@@atselykovskiy But Jordan should be 500m away to make the most cinematic experience. I want talking head shots that look like the opening scene of The French Connection.
Telephoto lenses dimensions are dictated by front lens diameter for the most part, much less so by the field covered. Having made a killer sharp, fairly lightweight lens for medium format, Fujifilm has made a wise choice offering it for x-mount. Now they “only”have to get the concerning autofocus issues solved…
What are the physics behind this, because I dont get when they just needed to cover a crop sensor instead of medium format, why wouldn't they build a lens less big. I thought when using the design of the GF500, the outer parts are ignored on crop sensor.
Before Fuji gets their autofocus in cameras up to speed, I am not investing one more dollar in Fuji gear… and I have too much to even try and summarize… but the H2S is currently s big disappointment! Just yesterday did a head-head shootout of birds in flight with the H2S vs. The T3… the t3 cam out on top, for multiple reasons, but also for handling… and the H2S subject detection is so slow that it is best left off for birds…Fuji, get your rear in gear!
Question about the 17-70, is chromatic aberration a big deal with it? I remember when it first came out that was a factor. But I wonder how noticeable it is in an everyday situation. It's very tempting even with the OIS.
This video may have just convinced me to get a telephoto lens for video lol. Definitely not as long as a 500, but a 300 sounds very doable! The compression is so uniquely beautiful
@@ItsMidasProductions well I suppose that's a good reason not to get that lens... 🙂 If you're a Fuji shooter check out a used or new 50-140 f2.8. it's the one I'm saving for. I've not actually used it but I've yet to see a bad review. (It's 76-213 mm full frame equivalent focal range)
Be interesting to see a comparison of the Fuji 16-55mm with the equivalent Sigma version or indeed the Tamron 17-70mm. When the 1st version of the lens came out, Fuji had a lens monopoly, so it would be interesting to know what know you are getting for the ~$500 apart from an aperture ring.
Even the Mki version of the lens was generally better than the sigma. And buying used they were actually a similar price. While the weight and size savings is very welcome now, and on the face of it the price is fair - substantially cheaper than the old version launched for in real terms - you have to really want its advantages for that money.
The fact that Fuji built down a GFX lens for APSC while simultaneously reducing the weight and price is something Canon and Niklon should have done years ago in their dslr mounts.
I'd love to know what changes they made for the X mount version of the 500mm. I wonder if they considered just offering a speed booster adapter with AF for the GFX version. Who cares about weight savings when what matters is light and reach?
Great you have a 500mm lens Fuji, now how about you build a camera with Af up to the standards of Nikon, Canon and Sony. X-H2s with AF half as good as the Z6III would be even a good start.
I like that these reviewers have stuck with their relatively low production value approach. I grow weary of overly slick presenters and flashy sets. These regular, down to earth guys remind me of what made RU-vid so special in the early days.
Thanks for the initial views! Looking forward to a full review of the 16-55mm f2.8 II and maybe some comparison to the Sigma 16-50mm f2.8. I really like this lens, and think it would pair well with my X-T5 for photo.
I wonder if the lightweight 16-55 f2.8 leaves the door open for something more special, maybe a 16-55 f2.4 or f2 even. I had no problem with the weight of the old 16-55 f2.8 at 655g, but better subject separation would have been great and would have stopped me moving onto FF. Great introduction review, and as it is, the new lightweight version is more true to the overall Fuji X system concept and no doubt be a stellar travel lens
Love you guys but kind of wish we could skip the “first look pre production” videos. They don’t really bring much to the table because you can’t talk about the meat and potatoes of the topic “do you want to buy this lens?” without actual testing and evaluation.
This lens is so good on a 102MP 44x33 sensor, though, that I highly doubt it's going to fail at 40MP APS-C. That's only about 22% more resolution linearly.
The GFX 500mm review on the Chris Frost channel was the first time I could see separate inner lines on his lens chart test. There's plenty of resolving power there.
I find the 500mm a little disappointing on X-mount -- I thought the whole idea was that we were getting APS-C-specific glass, so it could be as small/compact as possible for the given focal length; instead it covers a sensor with roughly 4x as much surface area... Also, F5.6 is pretty fast on medium format, but on APS-C... I get the benefit of saving on R&D costs, but this paired with the ongoing AF issues on X-mount really starts to sting.
Yuu clearly don't understand optics design. There is absolutely nothing you can do to make a 500mm lens physically smaller for APS-C or even m4/3. You could fake it like Olympus and market a 250mm f/5.6 lens as a 500mm f/5.6 and price it accordingly too, so APS-C you could build a 330mm f/5.6 and say it's got a 500mm FoV.
I don’t think you understand lens design. 500mm is still 500mm and f5.6 is still f5.6 regardless of sensor size. The field of view is tighter because of the sensor crop compared to FF - so you’d compare this with a 800mm f5.6 FF lens - which is significantly bigger. So we are getting smaller/compact.
Sadly AF-C in Fuji is lacking in this gen. But these two lenses look amazing. They are both well priced and particularly the 500mm looks just gorgeous.
2.02 "FUJIFILM high end professional general purpose zoom for X mont camera" ... Well better to fix the AF first. Otherwise No meaning in getting getting this glass.
I would like ANYONE to make now x1.4 TC handle and x2.0 TC handle (especially this second one..) to see how it performs at 1000 mm f11, for my field 1200 mm is bare minimum and I would like to stop cropping my resolution half, from 900 mm.
It is sad that it does not has OIS, but compared to the Sigma it should be at least equally sharp, with better rendering, faster AF and it is weather sealed. I'm sure that we will get videos comparing the two from youtubers in due time.
That 500mm is a huge disappointment. I was hoping that since it's made for APS-C cameras it would be smaller, lighter and cheaper. What's the point of APS-C if the lens is going to cost $3k and weigh a ton anyways?
What? 500mm is always going to be 500mm. If you’re comparing field of view then compare this with an 800mm FF lens - which will be significantly bigger. The smaller/lighter etc advantage is because of the crop in the field of view compared to full frame. Meaning you need less glass to get equivalent field of view.
With modern mirrorless, there's plenty that can change. Algorithms for focus by various aspects, same with aperture control, distortion, vignetting, OIS, ...
@@A.Edilbi I don't know your background, but for example, distortion correction info comes from the lens and is fed to the body. Algorithms related to the correction can affect sharpness. It's not like the old days where light goes through the glass straight to be set in film. Now the image processed to make up for glass shortcuts. There's been issues like with OIS in the post that have also affected image quality, etc Chris' statement was just a short hand way, without listing every nuance that could change in the final production lens.
@Paul_Rohde distortion correct and vignette correction are dismissed when they review the lens .they shoot in raw and show us the distortion and vignette so the firmware is irrelevant. I never once discussed something with a photographer and get annoyed by their answers
Same lens for a 44x33mm image circle on a 24x16mm sensor ... without being able to use it on both. What's the point of using APS-C if not even the lenses are smaller anymore? That's just silly.
@@djstuc In my understanding when you design a lens for a much smaller image circle at the same (not equivalent) focal length and f-stop, you need less light to go through. A design specific to that smaller image circle could be quite a bit thinner at the very least. I'm happy to learn but I don't think that's a myth. (?)
@@noenken as I said, LONG TELEPHOTO lenses do not follow this same philosophy, it only applies to more standard lenses. This subject has been covered many times, the image circle is of much less importance at these focal lengths, check out these lenses from any manufacturer and they are all much the same.
Remember, although they're the same mm, their AOV are different. If the two lenses were made for the same AOV, they would be rather different sizes, and completely different lenses in construction. This lens does have elements tailored for APS-C, so they aren't fully the same and interchangeable.
@@Paul_Rohde Nope, it is exactly the same lens. There are diagrams for both on their respective product pages and the entire optical design is identical. The only difference is the mount and layout of switches and the lens foot. Even the majority of the housing is the same. fujifilm-x.b-cdn.net/wp-content/uploads/2024/10/XF500mmF5_6_lensDanmen-1.jpg vs. fujifilm-x.b-cdn.net/wp-content/uploads/2024/05/gf500_img11-1.jpg
These videos are somehow pointless. Without any testing it just feels like an advertisement. Plus feels a bit ridiculous to use a middle format high end nature lens in a crop format camera that can hardly autofocus...
Thanks for the breakdown! Just a quick off-topic question: My OKX wallet holds some USDT, and I have the seed phrase. (alarm fetch churn bridge exercise tape speak race clerk couch crater letter). What's the best way to send them to Binance?
With this new 16-55 aps-c lense I think a comparison of all currently available general purpose aps-c lenses would be great fun. At the end of the day, we photographers chose our camera based on the lenses available and what's more important than the quality of the lense you user the most?
Fuji: sorry we gave you a full frame sized lens for APS-C. We fixed it now and won't ever make that mistake again. Also Fuji: do you want a medium-format sized lens for your APS-C camera?
