Fuji 10-24 - Why f/4?

[mesmerized]

Dear Fellow Users,

I'm looking at all these stunning pictures delivered by 10-24 f/4 OIS lens and I can't help myself but drool over them but... Why did Fuji make it f/4, not, say f/2.8? I'm asking out of curiosity. Nothing else.

Thanks

 

[djunclesam]

Probably mainly a size issue. And maybe just to keep the price reasonable

 

[val]

size and cost.

I would buy this for landscapes and would stop it down anyway to get everything in focus so to me they made the logical decision.

 

[Lightmancer]

It's a numbers game. 10-24 (15-36 35mm equiv.) is already quite an achievement. f4 with OIS is a reasonable compromise. f2.8 even just at the wide end would have been significantly heavier and more costly to produce and would effectively have been a "specialist" lens as a result.

 

[Bobby T]

Aside from the answers given, I would think also because this lens is aimed at landscapers. Who do not need 2.8.

 

[Mikey]

To keep price and size reasonable I would believe. For landscape or architecture, why would I need f/2.8? When I first saw the lens, I was awestruck by how it's not much bigger than the Panasonic 7-14 for micro four thirds and yet fits filters. Kudos Fuji!

 

[Ray Sachs]

To keep price and size reasonable I would believe. For landscape or architecture, why would I need f/2.8? When I first saw the lens, I was awestruck by how it's not much bigger than the Panasonic 7-14 for micro four thirds and yet fits filters. Kudos Fuji!

It's a fair amount bigger, but not huge. I'll be sort of interested in how big the coming Olympus 7-14 f2.8 "pro" lens will be. I think the 10-24 would have a been a good deal larger if they went for a constant f2.8.

-Ray

 

[Mikey]

It's a fair amount bigger, but not huge. I'll be sort of interested in how big the coming Olympus 7-14 f2.8 "pro" lens will be. I think the 10-24 would have a been a good deal larger if they went for a constant f2.8.

-Ray

The front part with a 72mm filter thread is what makes it seem a fair amount bigger than the 7-14 but it isn't really.

 

[Armanius]

How are you liking the 10-24? And what are your thoughts in comparison to the 14/2.8?

It's a fair amount bigger, but not huge. I'll be sort of interested in how big the coming Olympus 7-14 f2.8 "pro" lens will be. I think the 10-24 would have a been a good deal larger if they went for a constant f2.8.

-Ray

 

[jloden]

As others have noted, I'm sure it was for size reasons primarily, and probably cost secondarily.

I'm all for faster glass generally but for *most* of the uses of a wide angle it's not a notable difference. An exception is things like indoor event shooting or creative portraits (I've seen some fun wide angle wedding portraits for example that benefitted from the shallower DoF at f/2.8).

Another reason that springs to mind is lens overlap. The 14mm f/2.8 is already available, plus there's the nebulous "fast wide angle prime" on Fuji's roadmap. Who knows what that might be - could be a 16mm f/1.4, or a 10mm f/2.8, or any number of things that overlaps again with the existing lens lineup and offers another fast wide angle option.

 

[Ray Sachs]

How are you liking the 10-24? And what are your thoughts in comparison to the 14/2.8?

The 10-24 is a great lens, but compared to the 14mm, I have the same old zoom vs prime neurosis that's always haunted me. I just can't shoot zooms in anything close to the intended manner. My head is just broken that way. The 10-24 isn't THAT big and it basically includes every focal length I pretty much ever use (except for those very very rare occasions I actually pull out a portrait or telephoto for some specific use), so I should be able to walk around with that lens about 95% of the time. But when I actually take it out, I shoot at 10mm about 80% of the time and 24mm about 19% of the time, and I accidentally stop somewhere in the middle the other 1% of the time. So, it's a great lens, but I'll NEVER use it the way it could/should be most useful. The 14mm, OTOH, is as wide as I almost ever need, is a phenominal lens, is fast enough, works well as a street lens (although my Nikon A is still overwhelmingly my street tool of choice), is a nice size, and works in a way that my warped head is able to wrap itself around.

For anyone who likes wider angles and has the requisite mental health to cope with a zoom, the 10-24 could be an all-day every day (or most days at least) lens. For me, it's gonna be a specialty 10mm if I even keep it. It's pretty big to carry around for those rare 10mm needs - I felt similarly about the 7-14 on the m43 side. I may end up selling it and just getting the Rokinon 12mm because really 12 is wide enough to give that UWA feel (14 isn't - its wide, but it seems like a normal wide angle to me, without all of the wild lines and angles of an ultra-wide). I see a much bigger difference between 12 and 14 than I do between 10-12, which is obviously mathematically wrong, but it's the way I see the focal lengths. The Rokinon is small enough to keep in the bag for when that wide situation comes up, even though it wouldn't get a lot of use. The 10-24 feels like overkill for that role...

-Ray

 

[Stephen S]

As others have noted, I'm sure it was for size reasons primarily, and probably cost secondarily.

I'm all for faster glass generally but for *most* of the uses of a wide angle it's not a notable difference. An exception is things like indoor event shooting or creative portraits (I've seen some fun wide angle wedding portraits for example that benefitted from the shallower DoF at f/2.8).

Another reason that springs to mind is lens overlap. The 14mm f/2.8 is already available, plus there's the nebulous "fast wide angle prime" on Fuji's roadmap. Who knows what that might be - could be a 16mm f/1.4, or a 10mm f/2.8, or any number of things that overlaps again with the existing lens lineup and offers another fast wide angle option.

Good post. Fully agree. Fuji knows what it's doing with respect to design; I think f/2.8 would have been overkill with this lens, making it considerably larger and heavier. I also think that it might have been very difficult (read: expensive) to get the optical performance of the 10-24 at f/2.8 that it was able to get at f/4.

I have the Canon 17-40 f/4, and that's a wonderful lens. I've never felt the need for a faster lens, and it when it came out, it was sharper than the original 16-35/2.8. And way less costly.

 

[Stephen S]

The 10-24 is a great lens, but compared to the 14mm, I have the same old zoom vs prime neurosis that's always haunted me. I just can't shoot zooms in anything close to the intended manner. My head is just broken that way. The 10-24 isn't THAT big and it basically includes every focal length I pretty much ever use (except for those very very rare occasions I actually pull out a portrait or telephoto for some specific use), so I should be able to walk around with that lens about 95% of the time. But when I actually take it out, I shoot at 10mm about 80% of the time and 24mm about 19% of the time, and I accidentally stop somewhere in the middle the other 1% of the time. So, it's a great lens, but I'll NEVER use it the way it could/should be most useful. The 14mm, OTOH, is as wide as I almost ever need, is a phenominal lens, is fast enough, works well as a street lens (although my Nikon A is still overwhelmingly my street tool of choice), is a nice size, and works in a way that my warped head is able to wrap itself around.

For anyone who likes wider angles and has the requisite mental health to cope with a zoom, the 10-24 could be an all-day every day (or most days at least) lens. For me, it's gonna be a specialty 10mm if I even keep it. It's pretty big to carry around for those rare 10mm needs - I felt similarly about the 7-14 on the m43 side. I may end up selling it and just getting the Rokinon 12mm because really 12 is wide enough to give that UWA feel (14 isn't - its wide, but it seems like a normal wide angle to me, without all of the wild lines and angles of an ultra-wide). I see a much bigger difference between 12 and 14 than I do between 10-12, which is obviously mathematically wrong, but it's the way I see the focal lengths. The Rokinon is small enough to keep in the bag for when that wide situation comes up, even though it wouldn't get a lot of use. The 10-24 feels like overkill for that role...

-Ray

I agree, Ray. I have the 14mm 2.8 prime and find it to be a spectacular lens; virtually no distortion, incredibly sharp, and surprisingly useful (for example, most of my San Antonio pics in another thread were taken with it).

What has surprised me about the 14 is just how much I actually use it (about 45% of the time), and how versatile it have proven to be. Plus it's an amazing optic, one of the best lenses I have ever used.

 

[dmward]

What I like about the 10-24 is its versatility as a walk about lens.
It saves me having to carry and change between a really wide and a kind of wide lens on the street.
I can shoot architecture at the 10mm setting and details as well as people if it strikes my fancy.

More of from this walk about HERE

 

[c0ldc0ne]

What I like about the 10-24 is its versatility as a walk about lens.
It saves me having to carry and change between a really wide and a kind of wide lens on the street.
I can shoot architecture at the 10mm setting and details as well as people if it strikes my fancy.

More of from this walk about HERE

It looks like the gallery you linked to is architecture exclusively. Can you also share some of your portraiture with this lens to illustrate the versatility you mentioned?