Canon Full-Frame vs Fuji X
Stupid Comparison №476
You might have picked up on the fact that I’m a big fan of the Fuji X System. Yes, I do love my little Fuji’s. I especially love my XPro-2 with the smaller primes. I never talk about it and certainly never did any sort of comparison between the Fuji X cameras I use with other systems I use concurrently. Sure I’ve made an off-handed remark here and there about characteristics I love about the X-System say compared to various other camera systems I’ve used but never any sort of head-to-head. I ran into someone the other day who is also a Fuji X fan and user. A brief conversation with him/her prompted me to do a ridiculously stupid head-to-head comparison with another camera system I happen to use (and also love for different reasons).
I happen to be in the (un)enviable position of maintaining multiple camera systems for reasons both justified as well as insane. I’ll not detail or go thru all of them instead I’ll cut to the chase and focus in on the camera I was using that particular day and what provoked the referenced conversation. I happened to be using one of my Canon full-frame DSLR bodies (actually I only have Canon full-frame bodies and never had any of their APS-C cameras). Without repeating the entire conversation let me summarize an observation I’ve made more than a few times that again manifested itself; Different camera user communities (via the internet) develop their own myths, and rules, and sets of common wisdom that are often used to somehow compare specific things across brands. The truth of those common wisdoms are usually pure fallacy.
Today’s Match-up: Canon 24–105 f/4 L vs. Fuji 18–55 XF
Yes today I’m going to compare two completely different lenses on two completely different cameras. Not because of their similarities but because of the fact that via the internet they are complete opposites. Yep both are commonly referred to as “kit lenses” just because you can buy both with a camera body in the same box. Honestly that term is ridiculous in that neither in any way compare to the garbage (sometimes sharp garbage) that come in the form of plastic mount sub $100 stuff from almost all the manufacturers on lower end bodies. Both of the above referenced lenses put a way larger dent on one’s wallet than than $100.
The vast difference in those two lenses are not in focal length range nor IQ, nor a few hundred dollars in price, nor even the minor difference in maximum aperture at the wide end. Well then what is the huge chasm? Well… the Canon 24–105 4L is probably the most underrated lens while the Fuji 18–55 XF is probably the most overrated lens on the interwebs.
Go ahead ask either community about either lens. The Canon guys will tell you absolutely positively you must must must not use the 24–105 for any sort of professional work. Sure they’ll tell you it’s a great walk-about lens, sure they’ll tell you it’s great for all those vacation shots, sure they’ll tell you it’s a good deal but never ever will they tell you it’s great and perfectly suitable for just about anything. In fact I’m absolutely sure more than a few will tell you not to waste your money and just get the 28–70 2.8L because it’s so night and day.
Now go ask the Fuji guys, sure they’ll be the odd man out that will say “meh” about the 18–55 XF but the vast majority will tell you it’s like some sort of magic that only Fuji could possibly deliver for a whopping $700–800. At least the Canon guys realize because a lens sometimes comes bundled with a camera in terms of being called a “kit lens” once you cross that $500 mark and start north to $1000 it better be damned good. No magic required.
So why am I so focused on this? Why would I say one is overrated and one is underrated? Well, if anyone ever claims to get inferior results the Fuji guys instant solution is that the claimant “must have a bad copy”. Nobody ever bothers to figure out if those inferior results are actually the same as everyone else gets. No of course every once in a while technique and user error do come up. On the other side the Canon people instantly solve the problem by getting a “real L lens” like the 28–70 2.8L or the 35 1.4L or… See where I’m going here?
Okay enough of that. I’ve used multiple copies of both the Fuji and Canon “kit lenses”. Here’s the thing, very very very consistently the Canon is has better IQ under more circumstances than the 18–55 does. In fact I would rate the Canon 24–105 4L better across the board no matter how you slice it than the 18–55 XF. In many cases a lot better. The only two things I would have to give Fuji the win on is size (ummm no shit), and feel. With the feel thing I quite literally mean the way it feels, not necessarily the build quality. In fact the Canon feels better built and probably is more durable in the long run even though it’s plastic on the exterior.
You should be able to see the appropriate info in the screen shots. Feel free to download the full-sized screen shot if you want. Both lenses are pretty good, I shot each at f/5.6 and similar focal lengths although I generally feel that the Fuji is a bit longer than what it reports as the focal length. I see this consistently when compared to the Fuji primes as well. Pretty much it’s not really 18, 23, or 35 compared to those primes, it’s a hair longer (more than the lens corrections cut out, well everything except at 55 where it feels a little shorter??? Maybe Fuji is cheating on that 18–55 range a bit?).
Note this is an idiotic comparison especially due to the fact that I’m using the XT-1 for the Fuji lens because it was laying on my desk and I’m using the 5Ds R for the Canon umm, just because none of the Canon bodies where laying on my desk and I wanted to prove a point. Look ou actually can use the 24–105 4L on the 5Ds R without the world coming to an end.
Here’s a secret but don’t tell any of my commercial clients. I shoot the 24–105 4L all the time in the studio on the 5Ds R and it looks great. It’s far more convenient than a 24–70 in a lot of cases and honestly except for cases where I’ve got very specific needs in terms of crazy absolute detail even under studio conditions you’d never see the difference between the 24–105 4L and the 28–70 2.8L II. In fact when I’ve got those sorts of setups I’ll use a prime. Usually a really good macro but that’s another story.
I’m pretty positive other Canon shooters that don’t have time for the web find the 24–105 4L fantastic for real-world stuff in the studio at f/8 or f/11 or f/5.6 or f/4 even. Rarely do you need a 3:2 so the edge performance doesn’t even enter into the equation. Ummmm, why do I want to use a really heavy lens that has less reach for a 5:4 again? So I can get that corner way over there on a 3:2 super perfect?????
Anyway, hmmmmmm, what did we just see? The 18–55 XF looks kinda crappy at 50mm equiv doesn’t it. Hmmm what is this, the shitty 24–105 4L holds up at 50 mega-pixels?? WTF?
Holy crap, damn that crapy 24–105 4L looks pretty damned good especially at the 85 equiv next to the “most wonderful kit lens in the world that only Fuji can figure out”. How about at 50 megapixels?
Be careful, you might be seeing a hair of break down here on the Canon at 50 mega-pixels all the way in but most likely you’re seen how small the DOF is vs the exact point of focus at 85mm. Trust me it’s hard for me to tell what’s what but I see more DOF issues than I do any sort of break down in resolving power if I try to locate the exact point of focus. The Fuji blows at 55 by the way. My biggest complaint about that lens is it’s mediocre performance and very strange a little softer in the middle than a bit farther out. Do I have a “bad copy”? No, it’s the same as the rest of the “good copies”.
The Bottom Line
Do I really think the 24–105 4L is underrated? It most certainly is. Probably not by anyone that actually uses it to make tons of pictures of high quality every day instead of arm-chair quarterbacking relative lens goodness. Does it have flaws? Yes it does. I’ll let you know what I think of them in a second. Is it really better than the Fuji 18–55? In many ways it’s a lot better except for the size but that’s why we like the Fuji X cameras right?
So what are the “issues” with the 24–105 4L?
- Distortion. Yep, gobs of it except for the very middle of the range. Don’t care for 80% of what I shoot even without the lens corrections but with lens corrections it’s fine for 95% of what I shoot.
- Corner performance. Yep, not nearly as good as the 24–70 2.8L II or a bunch of other L and non-L glass. Again who cares for 90% of what I make pictures of. There’s nothing in focus at the corners anyway even on 3:2 but mostly those corners/edges on the long end never see the light of day. If they did see above.
- Creep… Yep, it has some degree of creep if you let the lens hang down. So does the Fuji. That would be a giant pain in the ass if what I did all day was shoot at 24mm and I needed to do so really quick but most of the time the camera was hanging with the lens pointed down and it crept to 50mm. Oh gee, I don’t do that. Does anyone?? Sure I would like it to be perfect but in all honesty I really don’t care. It doesn’t spontaneously flop all over the map when I’m shooting or anything. Truth is if you hang any zoom at your side there’s a good chance it will come back up to your eye slightly different than it was set at for 82 reasons. In reality I never ever ever have noticed any sort of problem with this. I usually hang my camera down at my side on a strap when I’m DONE shooting a particular POV.
- Are their lenses that can and do resolve better? Absolutely but the degree of perfection to exercise that ability is ever and ever more demanding. I don’t mean on-the-fly vs studio either. I mean rock solid setups that do not move, tilt-shift-y stuff, etc. Do I do that when required, sure. Wrong lens. Is that all the time? Nope, Does that mean there’s a discernable difference with good technique on most subjects ummm, nope.
So how is the 24–105 4L better?
- Range for one. Honestly I personally don’t give a shit about 24 for 80% of shooting that lens but I do care a lot about the 105mm reach. Bonus, more reach on both ends.
- The IS is more predictable in my use (don’t use it much to be blunt)
- Overall the IQ/resolution seem to be a step above where I need/want/see it.
- My guess is that the Canon is actually more durable. It’s definitely better sealed.
Here’s a couple of other notes from our discussion which I did prove on-the-spot to my fellow Fuji lover. Take that last picture side by side of the full view. The Fuji is at least 2/3 stop slower in real world exposure give all settings the same even at base ISO of 200. Yes Fuji cheats on the ISO numbers. This becomes wider the farther up the scale you go. Think the Fuji’s are really really that much better at ISO than everything else? Wrong, take about a stop off whatever you think your shooting at… probably more if you are comparing high ISO’s. Are they “bad”, not they are not but they are not magic.
Here’s the super funny thing. Focusing… Are the new Fuji’s better than the old ones? Yep, Are they as good as pro-level AF on DSLR’s? Nope, not even last generations, or the generation before that. They are fine but go ahead try just about any pro-level DSLR AF system and feel the difference. It’s night and day (my Fuji buddy was shocked at the 5Ds R AF in even normal dim conditions vs the XPro-2 and XT-2) A lot of people that switched from Can-Nikon to Fuji a generation ago and found those cameras “workable” sort of forgot how good a D4 or D5 or D810 or 1Dx or… was and then somehow when Fuji jumped up a bit with the XT/XPro-2 thought somehow it was now on par or better… not a chance. This is especially true in a darkish studio environment.
More later. Sorry if this sounds like a bunch of complaints or Fuji bashing, it’s not. I love my XPro-2, I love a lot of my Fuji glass but does that mean it’s the cats meow on all fronts? No. Same goes for the current Sony A7rII / A9 craze. Yes, they are new. Ever notice how the internet industry goes apeshit over new? In my opinion the A9 completely sucks in many ways at the price point. I’m not impressed at all given I can have just about anything at that cost.
The A7rII has all sorts of things that cases me not to even want to use it for anything. Not nearly as small as you’d think give you’ve got to have full-frame glass anyway (the actually big part of most kits). EVF’s in general just suck. I think almost everyone can agree they suck using them out in broad daylight, they also suck in the relative darkness of studio environments. Honestly they just plain suck. I guess if you don’t give a shit about viewfinders they are fine but in reality if you do they just suck period. They certainly suck less than they did 5 years ago. Hell I even had to admit they don’t throw my timing off like they used to (making them unusable for a people shooter like me) but they are not nearly as enjoyable as an optical viewfinder. That’s one of the reasons I love my XPro-2…
Ps. Did Sony iron out that flash sync problem where it really won’t sync at 1/250th with anything but their system? I kinda remember it was more like 1/80th if you wanted no vignetting with any of the major wireless studio triggers… yeah, I want to put up with that. Oh yeah, they have a few good lenses that are not at all cheap. Too bad you can’t just slap Zeiss on the side of a very subpar lens like say ummm the 28–70 f/4 and it be okay. You want to talk about an overrated $1200 lens… Jesus that 28–70 f/4 sucks in so many ways at that price. I can’t tell you how much better the 25–105 is… people do say the 2.8 is “better”. No idea if that’s true. You get my point. Yes I am writing this on the internet but don’t let the internet dictate what works for you and do not measure results through some sort of internet common wisdom filter. Measure for yourself, test for yourself, use your own eyes and decide what best suits your needs. No don’t do analysis based on common wisdom and internet relative valuations/ratings/etc. Go out, use the stuff, look at the results, make sure you know what you are looking at when you do. Only you can decide on the gear that will produce the results you need/want/clients desire.
