This is because the focus ring is a little narrower than on the original version by 3mm, smooth in action without being too loose, and has a ridged, rubberised grip band. With a 7-blade rounded diaphragm I get 14-pointed sunstars on brilliant points of light only at the smallest apertures. The petal-shaped lens hood is quite large in size. It is plastic and attaches securely to the lens without any wobbling.

It feels great to have a real metal lens in my hands. The only other real metal lenses made today are almost exclusively from LEICA; Nikon and Canon have been churning out mostly plastic since the 1980s. 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. Offers an extra stop of light-gathering ability, but corners are much softer at ƒ/2.8; at ƒ/4, the lenses are optically very similar. Fuji have made several key improvements to this new update, including an enhanced gyro sensor that provides more effective optical image stabilisation (OIS), which has been improved by a full f-stop from 2.5 stops to 3.5 stops when mounted on an un-stabilized X-series camera body.

Maybe for other reasons, but not weight. If from what the OP said it was obvious that UW would be a regular need along with the desire to have longer focal lenght, then yes. The Ahwahnee, Yosemite Valley, 8:41 AM. Fuji X-T1, Fuji 10-24mm at 10mm, f/4 at 1/8 hand held at Auto ISO 250, Athentech Perfectly Clear. Full Resolution. I see no spherochromatism (called color bokeh by hobbyists). This means that out-of-focus highlights remain neutral and don't take on any slight color fringes. While the latter way of seeing the aperture is still valid, for the new XF 10-24mm F4 R OIS WR version, Fuji have made the much more sensible decision to also add the actual aperture markings to the lens barrel, bringing it in line with most of the other X-series lenses that have a physical aperture ring.

When Fuji first announced its X system, the widest lens in the line-up was the compact XF 18mm f/2 R. Although the company followed up with the wider XF 14mm f/2.8 R later that year, many photographers including myself, were really hoping to see an ultra-wide angle zoom that would cover the 14-24mm full-frame equivalent range. So when the XF 10-24mm f/4 R OIS was finally released a year later, I bought a copy for myself right after acquiring the Fuji X-T1. I did it without hesitation because I found the lens to be exactly what I needed – it coupled extremely well with my X-T1, and unlike my Nikon 14-24mm f/2.8G, it could take filters. So it became a part of my “go-to” kit for travel photography needs. X-T2 + XF10-24mmF4 R OIS @ 15.9mm, ISO 200, 1/2, f/11.0 For less money, the Canon 72mm UV and B+W MRC 010 are excellent filters, as is the B+W 72mm 010 and the basic multicoated Hoya filters, but the Hoya HD3 is the toughest and the best. Yosemite Valley, 10:22 AM, 16 May 2014. Fuji X-T1 at Auto ISO 400 and Auto DR 200, 10mm at f/22 at 1/60, Athentech Perfectly Clear. bigger.

Watch out for distortion from converging verticals, try and keep the camera level in both axis. Sometimes this is not possible so my workaround is to shoot slightly wider then correct the convergence in post processing.

If this 1,200×900 pixel crop is about 3" (7.5cm) wide on your phone, then the complete image printed at this same high magnification would be about 11 × 16" (0.9 × 1.3 feet or 25 × 40 cm).

If this 1,200×900 pixel crop is about 3" (7.5cm) wide on your phone, then the complete image printed at this same extreme magnification would be about 11 × 16" (0.9 × 1.3 feet or 25 × 40 cm). The zoom ring is 3/4'' wide, with deep rubber ribs running parallel to the length of the lens. The zoom action is very smooth, going from 10mm to 24mm in a forty-five degree turn, with only a minor amount of force required to transition between focal lengths. The lens does not extend as it is zoomed out. Zoom creep was not a factor in our testing with this lens.

Speaking of rubber rings, Zeiss features a very different look and feel for their lenses. I’m not crazy about look, for whatever that’s worth. The lenses don’t fit with the Fuji system. Hoods Above left: Fuji XF 10-24mm at 10mm (15mm equiv), above right: Fuji XF 10-24mm at 24mm (36mm equiv) In addition, it provides up to a whopping 6.5 stops of compensation when used with a camera that also has in-body stabilization, like the Fuji X-T4 that we tested the lens with. Scroll down to see how they compare in the middle of the frame, or skip to my Fujifilm XF 10-24mm sample images.This is simply not true, as testified to by many who upgraded to the 16-55. The 16-55 is better optically, has better subject isolation at the long end, and more flexibility at the wide end. These enhancements are achieved at the cost of OIS and larger size. While the 18-55 is not as good optically, it is clearly good enough for some. The 2021 version of the XF 10-24mm lens has a new weather-resistant structure, denoted by the addition of the WR acronym to the end of the product name. Above left: Fuji XF 16mm f1.4 at f4, above right: Fuji XF 10-24mm at 16mm f4. 100% crops from corner of JPEGs