I took the X-T3 and the new lenses out for a small photo walk on Sunday, to grab some of the limited fall colour we've seen so far. Colour has been extremely slow to change this fall due to the warm fall and we're around 30% change here in Toronto in mid-October. Normally we'd be just past peak colour at this point. It was a really fun walk and I shot over 150 images on the X-T3, at this point I've now shot more on the X-T3 this week than on the Nikon Z bodies over the entire fall.
I shot primarily with the 10-24 and 16-80, but I did also have the 16/2.8 with me as I wanted to try it for 1-handed shooting after I completed a short shopping errand.
I was quite impressed with both zooms. The 10-24, of which I have the original version, nicely addresses the lack of a consumer-priced UWA at the current used pricing. Of course Fuji also has its 13-33 (essentially a 20-50mm-e) now which can be used as a UWA or the Selfie lens it's intended as. I'd knock the 13-33 for the same basic issue as Nikon's 12-28, it's just not that wide by modern standards for a stills lens but it fills the same basic hole and is quite usable there. Still would love to see a compact XC 10-18 or 9-18 from Fuji. The closest answer from Nikon for the 10-24 would be their F mount 10-20VR or the Tamron 10-24VC on an FTZII, which is a little awkward. Build is very good, and the only real complaint is that despite being a constant f4, the aperture ring is the usual experience for the variable aperture zooms, that's probably to be consistent with the 18-55 and 55-200 zooms, which were its intended companion set and are both variable aperture. Note the updated version of the 10-24 loses the OIS and Aperture/A switches but gains the usual marked aperture ring with A position, consistent with the other fixed aperture zooms.
The 16-80 really impressed me. This is a very well built lens with great handling. I don't mind giving up the OIS switch to get weather sealing. Frankly, I'm very glad I got this lens rather than getting yet another 16-50 OIS (which has been my go-to Fuji zoom over the years, a cheap and excellent little lens, but not nearly as nice as the upscale 16-80). I've never owned the legendary 18-55 solely because 18mm is not wide enough for my uses, I tend to live at 16mm most of the time with my normal zoom. This is another case where there's a gap in the Nikon offerings, Nikon does have the Tamron 17-70 f2.8, which is faster, but is less range at both ends plus a fair bit larger and heavier (albeit less so than the 24-120/4S is on FF, which is around 400g heavier when packaged with a Z5ii vs the X-T3/16-80/4 combo, and of course is larger than the Fuji combo)
Filter thread for both zooms is 72mm, which is nice as that matches several other recent lenses I've owned (including the 10-20VR I still have for the D7500) and I have a high quality polarizer for it, although I do need ND filters, my current set is 67mm. Sadly both of the options I'm looking at seriously for telezooms are 67mm (the XF 70-300WR and the Sigma 100-400 Contemporary), but a step-up ring solves that. My 67mm filters work on my Tamron 17-50 for the D7500, so they still will get used.
The 16 was a fun little wide 1-handed shooter, I snapped a few shots after running my errand, with one hand full of shopping. It worked well in that use, as I'd expected. With Nikon the Viltrox 15/1.7 is the closest replacement, but it's bigger and less well built, plus lacks an aperture ring (which would be very desirable on the Zfc in particular).
All three of these lenses don't have really good alternatives in Z DX, and form the core of a very usable kit when added to the Sigma C 30/1.4. It really goes to show how limited the Z DX system is for any uses that aren't based around the super-consumer trio (12-28, 16-50, 50-250), the 18-140 or the 16-50+FX telephotos.
No comments:
Post a Comment