Fuji Zooms versus Canon L lenses, your opinions please.

F

fulwood

Messages
894
Name
henry
Edit My Images
Yes
Wondered how users would rate Fuji zooms versus Canon L lenses.

Was wanting to compare Fuji 10-24mm, 18-55mm & 55-200mm zooms used on an XE2 or XT1 against a 17-40mm, 24-105mm and 70-300mm L lenses used on a 5D or a 5D II.

Wanting to use for landscapes and slow moving targets so af speed of secondary importance. Primary importance is IQ - pleasing colour, edge to edge sharpness and dynamic range. Will print to no larger than A3.

Overall weight a no-brainer in Fuji's favour, how about IQ given my landscape use.
 
take a look at the sigma dp line, there is the issue of no ultrawide tho
they are very sharp, good colours with a certain look, dynamic range isn't super strong, detail is.
dp3 and a decent 1.7 or 2ish screw on tc gets 128mm-150mm, and you can crop in like crazy too :-)
 
In an attempt to actually answer the Op's question.

If it's lens sharpness you are interested in then take a look at how the lens compare on DXO mark.

That said your ultimately comparing full frame to Apsc here and dynamic range aside (where canon are a good 2-3 stops behind the competition) the full frame setup will win every time.
 
I've used the 18-55 on XP1 and XE1 bodies and the 17-40 and 24-105 lenses on 5D2s. I think the Canon set up has the edge fairly consistently in terms of colour, sharpness and dynamic range (I think Fuji shadows are a weakness, but its highlights respond well). But the Fuji kit is half the price, half the weight and, in my case, just gets used more as it is so much more convenient. I don't think I could tell the difference between the two kits on an A3 print.

I suspect the Fuji needs a bit of time invested in refining the workflow. I seem to find myself adjusting more things in Lightroom now than I used to with Canon stuff. I think people are happier now with processing Fuji RAW files but there are clearly still issues there for the really demanding user.

I've seen some complaints about the 10-24 being too soft at the edges but I really like the 14mm - best wide prime I've used, though that is a small sample.
 
AFAIK, between 200-400 ISO the Fuji has more DR than even a Canon 5D3, after that the Canon seems a tad better.

DXO wont be any use because they don't test Fuji equipment. All I can add is that Fuji lenses are of very high quality and all you can do is read various reviews and check flickr/pixelpeeper for samples. I would've said the Fuji lenses will easily match those lenses mentioned.

Adobe doesnt play nice with X trans RAW so you wont see great fine detail, Noise Ninja/Iridient are better. This is perhaps where Ianmarsh is seeing performance differences.
 
Last edited:
Dynamic range isn't the lens. The X series has very good dynamic range, not quite as good as an A7R or a Fuji S5 but for 99% of my work I've been happy to work without filters. (XT1)

From my first ever use of an XT1: https://www.flickr.com/photos/darkandindustrial/sets/72157644731375839/

Lenses are very good sharpness wise, maybe not L lens good (the primes are better) though. They are very modern looking, so aren't exactly smooth rendering, I often find myself turning clarity down in LR to take the edge off. Not tried the 10-24mm but seen enough samples to know for an UWA it's no slouch.
 
Perhaps I could have phrased my OP better.

I would have gone to DXOMark to compare and contrast different systems, especially the lens compare tool where you can contrast lenses at different focal lengths, apertures and camera bodies.

Sadly no Fuji Xtrans sensor or lens is tested by DXO, so I can't do that in this case.

What I would really appreciate is a compare and contrast of the three UW, std and tele Fuji zoom lenses when used on an Xtrans sensor body against the 3 Canon L lenses used on a 5D or 5D ii - chosen the older 5 bodies as suspect that AF ability may be similar to XE1/2 bodies. I'm fussy about edge to edge sharpness for landscapes and am happy to shut down to f8 or more to get it. Dynamic range and colour 'niceness/pleasantness' is also important - noise performance at high ISO is totally unimportant to me.

Would very much appreciate to hear from someone who has gone from a Canon to Fuji system or vice versa.

Thanks
 
ianmarsh said:
I've used the 18-55 on XP1 and XE1 bodies and the 17-40 and 24-105 lenses on 5D2s. I think the Canon set up has the edge fairly consistently in terms of colour, sharpness and dynamic range (I think Fuji shadows are a weakness, but its highlights respond well). But the Fuji kit is half the price, half the weight and, in my case, just gets used more as it is so much more convenient. I don't think I could tell the difference between the two kits on an A3 print.

I suspect the Fuji needs a bit of time invested in refining the workflow. I seem to find myself adjusting more things in Lightroom now than I used to with Canon stuff. I think people are happier now with processing Fuji RAW files but there are clearly still issues there for the really demanding user.

I've seen some complaints about the 10-24 being too soft at the edges but I really like the 14mm - best wide prime I've used, though that is a small sample.
Click to expand...
Thanks - the 10-24 Fuji a bit like the 17-40 L edge wise. I've found mine acceptable when I process my RAWs in Canon DPP and use the Lens Optimiser to tweak/sharpen the edges.
 
ianmarsh said:
I've used the 18-55 on XP1 and XE1 bodies and the 17-40 and 24-105 lenses on 5D2s. I think the Canon set up has the edge fairly consistently in terms of colour, sharpness and dynamic range (I think Fuji shadows are a weakness, but its highlights respond well). But the Fuji kit is half the price, half the weight and, in my case, just gets used more as it is so much more convenient. I don't think I could tell the difference between the two kits on an A3 print.

I suspect the Fuji needs a bit of time invested in refining the workflow. I seem to find myself adjusting more things in Lightroom now than I used to with Canon stuff. I think people are happier now with processing Fuji RAW files but there are clearly still issues there for the really demanding user.

I've seen some complaints about the 10-24 being too soft at the edges but I really like the 14mm - best wide prime I've used, though that is a small sample.
Click to expand...


Have a look here at the difference between Adobe processing RAWs and Iridients processing, thats more than likely where you will be seeing any differences/Canon benefits. Adobe can't process Fuji RAW files as well as other software.

Look at the foliage in the cliff shots, night and day difference.

http://www.marksoon.com/blog/2014/fuji-x-trans-raw-processing
 
Last edited:
That sounds about right. I had three different 17-40s and there was quite some variation so any complaints about the 10-24 might also be down to a poor copy. The comment above about the 10-24 as a perfectly decent UWA is probably very valid - it cannot be easy to get top quality across the whole frame at the very wide end. I am sure with edge refinement shots can look great from both systems

I use Lightroom so any issues with dynamic range are also influenced by this as twist notes. But I still find I need to be careful to overexposed more with fuji than rely on latitude with canon

Pleasing color is hard to comment on. I switched to canon as I liked the canon reds. Now I've gone to fuji I miss the canon contrast but like the fuji level of saturation.

I know you asked about zooms but the 14/35/56 primes are all wonderful. I'm sure the 23 is too, I just haven't tried it.
 
twist said:
Have a look here at the difference between Adobe processing RAWs and Iridients processing, thats more than likely where you will be seeing any differences/Canon benefits. Adobe can't process Fuji RAW files as well as other software.

Look at the foliage in the cliff shots, night and day difference.

http://www.marksoon.com/blog/2014/fuji-x-trans-raw-processing
Click to expand...

Agreed, I am sure LR is part of the issue. I just cannot be bothered to completely refine my workflow for the few shots where it matters. For my mainstay of headshot portraits shot wide open LR is fine (and getting better with each revision).
 
More about sharpness of these lenses compared here...

http://www.ephotozine.com/article/fujifilm-fujinon-xf-10-24mm-f-4-r-ois-lens-review-24514

http://www.ephotozine.com/article/canon-ef-17-40mm-f-4-0l-usm-interchangeable-lens-review-14840

Look at the MTF charts, the Fuji certainly looks to be the better performer.

Fujifilm Fujinon XF 10-24mm f/4 R OIS Performance
At 10mm, sharpness is already outstanding in the centre of the frame at maximum aperture and the clarity achieved towards the edges of the frame falls just short of excellent levels. Stopping down just one stop to f/5.6 results in peak performance across the frame, with outstanding sharpness from edge to edge.

Zooming to 18mm results in increased sharpness across the frame, with outstanding sharpness in the centre complimented by excellent clarity towards the edges of the frame. As is the case at 10mm, peak performance is realised at f/5.6 with outstanding sharpness being produced across the frame.

Finally, at 24mm, the lens still performs very well. At maximum aperture, sharpness in the centre of the frame is excellent and towards the edges of the frame it is very good. Stopping down to f/8 at this focal length results in peak performance across the frame. Sharpness is excellent from edge-to-edge at this setting.

Canon EF 17-40mm f/4.0L USM: Performance
During testing, this optic proved itself capable of producing images of excellent sharpness across the frame at optimum apertures. At 17mm, the centre sharpness at maximum aperture is already excellent and the quality towards the edges is acceptable. One strange aspect of the images produced by this lens I noticed was that right out into the corners at f/4 apertures the sharpness drops off very suddenly. Stopping down seems to go some way to resolving this, but not completely. At 17mm peak quality is achieved at f/8, although again the far corners appear very soft. The transition from sharp to soft is very sudden, almost like a circular vignette just creeping into the edges of the image area.

Zooming to 28mm seems to resolve the issue with soft corners, and although the quality towards the edges isn't excellent at f/4, it is still good. Stopping down improves the quality towards the edges dramatically and peak quality is also achieved at f/8 at this focal length.

Finally at 40mm the difference in quality between the centre of the image and towards the edges of the image becomes greater, although the issue with sudden softness in the very far corners appears to have vanished. Peak quality across the frame is now at f/11 where the centre is very good, and the quality towards the edges not too far behind.
 
Last edited:
Yeah but then read the lenstip reviews and get almost the opposite! I've never even held a 10-24 but wouldn't rely on bench tests - rent one and try. Or better still try a few and make sure you get a good copy. UWA zooms seem like complicated beasts, especially if they add image stabilisation. I would expect a fair bit of sample variation so make sure you get a good one.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top