Fujifilm XF10-24 mm F4 R Optical Image Stabiliser Lens

Product Information

Speaking of the internals, the 10-24mm features 14 elements in 10 groups that include 4 aspherical and 4 extra-low dispersion elements. Lot’s of pretty numbers but it all adds up to a comprehensive set of glass the achieve optical excellence.

Note: It should be noted that the X-E1, our Fuji test camera, does feature in-camera correction of CA, vignetting and distortion, and it's important to note that our results here were taken from RAW files. However, when converted with Adobe Camera Raw, as it our usual procedure, ACR carries over these in-camera corrections. It was only by converting the same RAW images with DCRAW (which does not convert the images with these corrections) that we were able to confirm this. Move closer : our eyes have a focal length of around 43mm so when we use an ultra-wide angle lens distant objects seem further away and smaller in the frame so if you can move closer to fill the frame it will help. Instinctively I’d want to avoid this lens when shooting horizons or architecture, but I’ve managed some decent results in street shooting with the XF 18mm F2 (scroll towards the end). If you need your lines as straight as possible, looks elsewhere, but I think my failure to get square with this structure is far more objectionable than the lens distortion.Lens Versus Wide Angle Primes Standard Zooms Telephoto Zooms 10-24mm F4 vs. Primes 14mm F2.8 vs. 18mm F2 16mm Comparison 18mm F2 vs. 27mm F2.8 18-55mm F2.8-4 vs. 35mm F1.4 35mm F1.4 vs. 35mm F2 WR 56mm F1.2 vs. APD 56mm F1.2 vs. 60mm F2.4 Macro X100(S/T) vs. 23mm F1.4 X100(S/T) vs. 27mm F2.8 X100 Converters vs. 18mm & 35mm MCEX-11 vs. MCEX-16 Extension Tubes Which lens would you get for general purpose landscape travel? Would it depend on what body you have? eg. x-h1 vs x-t3. Debating which of the two to carry and thinking that the 10-24 might require another lens to complement it such as 35/50/55-200. But what if you could only carry one lens as a do-it-all solution? For my lens tests on other systems I normally shoot in RAW and process the files with corrections disabled to see what’s happening behind the scenes. But the more I shoot with the Fuji X system, the more I appreciate the out-of-camera JPEG performance, especially when using Lens Modulation Optimisation (LMO) with Fujinon lenses. I’ve also found few RAW converters which can do justice to the X-Trans sensor. So in line with my other XF lens tests, I’m going to present crops from unaltered out-of-camera JPEGs here (with LMO enabled as default) as I believe they show the lens in the best light. I did of course also shoot the scene in RAW and if I find a workflow which delivers good results in the future I’ll update this review with RAW comparisons as well. Extras Fuji Filter Thread Sizes Lightroom 5.7 vs. 6.1 for X-Trans Best X-Trans RAW Converter Long Exposure Photography Tips Heavy Issues Mirrorless vs DSLR weight Adobe’s Fujifilm Camera Calibration Profiles Film Simulation Modes Compared Fujifilm Metering ONA Bowery vs. Billingham Hadley Small Above left: Fuji XF 16mm f1.4 at f16, above right: Fuji XF 10-24mm at 16mm f16. 100% crops from corner of JPEGs

If you're not getting ultra-sharp pictures with this, be sure not to shoot at f/11 or smaller where all lenses are softer due to diffraction, always shoot at ISO 100 or below because cameras become softer at ISO 200 and above, avoid shooting across long distances over land which can lead to atmospheric heat shimmer, be sure everything is in perfect focus, set your camera's sharpening as you want it (I set mine to the maximum) and be sure nothing is moving, either camera or subject. If you want to ensure a soft image with any lens, shoot at f/16 or smaller at ISO 1,600 or above at default sharpening in daylight of subjects at differing distances in the same image. Ghost, 1:03 PM, 21 May 2014. Fuji X-T1 at Auto ISO 200, 24mm at f/11 at 1/250, Athentech Perfectly Clear. bigger. If you predict you will be shooting on the wider end mostly and value the compact nature of the XF 14mm f/2.8 R this may be a sound alternative. In the two sample images below you may see that the overall image quality is very similar with only a slight edge to the XF 14mm f/2.8 R.Your camera body will make a bigger difference in AF performance than your lens choice. Autofocus with each of these lenses is pretty swift. I wouldn’t let autofocus pace determine which of these lenses you choose. The aperture ring is only half an aperture ring; it's only an encoder to a computer and works like a generic command dial. It's not actually marked with apertures; you have to move the switch away from A to set an aperture manually.

With the XF 8-16mm F2.8 WR avaialable, folks interested in switching from a DSLR now have a match fo their hulking ultra-wide zooms. The XF 10-24mm F4 OIS costs about 50% of what it, and the full frame ultra-wide zoom do though. There is spherochromatism, which can cause color fringes on things that aren't in perfect focus. Spherochromatism is a completely different aberration in a different dimension than lateral color fringes. This lens is great for environmental portraits, though take care not to get too close to their face, they won’t thank you for the distortion!Distortion is invisible, at least as shot as JPGs on my Fuji X-T1, which for all I know is correcting it automatically. Filters last a lifetime, so you may as well get the best. The Hoya HD3 stays cleaner than the others since it repels oil and dirt.