You guys made 2 errors: at the time of releasing this video the Tamron 150-500mm is already adapted for a few months on Fuji. The second one is that the Laowa macro APSC lens is 65mm not 100mm :). Just putting this here for the people who want to follow the recommendations you gave.
@@thegrayyernaut It is a sharp little lens, especially on the wide end, and has surprisingly good close focusing ability. They can also be found super cheap, sometimes in the $150 range, almost no reason not to have one. (although I sold mine to my assistant with an X-T1😁.. might get another though)
The Fuji 90mm f2 is one of the best fuji lenses ever , and very very underrated . I have 14 best fuji lenses ( not the 200mm f2 ) and the 90mm f2 is in my eyes the best .
As someone who adapts a Canon 85 F1.8, I would still buy the Fuji 90, as the image quality is way way way better. I'm just holding out to see what quality Viltrox can deliver with the coming 75mm lens.
The Viltrox 13mm f1.4 is incredible. The new 56mm is extremely sharp. However as a Fujifilm user I'm not a fan of clinical sharp lenses. My current favorite is my Pixco EF to X dummy speed booster for my Helios 44M with an oval aperture. A few years later these automatic sharp lenses may be obsolete, but a lens with character is here to last. Don't invest your money in the latest and greatest, invest in the ones you actually enjoy the most.
I’ve owned a lot of Fuji glass and as a hobbyist, can’t justify most of it. I finally settled a humble used XC 15-45mm which gives the 22.5-64mm 35mm equivalent focal lengths in a tiny lightweight collapsible package. Sure, not for heavy duty use, but perfect for a beginner or a video shooter.
The 60mm f2.4 is a great portrait lens, too. Equivalent to 90mm on full frame, which was Leica's standard portrait length for 50 years. No, it won't give you that stylish paper-thin depth of field, but I kinda like having both the nose and the ears in focus anyway.
The weight of the 150-600 blew my mind. It's so unbelievably lightweight for its size. I have no practical use for it in my work, but using it in our camera store and handling it I'm kind of in love with it.
If you use the 2x teleconverter with 150-600 mm it becomes 1200 mm And it is equal to 1800mm zoom in fullframe. With new 40 megapixel sensors you can still crop 2x the photo without sacrifice of wuality. Which makes 20 megapixel photo of 3600mm equivalent zoom of full frame. Many people think fullframe is superior bcs of better light gathering and shallow depth of field. But if you need zoom apsc system lenses are smaller and lighter. Also when i make macro photos shallow depth of field is not good. Apsc sensors are superior to fullframes when macro or zoom photos are needed.
They need the size for the focal length, but they do not use much glass in it because the aperture is very small. Unacceptable. It was easy to get a larger aperture because it is aps.
The 18 1.4 is my favorite X-mount lens, too. Perfect focal length for everyday shots, razor sharp, and near silent focusing for video. I wish it had just a smidge more subject isolation, but I think an 18 1.2 would be asking for too much 😅
My favorite Fuji lens is the XC 35. The price to performance is amazing. 2nd and 3rd place are Sigma 16/1.4 and 56/1.4. That is my setup, and the overall price is low, while the performance is not.
Out of nowhere my XF 35 f2 stopped wanting to focus. I fast 50mm focal length is a MUST have for me. I was short on funds at the moment, so I went for a Viltrox 33 1.4 that I found for $200 on Ebay in like new condition. Talk about bang for your buck!!! Great build quality, accurate AF, my copy is sharp even at 1.4. At a quarter the price of the new Fuji 33, I'd say it's definitely worth checking out.
Some of the best lenses for Fujifilm X are the Fringer Pro II adapters which allows adapting Canon EF and Nikon F lenses, such as the dirt-cheap EF 10-18, 24, 40, 50, 60 macro (purchased for under $100 each used, aka 20% to 25% of the ~$400+ Fuji lenses they replace), 17-55, 85 and the Nikon 300 and 500 PF lenses popular for wildlife (that don't exist in Fuji X). I also adapt the EF 200 F2.8 L lens which cost me $200 used, aka 3% of a new Fuji 200 F2. Very sharp, lots of bokeh, only one stop slower. ♥
Yeah, but objectively most of those lenses offered only a fraction of the optical quality we take for granted today, especially at wide apertures, close distances, or shooting into the light. Sure, we all have nostalgic memories of "my good old ________ that was as sharp as a tack," but I can virtually guarantee you that if you track one down on eBay and stick it onto your new 40-megapixel X-T5, you are not gonna be a happy camper. Of course some old lenses had "character" (translation: crappy quality that looks pretty) but it's a lot more feasible to start with a high-quality image and remove quality until you get to where you want than to try to go in the opposite direction...
@@jlwilliams Technological progress without an increase in cost is to be expected with automation and modern design methods. See TVs, active studio monitors, etc. Lenses are more or less closed monopolies. Fujinon was a textbook monopoly on the lens department. By character you mean aberrations. Viltrox primes have lots of character🙂
YEAH ! What´s 900 bucks or event 600 bucks to us Portuguese who get 750 bucks per month !!!! ???? we don´t have these type of first world probs... bc we cannot afford to buy this stuff
I'm a simple person, so with the Fuji 18-55 and the Fuji 70-300 I cover most of my needs and make me happy; I don't want bulky, heavy and expensive lenses; the lighter and compact, the better for me. I also have the Fuji 16mm 2.8, but I seldom use it (the 18-55 would do most of the time), and the Viltrox 85 for portraits, which I think I'll substitute for the Sigma 56 in the near future.
Not far off me. I have the 18-55 and 70-300 in my bag permanently - the third slot goes to either the Sigma 56, or Samyang 12 depending on what I plan to shoot. I carry it EVERYWHERE, so size and weight is important to me. Even If it wasn't, I would probably still choose this kit to be honest. The only thing I've even considered changing is the 18-55 for a 16-55, but while it might be faster at the long end, it lacks OIS so at the wide end and in the middle I'm better off with the 18-55. If I need more speed at the long end I switch to the Sigma. The Tamron 17-70 seems like a good option - It's constant 2.8, weather sealed, and has OIS... But it's pretty much the same size as the 70-300... The Sigma 56 is incredible. Even at double the price it would still be a solid choice.
Sad that my favourite lenses weren't mentioned. I love the 16f2.8, 23f2, 50f2. I do own the original 35f1.4 but I prefer the others for contrast and colour.
The 13mm is some godly work of art, but the 23 and 33 have definite tradeoffs especially in aberrations. They are worth the money but I wouldn't call them value
@@Vinterloft an f1.4 23mm lens at 250 usd with AF. That itself screams value, there is no competition for it. The closest is the 30mm f1.4 Sigma but it's a 45mm equiv, not 35mm.
@@DeepteshLovesTECH I have never seen the 23 or 33 below €330. I consider the 23 to be worth that, but the 33 no way. It is the one with the most aberrations, serious halos but at least it's sharp
Okay, I clicked on the thumbnail and instantly skipped ~3-5min into the video.. had to come back to 0:20 to not miss any content. Straight to the facts, subbed 🖤
I have a lot of love for the 2 most unloved Fuji lenses… the 23f2 and 16-80… so much hate for these but honestly I don’t see it, I’ve taken soooooo many great photos with these 2 lenses 🥰
I got the 16-80 as the kit lens with the X-S10. Versatile. Solid performer. I got the 70-300 a few weeks ago and it is sharper, but the 16-80 is my goto travel glass.
I don't know, the 23 f2 in my opinion is just bad: it dramatically drops sharpness at a level of appearing it's backfocusing on close subjects. On far subjects is fine nonetheless, but for the use i do of that focal length it was a nightmare. After I discarded almost all photos of a weekend with friends I returned it. I don't know, maybe was also my expectations: I'm used to the 17mm f1.8 from Olympus and that lens is dramatically better than the Fuji 23.
@@paulasimson4939 It is not even half the resolution of the 16-55 in corners, and is optically inferior in many ways. It deteriorates very fast over 40mm. The 16-55 competes with primes at f4 and over and is not very expensive. I would only get 16-80 at less than half its retail price, as a kit lens.
So, serious question: does the Laowa 100mm F2.8 2x Ultra Macro even exist for the X Mount? If it does, I would love for someone to tell me where to get it, because I'm having trouble finding it.
I'm so glad you gave major love for the 200mm f/2. With the 1.4 tele, you get a 300mm f/2.8 ff equivalent and a 440 f/4 ff equivalent. It is expensive, but I can't think of another system where I can get this type of combo for the price of Fuji's 200mm.
Yep. I shot around 60 soccer games with the 200f2 (without TC when the stadium lights were bad). In combination with the X-H2s and the 50-140 I loved it. The only bad aspect: the lense hood is crap - lightweight but fragile. I had mine replaced with a newer version that seems to have a better mechanism. But still it doesn’t seem to be built for rough use (in contrast to that Canon tanks)
The XF80 is the main reason I have Fujifilm gear. One of the few mirrorless designed macro lenses that accept the teleconverters with AF. I prefer the AF macro lens because I can take advantage of the in-camera focus bracketing.
Shame you didn’t get to try the Viltrox 13 f/1.4, that lens is stunning. Very eager to try their new 75 f/1.2. Regarding the Laowa I think you meant to refer to the 65 f/2.8 ultra macro
XF35mm F/1.4 for me. It's light and compact, versatile, sharp enough even wide open and has beautiful rendering.
Год назад
Definitely agree on the xf 90 mm f/2 then my picks sigma 16 f/1,4 also agreed on the sigma 18-50 but I d go with xf 70-300 and xf 150-600 the xf 200 is too pricey 😊
Why is the 16-80mm f4 zoom so unliked? I think it is the perfect all terrain lens for anything and everything. F2.8 is overrated these days with the excellent high ISO capabilities of almost any camera. You won't miss a shot by having F4 but you might by not having the extra zoom range or having to change lenses or whatever.
I have it. Love it. Reviewers always add "bUT nOt shARp, nO f/2.8" into their videos as if the 16-80mm range isn't big enough of an advantage, while being as sharp as the 18-55 f/2.8-4.0, one of the best kit lenses ever made.
hi, I'm about to buy a fuji XS-10 and I'm in doubt whether to buy the fujifilm kit lens (18-55 f2.8-f4 or 16-80 f4) or Sigma f2.8. My use will be for both photography and videos in particular landscapes, architecture, streephotos even nocturnes so the idea was to have a versatile lens eventually combined with a prime. I'm not a professional, but I'd like to get the best result and quality. What would you suggest me to purchase? Sigma? the 2 above-mentioned fuji lens? Any others from third parties? I'd be pleased to receive advice from you . Thanks
The 50mm F2 is also a solid lens if you want something sharp and punchy. For portraits I lean toward my 35mm F1.4 (even if you can't quite trust the autofocus), but I really like the 50mm F2 for food photography and situations where a tighter "standard" prime is called for.
Did you try Laowa 65mm ( he said 100, but it doesn't exist, it's probably 65 )? The lens has many great reviews at BH. I'm starting Food Photography, already have 35mm, and did a good first job last Thursday! I didn't like my kit lens ( at XT4 ) so I was looking for this Lawoa, now considering your opinion about 50mm :) curious about this Sigma 18-50 shown in the video.
To me the 16mm f1.4 and 90mm f2 are the best… different contrast, clarity, rendering etc absolutely amazing. Can tell immediately when I look at the shots how much better they are. Both simply amazing.
you have to try the new 18mm 1.4. It made me sell my 16mm. Basically the same close focus distance, much sharper, better compression, no distortion, no CA (horrible on 16mm), and better auto focus.
I would like to mention an often overlooked lens: the 50mm F2. It resides in the shadow of the often celebrated (rightfully so) 56mm F1.2 and 50mm F1.0 lenses. The F2 lens is very inexpensive, lightweight, very small and produces very sharp pictures. I was surprised at how sharp it is as well as providing great overall image quality. F2 is wide enough for most of what I do - I rarely found myself in a situation where an extra one or two more stops would be helpful. Given its price and performance, it's an absolute steal!
Some reviewers have criticized its performance wide open, something about softness in the corners I believe. I love mine and I use it constantly to good effect. I carry the 16mm f2.8, 23mm f2, 35mm f2, 50mm f2 and 90mm f2 with my X-Pro2 in an Ona Brixton bag, and Im set for most situations. An added bonus is that they all perform beautifully on my infrared converted body, too.
Surprisingly, I bought and am enjoying a super cheap TTArtisan 50/1.2 MF lens for only $90. It has great build quality and decent sharpness when stopped down a little. I shoot it mostly at f/1.4 or f/8. It has character, being a Zeiss Sonnar based design. I’m enjoying manual focus for my style of shooting. So cheap and yet so much fun! After selling my Fuji 56/1.2 R, I bought this instead of the Fuji 50/2.0 because I wasn’t shooting at this focal length very much and didn’t want to spend much money to cover it. Ironically, now I’m shooting at 50mm a whole bunch.
Glad to see Fuji getting some attention. I looked at the 150-600 but it's massive. I hike with my 100-400 and 1.4TC. Works for me. Thanks for the review. Love you guys!
I love my 100-400mm, but it rarely gets used since I bought the 70-300mm. The size makes it so much more manageable, even though I'm losing some reach. And it works with the teleconverters.
@@GuidoLikesPigsjust now I noticed your answer, thank you! I will take it, the price is amazing! Last Thursday I did my first food pictures with Fuji 35mm which worked very well ( did a much better job than the standard zoom kit lens ) I will also check this Sigma 56 he mentioned.
I'm partial to the 27mm F2.8 as for the longest time it was the only native lens I had for Fuji. It was sharp enough with acceptable AF(probably better on the newer bodies?) & it was compact, especially paired with an X-E camera. I'm told the V2 is a little better in terms of performance too.
You say it "was" sharp, it "was" compact. Not "is". What happened? Don't you use it at all now? Taken over by a zoom? (BTW I have the new one, just to experience it.)
For me it’s the Zeiss 32mm f1.8 and the 90mm f2. The pictures taken with those 2 are amazing. I also love the Zeiss 50mm 2.8 macro. Owned the 50mm f2 but did not like the nervous backgrounds and chromatic aberration it has.
@RamblingLando I imagine the 90 is amazing, and I'd love to use it one day, but Aristides = broke college kid who used student discounts and old visas from birthdays past to buy gear.
@@aristidesphotography7360 i living in Poland, 1$ = 5pln and we earn around 3/4k pln per month usually. Say me more about prices. When everything imported cost us 5x more. I got one of the highest rates in Poland and still can afford only old used gear
@@jakubstrumillo Fuji 90 is better in every way no doubt, but it's also more than 3 times the price brand new, and holds its value better than the Viltrox on the second hand market. Viltrox is worse, but it's very close to the 90 for sharpness, and "close enough" for most people when it comes to everything else. Imho, it's great that this lens exists, otherwise most people couldn't even touch such a focal length
I can vouch for the Venus Laowa 100. Very sharp and no chromatic aberrations. But there aren't any Laowa lenses in any Fuji mount, so unless I'm mistaken you'll have to use an adapter. I have it in Canon EF mount, and it's the version where you control the aperture from the camera, which means you do get EXIF data from the lens, unlike the other versions.
although I'm happy to see this video, I'm also kinda dispointed to not see any Viltrox lens in the mix. Especially looking at the wide angle category, where the 13mm f/1.4 is a lens that I would consider to be better than any of the 16mm mentionned. The Fuji 18mm f/1.4 is basically a perfect lens, but it can be a little tight for astrophotography as well There's a quick mention of the Tokina 56mm, which is identical to the Viltrox version, just more expensive. Also, if you love character in a lens, where's the Zeiss Touit Planar 32mm f/1.8? The 90mm is a killer lens as well, but it's extremely expensive and a lot of people can't buy it. In that regard, well there is the Viltrox 85mm f/1.8 that is super sharp and really close to the 90mm f/2 at a fraction of the price (i'm going to sound like a broken record really quick...) On the topic of the standard zoom range, I would have talked a bit about the Tamron 17-70 f/2.8 which is a brilliant lens as well and trades blows with the Sigma 18-50 for sharpness (it's almost as sharp as the 16-55 red badge!)
@@JungleCatImages same about the Viltrox 56 and 85 for me. I already have Fuji 35 and 23 f2, but if I needed f/1.4 I'd clearly go viltrox or Sigma, the LM primes are way too expensive for the common man
Hi Chris. I am fortunate to own many of the Fuji X mount lenses. My favourite is the 200mm f2. This lens is razor sharp with beautiful background bokeh & the autofocus is very quick. The build quality is exceptional. Granted it is a “niche” lens, but it renders in a most beautiful way. Image quality with the 1.4 teleconverter is still excellent.😊
90mm represent, easily my favorite lens. I really wish they updated the 16mm 1.4 to a linear motor though, love the focal length and cool things you can do with the distortion.
The Fuiji 23/1.4R WR & Viltrox 13/1.4 XF are my favorite lens for 2022. Also bought the new fuji 56/1.2R WR but disappointed about missing of linear motor.
Not available Laowa 100 mm macro for X-Mount, but only 65 mm F 2.8! but beautiful too! Viltrox 13 F 1.4 is OUTSTANDING, not the other Viltroxs but only 13!
hi, I'm about to buy a fuji XS-10 and I'm in doubt whether to buy the fujifilm kit lens (18-55 f2.8-f4 or 16-80 f4) or this Sigma f2.8. My use will be for both photography and videos in particular landscapes, architecture, streephotos even nocturnes so the idea was to have a versatile lens eventually combined with a prime. I'm not a professional, but I'd like to get the best result and quality. What would you suggest me to purchase? Sigma? the 2 above-mentioned fuji lens? Any others from third parties? I'd be pleased to receive advice from you . Thanks
@@gls6292 they’re all good options, it really comes down to personal preference. The sigma has a fixed f2.8 which is nice, and it’s the smallest. The Fuji lenses both have an aperture ring and image stabilization. The 16-80mm is a bit more expensive but would be my choice. The extra range just makes it a more versatile lens.
People have to give more credit to the xc lenses and other budget, manual focus options. All lenses featured here are so incredibly pricey that I personally wouldn't know any person that could afford such a lens, even on second hand. But I really don't feel like missing out with my cheap lenses, they seem amazingly sharp, too, even on a 4K-Monitor.
I am so bummed that the sigma 18-50 came out 2 months after I pulled the trigger on the Tamron 17-70. I backpack with mine and would sacrifice the longer focal length for those awesome weight savings. *shake my head* STILL an awesome lens. with IS and weather sealing I still am mostly happy with it.
Having tried and owned several lenses for Fujifilm, most of which I have sold, I always keep XF35 1.4 in a pouch. There is a reason for that. If you know, you know.
When I was choosing a lens for everyday use, I first thought about 18, 23, 27, but holding XF35 in my hands and shooting with it, I fell in love - so small and light for 1.4 and with such a three-dimensional imaging! Build quality and visual look are pretty too.
I'd be interested in a video about lightweight setups to get maximum quality. For example, I'm debating a switch to Nikon for the 14-30mm and 24-200mm so I could rely on only two lenses and pair them with a Z7 for high mp. Sure, they're not the absolute sharpest, but they're well reviewed, and the sharper lenses are all heavier. Other manufacturers have a 16-35mm which is not quite wide enough and a 24-105 which is not quite long enough, requiring me to carry more lenses.
The 18mm and 33.3mm have become two of my favorites; the 90mm is one I also have, but rarely use. Although the hit rate is lower, I always find my favorite portraits are from the ‘older’ 56mm.
Best Nikon F/Z lenses would be an interesting list; there’s a lot of weird or unique lenses they’ve put out in the last 60+ years and it’s nice that they’re all compatible with the new cameras.
Well, Chris can't include the 50mm f/1 because he and Jordan hung "worst lens of the year" on it on the year it came out. I have the lens and agree @touchtennis that it's a very good lens.
The 18-55, 10-24 and 18-135 and my super fast 27mm are my go to user friendly street photography lenses. 55-200 is my other go to zoom lens ( more use this for a bit of nature/ amateur wildlife photog.
The Fuji 18-55 is theoretically a $700 lens, but it comes as a kit lens and is therefore commonly sold on eBay brand new split from kit for $320, or $260 used. Therefore it make no sense to spend $550 for the Sigma. The Fuji also comes with OIS despite being dimmer on the long end.
The choice is the Fuji is super sharp at the short end 18-45, the Sigma is more sharp at the "long" end at 50mm and F2.8. As you, I still prefer the Fuji for price, performance, aperture ring, and OIS. Total eye opener first time I used it hand-held at night. Total eye opener when I first used it for video. Really an amazing underrated lens that in other systems would be one of the flagship lenses.
@@problemat1que you will get an used 50 f2 prime easily for 300-350 in the used market or during black friday. And the 50 f2 gives images one of the best
@@anindyaganguly5243 Thanks, I have both and you are right, with the 18-55 plus 50 F2 your are set for a lot of situations. The 18-55 is F3.2 at 23mm, F3.6 at 35mm and incredibly sharp - almost not worth getting the F2 primes for those focal lengths, whereas at 50mm, the F2 is significantly sharper and makes a two-stop difference, totally worth it. For a new kit and even for experienced photographers, these two lenses are enough for the normal zoom range, better to look outside that range for the next lens purchase.
Nice suggestions...but, New sigma 18-50 f2.8 Zoom lens, which you praised over traditional 16-55 f2.8 needs a bit of reconsideration. I recently used sigma with XT4 and its kind of useless for video. When zoom in and out the the focus changes even when AFL is on. Its so inconsistent to a point where its pretty much useless for video. For photography, color and sharpness it's really good..but for hybrid users it's better to stick with XF 16-55 f2.8 or the more affordable option the legendary XF 18-55 f2.8-f4 lens.
I just checked the Laowa 100mm 2.8 since I'm looking for a macro lens for the x-pro3 but there is no x-mount available for it? Did I miss something there or are you talking about adapting another mount to xf?
