Fujinon 10-24mm f/4 OIS Review
The Fujifilm Fujinon 10-24mm f/4 OIS is their widest angle lens in their current lens lineup for the X mount. It covers an equivalent focal length of 15-35mm on full-frame, making it Fujifilm's equivalent of the Nikon and Canon 16-35mm f/4 VR/IS lenses. This makes the Fuji 10-24mm f/4 OIS an extremely useful lens for landscape and architecture photographers. The f/4 aperture is large enough for most shooting and the inbuilt stabilisation (OIS) allows you to hand-hold this lens down to less than 1/4s at the wide end, making it extremely useful for low light photography.
For an overview of the Fujifilm X system, see my Fujifilm X System Guide. For other reviews of Fujifilm X System gear, click here to see my complete list of Fujifilm gear reviews.
In this review, apart from discussing this lens itself, I'll also be discussing it in comparison to other lenses as well as touching on a really important issue - whether you need an ultra-wide angle lens and how ultra-wide angle lenses are difficult to use compared to normal and telephoto lenses.
Weighing in at only 404g, it's significantly lighter than the Nikon 16-35mm f/4 VR (which is around 650g) as well as the Canon equivalent. It is the only Fuji X mount lens which goes this wide. The next widest is the Zeiss 12mm, followed by the Fuji 14mm f/2.8, which is only barely 'ultra-wide'. This lens is optically and mechanically excellent, matching the tack sharp Nikon 16-35mm f/4 VR, but the Fuji is much better built, being made out of all metal apart from the zoom ring, which is rubber-covered plastic. Mechanically, this lens is excellent, the best built ultra-wide I've ever used.
Unlike the Nikon and Canon lenses on full-frame, the depth of field with this lens is much greater at 10mm f/4 than the Canon and Nikon lenses are at 16mm f/4, thus, allowing you to shoot wide-open and still get everything in focus. With wide-angles, you're always struggling to get more in focus, unlike with telephotos, where you're struggling to get less in focus to isolate subjects.
For an overview of the Fujifilm X system, see my Fujifilm X System Guide. For other reviews of Fujifilm X System gear, click here to see my complete list of Fujifilm gear reviews.
In this review, apart from discussing this lens itself, I'll also be discussing it in comparison to other lenses as well as touching on a really important issue - whether you need an ultra-wide angle lens and how ultra-wide angle lenses are difficult to use compared to normal and telephoto lenses.
Weighing in at only 404g, it's significantly lighter than the Nikon 16-35mm f/4 VR (which is around 650g) as well as the Canon equivalent. It is the only Fuji X mount lens which goes this wide. The next widest is the Zeiss 12mm, followed by the Fuji 14mm f/2.8, which is only barely 'ultra-wide'. This lens is optically and mechanically excellent, matching the tack sharp Nikon 16-35mm f/4 VR, but the Fuji is much better built, being made out of all metal apart from the zoom ring, which is rubber-covered plastic. Mechanically, this lens is excellent, the best built ultra-wide I've ever used.
Unlike the Nikon and Canon lenses on full-frame, the depth of field with this lens is much greater at 10mm f/4 than the Canon and Nikon lenses are at 16mm f/4, thus, allowing you to shoot wide-open and still get everything in focus. With wide-angles, you're always struggling to get more in focus, unlike with telephotos, where you're struggling to get less in focus to isolate subjects.
I use this lens for a variety of assignments, mostly shooting landscapes, cityscapes and architecture. An ultra-wide lens is a very important lens in any kit. Unlike telephoto lenses, which are used to isolate subjects, ultra-wide lenses allow you to get extremely close to your subjects, giving your pictures much greater 'presence'. The aim of wide-angle lenses is not just to 'get it all in', but to deliver an expansive field of view. For interior architecture, this makes open spaces look much larger and more spacious than they usually are and for landscapes and exterior architectures, they make the subject appear much larger and dominating over its background.
Wide lenses are the most difficult type of lens to use. A slight tilt in the angle of your camera can throw off perspective in any of the three dimensions and it's extremely difficult and requires a lot of practice and patience to take notice of parallel lines and make sure that they do not converge, unless that's the shot you're going for. Personally, I didn't start using ultra-wide lenses until very recently, because I have always been more of a portrait photographer - but after getting into cityscapes and landscapes, the field of views you can get from an ultra-wide up close to a building is much more powerful than backing up with a normal lens.
Whilst the difference of 10mm to 16mm (e.g. as found in the 16-55mm f/2.8 or the upcoming 16mm f/1.4 prime) might seem like only a tiny fraction, 16mm is actually 60% narrower than 10mm, a significant amount, as we need to measure focal lengths logarithmically, not linearly. It is a similar difference between 50mm and 85mm, or 200mm and 320mm, hardly an insignificant difference. Every single millimetre at the wide-end can be extremely important.
Wide lenses are the most difficult type of lens to use. A slight tilt in the angle of your camera can throw off perspective in any of the three dimensions and it's extremely difficult and requires a lot of practice and patience to take notice of parallel lines and make sure that they do not converge, unless that's the shot you're going for. Personally, I didn't start using ultra-wide lenses until very recently, because I have always been more of a portrait photographer - but after getting into cityscapes and landscapes, the field of views you can get from an ultra-wide up close to a building is much more powerful than backing up with a normal lens.
Whilst the difference of 10mm to 16mm (e.g. as found in the 16-55mm f/2.8 or the upcoming 16mm f/1.4 prime) might seem like only a tiny fraction, 16mm is actually 60% narrower than 10mm, a significant amount, as we need to measure focal lengths logarithmically, not linearly. It is a similar difference between 50mm and 85mm, or 200mm and 320mm, hardly an insignificant difference. Every single millimetre at the wide-end can be extremely important.
Specifications
|
What's in the Box
The box contains a minimalist design and like the more modern Fujinon lenses (all of the Fuji X lenses apart from the original three - 18mm f/2.0, 35mm f/1.4, 60mm f/2.4), the box is made from simple corrugated cardboard which contains:
The lens wrapping cloth is an oversized carrying bag that is useful to throw the lens in when packing it in a bag so it doesn't get scratched. It provides no meaningful protection against knocks or drops.
- The Fujinon 10-24mm f/4 OIS lens itself
- Petal-style lens hood
- Front and rear caps
- Lens wrapping cloth and documentation
The lens wrapping cloth is an oversized carrying bag that is useful to throw the lens in when packing it in a bag so it doesn't get scratched. It provides no meaningful protection against knocks or drops.
Samples
I took this lens out on a day in Melbourne as its first assignment, paired with my excellent X-T1. It performed admirably well, filling in the last gap on the Fujifilm system. Fuji has always covered the middle 'standard' focal lengths well with their 23mm f/1.4, 35mm f/1.4 and 56mm f/1.2 all being extremely sharp and well-built lenses - this set of three covers around a wider-normal to a short-telephoto perspective.
Prior to the release of the 10-24mm f/4 OIS, their widest lens was the 14mm f/2.8, which is certainly wide, but not 'ultra-wide' by any definition of the word. As you can see from the samples, the 10-24mm f/4 OIS does not disappoint, it's tack sharp, the depth of field is insane at f/4, allowing me to shoot at ISO200 - ISO400 in indoor locations, with the help of OIS, which allowed me to go as low as 1/4s and still get sharp shots.
Unfortunately, I'm not a landscape and nature photographer, so I can't provide any samples of this lens for use in landscapes, but it's a great lens for architecture and streetscapes. I even used it for some street work and it's amazing. It's so refreshing to try something different and go super wide so you can just drink in all of your surroundings. This is actually significantly wider at 10mm than what you're probably used to if you've been shooting with something like the 18mm f/2 or even the 14mm f/2.8.
Autofocus with this lens is extremely fast. In lower light, it takes a little longer, but doesn't hunt. Autofocus is silent. If you're used to pro DSLR lenses, it will be slower, but it's more than plenty fast enough for almost all uses. Because the autofocus sensors of the X-T1 are on the sensor rather than on a separate module, it does not suffer from missing focus the way a DSLR can. Focus is not as fast as a DSLR, but in terms of accuracy, when the focus is found and locked, the pictures always turn out tack sharp because of how well the focus has locked and how accurate the on sensor phase-detect autofocus system is. The key point stopping many from achieving sharp images, provided they have decent technique and equipment is missed focus. The Fuji mirrorless system definitely helps here.
Don't take my word on the sharpness of this lens - check out the samples here to see how sharp this lens can be and how clean the images come out.
Prior to the release of the 10-24mm f/4 OIS, their widest lens was the 14mm f/2.8, which is certainly wide, but not 'ultra-wide' by any definition of the word. As you can see from the samples, the 10-24mm f/4 OIS does not disappoint, it's tack sharp, the depth of field is insane at f/4, allowing me to shoot at ISO200 - ISO400 in indoor locations, with the help of OIS, which allowed me to go as low as 1/4s and still get sharp shots.
Unfortunately, I'm not a landscape and nature photographer, so I can't provide any samples of this lens for use in landscapes, but it's a great lens for architecture and streetscapes. I even used it for some street work and it's amazing. It's so refreshing to try something different and go super wide so you can just drink in all of your surroundings. This is actually significantly wider at 10mm than what you're probably used to if you've been shooting with something like the 18mm f/2 or even the 14mm f/2.8.
Autofocus with this lens is extremely fast. In lower light, it takes a little longer, but doesn't hunt. Autofocus is silent. If you're used to pro DSLR lenses, it will be slower, but it's more than plenty fast enough for almost all uses. Because the autofocus sensors of the X-T1 are on the sensor rather than on a separate module, it does not suffer from missing focus the way a DSLR can. Focus is not as fast as a DSLR, but in terms of accuracy, when the focus is found and locked, the pictures always turn out tack sharp because of how well the focus has locked and how accurate the on sensor phase-detect autofocus system is. The key point stopping many from achieving sharp images, provided they have decent technique and equipment is missed focus. The Fuji mirrorless system definitely helps here.
Don't take my word on the sharpness of this lens - check out the samples here to see how sharp this lens can be and how clean the images come out.
Compared to Fuji 14mm f/2.8
The Fuji 14mm f/2.8 is a great lens with rave reviews all over the internet. It's sharp, it's well built, it's metal, but the only problem is it's not as wide as this 10-24mm f/4 OIS. The difference between 14mm and 10mm is quite significant, in fact, the 14mm f/2.8 is 40% narrower than the 10-24mm f/4 OIS at the widest end. This causes a noticeable change in perspective and makes these two lenses very different.
The 14mm f/2.8 is very much a landscape lens, it manually focuses very well (the 10-24mm f/4 OIS doesn't manually focus as well) and it features depth of field engravings for zone focusing. It's a great lens, but I feel that unlike the 18mm f/2, the 14mm f/2.8 doesn't really have much merit over the 10-24mm f/4 OIS. In terms of sharpness, perhaps the 14mm f/2.8 is sharper, but the 10-24mm f/4 OIS is more than plenty sharp for what you can do with it and considering that the 14mm f/2.8 isn't actually that much faster than the 10-24mm f/4 OIS (only one stop, double the amount of light), it's really a wash, especially when you consider that the 10-24mm f/4 OIS has OIS, which allows you to hand hold down to 1/4s at the wider end consistently.
The 14mm f/2.8 is almost as expensive as the 10-24mm f/4 OIS, so when you consider that, there's no real merit to the 14mm f/2.8 either. It's not even significantly lighter than the zoom. Unless you have a specific need for a prime, e.g. if that's just an emotional thing, then I would go for the 10-24mm f/4 OIS. Even if you only ever intend to use it at 14mm, still go with the zoom and have 4mm of extra ultra-wide goodness for when you need it, it's just a better option at the moment.
The 14mm f/2.8 is very much a landscape lens, it manually focuses very well (the 10-24mm f/4 OIS doesn't manually focus as well) and it features depth of field engravings for zone focusing. It's a great lens, but I feel that unlike the 18mm f/2, the 14mm f/2.8 doesn't really have much merit over the 10-24mm f/4 OIS. In terms of sharpness, perhaps the 14mm f/2.8 is sharper, but the 10-24mm f/4 OIS is more than plenty sharp for what you can do with it and considering that the 14mm f/2.8 isn't actually that much faster than the 10-24mm f/4 OIS (only one stop, double the amount of light), it's really a wash, especially when you consider that the 10-24mm f/4 OIS has OIS, which allows you to hand hold down to 1/4s at the wider end consistently.
The 14mm f/2.8 is almost as expensive as the 10-24mm f/4 OIS, so when you consider that, there's no real merit to the 14mm f/2.8 either. It's not even significantly lighter than the zoom. Unless you have a specific need for a prime, e.g. if that's just an emotional thing, then I would go for the 10-24mm f/4 OIS. Even if you only ever intend to use it at 14mm, still go with the zoom and have 4mm of extra ultra-wide goodness for when you need it, it's just a better option at the moment.
Compared to Fuji 18mm f/2
This is an easy recommendation to make because they are both such different lenses. The Fuji 18mm f/2 weighs in at around 120g, making it just less than a third the weight of this 10-24mm f/4 zoom. You don't buy a 10-24mm f/4 zoom to use it at around 18mm and higher, because you can either just get the tiny 18mm f/2 or you can just use your kit lens instead - you buy a 10-24mm f/4 zoom to use it at 10-14mm, where no other lens can give you the same perspective.
The 10-24mm f/4 is significantly wider than the 18mm f/2. The 18mm f/2 is predominantly a wide-angle street lens. Like the Fuji 27mm f/2.8, it's a lens designed to be small, inconspicuous and to allow you to shoot without people noticing or paying attention to you. The 10-24mm f/4 is not that sort of lens. The 10-24mm f/4, despite being small compared to DSLR lenses, still attracts attention and people will notice you. This makes these two lenses a very different proposition and which one to get completely depends on what you intend to use it for.
For street shooting, small size and inconspicuousness, get the 18mm f/2. For optimal image quality and just supreme ultra-wide goodness, get the 10-24mm f/4 OIS. There is no competition between these two lenses - it's not that the 10-24mm f/4 OIS is better - it's that they are different lenses, comparing them would be similar to comparing a Olympic sprinter to a swimmer - very different characteristics and requirements.
The 10-24mm f/4 is significantly wider than the 18mm f/2. The 18mm f/2 is predominantly a wide-angle street lens. Like the Fuji 27mm f/2.8, it's a lens designed to be small, inconspicuous and to allow you to shoot without people noticing or paying attention to you. The 10-24mm f/4 is not that sort of lens. The 10-24mm f/4, despite being small compared to DSLR lenses, still attracts attention and people will notice you. This makes these two lenses a very different proposition and which one to get completely depends on what you intend to use it for.
For street shooting, small size and inconspicuousness, get the 18mm f/2. For optimal image quality and just supreme ultra-wide goodness, get the 10-24mm f/4 OIS. There is no competition between these two lenses - it's not that the 10-24mm f/4 OIS is better - it's that they are different lenses, comparing them would be similar to comparing a Olympic sprinter to a swimmer - very different characteristics and requirements.
Integrating the 10-24mm into a System
With the release of the 10-24mm f/4, 16-55mm f/2.8 and 50-140mm f/2.8, Fuji have released a trinity of professional class zooms for their X mount cameras that allow you to fully replicate the classic trinity of zoom lenses on DSLRs - i.e. the 16-35mm, 24-70mm and 70-200mm zooms. This is bound to be popular with wedding and event shooters who require this great combination of lenses.
Personally, I find it fits very well in any kit. Because Fuji doesn't have any other wide-angle lenses that go anywhere near as wide as this, this is an important lens. I find it fits very well with a set of primes which cover the normal to short-telephoto perspective very well. Even though zooms like this never look great on the small X mount bodies, this is an optically and mechanically excellent lens and whilst I would love for Fuji to release a 10mm prime, it's not going to happen because ultra-wides have always sold less well than their normal and telephoto lens counterparts. This is the same reason why Nikon and Canon don't have any modern primes going wider than 20mm on full-frame, similar to Fuji's widest 14mm f/2.8 prime for its X mount cameras.
Personally, I find it fits very well in any kit. Because Fuji doesn't have any other wide-angle lenses that go anywhere near as wide as this, this is an important lens. I find it fits very well with a set of primes which cover the normal to short-telephoto perspective very well. Even though zooms like this never look great on the small X mount bodies, this is an optically and mechanically excellent lens and whilst I would love for Fuji to release a 10mm prime, it's not going to happen because ultra-wides have always sold less well than their normal and telephoto lens counterparts. This is the same reason why Nikon and Canon don't have any modern primes going wider than 20mm on full-frame, similar to Fuji's widest 14mm f/2.8 prime for its X mount cameras.
Do You Need an Ultra-Wide?
This is a tough question to answer. There's a reason why kits usually come with a standard zoom and a telephoto zoom, but no ultra-wide lenses, it's because ultra-wides are notoriously difficult to use and their applications are extremely specific. If we take a standard zoom, e.g. a 16-55mm f/2.8, we would find that many (if not most) people would need to get closer than 55mm just because they can't get close enough to their subject - whether that be their kids playing sport, wildlife at the zoo or that pretty tree that's 100m away.
Now let's look at the other end of the spectrum, how often do you think most photographers would actually need to go wider than 16mm. Whilst 16mm (24mm eq.) isn't that wide to us wide-angle-loving photographers, it's plenty wide for most people. There aren't many things where you actually need to go wider than 16mm because you can't get far enough away to capture the shot you need.
This is what forms my personal opinion on whether you should buy the 10-24mm f/4 OIS, or any other ultra-wide lens in general. It's a speciality lens. It's not for simply 'going wider', it's for photographers who understand the value of the wide perspective and want to physically get close to their subjects in order to immerse their viewers into a scene. If you don't quite understand the value of this immersive perspective, purchasing the 10-24mm f/4 OIS isn't a great idea. It's just that you won't use it - you'll get really boring images if you're not always consistently thinking about getting closer. Perhaps play around with your other standard zoom, e.g. your 16-55mm f/2.8 or 18-55mm f/2.8-4 OIS first and have a feel for what you can do at the wide-end before splurging on a lens like this.
Now let's look at the other end of the spectrum, how often do you think most photographers would actually need to go wider than 16mm. Whilst 16mm (24mm eq.) isn't that wide to us wide-angle-loving photographers, it's plenty wide for most people. There aren't many things where you actually need to go wider than 16mm because you can't get far enough away to capture the shot you need.
This is what forms my personal opinion on whether you should buy the 10-24mm f/4 OIS, or any other ultra-wide lens in general. It's a speciality lens. It's not for simply 'going wider', it's for photographers who understand the value of the wide perspective and want to physically get close to their subjects in order to immerse their viewers into a scene. If you don't quite understand the value of this immersive perspective, purchasing the 10-24mm f/4 OIS isn't a great idea. It's just that you won't use it - you'll get really boring images if you're not always consistently thinking about getting closer. Perhaps play around with your other standard zoom, e.g. your 16-55mm f/2.8 or 18-55mm f/2.8-4 OIS first and have a feel for what you can do at the wide-end before splurging on a lens like this.