The Fabulous Fuji X owners thread

Yes these new lenses from Fuji are way too big compared to other equivalent APS-C systems. Not sure why? They've made a brilliant job with the XCs and the 18-55 and most of their primes but the 50-140 is bigger and heavier than the Pentax 50-135, and the 16-55 looks massive too.
 
vrapan said:
Yes these new lenses from Fuji are way too big compared to other equivalent APS-C systems. Not sure why? They've made a brilliant job with the XCs and the 18-55 and most of their primes but the 50-140 is bigger and heavier than the Pentax 50-135, and the 16-55 looks massive too.
Click to expand...

I agree,but say compare to say NIkon 24-70mm Or Canon 24-70 the new 16-55 is still smaller,also 50-140 compared to say Nikon, Canon,it is still smaller :)
 
vrapan said:
Yes these new lenses from Fuji are way too big compared to other equivalent APS-C systems. Not sure why? They've made a brilliant job with the XCs and the 18-55 and most of their primes but the 50-140 is bigger and heavier than the Pentax 50-135, and the 16-55 looks massive too.
Click to expand...

To put it simply - optical quality !
 
manualfocus-g said:
This is a closer comparison (D800 has the 17-35mm which is the same length as the Tammie 24-70/2.8 and the X-T1 has the 16-55/2.8)

Not quite so clear cut although the D800 combo is taller and heavier of course :)
Click to expand...

For me that would still be a clear cut advantage to the CSC.

Some believe that the bulk and weight advantage CSC's offer is due to the lenses but I think that the body and lens package is the thing to look at.

vrapan said:
Yes these new lenses from Fuji are way too big compared to other equivalent APS-C systems. Not sure why? They've made a brilliant job with the XCs and the 18-55 and most of their primes but the 50-140 is bigger and heavier than the Pentax 50-135, and the 16-55 looks massive too.
Click to expand...

I think that it's possibly a similar issue to the Sony A7 lenses in that both Sony and Fuji are often aiming at the quality end of the market and all that quality and sharpness and multiple heavy glass elements and control of optical nasties comes at the price of size, weight and cost.
 
simonblue said:
I agree,but say compare to say NIkon 24-70mm Or Canon 24-70 the new 16-55 is still smaller,also 50-140 compared to say Nikon, Canon,it is still smaller :)
Click to expand...

Hmmm I wonder why FF lenses are bigger? Is it because they have a bigger sensor?
 
vrapan said:
Yes these new lenses from Fuji are way too big compared to other equivalent APS-C systems. Not sure why? They've made a brilliant job with the XCs and the 18-55 and most of their primes but the 50-140 is bigger and heavier than the Pentax 50-135, and the 16-55 looks massive too.
Click to expand...
The Fuji needs image stabilisation in the lens, while Pentax has it in the body. This would account for a chunk of the weight and size difference.
 
Cuchulainn said:
The Fuji needs image stabilisation in the lens, while Pentax has it in the body. This would account for a chunk of the weight and size difference.
Click to expand...

So what's the excuse for the 16-55 then? :D

I don't really mind the size and weight. It's smaller than the DSLR equivalents so if you want that focal range and aperture then you gotta make some compromises no matter what system It's for.
 
twist said:
Hmmm I wonder why FF lenses are bigger? Is it because they have a bigger sensor?
Click to expand...

Yep your right ;),but for me who can't carry around a FF kit anymore,as those theses lens are bigger and heavier,it still lighter than my old FF kit :)
 
simonblue said:
Yep your right ;),but for me who can't carry around a FF kit anymore,as those theses lens are bigger and heavier,it still lighter than my old FF kit :)
Click to expand...

For sure, mirrorless is ideal for a lot of people and I understand the attraction, Id like an XT1 setup for the odd day out when I cant be bothered but Im already heavily invested and Ill just duplicate quite closely what I already have. Safer for me to just grab the wifes A5100 when I need to be inconspicuous.

Gotta admit though the A6000 plus kit lens at £429 after cashback is ridiculous value. @woof woof, not sure if youve seen that.
 
Last edited:
woof woof said:
For me that would still be a clear cut advantage to the CSC.

Some believe that the bulk and weight advantage CSC's offer is due to the lenses but I think that the body and lens package is the thing to look at.



I think that it's possibly a similar issue to the Sony A7 lenses in that both Sony and Fuji are often aiming at the quality end of the market and all that quality and sharpness and multiple heavy glass elements and control of optical nasties comes at the price of size, weight and cost.
Click to expand...
If you are implying that the 16-50 and the 50-135 from Pentax are not sharp quality lenses I'd strongly disagree. Especially the 50-135 is still the best lens I have used this side of high quality primes.
 
March 16 feels later (again) than suggested previously for the 100-400, I thought it was late 2015 before. I can't pretend this isn't hurting, itching for more length ;)
 
vrapan said:
If you are implying that the 16-50 and the 50-135 from Pentax are not sharp quality lenses I'd strongly disagree. Especially the 50-135 is still the best lens I have used this side of high quality primes.
Click to expand...

I'm not implying anything about Pentax lenses. Dunno where you got that from.

I'm just replying to the general point that Fuji lenses are according to some a bit big... although this obviously doesn't apply to them all. My point is that Fuji seem to be trying to make very good lenses and generally very good lenses are what? You guessed it... big and heavy.
 
twist said:
Gotta admit though the A6000 plus kit lens at £429 after cashback is ridiculous value. @woof woof, not sure if youve seen that.
Click to expand...

The A6000 will (I think) give me constant preview and auto ISO in manual mode but it's limited to 1/4000 which could mean using ND's in good light (not sure it has an electronic shutter mode with higher shutter speeds) and it hasn't got aperture and shutter dials and they're a big pull :D

I think I've decided to just keep what I have for now but if Fuji do some interesting things like offer two or three more raw high ISO settings and maybe refresh the 35mm f1.4 I may take another good hard look :D
 
chrism_scotland said:
Well I think I'm going to try and return the 16-55 and swap it for a prime, its just too big for the body in my opinion, not sure what Calumets return policy is like though!
Click to expand...

Yes see that's what I thought when I saw the size of the 16-55 and even more so the the 50-140 they are kinda ridiculously big compared to the sizes of the bodies. A few primes plus a smallish all rounder is where the system is at for me size wise anyway.

On a slightly different point will the X-T10 get a thread of its own or will it be tagged on here? Pre-ordered me one, because I think it would make a great pairing with a few smallish primes and the 18-55 for an all rounder. Since my Nikon D7k days I keep trying to slim my gear to inconspicuous, near jacket-pocketable levels and something like the X-T10 plus a prime is almost there.
 
minnnt said:
It'll probably get tagged in here but make a thread for it if you want to.

Although the 50-140 is big, it's no different to a dslr and 70-200 imo.
Click to expand...
No not by much I agree, I mean even my K-5 + 50-135 was on the uncomfortably big side but if you think that the K-5 is chunkier than the X-T1 yet the lens was a bit smaller than the 50-140 it makes it that much more awkward looking, especially when the whole concept of mirrorless is to create a system that is more portable and less intimidating. Having said that it does not matter to me, as long as the option for small primes and relatively compact walk about lenses is there, Fuji can produce all the beastie lenses it wants :p
 
twist said:
Doubt it ;):D I do love a new camera.
Click to expand...

Oh me too, I hadn't actually been too bad in the 18 months I've had the D800, its been lenses rather than cameras.... but was agonising over what to get, as you say should just have kept the D750 order...
 
vrapan said:
No not by much I agree, I mean even my K-5 + 50-135 was on the uncomfortably big side but if you think that the K-5 is chunkier than the X-T1 yet the lens was a bit smaller than the 50-140 it makes it that much more awkward looking, especially when the whole concept of mirrorless is to create a system that is more portable and less intimidating. Having said that it does not matter to me, as long as the option for small primes and relatively compact walk about lenses is there, Fuji can produce all the beastie lenses it wants :p
Click to expand...

You could say the same about some of Sony zooms,for their mirrorless cameras,and they are not as fast as Fuji zooms :)
 
Been playing with the cats again

Mysti.jpg


Jake.jpg
 
Playing with or annoying, Marc?
 
I have to say, after using this a while, it may well be my favourite camera ever… maybe. And I've tried a load, like you guys have :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top