Fujifilm XF 10-24mm F4 R OIS Review

4.5
March 31, 2014 | Mark Goldstein |

Your Comments

14 Comments | Newest Oldest First | Post a Comment

#1 Anurag

Not a good review. It does not say whether you checked distortion by switching off the in-camera correction or not. I am sure the lens has heavy optical distortion towards 10mm and my camera being X-E1 will not correct it

2:44 pm - Monday, March 31, 2014

#2 Thomas

I also would like to know if the distortion was checked on JPG- or RAW-files. Would you please enlighten us? Thanks, and the rest of the review is great and well made.

9:03 pm - Monday, March 31, 2014

#3 Philipp

@Anurag
“I am sure the lens has heavy optical distortion towards 10mm and my camera being X-E1 will not correct it”
———————————
I’m actually pretty sure there would have been a firmware update issued, if distortion was a problem…
And I have a strong feeling, the reviewers weren’t talking about auto correction, when they stated that the lens shows remarkably low distortion… :-)

12:53 am - Tuesday, April 1, 2014

#4 Arnold

Unfortunately if have a bad copy and i will return this one for another copy. When I got home and did some testing, I noticed that the right part of the frame was very blurry, even @ f/8. But sometimes the left frame was unsharp. Looks like an element is de-centered or loose.

But for the rest it’s a great lens, very sturdy build, beautiful damped focus and zoom rings. Did some testing against flare also, and found no decreasing contrast or scattering when pointing the lens directly to the sun. I tried hard to get some flaring with the sun comming in at all parts of the frame, but i simply couldn’t produce flare, the image stayed clear, clean and contrasty all the time, well done Fuji!

5:00 am - Tuesday, April 1, 2014

#5 Dave

I think they probably tested distortion using JPEGs or RAWs converted in ACR (which applies automatic distortion correction with no way to turn it off). The lens definitely does have distortion, you can see an example with no distortion correction here: http://www.dpreview.com/forums/thread/3644124

8:36 am - Wednesday, April 2, 2014

#6 Thomas

Thanks Dave. I think the reviewer was fooled by Fujis in-raw correction. I’ve never heard of this until today. I think it’s unbelievable what Fuji is doing there. I really like their stuff, but a raw file should not be modified in any kind.

10:30 am - Wednesday, April 2, 2014

#7 Dave

@Thomas Fuji don’t actually remove the distortion in the RAW file - if you use Capture One to convert your RAWs then you can turn off distortion correction. Instead I think it is likely that the RAW file contains lens correction data that Adobe uses automatically with no way for you to tell the software not to. (A failing on Adobe’s part in my opinion - sometimes better edge sharpness is a worthwhile trade-off for some distortion).

Having said that, I don’t actually own, nor have I ever used the 10-24mm lens, so I could be wrong. But that is my experience with the 16-50mm kit lens: http://www.davidkennardphotography.com/blog/861-fujifilm-x-m1-vs-x-a1-w-16-50mm-kit-lens-acr-capture-one-compared.xhtml

12:02 pm - Wednesday, April 2, 2014

#8 Bob

Solid review - but I’d love to see a comparison with another wide angle lens in the “same” league like the Panasonic 7-14mm. Any chance you can comment on which lens is better?

5:58 pm - Wednesday, April 2, 2014

#9 Steve W

Interesting that the Zeiss Touit 12mm was not included as a competitive solution. Also I believe Rokinon also has a lens in this range as well.

3:05 am - Friday, April 4, 2014

#10 Philipp

@Steve W
Why should they? All the lenses you mentioned are primes. Real point in comparing them to a zoom lens. Although it might be interesting to know how the 10-24 compares to the primes in the same focal length range when it comes to IQ.12/14/23mm. But at what aperture? All wide open?

But are they rivals? You cannot mount all those primes to the camera at the same time. Hence not quite the flexibility the zoom offers. Then again, you cannot open up the zoom as wide as any of the primes (especually the 23/1.4 of course).

12:55 am - Saturday, April 5, 2014

#11 Anurag

The review says that the lens does not have distortion however, as I knew that the lens has it, which is clearly visible in the photos here: http://www.thedigitaltrekker.com/2014/03/a-few-thoughts-of-the-fujifilm-xf10-24mm-f4-r-ois/

6:53 pm - Sunday, April 13, 2014

#12 Dave

@Anurag That article is talking about rectilinear distortion, not lens distortion. Of course rectilinear distortion will be present in a wideangle lens, unless you are using a fisheye lens.

8:14 pm - Sunday, April 13, 2014

#13 Anurag

Dave, whichever distortion it is, it is absent in Canon 10-22mm. So, it will be difficult for me to accept the Fujinon 10-24mm

4:24 pm - Tuesday, April 15, 2014

#14 ok20500

It is a bit misleading, that in the sample images page, the focal lengths given are not actual focal lengths (between 10mm and 24mm), but rather effective focal lengths (comparable to 35mm film. In my opinion, one should always report the actual physical focal length…

11:49 am - Sunday, June 8, 2014

Entry Tags

review, wide-angle, lens, fujifilm, zoom, wide angle, fuji, f4, xf, x-pro1, ultrawide, x-t1, x-series, ultra wide-angle, Fujifilm XF 10-24mm F4 R OIS, 10-24mm, ultra wide angle, 10-24, 15-36mm

Tracker Pixel for Entry