« Back to the Bag | Main | Philosophical Readings »

Tuesday, 30 May 2023


Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

No doubt it will find a niche among people who shoot landscapes and architecturals. But the Fuji 10-24mm f/4, although almost four times as heavy, is almost as wide, offers a practical zoom range, has excellent resolution, and is image-stabilized.

Interesting lens, and I appreciate that it's not over-priced. Do I need it? Probably not; I have a 12mm Rokinon lens and that's about as wide as I can imagine needing with an APS-C sensor. I've made some nice landscape images with ultrawides, but it's rare that I really want to shoot that wide.

One of the big challenges with lenses this wide (fisheyes too) is keeping your feet and fingers out of the image. It's so easy for them to get in there and it's usually not what you want.

I'll be curious to see technical reviews and learn how much barrel distortion is being corrected in software. Fuji has generally been better about this than, say, Olympus, but with a lens this wide, it must be quite a challenge to achieve correct geometry in the optics without causing other problems.

Impressive engineering, especially given the size and cost. What an incredibly jaggy light path. I think spawning salmon have it easier.

Its amazing how wide angle lenses have evolved and how their use has mainstreamed over the decades. In 1980, I was asked to shoot a wedding and being too dumb to realize what was involved and the potential for ruining a special day for those involved, I said yes.

I bought a 1970s book from an old school book store and read up on how to do it. The mandatory equipment section stated that no photographer should use anything wider than 35mm. If you drifted into "super-wide" 28mm range, the distortion would be too much and nobody would be happy with their images.

Today, I use a 16-35mm zoom on my Nikon without thinking about it. 35mm seems like a short telephoto in some environments.

Don't think that I'll get this Fuji lens though. I have the 16mm f/1.4 and I'm good for my current use of this system.

Hey Mike, please don't do that! It makes the Laowa 6mm f/2 really start to itch.

I am almost as old as you and remember Nikon making a fisheye lens with a field of view of 220 degrees which cost $ 13,000, decades ago. The front element was MUCH bigger than the camera. Never touched or seen the lens in person, pictures in photography magazine showed the lens attached to the camera which was in turn on a special stand so the edge of the lens would not touch the table where the all thing was placed on.

Now Venus makes a 4 mm fisheye for Sony or Fuji mount, with a 210 degrees field of view and a $ 199 price tag. I almost got it, just to have fun with it, its usefulness is very limited, obviously…. but it’s ok to have some fun.

That's amazing!

Fuji already have an 8-16mm zoom. It is a bit of a monster though. I briefly borrowed one of those and loved it. Sadly I cannot afford to buy one, but I did have the 10-24. I took many 'deep field' landscapes with that lens, the type with foreground and background, as well as a very successful cathedral interior at Reykjavik. Mostly I used it at the 10-12mm end. 8mm is a lot wider, but I expect there will be many photographers queuing up to buy this lens.

Well I got into photography as a teenager in the 2000s, and even then, this (and many other lenses available today) would seem like science fiction, especially when you factor in the size and price. The Rokinon 12mm f2 for Fuji X mount is currently available on Amazon Singapore for the equivalent of USD 140 (I bought a used copy so it was even cheaper). Okay it's manual focus, but with a lens that wide, focusing is easy enough, even for dance and portraits.

What are ILCs?

[Interchangeable-lens cameras. Opposite of fixed-lens cameras, which have the lens (or, in the case of smartphones, lenses) attached and unable to be removed. --Mike]

I've spent a fair amount of time photographing interiors for architects; the widest lens I used was a 17mm. That took some care in use, although when I needed it, I needed it. A 12mm equivalent would be amazing.
Users will have to be very careful with this lens, to avoid the gimmick (hey, look at me!) effect that is so easy to obtain with superwide optics. It will be interesting to see what images people come up with.

As I wonder "do I need a Nikon FX camera instead of my otherwise excellent DX sensor Nikon D7100" the one thing that keeps me asking that question is wide angle lenses. I do have a beautiful AF 20/2.8D (effective 30mm) that I love on my DX camera though I do wonder what it would be like on a FX camera. OTOH, a F4 would be a far cheaper way to find out ;) In the end I'd probably be far better off spending my money on more Nikkor AF/AF-D lenses (under appreciated and stupid CHEAP) instead of even a D700 or D610 :) )

I made some use of a Sigma 12-24mm zoom on my D700; didn't go out to 12mm that often, but got there when nothing else would do.

Now have a 7.5mm for my Micro Four Thirds (so 15mm equivalent field-of-view). Used that quite a lot for the Words Over Windows project (often letting me shoot from inside cars parked on the street for example).

I never used to like wide angle lenses, but getting a good 24mm just before a trip to Australia and New Zealand kind of pushed me off the ledge.

Video people tend to use wider lenses in documentary work.

I had the 15mm Voigtlander back when I had a Leica. When I was out and about with it, I often wished that I had gotten the 12mm.

That said, I have the 14mm Fuji and don't shoot it as much as I should.

Those super-wide lenses have an interesting use case in my opinion, especially with the megapixel monsters, as Thom Hogan call the super high resolution cameras.

For example, my D850 has 45 MPix. That is not the reason I like it. I don't need 45 Mpix. I don't have large enough walls to make it useful in any way. 20 Mpix is more than fine. I'd say it is probably fine for anyone.

I so happens that 20 Mpix is the resolution of an APS-C extract from the whole D850 sensor.

Now, if I buy a 20mm shift lens with a 12mm shift capability, the total angle of view of that lens is equal to a 12mm lens. If I mount such a 12mm lens on my D850, put it level on my tripod and then shoot buildings or trees or whatever benefits from a raise movement, I can extract the top of the resulting image having exactly the same effect as a rise and enough resolution left for whatever usage I can have.

So that 8mm Fuji on a 40Mpix camera could help compensate the lack of shift lenses from Fuji.

As I have the Voigtländer "Hyper-Wide" 10 mm f5.6, a wider lens yet, and do FF and µ4/3, not APS-C, this is a non-interest lens for me.

I am quite interested in really wide, both in practice today and its history in my mind.

As a younger person with more limited funds, I fantasized about cameras like the 120 film cameras with Super-Angulon lenses, the rotating lens ones, the X-Pan, and so on.

What I found hard was realizing visually how limited they were, compared to what's easily available now. So I made up a comparison. No way to do anything useful on this in the blog format. Here's a link.

This new Fuji would fit between the first two examples.

You are right that such extreme WA lenses "fit" only a few situations. But they do do things nothing else will. I've done lots of stitched panoramas, with lots of success. I've "de-fished" fisheye shots* with some excellent results. It would have been a lot less post process work if I had the Voigtländer at those times.

* Imadio's Fisheye-Hemi is a remarkably effective tool for this. Again, a link to see the effect.

Might be an excellent opportunity for compare/contrast with the MFT ultra-wides (zB: Panasonic Leica DG Summilux 9mm f/1.7, Lumix G Vario 7-14mm f/4, et cetera). I own the latter and am consistantly crazy about it. It gets more use that I imagined it would, usually interiors.

Not sufficiently familiar with Fujifilm systems to guess what sensor size goes with this lens. Looked it up: So the 8mm is "equivalent to 12mm in full-frame format."

Fun taking photo's of tables at flea markets with a 10.5mm f/2.8G DX ED Fisheye Nikkor, with hood removed (beautifully shaved off lens hood by Tobias Vollmer, 360pano.de, Germany) – custom modified for full frame, Angular field ~220°

The 16mm f/3.5 Nikkor fisheye AI, although not a fast lens, is also nice for great expanses of the sky at night, like the Milky Way, or capturing streaks of light as the space station moves across the sky.

My Pentax-A 15/3.5 has a huge ball of glass on the front. Amazing that it is now possible to make ultra-wides without bulbous front elements. Perhaps due to higher refractive index glass. Or perhaps because we can now correct geometric distortion in the camera, which is key to Fuji's strategy. With one less constraint, lens design is easier.

I never used to use really wide angle lenses, but at some point went on a trip with both a 21mm C/V lens and their early 15mm non-rangefinder coupled lens. It was a revelation for scenes of city streets and interior spaces with vaulted ceilings. When returning from a trip, these are now a solid 10-15% of my images. Not a majority, but a nice chunk.

These focal lengths take in so much more than my eye actually sees in a given scene -- using them actually feels like having a superpower. It is one of the things that I like best about photography: using technology to capture a vision of reality beyond my own abilities. I feel the same way in principle about high shutter speeds, shallow depth of field, long shutter speed exposures . . . My own photography is much more than that, of course, but it is nice to have the capability.

The C/V offerings -- the tiny 15mm and the larger, heavier 12mm lens -- really changed the way I see. The 15 is always in my bag, because it weighs almost nothing and punches waaay above its weight (pun intended).

So I look at Fuji filling out its roadmap with some real anticipation. My reaction: cool!

The comments to this entry are closed.



Blog powered by Typepad
Member since 06/2007