wide angle lens.
It is indeed a very heavy lens, and I reviewed it because I was interested in seeing how it performed. Because of it's bulk and my desire to travel light I highly doubt I'll buy the lens. I'll be doing some heavy trekking in February, April, July and September trips and it's probably not a lens I'd want to take with me for that.
I thought you'd actually bought the lens Andy. Who could have blamed you if you had? Top quality glass is too hard to resist, but they cripple us. F2.8 Pro glass should be renamed 'Siren' Lens's - After those in Greek Mythology. Have a successful 2019 Andy 👍 @@AndyMumford
Hi Andy, just a quick comment but you’ve said a couple of times that this lens has no distortion. To the best of my knowledge there is actually a lot of distortion at both ends of the range. All the correction is 100% handled in-camera software when shooting jpeg and Capture One for RAW(RAF) - just like the “Fujicron” primes. I’d invite you to reviewing an old RAW photo and turning off lens corrections in C1.
I guess it depends on your perspective. Distortion is corrected in camera and isn't dependant on external software, and there's no distortion in the RAW files in either Lightroom or Capture One Pro, unless you actively disable the feature that removed it in the first place. This is done without cropping into the image, so you get the true focal length with no distortion out of the camera in both RAW and JPEG. So for me, to all intents and purposes, for real actual shooting, this lens has no distortion.
Andy Mumford Hi Andy, yes I suppose it is a matter of perspective then. For real shooting it doesn’t matter; but then it’s an ambiguous claim for many lenses that only suffer from simple barrel or pincushion distortion (easily corrected for). I consider my copy of XF 23/1.4 to be free of distortion (or at least if there is some, it’s imperceptible) rather than the 16-55 or 10-24 that require software to get the job done. In the end it doesn’t matter, but the claim should be transparent is all.
Hi Sandy, yes someone else sent me the link for that too. Interesting. Now I have to decide if it's worth the extra bulk of the larger filters and filter holder along with the extra bulk of the lens
I am new the your channel but quite impressed how detailed and professional it is - being a new fuji user I will jeep on following you and hope you are doing workshop on landscape photography and if you might read these lines please give me a short answer - great videos! Thanks in advance
Excellent review mate! I did the unthinkable and forked out the money for one (along with the 55-200mm) damn boxing day sales! I think NiSi will be releasing a 150mm filter system that'll I'll probably look into. Everything is so damn expensive!
Hi Michael, thanks for the comment glad you liked the video. Are you enjoying the lens? I've just found out that Lee actually do make a filter holder for 150mm filters that fits the lens www.leefilters.com/index.php/camera/system-sw150
I'm hesitating because of the weigth and size (I tried it at the store and I was horrified by the weigth and size), but the problem with the 10-24 is that i'ts not that much better than my cel phone (huawei p-30) while the 8-16 is definetely a step higher. You have to suffer the weigth and size to get pictures that are worth carrying a real camera instead of just a slim smarthpone. The other drawbakc is the also horrifying price, but I just found out some used ones at half the price so i'm gonna get one!!!
Another great honest review Andy. I have been considering this lens for a while, not so much for the wide vista landscapes but for confined spaces I find myself in with maritime and industrial photography. I have been using the 10-24 but have found in some instances a wider lens would of been better. Think this will be my next lens investment. have a good year and keep the videos coming.
Bit late to the party with this review, but just a heads up that I think Lee now do an adapter for their SW150 filter holder for the 8-16mm in a similar way they do one for the Nikon 12-24mm if that helps anyone.
@@AndyMumford Apologies, hadn't checked the description before posting the comment. Currently using the Laowa 9mm on the XT-2 but sorely tempted by the 8-16mm. Great review and keep up the good work.
5:49 distracted from technical discussion, liked the right-hand image composition better 8:50 "Night Train to Lisbon" location? I am putting in my guess: framed New Guinea headress
I just want to call to your attention that you say the field of view in this is quite considerable compared to the 10-24, but when you review the 10-24 you say that there is not a big difference or something like that.
Thanks for the review. At the 5:13 mark, is there a reason the 8mm sky looks so much more light blue than the 10mm? The 8mm sky is noticeably more blue and the 10mm seems to have to better graduation of the pinkish atmospheric colouring near the horizon. They are the same image obviously, but but how both lens have rendered the sky seems very different.
Hi Andy, many thanks for this review, it's been a great help, how does the sharpness of the 8-16 compare to the Laowa 9mm 2.8 ? I know they are different animals but I don't want the bulk and weight of the 8-16 so looking at the Laowa as an alternative. Cheers and happy new year.
Hi Richard, thanks for the comment. The 8-16mm performs better than the Laowa in the borders, particularly at f2.8, and there's also no vignetting, which the Laowa does suffer from a little.
Thanks for this, helpful as ever. A lovely lens. The filters issue really does deter me - and I suppose it won't take a polariser, either? if so, a big drawback for me. I don't think I'll invest.
Since I made the review a couple of of people have pointed out that Lee do actually make a filter holder that takes 150mm filters www.leefilters.com/index.php/camera/system-sw150 They're big and bulky, but they do work.
Hi Ryan, when I shot Nikon I only used the 14-24 a couple of times and that would be almost 10 years ago now (I used the 17-35mm f2.8 and later the 16-35mm f4 as my wide angle zooms) and it's difficult to give an accurate comparison based on memory.
Really informative and useful review thanks Andy. I shoot churches for a calendar using Canon 1DX3 and 24mm and 17mm shift lenses. That's all I use the Canon for now since I became a Fuji lover. I had hoped this new lens might enable me to dispose of the Canon but alas no. My camera supplier lent me an 8-16mm for a couple of hours and I tried to shoot a couple of churches but could not fit them in frame without a substantial amount of tilt and the perspective control in LR/PS was not adequate and distorted the dimensions so it looks as if I have to keep the Canon 'truck' (lot of love/hate there Andy) with its two big but beautiful TS lenses. The 8-16mm is a mind blowing lens in every respect except for the above. (BTW, one of the filter manufacturers has released a filter kit for the lens) The lens is certainly crisp as, and totally distortion free. Meanwhile I just keep lugging the Canon and and wait for Fuji to make a 16mm, effective 24mm, tilt/shift! Good shooting and vlogging for 2019. Best. Robin. Australia.
Hi Robin, thanks for the comment, glad you liked the video. I've had this conversation before about when/whether Fuji will move into producing more niche lenses like T/S and exotic telephotos for wildlife. Sooner or later they have to come along.
Investigating that thanks Thomas. Have seen mixed reviews of the practicality including some difficulties focussing to infinity and of course I would lose some of the wide angle.
Thanks for that. Another commenter has alps pointed out that the Lee 150mm system also has a holder that will fit it www.leefilters.com/index.php/camera/system-sw150
Hi Ben. I'd never take the 8-16mm on a hiking trip. Not only is it too big and heavy, but I also lose the 16-24mm range of the 10-24mm, which is something I use a lot. So I'd also have to bring along another lens to cover that range (I don't normally carry a mid range lens as I never shoot between 24mm and 55mm). So I'd go from carrying 2 zoom to carrying 3 zooms, one of which is super big and heavy just to get an extra 2mm of wide angle. If COVID allows I'll be hiking with a tent in Patagonia in April, and then camping near the top of some of the peaks in Senja, Norway in July, and the 8-16mm isn't a lens I'll consider at all.
Thanks for the practical review as always Andy. Curious about the color rendition compared to the 10-24. The sky in the side by side image was drastically differently colored between the 2 lenses. Was that just due to light changes between taking the photos? Fuji lenses normally very consistent with color cast, so would be surprised if they were that different.
Hi Adam, thanks for the comment. I've checked the two images in both Lr and C1 now, and there is indeed a difference in colour and light. There was a difference of about a minute between the two shots while I changed lenses, and it could be to do with that...I don't think it's an optical or software based difference.
Very impressive lack of distortion-especially for a lens this wide on APS-C. Not that it matters much, but how much of that would you attribute to in-camera correction vs. optics? A lens like this makes me want to use my fuji full-time... I REALLY wish they'd build some shift-lenses already! One thing you didn't address was vignetting at various focal lengths. I have the Sigma 14-24 and it has a pretty good amount of vignetting before you correct for it.
Hi Colin. I suspect that a large part of the lack of distortion is in-camera correction...a number of people have commented on this. As you say, I'm not sure what real difference it makes, the corrected RAW files are imported into Lightroom or Capture One with no loss of resolution or detail, and no distortion. As for vignetting, that's a good point, one that I meant to include and my failure to do so just speaks to the fact that I'm still learning with video...I just forgot to put it in. Pretty much every review I've done, I've finished it, uploaded it and then realised, " Ah, I forgot to mention x..." Anyway, I looked at the vignetting and there's practically non. It was something that I was actually interested in as the Laowa 9mm I use now does vignette quite a bit at f2.8, but the Fuji has almost none.
@@AndyMumford I think the only possible downsides to in-camera corrections would be loss of detail where heavy distortion gets corrected and loss of dynamic range where heavy vignetting gets corrected. In any case, it looks like an impressive lens.
I have the xs10 with the 16-55 f2.8. Would you recommend the 10-24 or the 8-16? I don't mind the size and weight. I want to do travel, landscape and video and a little bit of vlogging
The 8-16 is a sharper lens, and the faster aperture makes it great for astro, plus you have the 16-55, so coverage isn't an issue. The drawback you might have with the 8-16 for landscapes is how problematic it is to use filters with it. There are options, but they are very big and expensive, so if that's not a problem, then I'd say go for it.
Another great video, thank you. I had my sights set on the 10-24mm till I saw the 8-16mm. I like that the 8-16mm is obviously wider and weather sealed, though I'm not sure that will make much difference. The only negative I can see with the 8-16mm is price and the weight, I got out of the Canon DSLR plus the 24-70mm because of weight. Any thoughts on the 10-24mm vs 8-16mm aside from me probably answering my own question?
Thanks for watching, glad you enjoyed the video. The best way to answer your question is to say that I still use the 10-24 and not the 8-16. Size, weight, it being problematic with filters ( there are solutions, but they are big, cumbersome and expensive) and the lack of range at the long end (I shoot a lot at 24mm) are the reasons why.
Good review, Andy, and wow, what a big block of glass! Am curious, though; working as you do out in the elements, do you/would you ever worry about damage to a lens, like this one, that is not protected by a filter? Thanks for the video(s).
Thanks for the comment. To be honest I never really worry about that and I’ve never used filters to protect the front element. I mean, I take care of my gear but at the end of the day they’re just tools. So far, touch wood, I’ve never broken one
I wish you had done this comparison at the same focal length. I don't think it is fair to compare the definition of the two lenses with one at 8mm and the other at 10mm the depth of field is going to be vastly different.
The difference between 8mm and 10mm at f11 when focused about 10m into the frame is about 20 cm in the foreground (the acceptable area of sharpness begins at 27cm and 41 cm respectively and continues to infinity in both cases. www.cambridgeincolour.com/tutorials/dof-calculator.htm. With both lenses everything I compared, particularly the rocks on the right side of the frame was well within the lenses depth of field. In fact, from camera height and distance to the foreground the whole of both images was in focus.
Hi Bob, thanks for the comment, glad you liked the review Someone below sent me a link to a Lee holder which Lee state will fit the 8-16mm. It's for 150mm filters though www.leefilters.com/index.php/camera/system-sw150
Thanks for the video Andy - another excellent video! Are you now using Capture One? I saw this lens in the shop, and it is large ..... if I were buying some of these red badge, it seems more logical to go FF .... the reason I switched to Fuji is the pro grade kit that is small, so will retain the 10-24 .... agree lack of filters makes this even more expensive and cumbersome
Hi Grant, thanks for the comment. I am using Capture One, but not exclusively. I like it a lot, but at the moment I using at alongside Lightroom and Photoshop. Over time though, I can see myself using it more and more. As for this lens, I agree with you. I really loved the 8-16mm,but it's not for me either (I borrowed it for the review) and the 10-24mm will remain my wide angle zoom. I switched to Fuji to save size and weight, and as I'm making more and more video and hence take additional equipment with me, lighter and smaller has become even more important. So yeah, I've just packed for the Dolomites and it's the usual 10-24,18-55 and 55-200 (along with the Laowa 9mm for stars). So no red badges there for me either.
Andy Mumford many thanks for the reply Andy .... as a recent convert to Fuji, I’m struggling to choose software as my old Lightroom v5.7 is no good with XT2 .... Capture One looks good but lacks some features of LR and PS ...... e.g. focus stacking, panoramas, HDR ..... and all my Canon photos are nicely organised in LR.....
I like the 16mm perspective. I have heard that zoom lenses are less sharp at the ends of their zoom range. Would the 10-24mm be sharper than the 8-16mm or the 16-55mm at 16mm?
Thanks for the details reviews, one quick question, is the lens distortion free or the camera firmware/software fixing the distortion? Honestly is way too expensive for me, the 10-24 it's good enough and the size were more compact.
8-16mm f2.8 is great optically, but: it's big and heavy and... IT'S $2000! I'm not a pro, I could never justify this. You say you almost forgot to try it at 16mm. I would too, and so I wish someone would just make an UWA AF prime. Maybe an AF 10mm f2 (APS-C). How does the Laowa 9mm compare with this in sharpness?
Yeah, I would love Fuji to make a fast 10mm prime...I think they'd sell bucketloads of them. The Laowa 9mm is pretty sharp, but it vignettes quite a bit.
Hello Personally, I really like your approach to photography. As always, balanced but also detailed and helpful review. I would like to ask you for advice. Only one month I use Fuji (I bought 18-55 together with XT3, then I bought 24 f1.4, 56 f1.2 because I like to move on the border) but I have been a photography enthusiast for about 30 years. The answer to my question is partly included in the final evaluation of Fujinon 8-16, but I would like to clarify it. Do you think that Laowa 9mm (I have this lens) or Samyang 12 f2 can be a solution for not being able to use Little, Big or SuperStoper from Lee on Fujinon 8-16 versus its apparent optical advantage over Fujinon 10-24?
I have both the Laowa and the 10-24mm and pretty much use the 10-24mm all the time unless I'm shooting astro, which is when I'll use the Laowa. It is a sharp lens, and works well with filters, but I don't feel it works as a replacement for either zoom as it lacks the flexibility.
I see that I did not speak precisely. The question was whether Laowa is good enough to serve as a basic lens for very long exposures when filters are needed. However, as I have the opportunity I will ask you directly: whether the purchase of Fujinon 8-16, apart from the obvious aspects of a wider angle of view, WR is not a kind of pursuit of a "better" lens for many of us, or Fujinon 10-24 is not fully satisfying even for a photography enthusiast? @@AndyMumford
And here i am, 2+ years with a6500 and waiting for sony to release a similar ultra wide angle zoom 2.8 and stil has no luck. Il probably wait for xh2 for 4k/60 and improved battery life
Crazy deal on XH-1 right now. I went from the A6000 to the XT-3. The A6000 will always have a soft spot in my heart and was super reliable but the XT-3 is in another league build quality wise.
I was really interested in this lens, but the lack of ability to use filters with it seems very disappointing. I'm new to photography, but it seems to me like a pretty glaring omission for such a nice lens. Is there any obvious reason they would have left out the ability to use this lens with a filter?
Which lens will you choose for travel, the XF8-16mm or Laowa 9mm? Both have fast aperture at f2.8 and about the same focal length (1mm difference)... is the IQ of this lens can justify the weight amd size? Tq
Hi Andy! To be honest I can't understand why the manufacturers, in some cases like this one, goes for a integrated lens hood design. Yes, there's a reason, I know. To reduce the flare effect, isn't it? But is it that intense to don't let the user take the hood off? Since that kind of lens are mostly used without the hood but with a filter-holder, it has no sens to me. Anyhow, the IQ of this 8-16mm is incredible!! Also the build quality, as usual with Fuji. BTW, I shouldn't watch that kind of gear reviews, my economy would appreciate it. Thanks a lot anyway for sharing your knowledge! I wish you a happy and successful year!
Hi Edu, thanks for the comment, glad you liked the review. I honestly don't know the mechanics or physics of why these kind of lenses have lens petals like this one, but usually on such UWA lenses the front' element is so bulbous that it projects considerably from the lens. With no petal at all that glass would be very exposed, and because of the horizontal nature of the sensor it the petal extended around the side it would be visible in the frame.
I would like to receive your advice on which objective to buy between the Fuji 8-16mm or the Fuji 8mm, for interiors of monuments and exteriors. I have the 10-24 but sometimes it falls short in angle.
That's some lens. But, not for me right now as I don't tend to shoot that wide for the photography I currently mainly do. Still, if the filter issue could be overcome I can imagine a lot of landscape photographers using the Fuji system would love that lens. Happy New Year and look forward to more of your excellent videos!
Hi Mark, thanks for the comment. Another commenter sent me a link to a Lee filter holder which Lee list as being compatible with the lens, but it's for the bigger 150mm filters www.leefilters.com/index.php/camera/system-sw150 Happy New Year to you too, all the best for 2019
You're welcome. Since I made the video I've found out that Lee actually make a filter holder for 150mm filters that fit the lens www.leefilters.com/index.php/camera/system-sw150
Hi, I do pretty much all my landscape work with zooms as they're just more convenient. I did own the XF14mm f2.8 lens, which I used for astro shots (the astro shots I show in this video were all done with it) and that's a great lens.
Hey Andy! Great video thank you! I am about to enter into the fuji x sistem and trying to decide between xt2 and xt3... so am wondering which one do you recomand more for landscapes mostly?... thanks in advance and wishing you a fantastic 2019!
Hi, thanks for the comment, and all the best for you in 2019 too. As someone has commented below, the best advice I can give you is to have a look at the X-T3 review I put out a week or so ago where I look at the camera's side by side. For landscapes still photography only there's not a huge amount of difference between the two cameras.
Thank you Andy! The thing is I was a bit worried about the new xt3 noise performance and over all detail capture abilities being worse than the two previous models... due to some comments I was reading about it on amazon and also some RU-vid comparisons I saw. What is your opinion on this matter?
you say optically no distortion? I think that is mainly due to software I also tried it and was put off by the fact that I couldn't apply filters...absurd.
