It was a glorious day in Austin, Texas. The temperatures were mild, the skies were clear and blue and with the NCAA Swimming National Championships in town there is swimming in the air and beautiful swimmers all over downtown soaking in the Austin vibe. Rumor has it that the Stanford team is doing some of their practices at my home pool, WHAC.org. Of course I went out for a walk with a new lens. Think of it as the break in period. And what a nice day on which to do it.
So, what lens are we talking about?
It's the recently introduced 8-16mm f2.8 XF (Red Badge) lens from Fujifilm.
The lens has somewhere over twenty elements and many of them are either aspheric or some other speciality glass. The lens is big and heavy so it's not my first choice for a "walk around" lens on any of the Fuji cameras. Here's what the lens has: a short zoom range of 8-16mm. A non-changing maximum aperture of f2.8. A very nice aperture setting ring. Weather sealing. A permanently attached lens hood. No front filter ring and a big, fat front element. It also has sharpness. Lots and lots of sharpness.
While I'm not very cozy with wide angle lenses I'd like to do more architecture and industrial photography and the consensus is that having a few good wide angle lenses might be a positive thing for dealing well with that sort of work. I much prefer those telephotos that are just a bit longer than a "normal" lens but I'm trying hard to figure out what my wide angle vision is and how to nurture it. I know from endless reading and some lucky shots that it's great to have a foreground element in order to create more impression of depth. And I definitely know that, if I am foolish enough to attempt doing portraits with the lens, I should never put my portrait subject on one edge or the other. If I want any chance at selling a portrait with this beast it will be because I put the subject directly in the center and that someone other than the subject is actually paying for the assignment.
I am keenly aware from reading reviews on both Lenstip.com and OpticalLimits.com that the lens measures well and produces very sharp files but that some of the performance superiority comes from crafty software corrections and enhancements. Had the lens been introduced in the days before built in lens profiles I would have my doubts about its value proposition. Since I can't see the faults through the opaque machinations of the software I'm blissfully unbothered by theoretical limitations due to it's actual optical performance. If it looks sharp and it measures sharp then I'll just applaud the work of the programmers and venture forward.
I picked up the lens from Precision Camera yesterday, along with a second lens which I hope to test out tomorrow. I have only had a few hours to walk around and get used to shooting such a wide angle view. I've read that it's at its very sharpest at 12mm and at f4.0 but I tried all sorts of combinations with it. It's big but handles well. It's heavy but then most fast, well made zooms are. Is it worth $2,000. USD? I have no idea if it's worth that for anyone but me. From my point of view the right project pays for the lens and then I get to use it again and again. If I were shooting just for fun???? Right, I'd just be shooting with the old 50mm on some ancient (but perfect) body.
More to come but I'll try to do some sort of from memory captioning on the images below.
Shot at 14-16mm f5.6
Shot at 8mm f5.6
Shot at 12-16mm on f5.6
Shot at 8mm at f5.6
8mm.
8mm
12mm.
8mm.
8mm
12mm
10mm
14mm.
12mm
8mm
12mm.
8mm.
I have my fingers crossed for luck. Luck that I'll learn the ins and outs of shooting wide.
So many people seem to like crazy, wide. Maybe I'll become acculturated.
17 comments:
With wide angle its best to fill the forground withan object and play with lines that flow into the background! Nice images.
That opening silhouette has got to be my favorite "walk-around" shot you've done. And I've been reading a long, long time
That lens is the one reason I would buy Fuji APS, for a walkabout ultra-wideangle. But I am sticking to my Canon ultra-wides and TSEs for now.
Curiously, it appears that all zoom lenses perform best at their widest angle of view settings.
I think you'll be fine shooting wide angle Kirk. These are fine, especially the first few samples.
I've rented the Panasonic-Leica 8-18mm f/2.8-4 multiple times and LOVE that lens. It's my next lens purchase. I think you owned that one. I know you said you're downsizing your gear but that lens is light, sharp and renders well.
Only the first one has any of your good eye in it. It sucked me in. The left more distant area seems out of focus? Or some other strangeness.
Several others need lots of perspective correction. Like to see them after you play in LR.
And for what it's worth. Long lens are my Achilles Heel.
Great to have you back. My mornings are normal again
ted
Since you’re testing the wide angle waters, ask your Austin store for the 10-24 demo. I’ve spent time with the Nikon 14-24, Canon 16-35 (all three mk) and Zeiss super wide primes. The much lighter 10-24 is a joy to shoot with. The software gods are at work here too, but the result is excellent!
Nothing like taking on something new to stir things up. Does color like that in the HerosGyros shot just pop up unsummomed, or does it require a bit of effort after the fact?
The 8-16mm Fuji seems like a stretch (pun intended) to me. Do you really need f/2.8 in an ultrawide zoom? At least at the wide end, it's still going to be difficult to achieve selective focus—which probably isn't what you're interested in, anyway, for architectural and industrial subjects. The 10-24mm is smaller, lighter, and less expensive. It's image-stabilized, and at 24mm you have a lens that works well for street photography. I'm delighted with Fuji's broad range of lens offerings, but frankly I have difficulty figuring out who the 8-16mm is for.
Hi Chris, Frankly I can't see the reason why this lens has to be f2.8. I think an f4.0 version with great optics and half the weight would be just as nice to shoot with. I'm not really interested in selective focus but I've never had a lens this wide (except for the 15mm Hologon for my old Leica M) and I just wanted to see what all the excitement was about. I thought about the 10-24mm but my anonymous Fuji expert counseled me to go with this one for ultimate quality. From what I've seen so far I have little complain about... Maybe I'll find the one great shot that just has to be an 8mm photograph and my reasons for owning this beast will fall into place....
Well, I didn't change color temperature or hue but I did sneak in a bit more vibrance. I mean, the photo is all about the color....
Thanks Ted !!! Nice to be back.
I liked that lens as well but ended up selling it to my friend who does video. He loved it for four jobs and then got sucked back into the Sony system and sold the 8-18mm to fund some Sony 16-35mm... Ah, what a strange world...
I shoot a ton of interiors for real estate agents and they have a desire to show 395 degree views of a room. I find that even large, expensive homes still have rooms that require my Canon 11-24. I am astonished that I find myself at 11mm so frequently and I work hard to eliminate the perspectival issues that bedevil such a wide view.
I don't want the scene to look as if I shot it with a lens that is so extreme but I really need the AOV.
The Fuji system has had my interest for quite a while and the lenses are, for my needs, more than enough with the exception of the UWA of the Canon 11-24 and the 17TS-E.
The 8-16 Fuji answers those questions for me. The absence of the TS lens is not particularly problematic as my 17 rarely leaves the case these days. UWA zoom with only a gentle amount of keystoning is easily dispatched in LR or PS.
What really interests me as guy moving deeper into the platinum years is the reduction in mass of my camera case. Ironically, I am getting MORE gigs that require air travel and the ball and chain of a Think Tank bag that is pushing 25 lbs is wearing.
I also note that I can sell all my Canon gear at only slightly painful prices and come away with a Fuji setup and money in my pocket.
True.
I’d say shot #10 qualifies you to discard the question mark. Seems to my unsophisticated eye that all of those which look best seem to be shot at 12mm. Maybe the 10-24 would serve while saving both cost and bulk/weight.
Hi Mark, Do your hands-on research before you leap. The f2.8 zooms from Fuji are heavy; in the ballpark of the weight of the Canon's. The weight savings sometimes end up being ephemeral... Just a caution. I was at the UT Swim Center with the Fuji 100-400mm for a couple hours and my arm is already sore...
If a scientific observation is valid ... I like the feel of these!
you learned to shoot wide many years ago my Friend with a Leica rangefinder as I dimly recall Pal
Post a Comment