|
| Accept Cookies | Customize | Refuse Cookies |
Paki64 www.juzaphoto.com/p/Paki64  |
The following opinions have been automatically translated with Microsoft Translator. | Fujifilm XF 27mm f/2.8 R WR Pros: Size and weight, tropicalization, good general IQ Cons: Noisy and sometimes inaccurate AF Opinion: I was pleasantly impressed by this 27 MKII, the addition of tropicalization and the diaphragm ring, which for me was essential on a lens were the push that convinced me to resume this goal, and although the official sources say that nothing has changed on AF and optical scheme, I have perceived slight improvements both on the IQ with a better level of central detail on the range of diaphragms from f/2.8 to f/8, and on the AF, in particular the latter is slightly more precise and rapid than the 27 MKI, it still remains very noisy, but not making videos does not bother me much. The size and weight allow us to be very light, it couples beautifully on an XE body, which in this configuration is mirrored in weight and size to the X100V, advantage of less obvious dimensions on XT and XPRO bodies, but always widely perceptible. Optics that at list price is a bit caretta but if you have the opportunity to buy it from kit it would be to be taken on the fly. sent on May 05, 2021 |
 | Fujifilm XF 16-80mm f/4 R OIS WR Pros: Good build quality, cap and lampshade finally discreet, stabilizer, WR Cons: Poor IQ at extremes (diaphragm and focal) Opinion: I thought about it a long time before I wrote a review on this lens, I have a veneration on the Fuji brand, I had good expectations, it will certainly not be 16-55, I said to myself, but sure a good upgrade on 18-55, what to say: a big, huge disappointment, I did not believe it and I tested two, trusting that the first had failed, but nothing, tested with both T2 and T3 with the same results, will I have caught two failed lenses? At this point I hope so. The build quality is good but not at the levels I am used to with Fuji, especially the zoom is very snappy, even the diaphragms' diaphragms' diaframmi is, but less so, the cap and the lampshade, a very good barrel, has finally improved. But let's come to the real sore notes, the 16-80 is dignified, I repeat dignified from f/5.6 up to f/11, outside it is not unsatisfactory only at the edges, but it is the whole frame has suffer from an unstatal image and also kneaded; same talk about the focal, good in the middle, at the extremes is in great difficulty, at 80 is for me practically unusable, you save the AF and the stabilizer, even if the 6 stops declared are only science fiction. From a lens that costs 800 degrees I expected much, much more, can not stand the comparison even with the smallest and least expensive 18-55, which as a lens everything do at this point still remains the reference point if you do not want to turn on the 16-55. In conclusion my vote on 16-80 is abundantly insufficient, although I resented I gladly separated, returning to use the old 18-55. sent on August 05, 2020 |
JuzaPhoto contains affiliate links from Amazon and Ebay and JuzaPhoto earn a commission in case of purchase through affiliate links.May Beauty Be Everywhere Around Me
