One of the best lens I have owned. I remember when i first tried this lens during a preview launch, i fell in love with the images taken from this lens immediately. the OIS allows you to take pic in low light with high iso >1000 and picture quality still superb.
I always walk away from this channel with the feeling I just been educated. This is how reviews should be done. Straight to the point and precisely done.
Fuji user here. Both x mount and GFX. Like all Fuji x-mount lenses of a certain size and price it comes down to what else there is in the market and there is a lot. Especially when you look at Sony and the 3rd party lens support they have. When you factor in the quality of their sensors and AF algorithms it's an appealing option. I am a fan of the 16-55 f2.8 though. I just find the pics look great from it.
This is an awesome review and lens, I also learned something interesting about this lens from a fuji podcast (It's only going to get better in terms of AF performance, colour reproduction) as the X bodies continue to improve, the lens is supposed to be capable of rendering 36 megapixel images, will be interesting to see how this lens continues as the X-system improves. I would also think that you may have gotten a not so great copy mine has none of the issues that you have noted (mount is still tight after a year, lens hood fits properly, and the tripod foot does not have any play, I'm able to get my SS down to 1/10th of a second in real life). I did have to return one bad copy as it had some dust in it originally.
Dustin thanks for the great and indepth review. I was wondering if you could please tell me the AF-C setting you are using on the X-T4, at around 10:00 mark the AF test of your dog running seems to be a lot better than the results im getting. I'm not getting as much keeper shots with my XT-4 as I think I could be getting.
Thank you for being critical about the build quality. If I see these points to be consistent with others it will push me away from buying this lens, very informative, thank you for your videos they've been great in helping me pick my collection :D
I'm afraid I have zero experience adapting to Fuji, so I don't know enough about how well they adapt in terms of autofocus to give an informed opinion. Optically the Sigma is the better lens, but it's also big and heavy, and if it doesn't focus very well, I doubt you'll be happy.
I am a sony shooter for 4 years now. I bougth an X100V 3 months ago and I was super happy with the images and the Fuji system. I decided maybe I could jump ship to have smaller equipment and cheaper too. I quickly realized that the lens selection and the auto focus accuracy is not there yet. My sony glass is amazing, especially my primes (24 GM and 135 GM). Even in this video I feel like there is a lot of focus breathing and Dustin is not even moving. Thank you Dustin! I watch all your videos, I find it so relaxing! Cheers!
Thanks so much for the review. I'm really having second thoughts about investing on expensive Fuji lens and not being happy with it. Maybe it's time to step up to full frame if looking for great sharpness on telephoto? I'm curious, what was your filming setup for the outdoor scene with the red chair? It seems like the camera is a bit lost in sticking with the focus.
I believe I was using an X-T3 for that filming session. Fuji has gotten better in this regard...particularly if there is an AI trackable subject in frame.
Great review. I can say that the lens hood feels like it’s being cross-threaded every time you put it on and still wiggles-annoying. It also does flare and veil like crazy in direct light, however that of course can be used for composition purposes (as in portraits), and it can also be easily avoided with a little attention to angle. Other than that, I don’t have the resolution/contrast or other issues you raised. The test charts looked like focus misses, or as if OIS was left on, either of which can soften the image. In my personal tests or in looking at hundreds of shots I’ve taken with it, it seems to outperform the 16-55 and keep up very well with primes I own in terms of sharpness. Colors pop and the bokeh IMO is excellent-though the falloff of this lens seems very different than my other lenses. AF performance in Fuji land is excellent IMO, but eye tracking is not consistent and focus misses while tracking are common. I blame the system not this lens in particular. I also find just holding down AF-C is the wrong approach-frequent re-acquisition and short bursts are more successful. But if I had to rank AF performance this lens would be near the top-I feel I get good hit rates with it. No it is not perfect like all lenses but where it can be had for $1,000-$1,200 used, it’s worth every penny.
A very balanced and fair review, thanks! I think this is a very good lens, the problem is that at the price it needs to be superb. It's also quite heavy and bulky for an APS lens. If you can get a good deal and weight isn't an issue it is a good buy but I am not sure I would pay SRP.
Dustin my friend you got bad copy off 50 to 140. You should Returned that because it is not acceptable. I got that lens and haven't got any problem that you mention tripod mount lens Mount Hood everything spot on. And if you ask me is very very very sharp
If this is the case, the real issue is of course Fujinon’s production tolerances and quality control. I own/have owned 11 different Fujinons for my X-system and on two occassions I had to return a copy. That is way too many times if you ask me. Furthermore, over the years I noticed focus clutch rings showing increased tolerance (on my 14 and 16/1.4) and aperture rings becoming looser over time (23, 56 and 16-55). All in all, not what I would expect. It makes me hesitant to buy-in into the GFX system.
Hello from Australia Dustin! Would you consider the Sigma 50-100mm F1.8 adapted with the Fringer EF-FX Pro II as a good portrait alternative for the Fuji X-T4? Regards
I don't have personal experience with the Fringer, so I can't give you feedback on the autofocus performance...which is a big deal. Optically the Sigma is definitely capable of besting this lens.
I'll be blunt; relative to competing platforms, I haven't seen any Fuji lenses that are great for video AF. Some are better than others, but Fuji is running behind on this. I get much more obvious hunting with Fuji glass, more visible stepping during focus throws, and often more noise during focus. This is an area that needs to be addressed.
Currently I only have kit lens 18-55 f/2.8-4, but I want to buy a better lens (with stronger bokeh for portraits). I thought I will be happy with XF 50-140mm lens on my X-T30, because it has great focal lenght and OIS, however after watching your review I'm no longer so sure it will be a good choice, because you are saying XF 50-140mm sharpness is disappointing. My qestion is, what's sharper portrait lens for X-mount? Few days from now fujifilm launches portrait lens (XF 50mm f/1.0), but I feel like the area of focus for portraits is too narrow (on all sample photos only eyes are in focus at f/1.0, while the rest of the face/body is blurred). I have to say your sample photos from this 50-140mm looks muuuch better, whole face / body is in focus, while only the background is blurred.
@@DustinAbbottTWI Thanks Dustin. I wasnt considering 85mm focal lenght, however after looking at sample photos I'm definitely interested now. But I'm not going to buy this particular lens for sure, because I have just watched viltrox 85mm review (paired with X-T3 body) and edge sharpness compared to XF 90mm f/2 was extremely bad (and I could also see some strange green fringes everywhere). If I can see such drastic differences on YT video, then I know for sure this lens is not for me. XF 90mm f/2 however looks to be killer lens for me :P, and I have discovered it thanks to your 85mm focal lenght suggestion, so thanks and have a nice day Dustin :).
As always I enjoyed your carefully reflected review! It does puzzle me a bit though, that looking back at other reviews of this lens there seem to be a great deal of consensus that it is sharp. So, have the Fuji-fans simply been deluding themselves? Could it be down to copy variability (you mention that you tried 2 lenses). Or is it related to the fact that when the lens came out, it was tested on cameras with sensor having only about 60% of the pixels we now have in X-T3/X-T4? Wonder what your thoughts are on this Dustin
Great video Dustin, I was looking at getting this, is there anything else out there you would suggest, around this focal length? I currently have the kit 18-55mm and was looking for more reach and better quality.
I use Lightroom for all of my lens tests and comparisons. I own most other prominent pieces of software, but don't see a significant difference when comparing side by side. I use the industry standard for my comparisons which keeps things consistent.
@@DustinAbbottTWI thanks, I have no doubts about your consistency and methods. I’ve used Capture One which imho is considerably better for X-Trans RAW processing than Adobe. Would be interested to see side by side comparisons across the zoom range. Thanks again 🙂
@@DustinAbbottTWI thank you. I was thinking that myself. I really wish Fuji would refresh or work on new lenses. They've only made XC and those cheap f4 zoom lenses in the passed 5 years. Like you said, they're not bad, but they're behind and I get that's due to demand for their cameras. Hopefully now that the X-T3 is on fire sale and the x-t4 is out they will get more customers and make new lenses or Sigma will actually get into it. I really thought they would have released an XH2 for the Olympics when it was supposed to happen this year but they didn't. I thought that was pretty dumb on their part, they need a new sport body. I know that the x-t4 can be used as a sport body but the shape etc will not attract DSLR users and sports users from other brands like the xh2 might. Well now they have until next year. I hope they figure it out. In the mean time I'm probably going to keep my X-T3 as long as possible since I already got it for a bargain a year and a half ago.
Decided to sub because 1) I end up watching your reviews anyway 2) You really say it as you see it, which is exactly what this community needs in this age. I have no reason to doubt your findings. There could be better performing copies out there, as well as worse performing copies. Would you consider this lens "worth it" if you could buy it brand new for 1100 USD? (I am in the Fuji system only and am considering upgrading to this lens from the 55-200mm). Again, many thanks for the content you produce. You are a true contributor to this community.
First, thanks for the sub. And yes, I think that's a more appropriate price point. A lot of people like the lens very well; many of my criticisms fall in the realm of its competitiveness outside the Fuji sphere.
I was researching this lens and found this video and I have to say I agree with everyone, I LOVE your get right to the point honesty so I just subscribed and I’m excited to see your others🙂!
Value and performance wise a Tamron/Sony A7 III combination is way better. As much as I like Fuji, you are correct about the gap is growing. Thanks for telling it like it is.
well great review, sadly disapointing.. you think it would be at least a bit different to look at it in capture one bec of the sharpening issue in LR woth fuji?
I'll be honest - I own Capture One 20 and periodically look at files in there, and they don't look radically different to me. Any differences are very subtle. A lot of the earlier reviews of the lens were done on lower resolution cameras, and it just isn't an amazing lens optically despite the hyperbole a lot of reviewers gave it. I think the bar has raised since it was released.
@@DustinAbbottTWI That's what i was afraid of. I love Fuji and what they are doing, but there are to many to loyal fans that can not stay subjectiv and praise things to a level that is simply not true. Like all that are saying how sharp this lens is and others sometimes are. They really need to up their game with lenses. Hope the new 70-300mm will be sharper next year, otherwise I can only shoot at 90mm, bec the 100-400mm is also soft. Keep up the good work 👍
You have hit the pros and cons perfectly! I'm a little disappointed on the performance for the price. I do own one. All of my Fujilfilm lens hoods don't live up to the quality of the lenses. Query, the open holes on the lens, after the tripod mount is off, does it leave the lens open to rain? Also what was the control set-up that you used on the running dog? It seemed to do quite well. Again, this is one of my favorite lenses on my XPro-3 and XH-1. Thank you. Subscribed!
Query answer is NO. Anyway I would not dare to take a Tamron outside since it is extending design and I'm not considering peace of tape as weather sealing.
@eagleeye - that is patently false. There is a gasket at the lens mount, internal seals at a variety of points, and a fluorine coating on the front element of the Tamron.
I used the case for quick movement changes (I think it is 2 or 3 off the top of my head). All points active, mechanical shutter at its fastest setting. I had to shoot JPEGs only as the buffer fills too quickly for tracking a dog when shooting RAWS (you need more than a couple of seconds).
@@DustinAbbottTWI As someone who serviced many lenses ,among others from Tamron I would recommend to watch out when using outside. Be aware when calling something false.Tamron does extend and is nowhere sealed as much as e.g Pentax,Olympus or Fujifilm. It depend on if you call peace of tape seal gasket? Take the Tamron front element out to check the sealing,I would recommend using UV filter on Tamron and Sigma when you start using it outside in rain or moisture.
@eagleeye - the only relevant question is if you have serviced the 70-180mm VXD. I suspect the answer is no, so you are making a major, unsubstantiated assumption.
Thanks Dustin, good and honest review, not what I wanted to hear on my new 50-140 hahaI.I also noticed a few focus glitches in your filming this with the XT4, I have noticed the same with my XT4 filming with my 16-55 and 50-140...never experienced that glitching with my XT3
The trick for this lens is NOT to pay $1600. I got this lens Brand New for $1000, which is requires some patience and deal hunting. But you can easily get this lens for $1100 though as well if you’re in a hurry. I think $1000-1100 reflects the performance much better given it’s age.
Why not put the tamron onto a 24mp Sony and see how they compare, obviously more pixels is going to give more detail. Contrast is different though it may suffer from low contrast.
Dustin Abbott surely that would be good, an actual fair comparison. If the Tamron is better then so be it. I really don’t have a dog in this fight if I want a 70-200 equivalent I have to buy the Fuji, I am not going to change my system. So if the Tamron is better or not is moot. I am just curious how much better and would like to see a fair and meaningful comparison.
I have 2 lenses in the Fuji ecosystem. I have been questioning my decisions, but their price for performance seems superior to every other brand. $1600 (but often on sale) vs $2200 Sony 24-70 $999 vs $2400 Sony Just some big differences in price that add up and allows you to invest in lighting modifiers. Comment?
Just gotta remember that 16-55 2.8 on fuji is not the same as 24-70 2.8 on full frame but native sony glass is indeed much more expensive (duh it's full frame glass vs apsc) but for example the sigma 24-70 2.8 for sony is about the same price as the fuji.
@@SkyGW yes its not the same.. its even better because of its a 24-82 with the same light gathering. Dop is obviously always a disadvantage because of the Apcs
The GM lenses are certainly very expensive. They are also optically superior to the Fuji options I've used. But the Tamron and Sigma lenses on Sony are both optically superior and less expensive. Avoiding lenses like this because they aren't first party lenses in 2020 is frankly a very outdated attitude. Third parties are making some of the best, most intriguing lenses in the camera industry right now. Look at who is winning all the awards.
Again totally agree It's good but it not quite there yet (and typically not compared to the FF competitors) That's why abandoned the Fuji ship, didn't want to invest in their glass and the APC cameras are not good enough to put all kind of adapters on it to shoot better performing other brands FF lenses. Good honest video, thanks for sharing !!
In my opinion, you should have returned that lens because it clearly is not fully weather resistant with the little rocking back and forth demo you did showing that there is play at the lens mount. I have the same lens on an XT4 and I do not have the play you have. Fuji is slipping if this is the 2nd copy and still you have quality control problems. I still think this lens is outstanding for general portraiture and glamour which are my areas of interest.
Thank you for review. I think that comparing this lens to Tamron 70-180 mounted on A6600 causes even bigger trouble to Fuji. That'll be even cheaper, smaller and more lightweight, and also with better reach. Well, 50-140 is 6 years old after all...
while comparing with tamron 70-180mm i would prefer a shot taken with a APS-C body. This would be fair comparison. You are comparing completely different pixel densities here. put that tamron on a a6000 body and see how poor it performs compared to full frame.
@@DustinAbbottTWI please just check the Christopher Frost's video about tamron 70-180 to see how lens behaves different when used on different sensor sizes. th-cam.com/video/AvHTA-7mRgo/w-d-xo.html
i have bought lenses bases on your reviews, I believe I am one of your most loyal followers and not to be bias, but I believe you probably are one of the best reviewers on youtube, having said that, I do own both Canon and Fuji ecosystems and I am heavily invested in both, I do believe you most have had a faulty unit or else, since I have constantly gotten way different results than the ones listed in this review of yours, I have found pictures to be if not equal to the big FF players on the market, to be close enough so that I can call Fuji a close enough contestant to the FF big guys out there, Canons 70-200 III is a sharper lense and you will get a smotther bokeh per say, but fuji is by no means an overpriced lense for what is worth my friend, thank you for your kind work, I am still a huge fan
Hi Gilberto - I actually used two copies of the lens in my review to make sure that I got accurate results. I also checked the results of other reviewers who actually post resolution numbers...and they actually support my claims. That being said, what matters most for you is your own opinion. If you are getting good results, I am delighted.
@@DustinAbbottTWI thank you Dustin for your kind answer, I went back and looked at pixel lever up against the Canon 70-200 version III, and yeah, you were absolutely right, the Fuji is left behind, not by a whole lot, but you can tell there is a difference between them two, I offer an apology Sr., be well
@@DustinAbbottTWI oh and by the way, I bought a Tamron 35mm F1.4, a Tamron 85mm F1.8, a Fujifilm XT3, a Fujinon 16-55 F2.8 and the Canon 70-200 IS III only based on your reviews, that show how much I respect your reviews, thank you Dustin for your hard word, the photography community will always be in debt to you
@@FLORAMORAITINI I was wondering about that lens too, I saw a couple of reviews about a third party lens (Dustin also has reviewed that one) that Im looking into buying next week, take a look at the Viltrox 85mm F1.8 Mark II, but do make sure is the second version though, they did some tweaks here and there and made it better and smaller compared to the previous version, happy shooting and happy new year!!
So far I would have to agree on your zoom vs primes assessment. The lenses I've been most impressed with are some the F2 options. Small, light, and optically sound.
Well. I just bought one second-hand for half the price. Yet to see the results. I'm a bit confused by the focus-hunting here in your own video. More surprised that you haven't commented on it here. Believe me, I'm a total amateur, really a novice, and I know this review is a couple of years old, but I'm surprised, unless I missed it, the not mentioning of said focus issues on your own video (which I know was on a fujifilm camera and with the lens you're reviewing). Subscribed to you all the same. And thanks for the info. :)
Videographers and Camera Operators for film and video don't use an auto focus pull. That seemed like an arbitrary note in an otherwise very, very competent review.
I've owned this lens for some time at this point and while it has served me very well, I do agree that it is showing its age at this point in time. I wasn't disappointed with the images that came from the combo of this lens and the X-T3 (and when there were disappointing ones, a lot of it was down to operator error) and I do think that this is still your best telephoto zoom option on the Fuji system. However, you can also kind of start to see that this lens, while obviously built with future camera bodies in mind, is also a 5-6 year old lens at the end of the day. To be clear, it's not *bad*. My copy was pretty sharp, (though not mind blowingly so but still resolves nicely for my needs) and has delivered on my needs for a fast, stabilized (and weather sealed) telephoto for event work and landscapes. But a lot can change in that 5-6 years and we're at a time where third parties have clearly shown to be able to match or even best first party options, notably the Sigma 24-70 Art versus Sony's G Master 24-70, and for much less. Fuji's announcement earlier this year that they have opened up their autofocus protocols was something that was long overdue IMO and I hope that this means options for quality glass at more attainable price points will follow, along with Fuji stepping up their first party options. And yes, 0.12x magnification on a 70-200 equivalent is far from impressive. That's the weakest aspect of the lens IMO and something that needs to be improved on the Mk2.
@@DustinAbbottTWI the comment thread for this video has been very interesting. Before seeing your review I was sure this was the lens that I had to have, but now I’m not so sure. I think your tests say a lot. You must be a little surprised at the division in opinion, no?
@@DustinAbbottTWI Might just be Lightroom, it's still not perfect for Fuji even to this day. Adobe is a real skeleton operation these days and lingering technical issues are slow as molasses to iron out. I certainly see much better results with Capture One and even Darktable on Fuji X-Trans.
Unfortunately,any comparison in Lightroom won't give true results about any Fujinon Lens or any X-Trans Fuji Camera. I understand most camera/lens testers don't won't to change their workflow ,but LR is underperforming any Fuji raw image.
I’ve heard this rumor, tested files in multiple software, and think that this is overstated. Even so, however, I’ve seen much better results from other Fuji lenses...in Lightroom.
If you don't zoom in into photos ,yes it's overstated,but here you zoom in the tests. In Capture 1 results are about 25-30% better compared to Lightroom when zoomed in over 50% .LR blurs the images and i can clearly see it in 67 to 100% zoom in.Not to mention the worm effect which isn't relevant to my arguments,just another problem.Other than that,i like your reviews.
Tamron is plastic made and it is longer then Fuji since it is not internal focusing lens.Other thing is that I would not take Tamron outside in the rain if you consider a peace of tape as weather gasket. Tamron is by the way nowhere near Fujifilm when it come to optical performance.It is sharp and images are flat as pancake , that is where it end up.
Wow - this is not true on any level outside of the statement of the Tamron being longer when fully extended. The optical performance of the Tamron is hugely better.
You’ve convinced me to buy the Tamron lens rather than the Fujifilm 50-140. It seems better in several ways. Oh! Tamron doesn’t make that lens for a Fuji cameras. I guess your comparison is meaningless.
Hi Dennis - for those who just shoot Fuji, it is meaningless, but my point is about overall competitiveness and how Fuji desperately needs third party support to stay relative in what is becoming an increasingly competitive market.
Thanks for doing a great job on this review. Always look forward to your fuji reviews. Its concerning your first copy of the lens was not sharp. and maybe ur second copy is not the best example, and i must be lucky I find my copy extremely sharp and I am really happy with its IQ. I have Canon 70-200 f4 and for me anyway the Fuji I find much sharper. Keep in mind i dont use Adobe. I found Adobe softens the Fuji X trans files and also the images tend to look muddy and grainy. With Capture one im sure u should see a slight difference or just shoot JPG and compare the Jpgs that may help.
Hi Elias, I've actually done both of the things you suggest in the end of your comment, and didn't see a radical difference from my findings. All that really matters is that you've got a copy you're happy with.
Great video! I agree with everything, the 50-140 is very overpriced for what it is. Is a good lens but it should cost less. How does removing the tripod mount affects the weather seal?
Tripod mount you can remove and lens is still weather sale. This lens is no expensive my friend worth every penny.Dustin has got faulty unit I believe. Don't believe everything you see on TH-cam 50 to 140 is probably the best Lens that money can buy
Dustin Abbott 👍 thanks. I’m a Canon user but a year ago bought the XT3 with with the 16, 23, 35 1.4 and 56 1.2. I don’t find any of the Fuji zooms attractive.
6042833 I’m a Canon user but I bought the XT3 with with the 16, 23, 35 1.4 and 56 1.2. I don’t find any of the Fuji zooms attractive. Thanks for the reply!
This lens is often praised for its sharpness. Worrisome that you couldn't find it. I hope that Fuji will update his top lenses soon starting with the upcoming XF 50/1.0. Are you planning to review the XF 100-400/4.5-5.6 ?
I actually reviewed a couple of copies to be sure about my findings. Those that actually post resolution numbers on their reviews do back up my findings, however. I will likely get to the 100-400 at some point.
@@DustinAbbottTWI Maybe it is the age of the lens. At the time of the release in 2015 Fujifilm had only 16MP cameras like the X-T1. FujiRumors has commented Fuji's recent promo videos for old lenses stating "Fujifilm might hint that the XF50-140mmF2.8 is one of those lenses that is currently underperforming on the 26 megapixel X-Trans sensor".
Interesting review -- I read the print version. As someone who has feet in two systems -- Fuji X and Nikon DX/FX -- this makes me think. I love Fuji X and some of its truly fabulous prime lenses at reasonable prices, but maybe I should stick with Nikon for some of the longer lenses and zooms (70-200mm and 105 f/1.4) where the size advantage begins to narrow and the Nikon lens is known for being exceptional.
It is unfortunate that Fuji users do not have other brand alternatives. If there were it would probably keep some users from moving to other brands. I agree this lens is overpriced.
![เป็นไปได้ไหม - WanMai [Performance Video]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/Eh5hItD4Mr0/mqdefault.jpg)
One of the best lens I have owned. I remember when i first tried this lens during a preview launch, i fell in love with the images taken from this lens immediately. the OIS allows you to take pic in low light with high iso >1000 and picture quality still superb.
Glad ou enjoy it!
You and Christopher Frost have kept me from making wrong buying decisions so many times. Thank you for your thorough and dedicated review(s).
My pleasure.
I always walk away from this channel with the feeling I just been educated. This is how reviews should be done. Straight to the point and precisely done.
That's great praise. Thank you!
Fuji user here. Both x mount and GFX. Like all Fuji x-mount lenses of a certain size and price it comes down to what else there is in the market and there is a lot. Especially when you look at Sony and the 3rd party lens support they have. When you factor in the quality of their sensors and AF algorithms it's an appealing option. I am a fan of the 16-55 f2.8 though. I just find the pics look great from it.
Agreed on the 16-55mm. It has been my favorite of the Fuji zooms I've tested thus far.
This is an awesome review and lens, I also learned something interesting about this lens from a fuji podcast (It's only going to get better in terms of AF performance, colour reproduction) as the X bodies continue to improve, the lens is supposed to be capable of rendering 36 megapixel images, will be interesting to see how this lens continues as the X-system improves. I would also think that you may have gotten a not so great copy mine has none of the issues that you have noted (mount is still tight after a year, lens hood fits properly, and the tripod foot does not have any play, I'm able to get my SS down to 1/10th of a second in real life). I did have to return one bad copy as it had some dust in it originally.
I'm glad you're happy. I did evaluate two copies of the lens as a part of my review, so I do think my sharpness results are fair.
Dustin thanks for the great and indepth review. I was wondering if you could please tell me the AF-C setting you are using on the X-T4, at around 10:00 mark the AF test of your dog running seems to be a lot better than the results im getting. I'm not getting as much keeper shots with my XT-4 as I think I could be getting.
I had set it to Case 2 or 3 (abrupt changes)
Really needed a real review of the lens. I was about to jump in. Thank you for extensively covering every aspect.
My pleasure.
honestly, jump in this guy just hates Fujifilm.
Can you please do the 100-400mm review?
At some point, sure.
One of the best reviewers on TH-cam....
Thank you
Thank you for being critical about the build quality. If I see these points to be consistent with others it will push me away from buying this lens, very informative, thank you for your videos they've been great in helping me pick my collection :D
Glad to help out. I've seen some other reviewers pick up on some of those things, too.
@@DustinAbbottTWI The very poor minimum focusing distance and magnification are definitely a disadvantage. I am glad that you pointed it out. Thanks
It was the red DEFINITIVE REVIEW in the thumbnail for me
Thanks!
If you had to pick 👀 .....the Sigma 50-100 f/1.8 adapted? or the Fujinon XF 50-140 f/2.8?
I'm afraid I have zero experience adapting to Fuji, so I don't know enough about how well they adapt in terms of autofocus to give an informed opinion. Optically the Sigma is the better lens, but it's also big and heavy, and if it doesn't focus very well, I doubt you'll be happy.
@@DustinAbbottTWI Sweet, thank you so much for replying! I really appreciate it. I'll be renting the Fuji soon to see if it fits my needs :)
I am a sony shooter for 4 years now. I bougth an X100V 3 months ago and I was super happy with the images and the Fuji system. I decided maybe I could jump ship to have smaller equipment and cheaper too. I quickly realized that the lens selection and the auto focus accuracy is not there yet. My sony glass is amazing, especially my primes (24 GM and 135 GM). Even in this video I feel like there is a lot of focus breathing and Dustin is not even moving. Thank you Dustin! I watch all your videos, I find it so relaxing! Cheers!
Thanks for the feedback and the praise.
The camera was not focusing consistently in this video, only to a slight degree, but nevertheless it was noticeable.
Quite a bit of pulsing and hunting in the "red chair" segments, I agree
It's true. Unfortunately I haven't found Fuji's face tracking in video as effective as either Canon or Sony.
I hope this lens gets a mark II eventually. I love that is an internal zoom.
I suspect we will see that
Thanks so much for the review. I'm really having second thoughts about investing on expensive Fuji lens and not being happy with it. Maybe it's time to step up to full frame if looking for great sharpness on telephoto? I'm curious, what was your filming setup for the outdoor scene with the red chair? It seems like the camera is a bit lost in sticking with the focus.
I believe I was using an X-T3 for that filming session. Fuji has gotten better in this regard...particularly if there is an AI trackable subject in frame.
Great review. I can say that the lens hood feels like it’s being cross-threaded every time you put it on and still wiggles-annoying. It also does flare and veil like crazy in direct light, however that of course can be used for composition purposes (as in portraits), and it can also be easily avoided with a little attention to angle. Other than that, I don’t have the resolution/contrast or other issues you raised. The test charts looked like focus misses, or as if OIS was left on, either of which can soften the image. In my personal tests or in looking at hundreds of shots I’ve taken with it, it seems to outperform the 16-55 and keep up very well with primes I own in terms of sharpness. Colors pop and the bokeh IMO is excellent-though the falloff of this lens seems very different than my other lenses.
AF performance in Fuji land is excellent IMO, but eye tracking is not consistent and focus misses while tracking are common. I blame the system not this lens in particular. I also find just holding down AF-C is the wrong approach-frequent re-acquisition and short bursts are more successful. But if I had to rank AF performance this lens would be near the top-I feel I get good hit rates with it.
No it is not perfect like all lenses but where it can be had for $1,000-$1,200 used, it’s worth every penny.
Well done review, Dustin. I enjoyed watching it.
Glad you enjoyed it!
Idk what u guys do with those lenses but i got 55-200 & 50-140 and never seen that thing at 12:40
For your sake I'm glad, but I can only report on what I see.
A very balanced and fair review, thanks! I think this is a very good lens, the problem is that at the price it needs to be superb. It's also quite heavy and bulky for an APS lens. If you can get a good deal and weight isn't an issue it is a good buy but I am not sure I would pay SRP.
That’s a fair take, I think
Dustin my friend you got bad copy off 50 to 140. You should Returned that because it is not acceptable. I got that lens and haven't got any problem that you mention tripod mount lens Mount Hood everything spot on. And if you ask me is very very very sharp
Hi there, I tested two copies of the lens to be sure about my findings. Other reviews also mention some of those same issues, so it isn't just me.
If this is the case, the real issue is of course Fujinon’s production tolerances and quality control. I own/have owned 11 different Fujinons for my X-system and on two occassions I had to return a copy. That is way too many times if you ask me. Furthermore, over the years I noticed focus clutch rings showing increased tolerance (on my 14 and 16/1.4) and aperture rings becoming looser over time (23, 56 and 16-55). All in all, not what I would expect. It makes me hesitant to buy-in into the GFX system.
Thank you for your honesty and breaking down each of these details that just need attention from Fuji.
Glad it was helpful!
Hello from Australia Dustin! Would you consider the Sigma 50-100mm F1.8 adapted with the Fringer EF-FX Pro II as a good portrait alternative for the Fuji X-T4? Regards
I don't have personal experience with the Fringer, so I can't give you feedback on the autofocus performance...which is a big deal. Optically the Sigma is definitely capable of besting this lens.
Autofocus on my xt4 with sigma 18-35, canon 50, and tokina 11-16 has been working very good for me.
Interesting results. Then what do think, what are the top 2 or 3 Fuji X lenses for video? I reckon you tried some ...
I'll be blunt; relative to competing platforms, I haven't seen any Fuji lenses that are great for video AF. Some are better than others, but Fuji is running behind on this. I get much more obvious hunting with Fuji glass, more visible stepping during focus throws, and often more noise during focus. This is an area that needs to be addressed.
Thanks for a balanced and sober review. Really appreciate it!
Our pleasure!
Currently I only have kit lens 18-55 f/2.8-4, but I want to buy a better lens (with stronger bokeh for portraits). I thought I will be happy with XF 50-140mm lens on my X-T30, because it has great focal lenght and OIS, however after watching your review I'm no longer so sure it will be a good choice, because you are saying XF 50-140mm sharpness is disappointing. My qestion is, what's sharper portrait lens for X-mount? Few days from now fujifilm launches portrait lens (XF 50mm f/1.0), but I feel like the area of focus for portraits is too narrow (on all sample photos only eyes are in focus at f/1.0, while the rest of the face/body is blurred). I have to say your sample photos from this 50-140mm looks muuuch better, whole face / body is in focus, while only the background is blurred.
A great value option for you will be the Viltrox AF 85mm F1.8. It's a great lens for small money
@@DustinAbbottTWI Thanks Dustin. I wasnt considering 85mm focal lenght, however after looking at sample photos I'm definitely interested now. But I'm not going to buy this particular lens for sure, because I have just watched viltrox 85mm review (paired with X-T3 body) and edge sharpness compared to XF 90mm f/2 was extremely bad (and I could also see some strange green fringes everywhere). If I can see such drastic differences on YT video, then I know for sure this lens is not for me. XF 90mm f/2 however looks to be killer lens for me :P, and I have discovered it thanks to your 85mm focal lenght suggestion, so thanks and have a nice day Dustin :).
As always I enjoyed your carefully reflected review!
It does puzzle me a bit though, that looking back at other reviews of this lens there seem to be a great deal of consensus that it is sharp.
So, have the Fuji-fans simply been deluding themselves? Could it be down to copy variability (you mention that you tried 2 lenses). Or is it related to the fact that when the lens came out, it was tested on cameras with sensor having only about 60% of the pixels we now have in X-T3/X-T4?
Wonder what your thoughts are on this Dustin
I think you've hit on several potential factors. I think it is some combination of all of those.
Great video Dustin, I was looking at getting this, is there anything else out there you would suggest, around this focal length? I currently have the kit 18-55mm and was looking for more reach and better quality.
Unfortunately your options are limited. Many people own this lens and like it, however.
What is wrong with the 55-200mm ??? I own that lens and love it !!
@@jeroenmeijer19 Much slower lens aperture-wise.
Dustin your daughter looks more and more thrilled to pose for your reviews.
Maybe less so in these. She's just had bottom braces put on, so didn't want to open her mouth ;)
Hahaha
@@DustinAbbottTWI And there you were torturing her.... Such a Dad thing to do.
I hope your not using Adobe raw for this comparison? I only ask as I have had different results, but thanks for Sharing your thoughts.
I use Lightroom for all of my lens tests and comparisons. I own most other prominent pieces of software, but don't see a significant difference when comparing side by side. I use the industry standard for my comparisons which keeps things consistent.
@@DustinAbbottTWI thanks, I have no doubts about your consistency and methods. I’ve used Capture One which imho is considerably better for X-Trans RAW processing than Adobe. Would be interested to see side by side comparisons across the zoom range. Thanks again 🙂
Great review! Very thorough.
Glad you liked it!
Do you think this lens is worth it at the used or open-box prices of $1,100-1,200 on eBay considering everything stated here?
$1100 is what I would consider the value sweet spot for this lens.
@@DustinAbbottTWI thank you. I was thinking that myself. I really wish Fuji would refresh or work on new lenses. They've only made XC and those cheap f4 zoom lenses in the passed 5 years. Like you said, they're not bad, but they're behind and I get that's due to demand for their cameras. Hopefully now that the X-T3 is on fire sale and the x-t4 is out they will get more customers and make new lenses or Sigma will actually get into it. I really thought they would have released an XH2 for the Olympics when it was supposed to happen this year but they didn't. I thought that was pretty dumb on their part, they need a new sport body. I know that the x-t4 can be used as a sport body but the shape etc will not attract DSLR users and sports users from other brands like the xh2 might. Well now they have until next year. I hope they figure it out. In the mean time I'm probably going to keep my X-T3 as long as possible since I already got it for a bargain a year and a half ago.
Decided to sub because 1) I end up watching your reviews anyway 2) You really say it as you see it, which is exactly what this community needs in this age.
I have no reason to doubt your findings. There could be better performing copies out there, as well as worse performing copies. Would you consider this lens "worth it" if you could buy it brand new for 1100 USD?
(I am in the Fuji system only and am considering upgrading to this lens from the 55-200mm).
Again, many thanks for the content you produce. You are a true contributor to this community.
First, thanks for the sub. And yes, I think that's a more appropriate price point. A lot of people like the lens very well; many of my criticisms fall in the realm of its competitiveness outside the Fuji sphere.
I was researching this lens and found this video and I have to say I agree with everyone, I LOVE your get right to the point honesty so I just subscribed and I’m excited to see your others🙂!
Glad it was helpful!
Would love to see a review of the new 50/1.0 to have a new lens as reference
I've got that lens lined up for the end of November.
Value and performance wise a Tamron/Sony A7 III combination is way better. As much as I like Fuji, you are correct about the gap is growing. Thanks for telling it like it is.
Thanks for the feedback. My hope is that status quo will change on the Fuji front, as there are a lot of really psotive things there.
well great review, sadly disapointing.. you think it would be at least a bit different to look at it in capture one bec of the sharpening issue in LR woth fuji?
I'll be honest - I own Capture One 20 and periodically look at files in there, and they don't look radically different to me. Any differences are very subtle. A lot of the earlier reviews of the lens were done on lower resolution cameras, and it just isn't an amazing lens optically despite the hyperbole a lot of reviewers gave it. I think the bar has raised since it was released.
@@DustinAbbottTWI That's what i was afraid of. I love Fuji and what they are doing, but there are to many to loyal fans that can not stay subjectiv and praise things to a level that is simply not true. Like all that are saying how sharp this lens is and others sometimes are. They really need to up their game with lenses. Hope the new 70-300mm will be sharper next year, otherwise I can only shoot at 90mm, bec the 100-400mm is also soft. Keep up the good work 👍
maybe i need to try the 16-55 2.8 vs the sigma 18-35 1.8 with the fringer adapter and some other lenses line the canon 70-200mm or so.
You have hit the pros and cons perfectly! I'm a little disappointed on the performance for the price. I do own one.
All of my Fujilfilm lens hoods don't live up to the quality of the lenses. Query, the open holes on the lens, after the tripod mount is off, does it leave the lens open to rain?
Also what was the control set-up that you used on the running dog? It seemed to do quite well.
Again, this is one of my favorite lenses on my XPro-3 and XH-1. Thank you. Subscribed!
Query answer is NO. Anyway I would not dare to take a Tamron outside since it is extending design and I'm not considering peace of tape as weather sealing.
@eagleeye - that is patently false. There is a gasket at the lens mount, internal seals at a variety of points, and a fluorine coating on the front element of the Tamron.
I used the case for quick movement changes (I think it is 2 or 3 off the top of my head). All points active, mechanical shutter at its fastest setting. I had to shoot JPEGs only as the buffer fills too quickly for tracking a dog when shooting RAWS (you need more than a couple of seconds).
@@DustinAbbottTWI As someone who serviced many lenses ,among others from Tamron I would recommend to watch out when using outside. Be aware when calling something false.Tamron does extend and is nowhere sealed as much as e.g Pentax,Olympus or Fujifilm. It depend on if you call peace of tape seal gasket? Take the Tamron front element out to check the sealing,I would recommend using UV filter on Tamron and Sigma when you start using it outside in rain or moisture.
@eagleeye - the only relevant question is if you have serviced the 70-180mm VXD. I suspect the answer is no, so you are making a major, unsubstantiated assumption.
One of the best lenses for portrait stills
Not in my experience, but I'm glad you're happy.
@@DustinAbbottTWI Thank you so much for a great review.
At about 09:00, I can see the lens keep hunting... thank you for using this lens for the video, very straight forward to show its video capability.
Unfortunately the focus consistency for video segments leaves a lot to be desired.
Thanks Dustin, good and honest review, not what I wanted to hear on my new 50-140 hahaI.I also noticed a few focus glitches in your filming this with the XT4, I have noticed the same with my XT4 filming with my 16-55 and 50-140...never experienced that glitching with my XT3
It's an unfortunate weakness for Fuji that mars otherwise excellent video specs.
The trick for this lens is NOT to pay $1600. I got this lens Brand New for $1000, which is requires some patience and deal hunting. But you can easily get this lens for $1100 though as well if you’re in a hurry. I think $1000-1100 reflects the performance much better given it’s age.
There does seem to be quite a variability in pricing on Fujinon lenses. Catching them at the right time is important.
I just got my copy today.
Enjoy
Why not put the tamron onto a 24mp Sony and see how they compare, obviously more pixels is going to give more detail. Contrast is different though it may suffer from low contrast.
Hi Alan, believe it or not, that would actually make the Tamron look even better. More pixels actually shows up more lens flaws at a pixel level.
Dustin Abbott surely that would be good, an actual fair comparison. If the Tamron is better then so be it. I really don’t have a dog in this fight if I want a 70-200 equivalent I have to buy the Fuji, I am not going to change my system. So if the Tamron is better or not is moot. I am just curious how much better and would like to see a fair and meaningful comparison.
I have 2 lenses in the Fuji ecosystem. I have been questioning my decisions, but their price for performance seems superior to every other brand.
$1600 (but often on sale) vs $2200 Sony
24-70 $999 vs $2400 Sony
Just some big differences in price that add up and allows you to invest in lighting modifiers.
Comment?
Just gotta remember that 16-55 2.8 on fuji is not the same as 24-70 2.8 on full frame but native sony glass is indeed much more expensive (duh it's full frame glass vs apsc) but for example the sigma 24-70 2.8 for sony is about the same price as the fuji.
@@SkyGW and that's what I wanted to avoid. Using 3rd party glass because of price. I can sure the Fuji glass.
@@SkyGW yes its not the same.. its even better because of its a 24-82 with the same light gathering. Dop is obviously always a disadvantage because of the Apcs
@@drakedoggy103 I shoot almost exclusively studio. So DOF is a + for me. I like for everything to be sharp in business portraits.
The GM lenses are certainly very expensive. They are also optically superior to the Fuji options I've used. But the Tamron and Sigma lenses on Sony are both optically superior and less expensive. Avoiding lenses like this because they aren't first party lenses in 2020 is frankly a very outdated attitude. Third parties are making some of the best, most intriguing lenses in the camera industry right now. Look at who is winning all the awards.
Great and fair review. Let's hope Viltrox is working on a 135mm lens...
That would be nice!
Again totally agree
It's good but it not quite there yet (and typically not compared to the FF competitors)
That's why abandoned the Fuji ship, didn't want to invest in their glass and the APC cameras are not good enough to put all kind of adapters on it to shoot better performing other brands FF lenses.
Good honest video, thanks for sharing !!
You're welcome.
In my opinion, you should have returned that lens because it clearly is not fully weather resistant with the little rocking back and forth demo you did showing that there is play at the lens mount. I have the same lens on an XT4 and I do not have the play you have. Fuji is slipping if this is the 2nd copy and still you have quality control problems. I still think this lens is outstanding for general portraiture and glamour which are my areas of interest.
Interesting.
Thank you for review. I think that comparing this lens to Tamron 70-180 mounted on A6600 causes even bigger trouble to Fuji. That'll be even cheaper, smaller and more lightweight, and also with better reach. Well, 50-140 is 6 years old after all...
That's absolutely true.
while comparing with tamron 70-180mm i would prefer a shot taken with a APS-C body. This would be fair comparison. You are comparing completely different pixel densities here. put that tamron on a a6000 body and see how poor it performs compared to full frame.
You are surmising, but a sharp lens is a sharp lens regardless of what body you put it on.
@@DustinAbbottTWI please just check the Christopher Frost's video about tamron 70-180 to see how lens behaves different when used on different sensor sizes. th-cam.com/video/AvHTA-7mRgo/w-d-xo.html
i have bought lenses bases on your reviews, I believe I am one of your most loyal followers and not to be bias, but I believe you probably are one of the best reviewers on youtube, having said that, I do own both Canon and Fuji ecosystems and I am heavily invested in both, I do believe you most have had a faulty unit or else, since I have constantly gotten way different results than the ones listed in this review of yours, I have found pictures to be if not equal to the big FF players on the market, to be close enough so that I can call Fuji a close enough contestant to the FF big guys out there, Canons 70-200 III is a sharper lense and you will get a smotther bokeh per say, but fuji is by no means an overpriced lense for what is worth my friend, thank you for your kind work, I am still a huge fan
Hi Gilberto - I actually used two copies of the lens in my review to make sure that I got accurate results. I also checked the results of other reviewers who actually post resolution numbers...and they actually support my claims. That being said, what matters most for you is your own opinion. If you are getting good results, I am delighted.
@@DustinAbbottTWI thank you Dustin for your kind answer, I went back and looked at pixel lever up against the Canon 70-200 version III, and yeah, you were absolutely right, the Fuji is left behind, not by a whole lot, but you can tell there is a difference between them two, I offer an apology Sr., be well
@@DustinAbbottTWI oh and by the way, I bought a Tamron 35mm F1.4, a Tamron 85mm F1.8, a Fujifilm XT3, a Fujinon 16-55 F2.8 and the Canon 70-200 IS III only based on your reviews, that show how much I respect your reviews, thank you Dustin for your hard word, the photography community will always be in debt to you
@@gilbertogranados3018 what about the fuji 80 2.8. They say it is an excellent lens. What is Dustin Abbot has to say about that?
@@FLORAMORAITINI I was wondering about that lens too, I saw a couple of reviews about a third party lens (Dustin also has reviewed that one) that Im looking into buying next week, take a look at the Viltrox 85mm F1.8 Mark II, but do make sure is the second version though, they did some tweaks here and there and made it better and smaller compared to the previous version, happy shooting and happy new year!!
It is built well and it works great but it’s bokeh is just bad, especially coming from 70-200 2.8 lenses. The X series’s best lenses are its primes.
So far I would have to agree on your zoom vs primes assessment. The lenses I've been most impressed with are some the F2 options. Small, light, and optically sound.
Well. I just bought one second-hand for half the price. Yet to see the results. I'm a bit confused by the focus-hunting here in your own video. More surprised that you haven't commented on it here. Believe me, I'm a total amateur, really a novice, and I know this review is a couple of years old, but I'm surprised, unless I missed it, the not mentioning of said focus issues on your own video (which I know was on a fujifilm camera and with the lens you're reviewing). Subscribed to you all the same. And thanks for the info. :)
I actually did mention it, and I showed it in the video intentionally.
The build quality of that tripod collar is shocking. It would be unusable from my perspective.
It's not unusable, but it's not as stable as what I would like.
Videographers and Camera Operators for film and video don't use an auto focus pull. That seemed like an arbitrary note in an otherwise very, very competent review.
Some film makers may not, but most ordinary people who do video will. I think it is relevant.
I've owned this lens for some time at this point and while it has served me very well, I do agree that it is showing its age at this point in time.
I wasn't disappointed with the images that came from the combo of this lens and the X-T3 (and when there were disappointing ones, a lot of it was down to operator error) and I do think that this is still your best telephoto zoom option on the Fuji system. However, you can also kind of start to see that this lens, while obviously built with future camera bodies in mind, is also a 5-6 year old lens at the end of the day.
To be clear, it's not *bad*. My copy was pretty sharp, (though not mind blowingly so but still resolves nicely for my needs) and has delivered on my needs for a fast, stabilized (and weather sealed) telephoto for event work and landscapes. But a lot can change in that 5-6 years and we're at a time where third parties have clearly shown to be able to match or even best first party options, notably the Sigma 24-70 Art versus Sony's G Master 24-70, and for much less.
Fuji's announcement earlier this year that they have opened up their autofocus protocols was something that was long overdue IMO and I hope that this means options for quality glass at more attainable price points will follow, along with Fuji stepping up their first party options.
And yes, 0.12x magnification on a 70-200 equivalent is far from impressive. That's the weakest aspect of the lens IMO and something that needs to be improved on the Mk2.
This is far and balanced.
I’m disillusioned with this lens after watching this video. It gets sooo much praise in other reviews and is said to outperform the 26mp sensor.
I don't know what to tell you. I will say that many users have commented below, and some completely agreed with my assessment, others disagreed.
@@DustinAbbottTWI the comment thread for this video has been very interesting. Before seeing your review I was sure this was the lens that I had to have, but now I’m not so sure. I think your tests say a lot. You must be a little surprised at the division in opinion, no?
@@DustinAbbottTWI Might just be Lightroom, it's still not perfect for Fuji even to this day. Adobe is a real skeleton operation these days and lingering technical issues are slow as molasses to iron out. I certainly see much better results with Capture One and even Darktable on Fuji X-Trans.
Unfortunately,any comparison in Lightroom won't give true results about any Fujinon Lens or any X-Trans Fuji Camera. I understand most camera/lens testers don't won't to change their workflow ,but LR is underperforming any Fuji raw image.
I’ve heard this rumor, tested files in multiple software, and think that this is overstated. Even so, however, I’ve seen much better results from other Fuji lenses...in Lightroom.
If you don't zoom in into photos ,yes it's overstated,but here you zoom in the tests. In Capture 1 results are about 25-30% better compared to Lightroom when zoomed in over 50% .LR blurs the images and i can clearly see it in 67 to 100% zoom in.Not to mention the worm effect which isn't relevant to my arguments,just another problem.Other than that,i like your reviews.
Tamron is plastic made and it is longer then Fuji since it is not internal focusing lens.Other thing is that I would not take Tamron outside in the rain if you consider a peace of tape as weather gasket. Tamron is by the way nowhere near Fujifilm when it come to optical performance.It is sharp and images are flat as pancake , that is where it end up.
Wow - this is not true on any level outside of the statement of the Tamron being longer when fully extended. The optical performance of the Tamron is hugely better.
You’ve convinced me to buy the Tamron lens rather than the Fujifilm 50-140. It seems better in several ways. Oh! Tamron doesn’t make that lens for a Fuji cameras. I guess your comparison is meaningless.
Hi Dennis - for those who just shoot Fuji, it is meaningless, but my point is about overall competitiveness and how Fuji desperately needs third party support to stay relative in what is becoming an increasingly competitive market.
Thanks for doing a great job on this review. Always look forward to your fuji reviews.
Its concerning your first copy of the lens was not sharp. and maybe ur second copy is not the best example, and i must be lucky I find my copy extremely sharp and I am really happy with its IQ. I have Canon 70-200 f4 and for me anyway the Fuji I find much sharper. Keep in mind i dont use Adobe. I found Adobe softens the Fuji X trans files and also the images tend to look muddy and grainy. With Capture one im sure u should see a slight difference or just shoot JPG and compare the Jpgs that may help.
Hi Elias, I've actually done both of the things you suggest in the end of your comment, and didn't see a radical difference from my findings. All that really matters is that you've got a copy you're happy with.
@@DustinAbbottTWI 👍
Great video! I agree with everything, the 50-140 is very overpriced for what it is. Is a good lens but it should cost less. How does removing the tripod mount affects the weather seal?
Tripod mount you can remove and lens is still weather sale. This lens is no expensive my friend worth every penny.Dustin has got faulty unit I believe. Don't believe everything you see on TH-cam 50 to 140 is probably the best Lens that money can buy
I don't believe removing the tripod foot should affect the weather sealing. There's no opening into the interior of the lens.
Dustin Abbott 👍 thanks. I’m a Canon user but a year ago bought the XT3 with with the 16, 23, 35 1.4 and 56 1.2. I don’t find any of the Fuji zooms attractive.
6042833 I’m a Canon user but I bought the XT3 with with the 16, 23, 35 1.4 and 56 1.2. I don’t find any of the Fuji zooms attractive. Thanks for the reply!
哈哈 自动对焦 拉风箱
是的 我的也这样 简直是不敢相信 就这 能拍啥啊？？？！！！！
This lens is often praised for its sharpness. Worrisome that you couldn't find it. I hope that Fuji will update his top lenses soon starting with the upcoming XF 50/1.0. Are you planning to review the XF 100-400/4.5-5.6 ?
I actually reviewed a couple of copies to be sure about my findings. Those that actually post resolution numbers on their reviews do back up my findings, however. I will likely get to the 100-400 at some point.
@@DustinAbbottTWI Maybe it is the age of the lens. At the time of the release in 2015 Fujifilm had only 16MP cameras like the X-T1. FujiRumors has commented Fuji's recent promo videos for old lenses stating "Fujifilm might hint that the XF50-140mmF2.8 is one of those lenses that is currently underperforming on the 26 megapixel X-Trans sensor".
That's an interesting possibility.
Interesting review -- I read the print version. As someone who has feet in two systems -- Fuji X and Nikon DX/FX -- this makes me think. I love Fuji X and some of its truly fabulous prime lenses at reasonable prices, but maybe I should stick with Nikon for some of the longer lenses and zooms (70-200mm and 105 f/1.4) where the size advantage begins to narrow and the Nikon lens is known for being exceptional.
That's a fair assessment.
Thanks for sharing
My pleasure
It is unfortunate that Fuji users do not have other brand alternatives. If there were it would probably keep some users from moving to other brands. I agree this lens is overpriced.
Unfortunately, yes.
Gotta get one used like I did.
Vitrox, tamron & now Sigma are slowly introducing lenses into Fuji X mount, its just not happening quick enough.
Well; guess I’ll just get the 90mm prime lol
Fair enough
with the XT-4 with IBIS, I would have gotten one 90mm as well.
I couldn't handle any more lip-smacking noises. I'm out for a less obnoxious critic that almost certainly has a better portfolio
LOL. Enjoy...
For good but not exeptional lense to ask such money is a scam to be honest
I'm not sure I'd call it a scam, but I do think this lens is ready for an update.
annoying review. Just hates Fuji obviously
You're entitled to your opinion, of course, but if I hated Fuji, why do I review it? You'll find some very positive Fuji reviews of mine.