As of firmware V5.10 on X-H2S and lens firmware v1.10 (Feb 22nd 2024) the exposure stepping has been reduced. After a brief test I did not notice any exposure stepping on my copy using both the zoom ring and the lens buttons for W/T.
@@seckinsahin I can't really... In lowlight conditions, I'd reach for a fast prime instead of an f4 lens... I did use it last night to snap a casual photo at ISO 12,800 that looked pretty terrible (noisy AF) until I ran it through Lightroom's AI denoise feature after which it looked shockingly good. The lens didn't seem to have any trouble getting focus under such terrible lighting at least.
I agree with your conclusions, but I would add two potential markets for this lens - the travelogue photographer/videographer and the TH-camr market. I bought mine mostly for video (for my TH-cam fly fishing channel) where so far it has been quite useful when paired with my X-S10. I don't have demanding video requirements so the lens not being parfocal isn't of concern. I only pair it with IBIS cameras (X-S10 or X-H2), so the lack of OIS isn't an issue either. I think Fujifilm had this lens in mind for its hybrid cameras rather than their photocentric ones, so the lack of OIS is understandable in those terms. For those other cameras the 16-80mm makes more sense. When paired with an X-S10 or 20, this lens makes for a relatively light, compact travel camera kit that can easily transition between photo and video. Fujifilm has its hardcore video lenses to satisfy the pro videographer, so offering this lens at a relatively low price, minus some features, is an understandable design choice for an amateur video market. All of the missing features you mentioned would have jacked up the price, size and weight. No question though - if I was going shoot only stills, the 16-80 or the 18-135 would be a better choice. As far as sharpness goes, I have a bunch of Fujifilm primes if max sharpness is needed.
I think this is severely underrated lens. Yes, it is not bright 2.8, not fast/sticky focusing lens, not very sharp. But in this age of smartphones, it creates beautiful results with the amazing zoom range in a very light package. The light weight and versatility make it very appealing as long as you shake off the urge to look at 200% size.
@@DustinAbbottTWI Right. I agree that this is not for pro work in most cases, and quality is not up there with prime penses or other quality zoom lenses. But as a high quality replacement for a smartphone, this is amazing. Great to log your life or trip because it is very light, even for a superzoom lens.
I think zoom lenses in general are underrated. I love my 56mm f/1.2 and 50mm & 90mm f2 lenses, but I still prefer to use my XF 18-55mm f/2.8-4 kit lens for all sorts of party and ceremonial photo shoots. The problem is that the DOF is too narrow at f/2 - f/1.2, so if the people are not lined up perfectly, you simply cannot get more than a single person in the frame without blurring out the others (and not to mention details on the table), so in reality I dont even need a wide apperture for such photos. A much better choice is something like an f/4 apperture, and especially a zoom lens, because I can take much more varied photos thanks to it without having a two camera bodies. Of course something like f/4 isnt as fast, so you have to bring a flash with you if you want to shoot in low light conditions (indoors), but I still use it anyway, because indoor photos without a flash look just terrible no matter what (you rarely see people's eyes clearly without a flash), so even if I'm using faster prime lenses I pretty much always use a flash just to fill up the shadows just a little bit on the people faces (and you can do it without making people look artifical). I always have a good laugh when my friends hire so-called "professional photographers", but say later on that I took much better photos than they did LOL. The think is, so called professional photographers overuse fast lenses for everything, so for example, if they have to photograph a young couple in front of their family, the whole family gets blurred. Later the family wants to see them on the photos and they arnt happy when their faces are blurred :P. It's even worse when a photographer doesn't want to use a flash, because without it people have eyes of a raccoon (and then even a young couple no longer look so young :P). When it comes to XF18-120mm lens, I think it should be even more versatile than my current 18-55mm kit lens, but I just wonder if sharpness will be good enough. For example, people have said that my 18-55mm f/2.8-4 kit lens is not very sharp compared to prime lenses, yet my photos are still very sharp (for example I can easily read fine prints on the bottles even when I view/edit my photos) even when viewed at 1:1 zoom. Sharpness (microcontrast) on my prime lenses is a little bit better (especially xf50mm f2), but not that much better to even make a noticeable difference at 1:1 (especially when I use "enhance details" function in lightroom), and not to mention when viewed at 35% zoom on my 1440p monitor. So I think there's a good chance that this XF18-120mm is also reasonably sharp, despite what so-called "professional photographers" say, because I don't believe that any modern lens would give you worse results than smarthone lenses, and not many people think their phone photos arnt sharp enough.
@@PabloB888 I think it is decent. I thought it is better than typical superzoom lenses, but that was a while ago, so superzooms these days might be much better than I experienced. The biggest pro of XF 18-120 for me versatility coming from the combination of surprisingly light weight, range, F4, and some video friendly features. The biggest con would be AF-C. I don't know why, but at least photo AF-C is terrible. The look is usually okay, but I don't expect much from a F4 lens for a APS-C sensor anyway.
Thank you for this thorough review! I like the lens for its versatility and light weight for the focal range. Yes, I do struggle with the power zoom. You can actually change its speed in the camera menu, but still… I think the image quality is fine for the 26MP sensor, I have yet to try it on the 40MP. Not loving it, but using it fairly often.😏
Super review as always. I chose the 16-80 as my travel lens. It’s got an aperture ring (really important to me), OIS, a more useful zoom range (to me) and it is less tall. Image quality wise, I’d imagine the lenses perform about the same. Decent, but not exceptional.
I purchased the lens after watching this video for several times. I have to say that the parfocal performance is normal, especially in low light situations. But overall I am quite satisfied with it.
Hello. I switched to Xt5. I'm looking for a takgez lens right now, but not every lens is used because it's 40 mp. I'm torn between the Fujifilm Fujinon XF 18-120mm f/4 LM PZ WR Lens, the XF16-55mmF2.8 R LM WR, or the 16 80. My preference is 18 120, as it has a wide range, but what is your opinion?
If you are using the 40MP sensor, you really need to get the new 16-55mm F2.8 II - it's on the only one of the standard zooms that really shines on the high rez sensor.
I have owned this lens since October 2022 now, here in the UK. I bought it as a one lens solution to walking around with just one camera. I have been using it on the 40mp Fuji X-T5. However, it has recently been sent back as it wasn't focusing properly. The outside edges were often very blurred. Fuji replaced the entire lens group, and repaired the focusing, and also replaced the name badge (not sure why). Although it is sharper than it was, I still find it is not as sharp as it should be, especially at f4 or f5.6. It also takes a long time to zoom. Starting to think that I might sell the lens for something else. (Luckily I held onto my Fuji 16-80 f4 lens which is possibly the best walk-around lens). Shame really.
Nice video! I replaced my full-frame Canon kit (with L glass) with a Fujifilm X-H2s and this lens in October 2022. I'm a hobbyist ("dadtographer") and mainly shoot photos of my family's travel and children's school events. My main goal for the new kit was to be smaller and more versatile and to travel easily. (I also bought the new 33mm f/1.4, and 70-300). I know this lens has received bad reviews and it's definitely not going to match the premium lens in image quality. But I have to admit that I've been VERY happy with what I've been able to capture in the past year, including a trip to Europe this summer. There have only been a few times when I've looked at a photo and thought that it would have been noticeably better with a different lens - while there were plenty of times that I was able to get a shot that I may have missed if I hadn't had the long zoom range or had stopped to change lenses! I completely agree with other comments - this is not a pro lens for either photo or video. But the size and versatility with "good enough" usability and image quality make it a winner for anyone with needs like mine.
Great video thanks Interesting you reference not parfocal performance. This is a key claim of the manufacturer. Would you say this is a false claim based on your experience? Also, any gimbals that can access the zoom function?
I suspect that yes, the zoom function should work off some gimbals as they are accessing the internal control of the camera via Bluetooth. As for being parfocal - based on my experience I don't think that claim is accurate.
I haven't, yet, but I'm working through the Fuji catalog right now. I actually own a Fuji body, now, so it does allow me to do a few more Fuji reviews.
I just took this lens on a trip to Maui. I was limited for space, so this was perfect for my needs I used it with an X-T5 so I had IBIS and as far as the aperture ring, I have some Sigma lenses so I am used to not having one. I must be in the minority as I do enjoy this lens.
I don't think missing OIS is a valid criticism in the current Fuji line-up, all video-centric bodies have IBIS and even the photography-centric bodies have it except for the outdated XT3 and XT30 II. Fuji shifted stabilization from OIS to IBIS in all of their latest stuff, which in turn helps to reduce size and weight for the lenses. To have OIS would just be a waste of resources
The lens is only parfocal with xh2s which this lens seemed to be made for and it even perfomes better with xs20. In other words the problem is not on the lens but rather with the slow reading of the 40 mp sensör
With all due respect, no camera can make a lens parfocal; it either is or isn’t.
ปีที่แล้ว
@@DustinAbbottTWII am sorry but I do speak by experience owning all 3 cameras. Only the read out speed of the xh2s matches the speed of the lens. Please try it and you ll be surprised Watch from 5:25
@ Abbott is correct here - parfocality is an attribute of a zoom lens design. This lens is not parfocal, but it's firmware is able to cooperate with some supported Fuji cameras to produce a pseudo-parfocal effect (through software modulation of the changing focus as you zoom) in some scenes when it works right. That is not the same thing as a true parfocal optical design (which is expensive and would have made this lens bigger and more expensive). I think they made the right call on this lens for my purposes at least. I would like this lens less if it were larger and more expensive.
Dustin, could you offer some thoughts on your favorite Fuji lenses? I think I have commented before on another review that I always feel Fuji's lenses always seem to be a bit of a let down for the system. Very expensive, but not really matching that in performance. I often feel the urge to get into that system just because of the beautiful cameras, but with the high prices...would be a second system besides my Sony setup anyway.
That's fair. I've been impressed with both the 23mm F.4 and 35mm F1.4 lenses. I also liked the 35mm F2. The 90mm F2 is a nice lens, as well. I also quite liked the recent 8mm F3.5 wide angle.
As a Fuji owner, I agree and I love their cameras but have been disappointed with their lenses. They do not seem to be putting in the same effort with their lenses that they do with their cameras. Their lenses always seem to be let's make it only good enough but not strive for greatness like with their cameras. It's like the camera and lens designed by two different companies. Sony full frame has so many great quality performing lens choices both native and third party. I have been lusting FF Sony lately for that reason even though I am happy with Fuji ASPC sensor performance.
I say the XF 18-135 mm f/3.5-5.6 R LM OIS WR is still the better choice when it comes to the Fujinon super zoom lenses, unless you really need the power zoom.
The only reason I'd buy this lens is for the electronic zoom and parfocal. Otherwise it should have OIS and be 16-120 or maybe even 16-105. 18mm simply isn't wide enough for an all in one travel videography lens
![[ENG] Fuji 16-80mm F4 Vs the new 18-120mm F4 - Which one will I keep?](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/zm3BuVzx1CA/mqdefault.jpg)
This video is sponsored by Fantom Wallet. Visit store.fantomwallet.com and use code DUSTIN15 to get 15% off
As of firmware V5.10 on X-H2S and lens firmware v1.10 (Feb 22nd 2024) the exposure stepping has been reduced. After a brief test I did not notice any exposure stepping on my copy using both the zoom ring and the lens buttons for W/T.
That's good news.
I just installed this firmware and it is noticeably improved!
@@ArtifexBarbarus hi. Can you comment on the low light performance? For the video.
@@seckinsahin I can't really... In lowlight conditions, I'd reach for a fast prime instead of an f4 lens... I did use it last night to snap a casual photo at ISO 12,800 that looked pretty terrible (noisy AF) until I ran it through Lightroom's AI denoise feature after which it looked shockingly good. The lens didn't seem to have any trouble getting focus under such terrible lighting at least.
I agree with your conclusions, but I would add two potential markets for this lens - the travelogue photographer/videographer and the TH-camr market. I bought mine mostly for video (for my TH-cam fly fishing channel) where so far it has been quite useful when paired with my X-S10. I don't have demanding video requirements so the lens not being parfocal isn't of concern.
I only pair it with IBIS cameras (X-S10 or X-H2), so the lack of OIS isn't an issue either. I think Fujifilm had this lens in mind for its hybrid cameras rather than their photocentric ones, so the lack of OIS is understandable in those terms. For those other cameras the 16-80mm makes more sense.
When paired with an X-S10 or 20, this lens makes for a relatively light, compact travel camera kit that can easily transition between photo and video. Fujifilm has its hardcore video lenses to satisfy the pro videographer, so offering this lens at a relatively low price, minus some features, is an understandable design choice for an amateur video market. All of the missing features you mentioned would have jacked up the price, size and weight.
No question though - if I was going shoot only stills, the 16-80 or the 18-135 would be a better choice. As far as sharpness goes, I have a bunch of Fujifilm primes if max sharpness is needed.
I think this is severely underrated lens. Yes, it is not bright 2.8, not fast/sticky focusing lens, not very sharp. But in this age of smartphones, it creates beautiful results with the amazing zoom range in a very light package. The light weight and versatility make it very appealing as long as you shake off the urge to look at 200% size.
Fair enough. It really depends on your expectations. The overall look of images is nice, as you say.
@@DustinAbbottTWI Right. I agree that this is not for pro work in most cases, and quality is not up there with prime penses or other quality zoom lenses. But as a high quality replacement for a smartphone, this is amazing. Great to log your life or trip because it is very light, even for a superzoom lens.
I think zoom lenses in general are underrated. I love my 56mm f/1.2 and 50mm & 90mm f2 lenses, but I still prefer to use my XF 18-55mm f/2.8-4 kit lens for all sorts of party and ceremonial photo shoots. The problem is that the DOF is too narrow at f/2 - f/1.2, so if the people are not lined up perfectly, you simply cannot get more than a single person in the frame without blurring out the others (and not to mention details on the table), so in reality I dont even need a wide apperture for such photos. A much better choice is something like an f/4 apperture, and especially a zoom lens, because I can take much more varied photos thanks to it without having a two camera bodies. Of course something like f/4 isnt as fast, so you have to bring a flash with you if you want to shoot in low light conditions (indoors), but I still use it anyway, because indoor photos without a flash look just terrible no matter what (you rarely see people's eyes clearly without a flash), so even if I'm using faster prime lenses I pretty much always use a flash just to fill up the shadows just a little bit on the people faces (and you can do it without making people look artifical). I always have a good laugh when my friends hire so-called "professional photographers", but say later on that I took much better photos than they did LOL. The think is, so called professional photographers overuse fast lenses for everything, so for example, if they have to photograph a young couple in front of their family, the whole family gets blurred. Later the family wants to see them on the photos and they arnt happy when their faces are blurred :P. It's even worse when a photographer doesn't want to use a flash, because without it people have eyes of a raccoon (and then even a young couple no longer look so young :P).
When it comes to XF18-120mm lens, I think it should be even more versatile than my current 18-55mm kit lens, but I just wonder if sharpness will be good enough. For example, people have said that my 18-55mm f/2.8-4 kit lens is not very sharp compared to prime lenses, yet my photos are still very sharp (for example I can easily read fine prints on the bottles even when I view/edit my photos) even when viewed at 1:1 zoom. Sharpness (microcontrast) on my prime lenses is a little bit better (especially xf50mm f2), but not that much better to even make a noticeable difference at 1:1 (especially when I use "enhance details" function in lightroom), and not to mention when viewed at 35% zoom on my 1440p monitor. So I think there's a good chance that this XF18-120mm is also reasonably sharp, despite what so-called "professional photographers" say, because I don't believe that any modern lens would give you worse results than smarthone lenses, and not many people think their phone photos arnt sharp enough.
@@PabloB888 I think it is decent. I thought it is better than typical superzoom lenses, but that was a while ago, so superzooms these days might be much better than I experienced. The biggest pro of XF 18-120 for me versatility coming from the combination of surprisingly light weight, range, F4, and some video friendly features. The biggest con would be AF-C. I don't know why, but at least photo AF-C is terrible. The look is usually okay, but I don't expect much from a F4 lens for a APS-C sensor anyway.
@@DustinAbbottTWI you said it yourself, it's a video lens
Thank you for this thorough review!
I like the lens for its versatility and light weight for the focal range. Yes, I do struggle with the power zoom. You can actually change its speed in the camera menu, but still…
I think the image quality is fine for the 26MP sensor, I have yet to try it on the 40MP.
Not loving it, but using it fairly often.😏
I would have liked this lens in a more traditional package.
Hi. Can you comment on the low light performance? For the video.
@@seckinsahin sorry, I don’t do video, only stills
Super review as always. I chose the 16-80 as my travel lens. It’s got an aperture ring (really important to me), OIS, a more useful zoom range (to me) and it is less tall. Image quality wise, I’d imagine the lenses perform about the same. Decent, but not exceptional.
That's fair all around. I slightly favor the Tamron 17-70mm F2.8 for the larger maximum aperture and slightly better optics.
@@DustinAbbottTWI Wasn't aware of that lens, thanks
Can you use touch screen to control the zoom?
Hmmm, I don't know that for sure.
Perhaps not Fujifilm's best lens, however for travel, particularly if seeking a 1 lens + body set-up, it has appeal.
Agreed
Dustin - the most comprehensive lens reviewer (at least for Fuji) !
Thank you very much.
I purchased the lens after watching this video for several times. I have to say that the parfocal performance is normal, especially in low light situations. But overall I am quite satisfied with it.
Hi. Can you comment on the low light performance? For the video.
@@seckinsahin I think the autofocus is fine in low light situations, power zoom is also usable if not changing rapidly.
@@rivin6726And are there any problems with the colors and shadows? Of course, I am asking this question for video shooting.
Is it possible to modify this lens to a PL mount ?
Nice video. Can you comment on the low light performance? For the video.
Hello. I switched to Xt5. I'm looking for a takgez lens right now, but not every lens is used because it's 40 mp.
I'm torn between the Fujifilm Fujinon XF 18-120mm f/4 LM PZ WR Lens, the XF16-55mmF2.8 R LM WR, or the 16 80. My preference is 18 120, as it has a wide range, but what is your opinion?
If you are using the 40MP sensor, you really need to get the new 16-55mm F2.8 II - it's on the only one of the standard zooms that really shines on the high rez sensor.
I have owned this lens since October 2022 now, here in the UK. I bought it as a one lens solution to walking around with just one camera. I have been using it on the 40mp Fuji X-T5. However, it has recently been sent back as it wasn't focusing properly. The outside edges were often very blurred. Fuji replaced the entire lens group, and repaired the focusing, and also replaced the name badge (not sure why). Although it is sharper than it was, I still find it is not as sharp as it should be, especially at f4 or f5.6. It also takes a long time to zoom. Starting to think that I might sell the lens for something else. (Luckily I held onto my Fuji 16-80 f4 lens which is possibly the best walk-around lens). Shame really.
The 40MP resolution point is really tough on these "average" lenses. I do agree that the Tamron 17-70mm is slightly stronger optically.
Nice video! I replaced my full-frame Canon kit (with L glass) with a Fujifilm X-H2s and this lens in October 2022. I'm a hobbyist ("dadtographer") and mainly shoot photos of my family's travel and children's school events. My main goal for the new kit was to be smaller and more versatile and to travel easily. (I also bought the new 33mm f/1.4, and 70-300).
I know this lens has received bad reviews and it's definitely not going to match the premium lens in image quality. But I have to admit that I've been VERY happy with what I've been able to capture in the past year, including a trip to Europe this summer. There have only been a few times when I've looked at a photo and thought that it would have been noticeably better with a different lens - while there were plenty of times that I was able to get a shot that I may have missed if I hadn't had the long zoom range or had stopped to change lenses!
I completely agree with other comments - this is not a pro lens for either photo or video. But the size and versatility with "good enough" usability and image quality make it a winner for anyone with needs like mine.
I think that is a fair assessment. It's a better match optically for the X-H2s than the high resolution bodies.
Great video thanks
Interesting you reference not parfocal performance. This is a key claim of the manufacturer. Would you say this is a false claim based on your experience?
Also, any gimbals that can access the zoom function?
I suspect that yes, the zoom function should work off some gimbals as they are accessing the internal control of the camera via Bluetooth. As for being parfocal - based on my experience I don't think that claim is accurate.
Good review sir.
Please sir, my main buying it's for video recording, will it be good?
Hi there. I do address that pretty thoroughly in this review. There are strengths and weaknesses for video that I highlight
Have you try the Fujifilm 18mm 1.4 please do. Thanks for sharing
I haven't, yet, but I'm working through the Fuji catalog right now. I actually own a Fuji body, now, so it does allow me to do a few more Fuji reviews.
I just took this lens on a trip to Maui. I was limited for space, so this was perfect for my needs I used it with an X-T5 so I had IBIS and as far as the aperture ring, I have some Sigma lenses so I am used to not having one. I must be in the minority as I do enjoy this lens.
I'm glad it is working well for you.
I don't think missing OIS is a valid criticism in the current Fuji line-up, all video-centric bodies have IBIS and even the photography-centric bodies have it except for the outdated XT3 and XT30 II. Fuji shifted stabilization from OIS to IBIS in all of their latest stuff, which in turn helps to reduce size and weight for the lenses. To have OIS would just be a waste of resources
Fair enough.
The lens is only parfocal with xh2s which this lens seemed to be made for and it even perfomes better with xs20. In other words the problem is not on the lens but rather with the slow reading of the 40 mp sensör
With all due respect, no camera can make a lens parfocal; it either is or isn’t.
@@DustinAbbottTWII am sorry but I do speak by experience owning all 3 cameras. Only the read out speed of the xh2s matches the speed of the lens. Please try it and you ll be surprised Watch from 5:25
@ Abbott is correct here - parfocality is an attribute of a zoom lens design. This lens is not parfocal, but it's firmware is able to cooperate with some supported Fuji cameras to produce a pseudo-parfocal effect (through software modulation of the changing focus as you zoom) in some scenes when it works right. That is not the same thing as a true parfocal optical design (which is expensive and would have made this lens bigger and more expensive). I think they made the right call on this lens for my purposes at least. I would like this lens less if it were larger and more expensive.
@@DustinAbbottTWI it is not parfocal in manual focus mode ?
Dustin, could you offer some thoughts on your favorite Fuji lenses? I think I have commented before on another review that I always feel Fuji's lenses always seem to be a bit of a let down for the system. Very expensive, but not really matching that in performance. I often feel the urge to get into that system just because of the beautiful cameras, but with the high prices...would be a second system besides my Sony setup anyway.
That's fair. I've been impressed with both the 23mm F.4 and 35mm F1.4 lenses. I also liked the 35mm F2. The 90mm F2 is a nice lens, as well. I also quite liked the recent 8mm F3.5 wide angle.
As a Fuji owner, I agree and I love their cameras but have been disappointed with their lenses. They do not seem to be putting in the same effort with their lenses that they do with their cameras. Their lenses always seem to be let's make it only good enough but not strive for greatness like with their cameras. It's like the camera and lens designed by two different companies. Sony full frame has so many great quality performing lens choices both native and third party. I have been lusting FF Sony lately for that reason even though I am happy with Fuji ASPC sensor performance.
@@DustinAbbottTWI Thank you for your reply. What immediately caught my eye: not a single zoom lens in the list. This is kind of sad for the system.
In the late 1900’s, this lens does extremely fine.
Excellent as always your Reviews presentation.👍
Glad you like them!
Bought this two months before it went on sale 😅. I really enjoy the power zoom and think it takes some good images.
I'm glad you are enjoying it.
Great review 👍 I found this lens a jack of all trades and a master of none
That sounds about right to me.
I say the XF 18-135 mm f/3.5-5.6 R LM OIS WR is still the better choice when it comes to the Fujinon super zoom lenses, unless you really need the power zoom.
That's fair.
The only reason I'd buy this lens is for the electronic zoom and parfocal. Otherwise it should have OIS and be 16-120 or maybe even 16-105. 18mm simply isn't wide enough for an all in one travel videography lens
Fair enough.
I was really hoping for a fujifilm replacement to the Sony 18-135 :( Without IS that's a hard sell.
Unfortunately not.
It is a parfocal lens, it's just that Fuji's AF isn't really up there
No, it isn’t parfocal. That would mean it doesn’t need focus adjustment at all when zooming
@@DustinAbbottTWI Did you try it in manual focus? Aren't all parfocal lenses usually manual?
to me, it's a very good video lens.
I'm glad you are enjoying it.
The canon EF 24-105 mark ll is exquisite but not a PZ!
image quality would be excusable if it had OIS.
no is , no need . TKs .
You're welcome.
Consumer interest in F4 lenses is low. Regardless of the brand, you can see the pattern of low sales even on excellent lenses.
I'm not sure that this is true of the 24-105mm F4 lenses from Canon or Sony. They sell quite well.
Yes but they are full-time systems. Full-time equivalent of f4 is f2.8 in APS-C land...
20 seconds ago....
Not sure what this means
@@DustinAbbottTWI it popped up nearly as soon as you uploaded :)
In other words: This is a monumental piece of crap!!
Not for everyone, but not a lens I’m personally interested in
@@DustinAbbottTWI That's an honest response.
Please keep on sharing!
Its a boring lens and a failed attempt by fujifilm. This is something they should not give us.
It definitely hasn't seemed to really resonate with the market.