Fujinon's Th16x5.5BRMU VS HTs18x4.2BRM - how good are your eyes

[Jeffrey Butler]

I'm sitting right in the middle with the 17. I actually think it's a pretty solid in the middle of these two lenses. I think I want a 20. =D

[Werner Wesp]

Originally Posted by Marc Colemont

At IBC last month I tried the 18x4.2BRM. It's a nice piece of equipment, but I was turned off and surprized to see still a lot of CA while zoomed in all the way.

Indeed, there's still CA with the Fuji 18x (and that's to be expected). CA seems to be a lot less aggressive on the 18x though...

I remember being somewhat dissapointed with this when I had the 18x in my hand for the first time.

Still, a serious improvement over the 16x: wider angle, more crispness at longer focal lengths (I encourage people to make no shots over 50mm or so with the stock lens).
Furthermore is the 16x no real inner focus lens. Using a matte box, you'll squize the 16x too tight, getting the focus stuck.

Originally Posted by Brian Luce

A 11,000 dollar lens on a 6,000 camera seems like an awkward ratio. Nearly 2:1. Anyone know what ratios the big boys use? Or is 2:1 common?

Yep, it isn't that uncommon. Broadcast wide angle lens 2/3 inch : +/- 35k, SD camera body : 10k-25k.
Not to mension 8k for a 35mm adapter and 10k+ for a 35mm lens.

[John Mitchell]

I bought the 13x from B&H when it came down in price and it's been superb. Most of our shooting was indoor on commercial premises and the wider angle made sense.

I'd question the value of the 18x as well - it really comes down to the longevity of the format. The great thing about buying a 2/3" or 1/2" piece of expensive glass was that it would outlast the back. I'm not so sure with 1/3" that we'll see too many more cameras in this format (I hope we do). It is definitely not a straight monetary equation though - in stills land you can pay ten times as much for the glass as for the body. If you need it and you can earn money off it, then it is worth it. For example - if I were shooting sport, the extra throw and clarity along with the extra wide angle might be worth it.


Of course there would be a great deal of very expensive SD glass that will slowly become obsolete regardless of the image size.

[Alex Humphrey]

yes, 18 is much better... but too price for me. I might rent it for something big. OK. have to ask, does anyone have comparison shots with the less expensive 17?

[Werner Wesp]

I have the 17x lying here. It seems like a nice improvement, especially at the long end of the lens. I'll post some images if I have the time...