Lenses tested in order:
- XF56 F1.2
- XF55-200 F3.5-4.8
- XF35 F2
- XF10-24 F4
- XF23 F2
- XF16 F1.4
- XF16-55 F2.8
1. All shots handheld with X-T2 between 7:30-9:00 AM, indoors with natural lighting. All are RAW conversions SOOC, with no editing or cropping.
2. All shots were taken from the same spot to get a better feel for each lens and its natural focal distance.
3. Throughout the video, the zooms are consistently up to 100%.
4. Variable natural light from the window meant the clock, farthest from the window, was noisy. The chart, closest to the window, had the least amount of noise.
5. All three items are protected by a clear plastic or glass surface.
6. I was most impressed with the IQ from the 55-200 under these conditions.
7. I was least impressed with the 16-1.4, 16-55, and 23-2.
7. The 56-1.2, 35-2, and 10-24 delivered as expected.
1. The low-light performance of the 16-1.4 worries me. I expected much less noise in the given conditions.
2. I expected to be blown away by the 16-55, but in this test, I wasn’t.
3. I’ll need to look further into the possibility that the 55-200 is a good walk-around lens.
4. With the 23-2, 16-1.4, and 10-24, I’ll need to get up closer if I want certain details.
5. Variable lighting is tricky.