XF 8-16/2.8 is €1999 here including taxes. More than I thought by a couple of hundred and still not sure if I get a front lens cap included or is that a €24 optional extra.
AlanU wrote in post #18667726
I highly doubt there will be a large amount of Fuji owners running out buying this highly overpriced piece of glass. I would have considered that price tag if it was an XF16-35 f/2.8 WR.
That price for the Fuji 8-16 (limited range of 12-24mm FF equiv) just doesn't make any sense since it's an APS-C lens limited to 24MP at this moment in time. I'd assume many Fuji landscape shooters would be stopping down the extremely inexpensive manual wide angle primes or use the now considered CHEAP XF 10-24mm f/4.
I'm really looking forward to see how many Fuji shooters will be buying the new 8-16mm and 200mm prime. That's serious coin!
I bought new trainers yesterday, my luck is in.
12mm of focal length might not sound like much but the difference from 8mm to 16mm is huge. Much more huge than say 80-96mm. I've been waiting for this for over a year using the 14mm or the 12mm but always wanted Fuji to make a rectilinear 8mm and it's only f/2.8.
Funny calling it overpriced when the reviews say it's near optically perfect, corner to corner wide open, more funny when you consider Sonys pricing of it's lenses, the GM85/1.4 is a whopping [US] $1800. For a standard focal length 1.4 prime, not a specialist lens. OK then. Even Canon is 'only' charging $1600. Speaking of canon they charged $3000 for their 11-24 lens and that was an F/4 lens. It's come down in price a little lately in fairness to only $700 more than the 'overpriced' Fuji 8-16/2.8. At the end of the day it's an 8mm Rectilinear lens @ 2.8 that is near optically perfect, to my eyes for my wants that's worth every penny.
AlanU wrote in post #18667749
Using a GM16-35mm on a Sony A7Riii is also very cool. If you want more "reach" you can use Sony "crop mode" at 35mm (approx 52.5mm reach) and still achieve 18.66MP at a crop factor of 1.5!!!!! Fuji cannot do this. My Sony A7iii is only 10.66MP in crop mode
but still decent on a crunch!!
Wait, the extremely wide 8-16mm F/2.8 is overpriced & the not nearly as wide Sony GM16-35/2.8 isn't - even though it's more expensive. OK then, perspective. For the same 'reach' I can and have cropped in post, same thing.
AlanU wrote in post #18667753
So far it appears Fuji glass has gotten more and more expensive. If I look at the Canon price trend the initial cost is high but as years go by the price goes down even when there isn't a newer revision.
Last year or so Fuji glass was getting cheaper with all the rebates going about, remember the rebate on the 16mm f/1.4. This year they are giving those of us who asked a few lenses for specialist applications, Gota love Fuji for being open there.
KenjiS wrote in post #18667754
That new 200mm f/2 and teleconverter made me chuckle, Love the huge green ring on the lens hood, and the pricing looks good on it. I love that Fuji is there producing some really cool stuff (Like the 33 f/1) even if i dont shoot them
I love that colour and the green on the hood is a great nod to Fuji's old broadcast lenses, more please & I agree the price is on point, although no one would complain if was half the price for the same IQ.
Osa713 wrote in post #18667751
I had some sticker shock when I first converted from canon, I just assumed Fuji's glass was supposed to be cheaper because I didn't know any better.
I like that they don't have a lot of super budget glass in every focal length, it seems like a quality over quantity approach.
Yes. Value = (Quality x Price)/Customer Application.
EverydayGetaway wrote in post #18667730
You said you'll just go ahead and get a 16-35mm... neither of those options go out to 12mm equivalent... or 13, 14, or 15... that's a HUGE difference at that wide focal range.
Although, you could save a bunch of money on a Canon 11-24... oh, wait
R&D costs money. Pushing boundaries costs money. You want cutting edge glass, pay the cutting edge prices.