Fujinon XF 50-140/2,8 LM OIS WR

I handled one of these today at Yodobashi in Akihabara. Its OIS is amazing. I'm sure I could smash through 1/20 and lower exposures inside with no problems at all. Manual focus was lousy: slow and heavy and required many turns of the focus wheel to reach either extreme. AF seemed to lock in pretty fast, but then again, with a low-res EVF, you can't eye-ball it to be sure it is locked in or not.

The short: feel/speed of MF in comparison to a 70-200/4 or 2,8 from any major manufacturer was very, very poor. But OIS way, way better. Size was comparable to its FF 70-200/4 equivalents from Nikon or Canon.

Meet Aleph, Steve Huff's bearded puppy wuppy

Oh, and Sony's awesome-looking FE 4/16-35 OSS lens wide-angle zoom lens.

Thanks, Sony Alpha Rumors.

A-Mount Surprise?

No, Sony Alpha Rumors, it is no surprise that lenses which substitute mechanical controls with cost-cutting fly-by-wire systems are, by comparison, poor for video, or anything but single focal plane photography.

Surprise at Newshsooter: A-mount lenses are much better than E-mount lenses on the FS7!

Em-Zwee-ko 40-150 f28 Pro, hey!

Oh how I wish John Stewart got ahold of this Olympus video.

via Steve Huff Photo

Fujifilm fans startled by new picture of XF 16-55 f/2,8 R

DPReview user, Robert Garcia NYC, posted the above photograph in this thread at the Fujifilm X System / SLR Talk forum. 

Reader reaction has been mixed. Readers disappointed by the lens quote its ostensible lack of OIS (optical image stabilisation), its size, and more. 

My thoughts go like this: what were you expecting? With the notable exception of the 18/2, current Fujifilm X lenses aren't small. They fall perfectly in line with APS-C lenses and FF equivalents. My hope is that Fujifilm install focus helicoids in their most expensive lenses, therefore enabling real-time manual focus override, and that that switch on the left, in the shadow of the man's palm, is for OIS. 

Bokeh Monster: Fujifilm XF 18-135 OIS review

I almost painted my iMac with a mouthful of cheese and wine when I read the following:

“The weather sealing suggests this lens is intended for the adventure enthusiast, however in our opinion, a plastic exterior does not portray rugged durability.”

and this:

“On the street its all about discretion. Sadly this lens is not very subtle (especially when extended / zoomed in). If there was ever a lens suited to the stereotypical tourist, camera and lens dangling around their neck, the 16-135mm definitely fits the bill.”

not to mention this:

“Catching the sail boat on the remarkably calm morning was good use of the telephoto end of the lens. Shot purposely wide open at F5.6 the image is a little soft (especially in the corners). An unfortunate property which has plagued the lens throughout all the test images so far. ”

and this:

“Once you sum up all the points from the widely varying situations we tossed its way, it has to be said, although it performed admirably, it is terribly boring and with little character. It does what it does with no surprises.”

Overall, Bokeh Monster gave the lens a pass, but with numerous, salient, provisos. As a Fujifilm X user, and reader of many reviews, this sort of article is refreshing. Yes, you could pick on Bokeh Monster for begging for less DOF in a lens that obviously won't give it, but you can't pick on Bokeh Monster for NOT pandering to Fujifilm like Zack Arias, nor shilling a product. This is an approved read, if not a perfect endorsement for this new lens.

Original article: FUJINON XF 18-135mm F3.5/5.6 WR OIS - Reviewed