Review of Fujifilm's widest zoom, the XF 8-16mm f2.8 and how it compares to the cheaper XF 10-24mm f4. Check prices at B&H: bhpho.to/2pqiOM2 Gordon's In Camera book at Amazon: amzn.to/2n61PfI / Amazon uk: amzn.to/2mBqRVZ Buy Gordon a coffee: www.paypal.me/cameralabs Like Cameralabs? Get the T-Shirt: redbubble.com/people/cameralabs/shop
An absolutely perfect review of a lens I'm seriously considering. Gordon consistently hits the mark with his reviews of the Fujifilm X system. Thank you very much!
Great comparison. And nice to see those Liverpool shots:). That 8-16 is a beast, but I’m not likely to ditch my 10-24 walk-around-wide-angle-zoom, which together with the 16-55 f/2.8 is a stellar travel combo - at least, for me.
Exceptional review as always, Gordon. And THANK YOU for including a sun star test scene. Other reviewers seem to overlook sunstars in WA lens reviews so it's refreshing to see yours include it!
I agree. I rely on the 10-24 for sunstars but I recently got a Voigtlander 10mm for a Sony a7ii and i'm quite impressed with that len's sunstar capabilities. Seeing the results from the 8-16 is refreshing - looks like Fuji has built a very good ultra-wide and took into account the needed design for accommodating impressive sunstars. I will probably have to wait a year before I can consider purchase of the 8-16. Thank you Gordon for the sun star test. I wish Fuji had a 10-24 f/2.8 - that would be a highly versatile range for event photography that I do. Not thrilled about the idea of switching between two cameras for using two wide angle f/2.8 zoom range options.
@@Martin-nu6ym I think a 10-24mm f2.8 could be quite a large and complex beast! I would be happy - myself - with a weather-sealed 10-24mm with perhaps sharper corners at 10mm f4...
@@cameralabs Carrying two camera bodies and two lens the 8-16 and 16-55 in order to have the 12-23 range at f/2.8 - I would think the weight of one lens that handles that range would be great. :p For when I don't need those type of requirements - then yeah, a WR 10-24 with sharper corners at 10mm f/4 would be a dream. :)
Wonderful review as always Gordon, thank you so much❤️❤️❤️ Quick question, have you had the opportunity to compare the older 10-24mm to the newer WR version? I know build and IS have been improved but not sure if the optical design is the same or there are improvements there as well. Thanks again☺️
Could I use the Zhiyun Plus gimbal for this setup with the Fji XT3 and this lens? I know the weight is ok but was wondering if the length of the lens would be an issue?
Very well done. I sold the 10-24 because I do a lot of outdoor work and the 10-24 is not weather resistant. I love the 16mm f/1.4 which is WR, very sharp, and also has a short minimum focus distance. Thanks for your highly professional reviews.
Hi Gordon, nice review and well-thought through series of tests, as always. I shot with the 8-16 for an entire morning at the Fujifilm Festival in Venice, CA and was very impressed with it. One point that wasn't mentioned in your review is that this lens is also perfectly _rectilinear_ at all focal lengths, which is a _very_ useful attribute when using it for architectural photography or interiors for real estate photography (which is where I plan to use it). The 10-24 shows quite a bit more distortion in this respect. Cheers, Stephen.
Another reviewer mentioned the 2.8 and F/4 from the 10-24 are closer tstop wise. Wish you did a comparison of the 2.8 vs 4 just to see if this is a consistent issue between the lenses.
This was the preview I was interested in... for stopped down landscapers on a tripod would you say you have to pixel prep pretty hard to tell the difference? I’d be curious to see the raw files
I’m certainly not seeing the corner sharpness degradation in my 10-24 shots at 10mm, as is presented. If I was I might consider that as an investment. I would also need to consider how much I want to spend on an ND filter, which is pretty essential for the different types of landscape photography.
People are complaining about the price of the New Nikon z mount 14-30 f/4 at $1299.00 But I bet it’s build quality isn’t compatible to the Fujifilm lens. Quality optics costs period ! If I shot fuji I’d get this lens .
Nearly had a bad case of GAS with this lens, but the fact I'd need to buy another $600-$800 worth of filter gear brought me back to reality. And...thank you for your vlogging efforts Gordon.
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.
Hm, in the first sharpness comparison, the corners are much closer to the camera than the center image. You weren't shooting a flat subject, so the corner rendering might be showing more curvature of field differences than resolution. Another reviewer found that the 10-24mm lens was superior in the corners when shooting a subject that was more parallel to the camera. At f/8 even in a couple of these comparisons the 10-24mm looked sharper and more contrasty. So who's review is right? Then in the cathedral starburst comparison, there was much more ghosting in the 8-16mm lens with all those extra lights that weren't really there. Thanks for the comparisons, they were helpful, but I think the optical stabilization, lighter weight, filter capability, and the fact I'd shoot at mostly f/8, made my choice the 10-24mm. The new one is even lighter and weather sealed anyways, but I need that OIS since I've got a X-T3 body at the moment and shoot video too. Thanks.
I noticed the same thing. The 10-24's images looked sharper and with more punch / contrast on some of the f/8 center frame comparisons, as compared to the 8-16mm's images of the same subject.
nice comparison thanks 8-16mm a fine piece of engineering- but looks as if the 10-24 should cover my needs to 90 percentile and some of the 8 mm superwide stuff looks a little too distorted.
This is the best review ive ever seen seriously, Amazing job! You got a subscriber! Keep up the good work. As for the 8-16 vs 10-24, i see 0 reasons to change my 10-24. The new lens is way too heavy, proved by other youtubers its not really 2.8(something you didnt touch on maybe you didnt know or notice), extremely expensive and the front element adds another huge amount of money investment plus more weight to your bag. Its no brainer, 10-24 or fullframe since fuji decides to price its lenses as full frame glass price. Lets not kid around, yes Fuji is good but full frame is a bit better and if the price/weight is the same i may as well go full frame.
Thanks, glad you liked it! The lens is f2.8 for the 8-16mm focal length and it is one stop faster than the f4 of the 10-24mm. I'm not talking about equivalence here as Fujifilm is an APSC format, so I'm just comparing one of their lenses against another one of their lenses for the same system. It is force of habit for me to describe coverage as equivalent though.
@@cameralabs Sorry i should've clarified, by not 2.8 i meant that i doesnt let 1 stop more light then the 10-24. The Tstop value is more then 2.8 and its somewhat close to the f4.
Great review, but I will stay with the 10-24. The deal breaker for me is the filter system I have to use with the 8-16. Way to cumbersome. They should now update the 10-24, a bit sharper in the corners and weather seal the lens. I don't need f2.8 for my landscape photography. For astro photography I use the samyang 12mm f2, an amazing lens.
Why not making 10-24 F4 without OIS and WR? Less expensive for performance leveled price, quite expensive this 10-24 tho with these horribile corner performance, almost unsufficient. :(
The star spikes are the only thing I miss about my Canon 6D. Star spikes on Fuji X cameras are quite soft compared to the razor sharp spikes you get on Canon full frame cameras.
I really thought I would like the 10-24 as it seems to have a cult following, but wow was it softer than I’m used to. I just wasn’t inspired by its IQ at all. I’m getting ready to pick up the 8-16 now that I’ve sold the 10-24 and this review has given me some hope that the 8-16 will perform as well as I was hoping the 10-24 would.
At 16mm, the center is much sharper on the 10-24mm. You can actually see this very well at 8:06 in this video. You move very fast ahead right there.... ;)
Lorenzo Amato - in terms of image quality, I expect quite well. I have the Laowa, but only used it occasionally, as I wanted it for the occasions when my Samyang 12mm just isn’t wide enough. The Laowa is a tiny lens, and as such it’s not an issue just having it in the bag, whereas the Fuji lens, you’d only take it for something planned. The downside of the Laowa, besides being all-manual and not weather sealed, is that with such a small front element, vignetting is significant. The manual part I don’t mind, for what I use it for, I take my time framing, as the field of view is so wide, if you’re not careful, things look weird. I use it for urban landscape and architectural photos, shot the right way, you get an amazing amount in shot, especially where there is no room to step back further. Depending on what your shoot and your budget, you’ll know which is more suitable. If you’re a serious landscape photographer, first if all, you might have a high-resolution full-frame camera, but if trekking with light gear is an issue and you use Fuji, the 8-16mm sounds great for the dedicated landscape artist. For casual use, on a budget, and especially if size and weight is an issue, the Laowa is a better choice, as you don’t have to think about whether to bring it. I’m very happy I got it, and for my use couldn’t justify the Fuji, even if it has less vignetting and no doubt better corner sharpness.
I have the Laowa 9mm. For its price, there is nothing to complain: great IQ in a small compact size. The only downsize for this lens is probably the vignetting. It is pretty noticeable... I was thinking to get XF8-16 but the price is just too expensive. I pretty much have to buy a new set of square filters just for this lens so in the end I went for XF10-24 and laowa 9mm...
Thank you both for your input. I already have the 10-24, and in fact I was thinking about the Laowa both for its 9mm coverage, and for compactness, so that I could have it always with me, even when the 10-24 would be big (like in a daily walk to work, when I carry the working bag only and I don't want a camera around my neck). Still those vignetting issues sound a bit annoying to me.
Lorenzo Amato - haven’t checked Photoshop or Lightroom, but expect Adobe has a lens profiles to remove vignetting. Distortion is a non-issue at least. The only thing is that you need the dynamic range to correct the exposure, so if you’re shooting at high ISO, it might get grainier in the corners. On a normal bright day, it should be fine, or if you keep the ISO low, eg shoot on tripod. It’s strengths are low distortion, compactness, weight (despite being made of metal, not plastic), and compared to branded AF ultrawides, like the XF 8-16mm, affordable. If you find one cheap, it’s well worth it, just to have it on hand. I don’t need it all the time, but when I do need something extra wide, I’m glad it is in the bag, versus it staying at home because it is big, heavy and bulky. It’s a compromise.
Interesting how we talk about F stops but ignore sensor sensitivity, seeing the results at ISO 400, 800, 1600,3200,6400 would give a more accurate impression of how these lenses would perform in the real world, given that 1/60@F1.4@100 iso is a similar relationship to 1/250@F8@6400 iso it would be enlightening to see the result at the higher sensitivity.
Good job. Ouch! I am not an extreme wide fan do to the distortions, but the sharpness of the 8-16 in the corners, f2.8 for star and aurora photos, and weather sealing for cleanness and good starburst makes this lens a good image maker. I would probably only shoot it starting at 10mm. So I am paying a lot for what I won’t use. The XT3 is being consider for size and image quality but has no ibis. It’s a struggle to get it all. If the 10-24 was WR I might have gone with it. Thanks for the review. 👍
This was a really good review of both lenses. I see the 8-16 is more for a professional architecture photographer, while the 10-24 is good enough (even better) for general purposes due to its smaller size and lighter weight.
I'd love for it to be translated into Spanish, but I'm the author, not the publisher, so they have to sell the international rights. It's already been translated into French, Italian and Czech, but sadly not Spanish yet which is a shame since I'd have thought that would have been the biggest market after English. It's not as simple as my publisher translating it, then selling it to another region either - that region has to take it on as a responsibility and they generally pay for the right to translate and sell it in their region. If it were self-published, I'd just do it myself!
Autofocus zoom would be nice, but failing that, I use a combination of the Samyang 12mm and Laowa 9mm, and because I like the effect, the Samyang 8mm fisheye (obviously the fisheye works best in certain situations; I like it in cityscapes with lots of horizontals and verticals, and occasionally correct the verticals like an iPhone pano, good with people in shot)
It may be a few years old but this is still a legendary lens. I'm now a dual system shooter with XF and RF but Canon (as of 2023) doesn't have anything remotely as good as this lens.
This is a great lens. But I treated myself to the laowa 9mm f2.8... it seems to have more vignetting but has a 49mm filter thread. So with a step-up ring and an ND filter, you should be able to have wide and long exposures without the need to rob a bank. But I am waiting on my step up ring to test ;) - step up ring to try to minimize vignetting on such a wide lens...
@@cameralabs I will try and attempt it... but it will take some time ;) and if it is ok with you, I would like to use your ideas from this video to do so - like base it on that content for the different test.
A very comprehensive, fast-paced and generally sensible test. But please. Please. Torches are bright, lenses can never be. How many times did you say the lens was bright? Even in vlogging mode you talk about the bright lens. It's fast or slow. Let torches be bright or dim.
Glad you enjoyed most of it! I do stand by my description though, I think it may be a geographical thing as I find a lot of other people in the Uk use the term like I do.
I really want this lens but the cost is just silly. Nikons Legendary 12-24 is cheaper than this and that's a full frame lens. This almost looks abit like the Tamron 15-30 G2. Which is a full frame with IOS and nearly half the price. I went over to Fuji because of lens prices being affordable. I may have made a mistake if this is the shape of things to come.
It is fairly expensive, especially for the format size, but its built to a certain specification and they think it justifies the price. Yes, there are full-frame ultra wides that are cheaper, but are they as well corrected across the board as this one? I'd actually like to answer that myself at some point in the future and hope to compare some cross-format options. Personally speaking though, i am always very satisfied by the output of Fujifilm cameras and lenses when i test them, and have never yearned for full frame over them.
@@cameralabs Two very good points. One of the reasons why i follow you. You have more logic than brand emotions. If the X-T3 had Image stabilisation, i'd have fully jumped ship from Nikon. I'm getting older, the weight seems to be getting heavier!
@@bantononabike I think everyone wished the X-T3 had IBIS! But would you want it if it made the XT body any larger? They did that and came up with the X-H1 which I personally felt lost the charm. So it's a tricky one. I do want IBIS on the XT, but NOT if it makes the body much larger! After testing the 8-16mm, I'm also very happy with my 10-24mm. It's not as good, but it's good enough for how I use it.
@Phil Jones65 The cost of a lens is not dependent on the size of the camera sensor. Its dependent on the _engineering specification_ of the lens. The Tokina is not perfectly rectilinear and doesn't have the optical performace of this lens. Frankly, the only way you're going to get me to use any Sony is under the threat of physical torture, because that's the experience I have using Sony's cameras. Having used the 8-16mm f/2.8 its worth every penny of its cost as it is an optically superior lens. If this lens is not a value proposition for some folks, no one's arm is being twisted to buy it.
@@stephenscharf6293 Sorry but its not optically superior, its a FF F4 equivalent, so pretty much useless for Astro, and not ideal for real estate.. Its also bigger and heavier then ff F4 sony 12-24mm and you dont have IBIS ... Paying top money for this many draw backs does not make it worth every penny! oh and no filter thread!
Hi everyone, I've removed my comments and the immediate replies to them, as I felt we were going round in circles a bit. Please do feel free to discuss this further though.
Its an f/2.8 lens with respect to exposure. And don't knock 'til you've shot with it. This lens is built to a very, very high engineering specification. The Canikon equivalent focal length range f/4 zooms are even more expensive, FWIW.
@@dr.sommer5069 The Canon 11-24/4 is $2300. A complelely manual focus Leica Summicron 35mm f/2 is $3300. Are we arguing just for the sake of arguing here? A lens' cost is not dependent on the camera sensor size format; its dependent on its engineering specification. A microscope objective is a very, very small lens...yet can cost well over $10,000.
It's fine on the XT2 and XT3 with the simple add-on metal grip. I have mine on my XT2 all the time and it makes a big difference for an adult male hand size.
@@cameralabs but son has 0 16-35 f4eqvavilent at 253 grmamms for 1000 sg bucks, and pana has 20-50 equavivlent 3-4, this lens makes no sense.. it doesnt compete
Review of Fujifilm's widest zoom, the XF 8-16mm f2.8 and how it compares to the cheaper XF 10-24mm f4.
Check prices at B&H: bhpho.to/2pqiOM2
Gordon's In Camera book at Amazon: amzn.to/2n61PfI / Amazon uk: amzn.to/2mBqRVZ
Buy Gordon a coffee: www.paypal.me/cameralabs
Like Cameralabs? Get the T-Shirt: redbubble.com/people/cameralabs/shop
@Andrew Hanson stabilisation, rolling shutter, shutter speeds, lots of reasons.
Great review and comparison. You never dissappoint in providing the important and quality information.
An absolutely perfect review of a lens I'm seriously considering. Gordon consistently hits the mark with his reviews of the Fujifilm X system. Thank you very much!
Thanks Charles! If you end up ordering online, please do consider clickthrough via my links here and at cameralabs.com thanks!
Your reviews are always excellent.
Great comparison. And nice to see those Liverpool shots:). That 8-16 is a beast, but I’m not likely to ditch my 10-24 walk-around-wide-angle-zoom, which together with the 16-55 f/2.8 is a stellar travel combo - at least, for me.
Exceptional review as always, Gordon. And THANK YOU for including a sun star test scene. Other reviewers seem to overlook sunstars in WA lens reviews so it's refreshing to see yours include it!
Thanks and you're very welcome! I am partial to a sunstar myself, so always try and include some examples!
I agree. I rely on the 10-24 for sunstars but I recently got a Voigtlander 10mm for a Sony a7ii and i'm quite impressed with that len's sunstar capabilities. Seeing the results from the 8-16 is refreshing - looks like Fuji has built a very good ultra-wide and took into account the needed design for accommodating impressive sunstars. I will probably have to wait a year before I can consider purchase of the 8-16.
Thank you Gordon for the sun star test. I wish Fuji had a 10-24 f/2.8 - that would be a highly versatile range for event photography that I do. Not thrilled about the idea of switching between two cameras for using two wide angle f/2.8 zoom range options.
@@Martin-nu6ym I think a 10-24mm f2.8 could be quite a large and complex beast! I would be happy - myself - with a weather-sealed 10-24mm with perhaps sharper corners at 10mm f4...
@@cameralabs Carrying two camera bodies and two lens the 8-16 and 16-55 in order to have the 12-23 range at f/2.8 - I would think the weight of one lens that handles that range would be great. :p For when I don't need those type of requirements - then yeah, a WR 10-24 with sharper corners at 10mm f/4 would be a dream. :)
Nice video Gordon - interesting lens for sure!
Thanks Ted, it's nice to have the choice now...
Muito obrigado Gordon, pelo seu excelente trabalho!
Excellent review Gordon! Subscribed.
Thanks! Hope you enjoy my other videos!
Great rewview as always! A truly cinematic lens!
Wonderfully comprehensive review.
Great review Gordon, thanks
very helpful, thanks Gordon!!
Thank you so much for your review. I am considering to buy 10-24mm. Very helpful!
Absolutely phenomenal image quality. I used this for a month in Egypt last month and it’s worth the price!
It sure is a fine lens! Nice to have the choice too.
Very clever comparison, well done ✅
Thanks, glad you liked it!
You do great work Gordon. Thank you.
You're very welcome!
Wonderful review as always Gordon, thank you so much❤️❤️❤️ Quick question, have you had the opportunity to compare the older 10-24mm to the newer WR version? I know build and IS have been improved but not sure if the optical design is the same or there are improvements there as well. Thanks again☺️
I haven't tested it but Fujifilm tell me the optics are identical.
Could I use the Zhiyun Plus gimbal for this setup with the Fji XT3 and this lens? I know the weight is ok but was wondering if the length of the lens would be an issue?
Wonderful review. You really give us excellent evidence for your conclusions. I also love that you feature Brighton, my hometown. Where's the church?
Thanks! The church is Liverpool Cathedral, and many of the sample images were also taken around Liverpool.
@@cameralabs Ah, good to know. Thank you.
Happy New year GG 😎😎😎
you too
Very well done. I sold the 10-24 because I do a lot of outdoor work and the 10-24 is not weather resistant. I love the 16mm f/1.4 which is WR, very sharp, and also has a short minimum focus distance. Thanks for your highly professional reviews.
You're welcome! I also like the 16mm...
This is the best comparison video I have ever watched.
Thanks! I'm glad you found it useful!
Great review!
Thanks!
Great detailed review
Thanks!
How far would you have to walk back to compensate the 2mm and get a similar view from the 10mm?
Got one, Love it
Hi Gordon, nice review and well-thought through series of tests, as always. I shot with the 8-16 for an entire morning at the Fujifilm Festival in Venice, CA and was very impressed with it. One point that wasn't mentioned in your review is that this lens is also perfectly _rectilinear_ at all focal lengths, which is a _very_ useful attribute when using it for architectural photography or interiors for real estate photography (which is where I plan to use it). The 10-24 shows quite a bit more distortion in this respect. Cheers, Stephen.
Thanks Stephen and you're absolutely right, it is very well-corrected in terms of geometry. i think you can see that in my sample images.
Great review! 🙏
Thanks!
Another reviewer mentioned the 2.8 and F/4 from the 10-24 are closer tstop wise. Wish you did a comparison of the 2.8 vs 4 just to see if this is a consistent issue between the lenses.
Great review
Thanks!
Fantastic review Gordon! I haven't got one to test yet, does this have a mechanical clutch for manual focus, or just focus by wire?
thanks! It's focus by wire I'm afraid...
Thank you, superb review/s!
Thanks! Glad you're enjoying them!
Gordon, this is great video. Have you tried these two lenses with XT5 or XH-2 _ How does 40 mpx sensor affects the quality?
I haven't yet, sorry, but the 8-16 should certainly be up to the task.
thanks, exactly what i needed
You're very welcome!
I'm going to save hard and buy this for Christmas......2025
Just 4 more years, you got this!
Jose Perez yiip, counting down and saving hard
Me too, but 2035!
did you buy it?
Me too.
This was the preview I was interested in... for stopped down landscapers on a tripod would you say you have to pixel prep pretty hard to tell the difference? I’d be curious to see the raw files
I’m certainly not seeing the corner sharpness degradation in my 10-24 shots at 10mm, as is presented. If I was I might consider that as an investment. I would also need to consider how much I want to spend on an ND filter, which is pretty essential for the different types of landscape photography.
People are complaining about the price of the New Nikon z mount 14-30 f/4 at $1299.00 But I bet it’s build quality isn’t compatible to the Fujifilm lens. Quality optics costs period ! If I shot fuji I’d get this lens .
is it me or is the contrast on the ceaper one better?
How does this lens 10-24 track focus on the xt3 for video? Face/eye detect for video on xt3?
I have this combo. Video autofocus works great
Nearly had a bad case of GAS with this lens, but the fact I'd need to buy another $600-$800 worth of filter gear brought me back to reality. And...thank you for your vlogging efforts Gordon.
You're welcome! Yes, the filter solutions for it are expensive, but it can be done if you really want to!
Superb review
Thanks!
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.
I've not thoroughly tested the 8 yet, but the 8-16 is very high quality.
Gracias@@cameralabs
Have you test the 8-16 against the 16 1.4? I am thinking of replacing my 16 & laowa 9 primes with this beast.
its on sale right now..cant wait for delivery
Hm, in the first sharpness comparison, the corners are much closer to the camera than the center image. You weren't shooting a flat subject, so the corner rendering might be showing more curvature of field differences than resolution. Another reviewer found that the 10-24mm lens was superior in the corners when shooting a subject that was more parallel to the camera. At f/8 even in a couple of these comparisons the 10-24mm looked sharper and more contrasty. So who's review is right? Then in the cathedral starburst comparison, there was much more ghosting in the 8-16mm lens with all those extra lights that weren't really there. Thanks for the comparisons, they were helpful, but I think the optical stabilization, lighter weight, filter capability, and the fact I'd shoot at mostly f/8, made my choice the 10-24mm. The new one is even lighter and weather sealed anyways, but I need that OIS since I've got a X-T3 body at the moment and shoot video too. Thanks.
I noticed the same thing. The 10-24's images looked sharper and with more punch / contrast on some of the f/8 center frame comparisons, as compared to the 8-16mm's images of the same subject.
nice comparison thanks 8-16mm a fine piece of engineering- but looks as if the 10-24 should cover my needs to 90 percentile and some of the 8 mm superwide stuff looks a little too distorted.
This is the best review ive ever seen seriously, Amazing job! You got a subscriber! Keep up the good work.
As for the 8-16 vs 10-24, i see 0 reasons to change my 10-24. The new lens is way too heavy, proved by other youtubers its not really 2.8(something you didnt touch on maybe you didnt know or notice), extremely expensive and the front element adds another huge amount of money investment plus more weight to your bag. Its no brainer, 10-24 or fullframe since fuji decides to price its lenses as full frame glass price. Lets not kid around, yes Fuji is good but full frame is a bit better and if the price/weight is the same i may as well go full frame.
Thanks, glad you liked it! The lens is f2.8 for the 8-16mm focal length and it is one stop faster than the f4 of the 10-24mm. I'm not talking about equivalence here as Fujifilm is an APSC format, so I'm just comparing one of their lenses against another one of their lenses for the same system. It is force of habit for me to describe coverage as equivalent though.
@@cameralabs Sorry i should've clarified, by not 2.8 i meant that i doesnt let 1 stop more light then the 10-24. The Tstop value is more then 2.8 and its somewhat close to the f4.
@@cameralabs you can check Michael The Maven review on it, he is the only one that ive seen to test it.
@@chukolna oh I see. I'll have a look later...
Hi Gordon, Is the aperture ring of your XF10-24 loose compare to the other FUJI Lens?
Yes, I'd say it's a bit looser, but it started that way.
@@cameralabs Thanks a lot, then I don't need to try to change it.
Ok, so if I use 8-16 on my XT3 that means I'm screwed with video recordings? due to no optical stabilisation videos will be unwatchable?
Yes if you don't have a tripod or a gimbal.
Great review, but I will stay with the 10-24. The deal breaker for me is the filter system I have to use with the 8-16. Way to cumbersome. They should now update the 10-24, a bit sharper in the corners and weather seal the lens. I don't need f2.8 for my landscape photography. For astro photography I use the samyang 12mm f2, an amazing lens.
I agree, a slightly sharper and weather-sealed 10-24mm would be nice.
My thoughts exactly. The Samyang 12mm is amazing.
@ Soulcareer, do I need an adapter for the samyang 12mm, is it weather resistant?
Why not making 10-24 F4 without OIS and WR? Less expensive for performance leveled price, quite expensive this 10-24 tho with these horribile corner performance, almost unsufficient. :(
The star spikes are the only thing I miss about my Canon 6D. Star spikes on Fuji X cameras are quite soft compared to the razor sharp spikes you get on Canon full frame cameras.
It's more influenced by the design of the aperture blades. What works well for out-of-focus rendering rarely works as well for diffraction spikes.
Great review, great lens, very expensive (for me).
Thanks! I think it's expensive for all of us, but some higher-end photographers will justify it. The rest of us can stick with the 10-24!
I really thought I would like the 10-24 as it seems to have a cult following, but wow was it softer than I’m used to. I just wasn’t inspired by its IQ at all. I’m getting ready to pick up the 8-16 now that I’ve sold the 10-24 and this review has given me some hope that the 8-16 will perform as well as I was hoping the 10-24 would.
To be fair, the 10-24 is a fine lens, but it is ageing, so when you put it next to a newer AND more expensive lens, it will look worse.
UWA lens comparison complete only if tested with astro shoot to show coma, color fringing on complex foliage etc.
Hi can u test this lens on xt5 h2??
It would be interesting to see
At 16mm, the center is much sharper on the 10-24mm. You can actually see this very well at 8:06 in this video. You move very fast ahead right there.... ;)
Corners too 😃 10-24 looks significantly better, maybe a focusing issue with the 8-16.
Don't understand why the undetachable lens hood... What if I must use filters? I will go for 10-24 only for that
MicheleUrukHai how are you gonna use a filter when the glass is curved and sticking out?
@@EoWKen you're right mate
I wonder how it compares vs the Laowa 9mm. Beyond the price per se, it's really the size + weight of the 8-16mm that scares me...
Lorenzo Amato - in terms of image quality, I expect quite well. I have the Laowa, but only used it occasionally, as I wanted it for the occasions when my Samyang 12mm just isn’t wide enough. The Laowa is a tiny lens, and as such it’s not an issue just having it in the bag, whereas the Fuji lens, you’d only take it for something planned. The downside of the Laowa, besides being all-manual and not weather sealed, is that with such a small front element, vignetting is significant. The manual part I don’t mind, for what I use it for, I take my time framing, as the field of view is so wide, if you’re not careful, things look weird. I use it for urban landscape and architectural photos, shot the right way, you get an amazing amount in shot, especially where there is no room to step back further. Depending on what your shoot and your budget, you’ll know which is more suitable. If you’re a serious landscape photographer, first if all, you might have a high-resolution full-frame camera, but if trekking with light gear is an issue and you use Fuji, the 8-16mm sounds great for the dedicated landscape artist. For casual use, on a budget, and especially if size and weight is an issue, the Laowa is a better choice, as you don’t have to think about whether to bring it. I’m very happy I got it, and for my use couldn’t justify the Fuji, even if it has less vignetting and no doubt better corner sharpness.
I have the Laowa 9mm. For its price, there is nothing to complain: great IQ in a small compact size. The only downsize for this lens is probably the vignetting. It is pretty noticeable...
I was thinking to get XF8-16 but the price is just too expensive. I pretty much have to buy a new set of square filters just for this lens so in the end I went for XF10-24 and laowa 9mm...
Thank you both for your input. I already have the 10-24, and in fact I was thinking about the Laowa both for its 9mm coverage, and for compactness, so that I could have it always with me, even when the 10-24 would be big (like in a daily walk to work, when I carry the working bag only and I don't want a camera around my neck). Still those vignetting issues sound a bit annoying to me.
Lorenzo Amato - haven’t checked Photoshop or Lightroom, but expect Adobe has a lens profiles to remove vignetting. Distortion is a non-issue at least. The only thing is that you need the dynamic range to correct the exposure, so if you’re shooting at high ISO, it might get grainier in the corners. On a normal bright day, it should be fine, or if you keep the ISO low, eg shoot on tripod. It’s strengths are low distortion, compactness, weight (despite being made of metal, not plastic), and compared to branded AF ultrawides, like the XF 8-16mm, affordable. If you find one cheap, it’s well worth it, just to have it on hand. I don’t need it all the time, but when I do need something extra wide, I’m glad it is in the bag, versus it staying at home because it is big, heavy and bulky. It’s a compromise.
It will be interesting if fuji bring out a 10-24 with weather sealing .. then alot of photographers may choose different..
Interesting how we talk about F stops but ignore sensor sensitivity, seeing the results at ISO 400, 800, 1600,3200,6400 would give a more accurate impression of how these lenses would perform in the real world, given that 1/60@F1.4@100 iso is a similar relationship to 1/250@F8@6400 iso it would be enlightening to see the result at the higher sensitivity.
Lots of my sample images in this video were shot at higher sensitivities, like in the chicken shop and guitar shop.
Good job. Ouch! I am not an extreme wide fan do to the distortions, but the sharpness of the 8-16 in the corners, f2.8 for star and aurora photos, and weather sealing for cleanness and good starburst makes this lens a good image maker. I would probably only shoot it starting at 10mm. So I am paying a lot for what I won’t use. The XT3 is being consider for size and image quality but has no ibis. It’s a struggle to get it all. If the 10-24 was WR I might have gone with it. Thanks for the review. 👍
i wonder is the len affected by field curvature issue?
This was a really good review of both lenses. I see the 8-16 is more for a professional architecture photographer, while the 10-24 is good enough (even better) for general purposes due to its smaller size and lighter weight.
Yep, that's my view as well!
Hi Gordon, don’t you consider publishing your book in other languages? Spanish for example , to have greater reach.!
I'd love for it to be translated into Spanish, but I'm the author, not the publisher, so they have to sell the international rights. It's already been translated into French, Italian and Czech, but sadly not Spanish yet which is a shame since I'd have thought that would have been the biggest market after English. It's not as simple as my publisher translating it, then selling it to another region either - that region has to take it on as a responsibility and they generally pay for the right to translate and sell it in their region. If it were self-published, I'd just do it myself!
IF? we find your videos useful? Gordon, how could we NOT find them useful. They are brilliant.
Thanks! Infuriatingly though, 90% of the people who watch my videos aren't subscribers, so that's a lot of conversions to make!
I teach for a living. Give me the names of the non-subscribers and I will send some of my boys round!
@@oc2phish07 ha ha, that's a deal!
Is that a 100mm or 150mm filter system?
It's the Lee SW150 system which uses 150mm filters. Huge.
I am waiting for an affordable XC ultrawide lens from Fuji...
Yes, that would be nice...
Autofocus zoom would be nice, but failing that, I use a combination of the Samyang 12mm and Laowa 9mm, and because I like the effect, the Samyang 8mm fisheye (obviously the fisheye works best in certain situations; I like it in cityscapes with lots of horizontals and verticals, and occasionally correct the verticals like an iPhone pano, good with people in shot)
They should do like a 12 or 14mm XC lens that would be a success for sure
It may be a few years old but this is still a legendary lens.
I'm now a dual system shooter with XF and RF but Canon (as of 2023) doesn't have anything remotely as good as this lens.
This is a great lens. But I treated myself to the laowa 9mm f2.8... it seems to have more vignetting but has a 49mm filter thread. So with a step-up ring and an ND filter, you should be able to have wide and long exposures without the need to rob a bank. But I am waiting on my step up ring to test ;) - step up ring to try to minimize vignetting on such a wide lens...
Let us know how you get on!
@@cameralabs I definitely will - do you mind if I do a general video sort of review using that lens - I noticed you did not have it until now?
@@FabienMathey are you saying you want to do a review of the Laowa lens? I'd love to see that! I don't have it...
@@cameralabs I will try and attempt it... but it will take some time ;) and if it is ok with you, I would like to use your ideas from this video to do so - like base it on that content for the different test.
@@FabienMathey sure thing, you're welcome to use similar test ideas. But please don't download or use any of my actual videos without asking first!
A very comprehensive, fast-paced and generally sensible test. But please. Please. Torches are bright, lenses can never be. How many times did you say the lens was bright? Even in vlogging mode you talk about the bright lens. It's fast or slow. Let torches be bright or dim.
Glad you enjoyed most of it! I do stand by my description though, I think it may be a geographical thing as I find a lot of other people in the Uk use the term like I do.
I use 10-24mm on Fuji XT1 is perfect,no problem,great lens !!!
Me too!
Nice work! Very informative. Still, $2000 is way too much money.
Thanks! Yep, it ain't cheap, but at least there's still the cheaper 10-24mm.
You can get it today for 1800E - 400E (cash back) = 1.400E in amazon Spain.
Too heavy, too bulky and to expensive. I haven’t changed from Nikon VF to Fuji to carry still the same big stuff around. I keep my 10-24
I’ve never understood these complaints.
Thank god for the Sigma 14mm f1.8.
good
I would love a alternative of Fujifilm XF 8-16mm f2.8 that doesn't cost like a month and a half of work 😢😢
Alternative ion what way? What would you give up? there's always the 10-24?
10-24 no contest. This monster is on par with 14mm, maybe edging it out slightly. Where is fuji's 12mm f2???
Samyang is always waiting for ya
I really want this lens but the cost is just silly. Nikons Legendary 12-24 is cheaper than this and that's a full frame lens. This almost looks abit like the Tamron 15-30 G2. Which is a full frame with IOS and nearly half the price. I went over to Fuji because of lens prices being affordable. I may have made a mistake if this is the shape of things to come.
It is fairly expensive, especially for the format size, but its built to a certain specification and they think it justifies the price. Yes, there are full-frame ultra wides that are cheaper, but are they as well corrected across the board as this one? I'd actually like to answer that myself at some point in the future and hope to compare some cross-format options. Personally speaking though, i am always very satisfied by the output of Fujifilm cameras and lenses when i test them, and have never yearned for full frame over them.
@@cameralabs Two very good points. One of the reasons why i follow you. You have more logic than brand emotions. If the X-T3 had Image stabilisation, i'd have fully jumped ship from Nikon. I'm getting older, the weight seems to be getting heavier!
@@bantononabike I think everyone wished the X-T3 had IBIS! But would you want it if it made the XT body any larger? They did that and came up with the X-H1 which I personally felt lost the charm. So it's a tricky one. I do want IBIS on the XT, but NOT if it makes the body much larger! After testing the 8-16mm, I'm also very happy with my 10-24mm. It's not as good, but it's good enough for how I use it.
@@cameralabs I'm going to ParkCameras today to see if i can convince myself. :-) Thanks for the advice.
But better quality image justifies cost of this industry leading lens.
Good review, although your comparison crops seem to disagree with your conclusions? Some of them anyway.
I demand an evenly excellent review of the EF-M 32mm f1.4 stat :-D give Canon some love Gordon! ;-)
I have it on my to do list, hopefully in a few weeks! I also have the RF 35mm f1.8 at the moment... so plenty of Canon love coming soon!
Great review I still prefer 10 to 24 all in all she's only Fuji it is not full frame
Half the weight, half the price, image stabilization, and cheaper filters? SOLD
I'm very happy with my 10-24
@@cameralabs it even has a wider zoom range than the sony 10-18! As a sony convert thats super exciting to me.
XF 8-16 is a monstor lens.... one day... one day
well i will stick with my 10mm..;)
absolutely ridiculous price
Have you shot with one yet? I have, and its worth every penny. Its a truly superior lens and there are not inexpensive superior lenses.
@Phil Jones65 The cost of a lens is not dependent on the size of the camera sensor. Its dependent on the _engineering specification_ of the lens. The Tokina is not perfectly rectilinear and doesn't have the optical performace of this lens. Frankly, the only way you're going to get me to use any Sony is under the threat of physical torture, because that's the experience I have using Sony's cameras. Having used the 8-16mm f/2.8 its worth every penny of its cost as it is an optically superior lens. If this lens is not a value proposition for some folks, no one's arm is being twisted to buy it.
@@stephenscharf6293 Sorry but its not optically superior, its a FF F4 equivalent, so pretty much useless for Astro, and not ideal for real estate.. Its also bigger and heavier then ff F4 sony 12-24mm and you dont have IBIS ... Paying top money for this many draw backs does not make it worth every penny! oh and no filter thread!
Price is good for such an outstanding lens, especially compared to a full frame lense of equal qualityuf their is one!
@@robert7622 actually it's far better.
Af
2000 bucks for a 12-24 f4 full frame equivalent 🙄
Hi everyone, I've removed my comments and the immediate replies to them, as I felt we were going round in circles a bit. Please do feel free to discuss this further though.
@@cameralabs People just overcomplicate for no good reason.
Still 12-24 lens at 2000$ is normal and few people that need this lens will buy it
Its an f/2.8 lens with respect to exposure. And don't knock 'til you've shot with it. This lens is built to a very, very high engineering specification. The Canikon equivalent focal length range f/4 zooms are even more expensive, FWIW.
@@stephenscharf6293 the new nikon 14-30 f4 is 500 gramms and 1300 dollars and can take normal filters......
@@dr.sommer5069 The Canon 11-24/4 is $2300. A complelely manual focus Leica Summicron 35mm f/2 is $3300. Are we arguing just for the sake of arguing here? A lens' cost is not dependent on the camera sensor size format; its dependent on its engineering specification. A microscope objective is a very, very small lens...yet can cost well over $10,000.
This lens is a huge and heavy behemoth. Fuji has no camera to hold such a big lens properly.
Yes the xt3
I used it with the X-H1 and it was fine.
It's fine on the XT2 and XT3 with the simple add-on metal grip. I have mine on my XT2 all the time and it makes a big difference for an adult male hand size.
XT4 now much bigger and has IBIS..perfect
JESUS NONSENSE. JUST SHOOT MULTIPLE PHOTOS AND MERGE IN POST.
When will they male a 10 to 24 f2?
Too big and expensive
@@cameralabs but son has 0 16-35 f4eqvavilent at 253 grmamms for 1000 sg bucks, and pana has 20-50 equavivlent 3-4, this lens makes no sense.. it doesnt compete