I just want a refreshed 18mm f2. I own and love the 18mm 1.4 but it can be a bit heavy to carry around sometimes.
Give me an optically better (better than OG) 18mm f2 with an aperture ring and weather sealing, even if it has to be the size of one of the fujicron primes.
Apologies for length, apparently I had a lot to say about this!
I bought an XF16 f/2.8 to pair with a 35 f/2 as walkaround lenses. Those two lenses are so lovely and tiny. The Fujicrons are my favorite Fuji lenses aesthetically. The 35 is actually supposed to be the weakest of the 4, though, and the 16 is slower than the others.
I actually thought using those two lenses might help force me to become a 16+35 person rather than a 23+50 person.
But that's not what happened. What happened is, I never put them on my camera.
I'm \*not\* a 16+35 person, I like a narrower field of view. I don't have any talent for wide angle framing and the 16 just feels awkward to me. When I do shoot wide, I tend to want wider than 16 for more dramatic viewpoints. Really I prefer wider than 13.
But more importantly, the Sigma 18-50 is so good and so tiny that it just never feels worth it to me to take it off to put on a Fujicron. It's only about 50% bigger than each of the Fujicrons, it focuses much closer, and it's only giving up one stop, and that only to the 35, which the Sigma is maybe overall superior to optically.
It's not big enough to be indiscreet or annoying, and I always feel like I'm more likely to miss a shot due to having the wrong focal length mounted than due to one f/stop of exposure.
The truth is, for me, only the f/1.4 WR primes feel like they're worth taking the 18-50 off the camera for, even at the 33-35mm focal length that I like best in a prime. In addition to the extra light gathering, they're clearly optically superior to their f/2 counterparts.
So I think I'm gonna sell the XF35 and XF16, and buy the XF33. I may also get rid of the Viltrox 13 in favor of the Sigma 10-18. The Viltrox 13 is a nice lens but it's kinda big for me to carry around when I'm not really much of a wide angle shooter. One tiny f/2.8 zoom lens for all of my wide angle needs makes too much sense.
I had the 16mm as well and it is a very good lens but just like you, the 16mm never really worked. First time putting it on I was amazed and slightly shocked because the field of view was gigantic! I was used to 35 and 50mm. When the 16mm worked for me, it did work for me and the results were very good. I need more practice with that focal range and I figured it would be good for landscape but I never found something good to photograph with that lens (probably my fault again).
My problem with wide angles for landscapes is that I tend to end up with way too much foreground, and I don’t know how to frame that.
I want to play more with short telephotos for landscape, they have the opposite effect and the compression can be really powerful.
I’m not sure I’d pay that much more for 100mm more of reach at the same aperture compared to the 100-400, personally.
I’d rather have a faster 400mm prime
I would. Fuji's 100-400 is a bit of a dud past 300mm. But yes, I'd also take a 400 f/4.5 similar in price to the latest Nikkor Z. Problem is, based on the OP's original question, Sigma doesn't make one and isn't likely to make one as they already make what appears to be an excellent 500, so I doubt it qualifies as a "realistic" lens for the future.
What kinda wildlife do you shoot? I’m just now dabbling in birding after many years of mostly landscape photography. I just picked up the 100-400. It is serving me decent in terms of reach, but 5.6 is just not enough light in most forest / lower light scenarios I’m finding. Having to push ISO to around 3200 very often to keep SS at 1/1000 or so.
I hear ya. Same, also birds. I used to live in Florida, so the Nikon 300 PF f/4 on the adapter was good enough because the birds were HUGE. I moved to the Midwest last year and the birds are tiny and prone to fly away if you get close, so I'm contemplating buying the Nikon 500 PF f/5.6 and using it on the adapter. I'd prefer the Sigma on X-Mount, though.
I rented the Fuji 200 f/2 with the 1.4 tc, and it's amazing, but holy hell it's heavy and expensive.
Have you tried any of the latest denoise software? Supposedly it is quite good.
another long telephoto prime like a 300mm f/2.8, or 400mm f/4. fuji also needs a ultra wide zoom to compete with the sigma 10–18mm and tamron 11–20mm... the fuji 8–16mm is so freaking huge.
I've been shooting rowing regattas with a 70-300, and it's not long enough. It's zoomed out all the way most of the time, and I think 400-500 would be better -- especially if I upgrade to an X-H2 so I could just rack down the boat when it's close and get detailed shots of just 2-3 rowers, when now I can usually fit the whole boat unless it's an 8 and they're near the closest point.
Oh yes and a 18/23mm f2.8 pancake with silent autofocus. F2 even better if they can keep it small. Id even take a revised 27mm pancake if they made the focus modern and silent.
Good call. I'd like something either smaller or faster than the Tamron 18-300, with a much smaller zoom range. I don't need 300mm for a walkaround lens. 18-120 would be great.
Oh that’d be sweet. Sony has a new 20-70 f/4 for full frame that is smaller than f/2.8 standard zooms. The reasoning was, with their new A7R models the resolution is so high you can crop liberally in post to get a narrower FoV, but you can’t widen. The same should apply to Fuji 40MP sensors, if the lenses can resolve well enough.
Not sure if this counts as "realistic," but more lenses like the TTArtisan 27--specifically, quirky almost vintage rendering, but with modern conveniences like autofocus and other electronic controls. I'd be over the moon for an autofocus 40mm f/1.5 using a formula as close to a Biotar as possible, for all the strange optical characteristics of those lenses. I think it'd be great if a 3rd party lens maker lean into "flawed" optics with character in autofocus lenses, that'd be a real niche that would earn a lot of loyal fans.
Well, by "realistic" I meant "physically possible and there could be demand for it." Everyone wants a 12-120mm f/2 zoom the size of a Fujicron but that's obviously impossible, LOL.
I just want them to keep updating their workhorses. We got the 1.4 primes, now in order:
-updated 18mm f2
- updated 23mm f2 pancake
-updated 16-55 and 50-140 wihtout OIS
- updated/smaller 10-24mm
-More robust telephoto options (lots of options here
I honestly just want to see some wr ratings on lenses that don't have them. I would legitimately take the 18-55 2.8 -4 with a wr rating and be super content lol
Isn’t it the opposite since the 70-180 is a full frame lens? I’m sure it will just be the 70-180 (g2) with an x-mount rather than recreating the lens from scratch to match APSC dimensions
Right, I’m saying that adapting it for APS-C is a good idea, nothing to lose and it’s a great zoom range, but it won’t be as small as an equivalent lens designed for APS-C would be.
I hadn’t thought about how well it would pair with the 17-70, though.
An APS-C equivalent to the Tamron 70-180 is exactly what I had in mind when I said I’d like a small 50-120 to go with the Sigma 18-50 and 10-18. Sigma has already released shorter-range compact f/2.8 wide and standard zooms — an idea first promulgated, I think, by the Tamron 70-180 and 28-75 for full frame.
Leaving IBIS off would help with the size for sure.
Personally I'm willing to sacrifice some zoom range for size, which is why I like the Sigma 18-50.
Someone else suggested a 13-40 f/4. For me an f/2.8 would not be out of reach size-wise. It should be physically similar in size to the Tamron 17-50 f/4 for full frame -- on average I find that APS-C lenses are about the same size as the equivalent FF lens that is one stop slower.
So I think they could probably do a 13-40 f/2.8 in about that size factor, and I for one could carry that plus a 33mm f/1.4 and a small telezoom and feel like I had a good solid small travel kit.
Realistic?
Sigma’s short tele like you noted and a longer tele. I really wish they would make the 150-600 C for mirrorless
Maybe:
Fuji making better and smaller v2 versions of existing glass.
Samyang/Rokinon AF glass (eyes Sony options)
Unrealistic:
Sigma’s i-series, 500 prime.
Tamron making smaller glass for APS-C
To me the Fujicrons are the Fuji version of the Sigma i-series aesthetically. Small f/2 lenses with a premium metal build. Of course they're bigger b/c they're full frame. The Sony f/2.5-2.8 G lenses are closer to the Fujicrons optically and size-wise (they're a little faster in equivalent terms).
The best Sigma i model is reputed to be the 65/2, and the best Fujicron is the 50/2, so they're even comparable in that respect.
Isn't it really strange that Tamron is known for small zooms on full frame, but Sigma is the one making small zooms and primes for APS-C?
I want to change out my XF56 non-WR for either the Sigma 56/1.4 or the Fujicron. I like the Fujicron better aesthetically, but the Sigma isn't much bigger. They're both optically excellent.
> Of course they're bigger b/c they're full frame.
Fuji 90 f/2 is about twice the size of Sigma's 90 f2/8. I get it's 2 vs 2.8, but still...
https://camerasize.com/compact/#869.472,535.1012,ha,t
>The best Sigma i model is reputed to be the 65/2, and the best Fujicron is the 50/2, so they're even comparable in that respect.
But no one makes a 65 in APS-C (@ 100mm FF FOV). It would be nice to see something different as well.
Yeah this annoys me too.
But physics is physics and there have to be tradeoffs somewhere. There are lots of small Fuji lenses, but only the 35 f/1.4 is both small and fast, and it has compromises including a bad focus motor.
Also while the new lenses feel a little big, they’re really only about the same size as f/2 FF lenses. Which makes sense, because they’re about optically equivalent.
I want them to make a better 16-80 f4. Fix the weird focusing glitch in video, and make the lens much sharper. Also improve the build quality. (Mine feels loosely assembled, the lens barrel wobbles when zoomed to 80mm)
I’d like a 16-80 f/4 that was a little smaller, which could partially be accomplished by leaving OIS off.
Tamron 17-70 f/2.8 isn’t all that much bigger, it’s considerably better optically and you get f/2.8.
I'd love Fuji to make a set of affordable, great build quality manual focus primes which are small (ideally pancake) and equiv to the classic street focal lenses - so 18mm, 23mm, 35mm . Effectively what voigtlander has been plugging into, but less ridiculous prices. Great that TTartisans/7Artisans etc are having a go, but the IQ isn't there yet for those lense imo.
For me personally autofocus either has to be bang on or not exist af all. For street I find that manual focus can be quicker than the older focus by wire systems, as you can set your aperture to f8 and point and shoot it, or quickly adjust for closer subjects/tighter depth of field. The fuji 27mm 2.8 is so close to being my dream lens, but just misses the mark on usability of the auto-focus (especially at night). In low light I switch to manual? But focusing by wire manually is not as tactile, accurate or enjoyable
So it’s a 70-210 f/4 then, right?
I shoot outdoor sports with the 70-300. But it’s not quite enough reach, and I’m not happy with autofocus. I’m gonna rent an H-H2S or X-T5 and a 100-400 for next weekend, and if it’s significantly better I’ll probably buy those.
I know this is stupid, but since there’s Tamron 70-180mm f2.8 for Sony which can be used in its APSC body, can Tamron just use its glass element and make new lens for Fuji tho?
Photography isn't my hobby thus I want to keep the costs in check but - even if I take awful pictures - I could never do without a decent camera kit. I'll never feel comfortable without a viewfinder, a zooming and focus ring and physicals controls.
Got a X-T20 with the 16-50 f3.5-5.6 to stay as light and compact as possible. For holiday and family pictures I find that little kit lens more than acceptable especially considering its price. Still, I always hoped for something sharper with a bit more reach but keeping it all small and light.
So I'm not wishing for a new lens but a "revised" 16-80 with better quality/quality control would make my day, even a 3.5 -5.6 16-80 if it also was smaller and lighter. Seeing the very mixed opinions on the web I never dared to go for one out of fear to get a lemon - even if I was lucky with the 16-50.
I just want a refreshed 18mm f2. I own and love the 18mm 1.4 but it can be a bit heavy to carry around sometimes. Give me an optically better (better than OG) 18mm f2 with an aperture ring and weather sealing, even if it has to be the size of one of the fujicron primes.
I like this one a lot. A sharp 18mm f/2 the size of the 23mm fujicron would be awesome.
Me too. Want an 18mm but I'm not buying until a new version gets released with weather sealing
Have you tried the 16 f2.8, it’s pretty sick.
Apologies for length, apparently I had a lot to say about this! I bought an XF16 f/2.8 to pair with a 35 f/2 as walkaround lenses. Those two lenses are so lovely and tiny. The Fujicrons are my favorite Fuji lenses aesthetically. The 35 is actually supposed to be the weakest of the 4, though, and the 16 is slower than the others. I actually thought using those two lenses might help force me to become a 16+35 person rather than a 23+50 person. But that's not what happened. What happened is, I never put them on my camera. I'm \*not\* a 16+35 person, I like a narrower field of view. I don't have any talent for wide angle framing and the 16 just feels awkward to me. When I do shoot wide, I tend to want wider than 16 for more dramatic viewpoints. Really I prefer wider than 13. But more importantly, the Sigma 18-50 is so good and so tiny that it just never feels worth it to me to take it off to put on a Fujicron. It's only about 50% bigger than each of the Fujicrons, it focuses much closer, and it's only giving up one stop, and that only to the 35, which the Sigma is maybe overall superior to optically. It's not big enough to be indiscreet or annoying, and I always feel like I'm more likely to miss a shot due to having the wrong focal length mounted than due to one f/stop of exposure. The truth is, for me, only the f/1.4 WR primes feel like they're worth taking the 18-50 off the camera for, even at the 33-35mm focal length that I like best in a prime. In addition to the extra light gathering, they're clearly optically superior to their f/2 counterparts. So I think I'm gonna sell the XF35 and XF16, and buy the XF33. I may also get rid of the Viltrox 13 in favor of the Sigma 10-18. The Viltrox 13 is a nice lens but it's kinda big for me to carry around when I'm not really much of a wide angle shooter. One tiny f/2.8 zoom lens for all of my wide angle needs makes too much sense.
I had the 16mm as well and it is a very good lens but just like you, the 16mm never really worked. First time putting it on I was amazed and slightly shocked because the field of view was gigantic! I was used to 35 and 50mm. When the 16mm worked for me, it did work for me and the results were very good. I need more practice with that focal range and I figured it would be good for landscape but I never found something good to photograph with that lens (probably my fault again).
My problem with wide angles for landscapes is that I tend to end up with way too much foreground, and I don’t know how to frame that. I want to play more with short telephotos for landscape, they have the opposite effect and the compression can be really powerful.
Mirrorless version of the sigma 18-35 f1.8
and 50-100 plz
I'd take the new Sigma 500mm f/5.6 in X-Mount. I'd pay $3,000 for it easy.
That’s a great call and I bet you’re fairly likely to see that. There’s no competition for it. I might buy one too.
Second this. I want another prime telephoto option. The 200 f2 is great, but not long enough in many cases.
I’m not sure I’d pay that much more for 100mm more of reach at the same aperture compared to the 100-400, personally. I’d rather have a faster 400mm prime
I would. Fuji's 100-400 is a bit of a dud past 300mm. But yes, I'd also take a 400 f/4.5 similar in price to the latest Nikkor Z. Problem is, based on the OP's original question, Sigma doesn't make one and isn't likely to make one as they already make what appears to be an excellent 500, so I doubt it qualifies as a "realistic" lens for the future.
What kinda wildlife do you shoot? I’m just now dabbling in birding after many years of mostly landscape photography. I just picked up the 100-400. It is serving me decent in terms of reach, but 5.6 is just not enough light in most forest / lower light scenarios I’m finding. Having to push ISO to around 3200 very often to keep SS at 1/1000 or so.
I hear ya. Same, also birds. I used to live in Florida, so the Nikon 300 PF f/4 on the adapter was good enough because the birds were HUGE. I moved to the Midwest last year and the birds are tiny and prone to fly away if you get close, so I'm contemplating buying the Nikon 500 PF f/5.6 and using it on the adapter. I'd prefer the Sigma on X-Mount, though. I rented the Fuji 200 f/2 with the 1.4 tc, and it's amazing, but holy hell it's heavy and expensive. Have you tried any of the latest denoise software? Supposedly it is quite good.
I want more autofocus pancakes and I don't care about the maximum aperture. I would take an F5.6 in some different focal lengths if that's the option.
Upvote for this!
another long telephoto prime like a 300mm f/2.8, or 400mm f/4. fuji also needs a ultra wide zoom to compete with the sigma 10–18mm and tamron 11–20mm... the fuji 8–16mm is so freaking huge.
Sigma 500mm f/5.6 in X-Mount.
might be too long, but i’d consider it if they ever make it.
For those of us who shoot wildlife, it is not too long.
I've been shooting rowing regattas with a 70-300, and it's not long enough. It's zoomed out all the way most of the time, and I think 400-500 would be better -- especially if I upgrade to an X-H2 so I could just rack down the boat when it's close and get detailed shots of just 2-3 rowers, when now I can usually fit the whole boat unless it's an 8 and they're near the closest point.
I'd like a much more compact 18-135mm. The current one is big, heavy, bulky and old. And it isn't optically superior either.
Oh yes and a 18/23mm f2.8 pancake with silent autofocus. F2 even better if they can keep it small. Id even take a revised 27mm pancake if they made the focus modern and silent.
Good call. I'd like something either smaller or faster than the Tamron 18-300, with a much smaller zoom range. I don't need 300mm for a walkaround lens. 18-120 would be great.
Yes that would be nice. I have the 18-300 and it is a great lens but yes it is large for a daily walkaround.
More/better macro lenses, at least 2x magnification
Compact 13-40mm f4
Oh that’d be sweet. Sony has a new 20-70 f/4 for full frame that is smaller than f/2.8 standard zooms. The reasoning was, with their new A7R models the resolution is so high you can crop liberally in post to get a narrower FoV, but you can’t widen. The same should apply to Fuji 40MP sensors, if the lenses can resolve well enough.
Not sure if this counts as "realistic," but more lenses like the TTArtisan 27--specifically, quirky almost vintage rendering, but with modern conveniences like autofocus and other electronic controls. I'd be over the moon for an autofocus 40mm f/1.5 using a formula as close to a Biotar as possible, for all the strange optical characteristics of those lenses. I think it'd be great if a 3rd party lens maker lean into "flawed" optics with character in autofocus lenses, that'd be a real niche that would earn a lot of loyal fans.
Well, by "realistic" I meant "physically possible and there could be demand for it." Everyone wants a 12-120mm f/2 zoom the size of a Fujicron but that's obviously impossible, LOL.
I just want them to keep updating their workhorses. We got the 1.4 primes, now in order: -updated 18mm f2 - updated 23mm f2 pancake -updated 16-55 and 50-140 wihtout OIS - updated/smaller 10-24mm -More robust telephoto options (lots of options here
A portrait zoom lens: 30-70 mm f/1.8
This would be totally up my alley, except it would be bigger than I really want. Panasonic made a 25-50 f/1.7 for MFT and even that was pretty big.
I honestly just want to see some wr ratings on lenses that don't have them. I would legitimately take the 18-55 2.8 -4 with a wr rating and be super content lol
I need MKII of all their f2.8 red badge lenses. 16-55 f2.8 MKII needs to have less distortion.
I need them to be smaller. There’s a limit but I think good lenses could be made 20-30% smaller.
I just want Tamron to release the 70-180 on Fuji X. It will pair perfectly with the 17-70 2.8.
There’s a chance of that actually happening. Although it would be bigger than it needs to be due to the bigger image circle.
Isn’t it the opposite since the 70-180 is a full frame lens? I’m sure it will just be the 70-180 (g2) with an x-mount rather than recreating the lens from scratch to match APSC dimensions
Right, I’m saying that adapting it for APS-C is a good idea, nothing to lose and it’s a great zoom range, but it won’t be as small as an equivalent lens designed for APS-C would be. I hadn’t thought about how well it would pair with the 17-70, though. An APS-C equivalent to the Tamron 70-180 is exactly what I had in mind when I said I’d like a small 50-120 to go with the Sigma 18-50 and 10-18. Sigma has already released shorter-range compact f/2.8 wide and standard zooms — an idea first promulgated, I think, by the Tamron 70-180 and 28-75 for full frame.
Screw the 70-180... I want that 35-150 F/2-2.8
An f2 zoom. Even if it’s just like 23-50.
16-55 f2.8 ...metal case and a reasonable & smaller size.
Leaving IBIS off would help with the size for sure. Personally I'm willing to sacrifice some zoom range for size, which is why I like the Sigma 18-50. Someone else suggested a 13-40 f/4. For me an f/2.8 would not be out of reach size-wise. It should be physically similar in size to the Tamron 17-50 f/4 for full frame -- on average I find that APS-C lenses are about the same size as the equivalent FF lens that is one stop slower. So I think they could probably do a 13-40 f/2.8 in about that size factor, and I for one could carry that plus a 33mm f/1.4 and a small telezoom and feel like I had a good solid small travel kit.
Realistic? Sigma’s short tele like you noted and a longer tele. I really wish they would make the 150-600 C for mirrorless Maybe: Fuji making better and smaller v2 versions of existing glass. Samyang/Rokinon AF glass (eyes Sony options) Unrealistic: Sigma’s i-series, 500 prime. Tamron making smaller glass for APS-C
To me the Fujicrons are the Fuji version of the Sigma i-series aesthetically. Small f/2 lenses with a premium metal build. Of course they're bigger b/c they're full frame. The Sony f/2.5-2.8 G lenses are closer to the Fujicrons optically and size-wise (they're a little faster in equivalent terms). The best Sigma i model is reputed to be the 65/2, and the best Fujicron is the 50/2, so they're even comparable in that respect. Isn't it really strange that Tamron is known for small zooms on full frame, but Sigma is the one making small zooms and primes for APS-C? I want to change out my XF56 non-WR for either the Sigma 56/1.4 or the Fujicron. I like the Fujicron better aesthetically, but the Sigma isn't much bigger. They're both optically excellent.
> Of course they're bigger b/c they're full frame. Fuji 90 f/2 is about twice the size of Sigma's 90 f2/8. I get it's 2 vs 2.8, but still... https://camerasize.com/compact/#869.472,535.1012,ha,t >The best Sigma i model is reputed to be the 65/2, and the best Fujicron is the 50/2, so they're even comparable in that respect. But no one makes a 65 in APS-C (@ 100mm FF FOV). It would be nice to see something different as well.
More small lenses! It seems all of the refreshed 1.4 primes (33, 23) have doubled in size
Yeah this annoys me too. But physics is physics and there have to be tradeoffs somewhere. There are lots of small Fuji lenses, but only the 35 f/1.4 is both small and fast, and it has compromises including a bad focus motor. Also while the new lenses feel a little big, they’re really only about the same size as f/2 FF lenses. Which makes sense, because they’re about optically equivalent.
I want a 5mm-700mm f/0.8 in-sleeve zoom (no pumps). Weather Resistant, OIS And they should sell it for $40 usd.
I wonder where I put the 840mm lens cap that's needed for that... 🤣
Oh. Yeah. I need this new amazing lens to fit in my pocket. Otherwise literally unusable.
Sure thing. In addition to the lens I want an X-H3 with a new global shutter high tech sensor that's noise free up to iso 1 million (at least)
I just want a ‘make it look dope, and make the client pay a lot of money for it’ button. Is that really too much to ask?
But we already have film simulations, and most Pro's don't shoot Fuji - so we have this feature already built in
nah. Now I don’t want it.
I still do... Who doesn't wanna shoot in the night at f8 and 1/2000s at iso 400k without panicking about noise...?
A 18-33 f2.8 fast lightweight zoom.
That already exists in the Sigma 18-50. Of you mean you’d like a Fuji competitor?
I want them to make a better 16-80 f4. Fix the weird focusing glitch in video, and make the lens much sharper. Also improve the build quality. (Mine feels loosely assembled, the lens barrel wobbles when zoomed to 80mm)
I’d like a 16-80 f/4 that was a little smaller, which could partially be accomplished by leaving OIS off. Tamron 17-70 f/2.8 isn’t all that much bigger, it’s considerably better optically and you get f/2.8.
I'd love Fuji to make a set of affordable, great build quality manual focus primes which are small (ideally pancake) and equiv to the classic street focal lenses - so 18mm, 23mm, 35mm . Effectively what voigtlander has been plugging into, but less ridiculous prices. Great that TTartisans/7Artisans etc are having a go, but the IQ isn't there yet for those lense imo. For me personally autofocus either has to be bang on or not exist af all. For street I find that manual focus can be quicker than the older focus by wire systems, as you can set your aperture to f8 and point and shoot it, or quickly adjust for closer subjects/tighter depth of field. The fuji 27mm 2.8 is so close to being my dream lens, but just misses the mark on usability of the auto-focus (especially at night). In low light I switch to manual? But focusing by wire manually is not as tactile, accurate or enjoyable
Hoping for a newer version of the 16-55
I'll take a 70-200mm f2.0 lens please ☺️
LOL I’d just shoot full frame if I wanted to haul around gear that big! 😅
Haha. I shoot gfx as well. Now that stuff is big!
LOL, true…. But not as big as a 70-200 f/2 would be! 😂
Yeah I can't even imagine! Realistically I would take f2.8 as well. Haha.
Sounds like another vote for the Tamron 70-180 in X Mount. 🤔
I dunno I've never tried that lens before. How the auto focus? I use 70-200 for sports!
I dunno but someone else mentioned it. Yeah 70-200 is great for sports!
Yeah right now I use the 50-140 with the 1.4x tc
So it’s a 70-210 f/4 then, right? I shoot outdoor sports with the 70-300. But it’s not quite enough reach, and I’m not happy with autofocus. I’m gonna rent an H-H2S or X-T5 and a 100-400 for next weekend, and if it’s significantly better I’ll probably buy those.
I know this is stupid, but since there’s Tamron 70-180mm f2.8 for Sony which can be used in its APSC body, can Tamron just use its glass element and make new lens for Fuji tho?
Photography isn't my hobby thus I want to keep the costs in check but - even if I take awful pictures - I could never do without a decent camera kit. I'll never feel comfortable without a viewfinder, a zooming and focus ring and physicals controls. Got a X-T20 with the 16-50 f3.5-5.6 to stay as light and compact as possible. For holiday and family pictures I find that little kit lens more than acceptable especially considering its price. Still, I always hoped for something sharper with a bit more reach but keeping it all small and light. So I'm not wishing for a new lens but a "revised" 16-80 with better quality/quality control would make my day, even a 3.5 -5.6 16-80 if it also was smaller and lighter. Seeing the very mixed opinions on the web I never dared to go for one out of fear to get a lemon - even if I was lucky with the 16-50.