Thanks so much, glad you found it useful

Thanks so much, glad you enjoyed it (Abraço)

Thanks so much for the comment, really glad you find the videos so useful.

Thanks so much, I'm really glad you enjoy the videos

Thanks so much for the comment, glad you enjoyed the review. And yes, the Faroe Islands are spectacular

Thanks so much for the comment, really glad to know the videos are useful. Good luck with the Fuji system, I'm sure you'll be happy with it

Thanks so much for your comment, really glad you enjoyed the video and my work. I’d love to see you on one of my workshops, drop me an email if there’s anything you’re interested in

Thanks so much for the comment, really glad you found it useful. I'm sure you'll love the lens

Haha, you love those shots because you're in them Hamish! I actually have some where I photoshopped you out, but I prefer these because of the scale and that little splash of red. As for the lens, it's a superb lens...probably the lens I've used most in all my years as a photographer, and the build quality is great. Glad you enjoyed the video, hope you're safe and well

Thanks so much, I'm hoping to have it ready in a couple of weeks

@@AndyMumford maybe you could do me a favor and have a short test if the 70-300 is any good for some really casual bird shootings? Just from an amateur perspective. Maybe a good all around er. Thanks a lot!👍

Thanks so much, really glad you enjoyed my work

Thanks so much, glad you found it useful

Thanks for the comment. It's a great lens, enjoy it

Thanks so much, glad it was useful

Thanks for the comment, glad you enjoyed the review

Thanks so much for the comment, glad you enjoy the images

Thanks for the comment. A number of people have mentioned that about the focus distance. Even so, the lens is about 9cm long, plus 1cm to the sensor and then 7 cm from the front of the lens to the subject...it's still considerably less than the 24cm Fuji claim

Thanks so much, glad you found it useful. I honestly don't know about the focal length...I'm wondering if it might be that when i sent my copy to Fuji to have the optics realigned that something changed then

Thanks for the comment. It's a great lens, you'll love it

Thanks for the comment, glad you enjoyed the video

Thanks, glad you enjoyed the review. And yeah, I agree, the older version is better value in most cases

Thanks so much, glad you like it

Thanks so much for the comment, glad you enjoyed the video

Thanks so much, glad you enjoyed the video. Indeed, it's just a great lens

Haha, thanks so much I'm glad you found it useful. Well, I'm an ambassador for Fuji and they sent me this lens for review, and it's always nice to be able to get to try new stuff

Thanks so much, glad you enjoyed it

Thanks for the comment. A number of people have mentioned that about the focus distance. Even so, the lens is about 9cm long, plus 1cm to the sensor and then 7 cm from the front of the lens to the subject...it's still considerably less than the 24cm Fuji claim

Thanks for the comment, glad you enjoyed it...and yes, the ice cave is something special. As for the difference in focal length, I wonder if it's just my copy. As I said I had mine fixed when I noticed a lack of sharpness and wonder if something happened then. Who knows?

@@AndyMumford Do you suppose that Fuji updated the built-in correction with the new version? That would explain the difference. It would be interesting to compare the two images without correction and see if the difference persisted.

@@timothylinn I hadn't thought of that!

在@@AndyMumford

yeah that picture was amazing!

Cheers for the comment, enjoy the camera

No problem. I've got the Tamron 17-70 f2.8 as my everyday walkabout. Looking to get into landscape a bit more. The 10-24 looks ideal. Thanks again.

Thanks for the comment, glad you enjoyed the review. I'm sure you'll love the lens, it really is awesome

yeah! i agree with that

Thanks so much for the comment

Hi Odile, I hope you and Philip are well. I hope we can start the workshops soon too. Drop me an email any time :)

It's a great lens, you'll be happy with it

Thanks for the comment, that’s interesting to find out

I'm not sure, it may be. Although it should still the same for both lenses in the same software. Someone else said that they noticed a difference in 2 versions of the old one, so it could just be manufacturing variation

Hi Nathan, glad you found the video useful. Actually, it's now about 6 and a half years with the original non WR version of this lens, and it's still going strong

The aperture ring is really nice :-)

I'll be starting with it next week and hopefully should have the review up in 2 weeks

@@AndyMumford Yes! waiting for this review too! Hopefully you will test it with the TC as well. Can't wait.

Waiting on the same! Even thou i already pre-ordered 30-700 since i still had the return window open for 55-200

@@AndyMumford I can't wait! I have the 16-80mm and it would make sense to get the 70-300mm, but it all depends on if IQ is as good as the 55-200mm.

@@zemekiel the 70-300 is sharper than 55-200 and after 135mm the difference is quite significant

I've always found the best aperture for sharpness and depth of field is f7.1 I very rarely go above f11

Thanks so much for the comment, hope you found it useful

Dunno, I no longer have the lens as I just borrowed it from Fuji for a few weeks. I didn't shoot video with it, so I don't know about breathing, but I didn't notice the aperture ring moving. The one I used was pretty stiff

Thanks so much, glad you found the video useful

Fujifilm is an awesome system!

I also have the 35, but mine is the f1.4. It’s a wonderful lens

Thanks for the comment, glad the video was useful

Thanks for the comment. Yes, focal breathing is important for anyone who’s shooting focal stacked images

Yeah, I'm still super happy with the 10-24 Mk 1

Glad you enjoyed the video and found it useful. You can't go wrong with either version really, it's just a great lens

exactly!sometimes you have to go with the more considerate option and you would be surprised how it can be just as good as the expensive one!

Thanks for the comment, glad you enjoyed it. Have fun with the lens

Thanks so much for the comment, glad you liked the review. I've used it on loads of cameras from the XT10 all the way up to the XT4. I use quite a lot of lenses like the XF55-200 that aren't weather sealed, and various cameras like the XS10 and XT30 regardless of weather conditions and have never had issues with any of them.

Thanks for the comment. Well, the lens performs at it's best at 10-12mm, but that doesn't mean it's unusable or not very good at other focal lengths. I use the whole of the zoom range and it's fine, it's just at it's best at 10-12mm.

That's an interesting comment about the OIS affecting the sharpness David. I never found out what it was but that seems very possible

I've just done a review of the 70-300...i think they go quite well together, although it's a big gap between 24 and 70mm

The focus speed is identical as far as I could tell

Thanks so much, glad you enjoyed the video. Yes, I'm thinking about taking the GFX on a couple of trips with me and one of the things that puts me off is the limited choice at wide angle.

@@AndyMumford I've got the 23 which you should try if you haven't already. it equates to around 18mm so fairly wide but is super, super sharp.

Thanks Julius, glad you enjoyed it. I forgot to compare the sunstars, but it does look a little nicer

I think it would be fine. It's the same size more or less as the 55-200, and I've used that on the XT30 many many times

Thanks so much for the comment and the kind words. I almost never need to focus stack with the X system, but with the GFX, which has much less depth of field, I have to focus stack a lot

Thanks so much

Thanks for the comment. For video you probably want a variable ND filter. Moment make some really nice ones

It's a solid lens, and I've since used it in some really harsh conditions and it's been fine

It’s a great lens. F2.8 would be lovely, but it would make the lens a lot bigger, heavier and more expensive

@@AndyMumford Actually not so much. The Tamron 11-20 f/2.8 for Sony aps-c is rather decently sized with only 67mm filter thread, and $100 cheaper. It lacks ois but I'll take 1 more stop over the ois any day. My only gripe with Sony is they are soulless machines. I enjoy photography much more with Fuji cameras, moreso than I thought I ever would.

The conversion rate is x1.5, so the 10-24 is 15-36mm equivalent, and the Fuji 8-16mm is 12-24mm equivalent, so almost identical to the Canon in focal length

Thanks for the comment. I already have the 70-300mm with me (it's a pre-release the Fuji lent me) and I should have the review out in two weeks

@@AndyMumford awesome looking forward to your review!

Not sure. I actually recorded a section on CA/purple fringing for this review but left it out to stop the review from becoming overly long. I didn't see a problem though in really high contrast

Thanks fo rate comment. I'd love it if Fuji could produce a really wide f2.8 prime like 12mm or 10mm because the 14mm just isn't wide enough in a lot of cases

Railcars up close at night with flash? That's really interesting. Are your images online?

@@timothylinn Yes, they are. And when I post a link my reply is removed. Interesting.

@@senior_ranger That’s odd. I wasn’t aware that posed a problem either.

@@timothylinn I found your Flickr so sent the link there!

I don't know, i haven't tried the Samyang yet, but I might pick one up in the summer.

@@AndyMumford thanks!!

Thanks for the comment, really glad you enjoy the videos. No, the white text is still there on the front of the lens. I don't have a problem with it anymore since I stopped using square filters, it only seemed to be an issue with square filters...possible because the sit further away from the front element.

good point!

I think the WR gives a fair bit of piece of mind

@@AndyMumford it does, but as you pointed out - you can get by without it. It is a nice lens though.

yeah! same here

Thanks for pointing that out...I'm terrible for typos, but it's fixed now. Glad you enjoyed the review, hope it was useful

@@AndyMumford Very helpful and very useful actually. I much prefer the "here's what I do with the lens" approach vs "here's the tech specs" approach most reviewers take. I do enjoy both landscape and astrophotography, so I plan on getting both the 10-24 and 8-16 at some point.

Thanks for the comment, glad you liked the review. I never use UV filters at all

@@AndyMumford Thank you for your quick response. I’m getting settled to sell my Nikon gear and replace with Fujifilm’s X Series. Your advice has REALLY helped me.

Thanks for the comment, glad you enjoyed the video. I've never had problems with dust getting in the lens to be honest. I have used it in some really dusty environments like Iceland, but that's just been on trips there and not the extended amount of time yours must be exposed to it living there. The other things is that I only use 2 lenses (10-24 and 55-200) on most landscape trips, and I have two bodies, so the lenses are never removed in the field

@@AndyMumford Thanks so much for your reply! That makes a lot of sense - I do have several bodies as I make my income doing commercial work, and I never thought to simply keep the lenses on two of them when I'm out doing landscape jobs. The dust certainly accumulates the most when I'm swapping primes out at things like weddings and events, during which I usually get a few wide images with the 10-24. Thanks again for the reply and wonderful videos!

I honestly can't say, I no longer have the lens and never tried a sunstar with it

fuji is the way to gooo!

Ah, Timothy...I replied to a comment below before I saw this one. So yes, the decoration in the apartment got changed around. The grid artwork are actually framed Amazonian Indian head-dresses and they got move the living room while the print got moved to above the cabinet. If you've seen any of my older videos, the table where I work used to be in that other side of the apartment and the cabinet was there with the print above it. The living room was near the windows (where the table is now) but they got switched round because there's more light near the windows, but after we moved the furniture we never got around to moving the wall decorations because getting all of the frames for the head dresses level was really tricky...and so we kept putting it off :-) Still, its done now. With the 8-16mm, it's not that I undersold it...I never really intended to talk about it as I didn't want this to be a comparison video between the two (rather the old and new versions of the 10-24mm), but I ended speaking about it because I felt that I couldn't not talk about it, and did say it has better image quality. My feeling though is that they are very different beasts. I've already talked about it in the other comment I made, and you're right, my use case is different because I don't take a mid-range zoom (I've owned them in the past and then never used them...I simply don't shoot in that focal range unless I'm doing environmental portraits, and for that I use the 35mm 1.4) I'm also quite different to a lot of people because I really don't care all that much about image quality...I mean, it's important to me, but not near the top of my list of priorities. As I said in my other comment, there's always a compromise at some level...by using APS-C we're making a compromise, and so "good enough" is different for everyone. For me, I think it's perhaps lower than many people as when I ditched my Nikon D800E (and I had all the f2.8 lenses for when I shot weddings) I never looked at Fuji's "best" lenses like the 16mm, the 16-55mm or the 50-140mm, just the ones that worked best for me. it's one of the wonderful aspects of photography though that we're all catered for, but I do agree with you about the 10-24mm...I would have been happier if Fuji remade the lens with better optics....but more than anything, as I said below, a 10mm f2.8 prime would be the lens I most want from Fuji.

@@AndyMumford Thanks for taking the time to elaborate on your thoughts. I think your approach to gear makes a lot of sense. My wife, a teacher, would say you're better adjusted. :-)

thank you for that!pretty useful

Yeah, it's my favourite lens too

I agree. Of all the improvements that Fuji did make, the marked aperture ring is the nicest. Why the original 10-24 didn't get one has always been a question. It is the only fixed-aperture zoom that didn't have that.

That's a really good deal! Yeah, to be honest I think you're as well with the Mk1 unless you really really want those aperture markings

rightt! it makes sense

I'd go for the 10-24mm as it's more flexible.

For me it's just trial and error...which one's I've generally got the best results at

Thanks for letting me know, I've sorted it out now. Glad you liked the video

@@AndyMumford Anytime Andy and thank you for the video :)

Maybe, it depends if I can get hold of one

Using the exposure compensation dial just reduces exposure in the same way that reducing shutter speed or aperture does (depending on whether you're shooting in aperture or shutter priority). You can't mimic the effect of an ND filter though, as until deep in the blue hour there's still too much light to be able to get a long enough exposure to blur water. Besides, when you reduce the aperture beyond f13 you'll get diffraction which softens the image

That's a tricky one, it depends a lot on style and type of landscapes. I don't know the Appalachian trail, so I don't know what you'll be shooting, but I generally go with a wide zoom and a telezoom. I tend to take the 10-24mm and 55-200mm on each trip

Glad you enjoyed the video. Funny you should say that about the filters as my previous video was all about filters kzfaq.info/get/bejne/l61olclhzL7TZoU.html Hope you find it useful

@@AndyMumford haha it's true you have a video on this topic and I hadn't seen it, thanks again and what an incredible photographic work

I don't think the 10-24mm is too big..its quite compact and think it's fine for general photography. Something like the Zeiss 12mm would be great, but it lacks a little bit of the flexibility of a zoom

@@AndyMumford thanks for the insight, hope one day I can afford to go to one of your workshops!

Thanks for the comment. Fireworks are much much brighter than stars so you’ ll probably be fine with this lens. As for the built in stabilization replacing a gimbal, it really doesn’t. It’s helpful to remove shake when hand holding and standing still, but if you make any movements with the camera it’s nothing like the smoothness you’ll get with a gimbal

@@AndyMumford ​ Much appreciated! Hmm.. So do I need an camera with IBIS instead of throwing money into a lens? Basically the only issue I have with using the gimbal is I cannot pop out my viewfinder to face us when vlogging particularly at a table. The Crane M2 doesn't allow you to lock the gimbal, which would solve the issue.. when the viewfinder is popped out, the gimbal can no longer handle it and goes into 'tilt' mode for lack of a better term.. I suppose if I had the wide angle lens I mentioned we would likely be in the shot even with a gimbal. Final Q: Would a lens like this solve the horrid auto-focus with the standard lens?

Thanks for the comment, that's an interesting observation

Hard to say, it's really personal. I can appreciate the faster aperture of the 18mm gives you more options for low light, and 18mm is a decent focal length for street, but as a landscape shooter it's just not wide enough, and most of my images are at f7,1 to f11, so for me the 10-24mm is pretty much essential

@@AndyMumford I came to the same conclusion. I went trough my photographs and found out that the majority of pictures where shot from 10-16mm. So no question what lens suits me the best. The 18mm still attracts me very much. Might be a lens for a purchase in future.

I don't have the 16-55mm, although I've been thinking of borrowing it to review it. It does work well with the 50-140mm, but for me the 16-55 isn't wide enough Glad you liked Lisbon, it's a wonderful city

That's a good deal

Thanks so much, glad you enjoy the videos and find them useful, and interesting comments on how the lens may have changed...I never thought of that, but I suspect you might be right about the coatings. With the change in focal length, I'm wondering if that's just my version as I had the optics recalibrated by Fuji after I dinged it and it started to be a little soft, and I wondered if that was could be the cause. And thanks for your comments on the apartment..the patio will look better in a month or so when Spring comes along

Thank you Andy.

Thanks so much, glad you enjoyed the review. I didn't attach the lens hood because I honestly never use them. The field of view is so wide, and so the lens hood so small to keep out of the field of view that they are next to useless in shading the lens. Particularly as they're at the widest at the top and bottom, and most landscape shooters are shooting when the sun is low and the light coming from the side. It's more effective if you're shooting with a tripod to use your hand to shade the lens.

@@AndyMumford Wow, that was quick replay, thanks. There are situations when I use the hood, mostly without, but old lens hood is kind of weird, especially when you're attaching it backwards, hopefully they followed 16-80, to improve that mechanism.

@@DjCjFoto I agree with @Andy Mumford most landscape Photographer left out the hood especially doing with stacked filters like multi ND or GND, imho using hands for anti flares are more practical and fast...😁

@@DjCjFoto By the way, I saw your email, but I seem to have lost it (my inbox has been snowed under these last days), but to answer your question here, I will make sure I test the 70-300mm at f5.6 :)

@@AndyMumford I would really like to know how it performs at 300mm/f5.6, how comparable it is to XF100-400mm at 400mm/f5.6, and 55-200 at 200mm/f4.8. That kind of lens should be strong at long end wide open. I can take it to be weaker at short end, it's used mostly for landscape, so you can step down to f7.1/8, but for wild life, when fast shooter speeds are used, f5.6 is curtail. Thank you so much for your effort!

Not saying you've got a bad plan, Amaurie, but Andy doesn't really stress the main benefit of the 8-16 in this video, which is IQ. The 8-16 has superior IQ. It's certainly sharper toward the edges and corners, and its IQ is generally more consistent across the frame, across the aperture range (until you become diffraction-limited), and the zoom range. That's not to say the 10-24 wouldn't be good enough for your own use case. Andy obviously feels that the other benefits of the 10-24 outweigh the 8-16's IQ advantage.

Indeed the 8-16mm is certainly better optically, and I stressed that in my review. The thing with image quality though is what's "good enough" because there's always something better (for example the GFX system has better IQ than my X Series) so everything is about that point of compromise that you're willing to make between different factors like quality, convenience, weight and cost. For me the 8-16 is severely limited by it's size and weight, but then again, I always carry two bodies and a drone with a couple of batteries, so if you're not carrying that, then the weight isn't really an issue. Likewise I only take two lenses, a tele on one body and a wide angle on the other, and with the 8-16mm I'd lose a focal range that I shoot in a lot (the 16-24mm range), which would mean taking a 3rd lens, which then adds more weight. For me the extra quality doesn't make the extra weight and inconvenience worthwhile, but that's just me, it's just my personal point of compromise...it's why I choose to shoot with the 55-200 instead of the 50-140 and don't bother with any primes (apart from the 35mm 1.4, which I love), but I can understand that everyone is different. Personally, I wish Fuji would make an ultra wide fast prime like a 10 or 12mm f2 with the sharpness and speed of the the 8-16mm, but the size and weight of a prime.

Hi Amaurie, I think it depends a lot. First of all, what are you upgraded from to the X-T4? If you don't need IS or the flip around screen then the X-T3 is every bit as good as the X-T4 (I actually know a couple of people who switched back after upgrading because they hated the XT4 screen). As Timothy below said, the 8-16mm is a super sharp lens, but you know that as you already have it, and you've shot with the original 10-24mm, so you know the difference in quality. Do you feel you'll miss the quality of the 8-16mm? Another possibility is picking up an older version of the 10-24mm if you can live without the weather sealing and aperture ring (both of which I know I can), and then you could perhaps keep both lenses.

@@AndyMumford IQ is not really the reason why I bought the 8-16mm in the first place. I bought it because I wanted one lens for everything meaning that I could shoot landscapes and Astro too because of the 2.8 aperture. I loved the 10-24mm and to be honest it’s not like I’m blown away with the IQ of the 8-16mm. I could easy go back to the 10-24mm and be happy with it. So now on the XT4, I’m coming from the XT3 and it might sound silly and stupid but I was shooting the other day with the XPro3 and I was using Classic Neg and when I switched to the XT3 and I didn’t have the Film Sim I felt I lost the mood of the photos that I was taking. Yes, I applied the Film Sim later in C. One but I didn’t feel the same. I just felt that it was time to upgrade now since I could get a decent amount for my XT3 now that is not on sale and not wait later for a new camera to come and then I have to spend more in the long wrong. Sometimes I tried to maximize sales and upgrade accordingly if you know what I mean

There is now the Viltrox 13mm 1.4!

*chance

I think that's what happened to mine, but since I got it fixed it's been OK

@@AndyMumford do you think the new design might have fixed that issue?

I've used it with the XT5 pretty much since the camera came out. I can't tell you whether it resolves the full potential of the sensor or not...but I've been perfectly happy with the results and there's certainly a lot more resolution than with the XT4

@@AndyMumford thanks for your update :) I sold my 10-24 some years ago but I’m starting to feel the Need to have something wider and the WR version seems the be the obvious choice. I do find it strange that Fuji kept the same optical formula as this is was one of the oldest lens on the X line.

Ah, that would make sense...but still, I think it's closer than Fuji claim. The lens is about 11cm, plus the distance to the sensor...maybe 1cm, so 12 cm plus the 7cm I measured is still quite a bit less than 24cm.

@@AndyMumfordok that's interesting. Btw I'm not even shooting fuji but love your videos. You have a very calm attitude which makes the videos relaxing to watch 👍🏻

I have the 14mm 2.8. I haven't used it for landscapes yet, but I plan to soon. From the little time that I've had with it I can tell you that optically it is beautiful and it is super sharp.

I used to have the 14mm, it's a great lens, super sharp, although slow to focus. I sold it though because it wasn't wide enough to replace the 10-24mm and not wide enough for astro. I really wish Fuji would make a fast 10mm or 12mm prime

One of my first lenses. I find it great for landscapes. High IQ. I find the 21mm (equivalent) focal length to be very nice. It's wide enough for most landscapes without making you deal with excessive perspective distortion if your camera isn't perfectly level.

It's one of those lenses that isn't talked about. I kind of like that because it makes it stand apart from the crowd. I am interested in this new 10-24mm.

You should get filters to fit the largest diameter lens you have, then get step up/adaptor rings for the lenses with a smaller diameter. This has a relatively small filter diameter, so if you've got something like the 10-24mm, the 16-80mm or 16-55mm, you should get filters that fit those larger lenses

@@AndyMumford thanks a lot for taking the time to answer, really appreciate it! I'm pretty confident now what size I will choose. Thanks again, Andy.

I haven’t used the some of those lenses there, but it’s certainly sharper in the corners than the Laowa 9mm. I used to own the XF14mm, and there’s not that much difference, but the 14mm is sharper. I’m using the Viltrox 13mm at the moment in Namibia and will have a review of it shortly. I haven’t used it enough to say how well it performs though

Thanks so much. It has a name but I forget, but it's actually an "earthquake cage". Lisbon was devastated by a huge earthquake in 1755 and the houses built in the 150 years after (my building is from around 1800) that have these wooden frames that go all the way through the house and are designed to flex in an earthquake. Usually you don't see them as they are inside the walls, but we knocked down some of the interiors walls in the apartment to connect rooms and let more light through, and decided to leave the structure because it's a part of the houses history...you can still see the chips from the axe strikes from when the trees were cut down almost 200 years (because it was supposed to be hidden in a wall the wood wasn't treated or plained or sanded at all). Now buildings are all made from concrete structures and these structures aren't used any more.

@@AndyMumford oh wow historic buildings, that is pretty cool, only in Europe where people still live in buildings built centuries ago.