Skip to content


  1. Tim L
    August 24, 2021 @ 7:09 pm

    Optically, the XF10-24 F4 is a good but not great lens. Whether or not it is “good enough” really depends on your reference point. Regardless though, I consider it inexcusable that Fuji chose to update the feature set of one of their oldest lens designs without addressing its optical shortcomings. It may be that Fuji’s user base just doesn’t care enough about high-end zooms to justify the effort and expense on Fuji’s part. Canon’s latest RF 14-35 F4 lens is proof that it is possible to create a small ultrawide zoom with excellent edge-to-edge IQ across the aperture range. Fuji seems to lack either the commitment or the engineering firepower to create a 10-24 of this caliber.


    • Geoffrey
      September 7, 2021 @ 5:55 am

      Having no experience using the new Canon lens you mentioned I can’t really comment on the IQ comparison between the two. However, in the scope of the article I would argue that the 10-24mm is Fuji’s most practical and the best option for wide angle zooms. The 8-16mm is where you want to look if you want the absolute best optical performance; but for the price and physical attributes of the 8-16mm, the 10-24mm is easily the more superior. I won’t disagree that I would have loved an update to the optics of the 10-24mm, its corner blur can be frustrating at times, especially with forest scenes where the frame is filled with detail. But I’ve found that more often than not software can makeup for that.


      • Tim L
        September 7, 2021 @ 4:16 pm

        If I’m understanding what you mean when you say “practical and best option” then I agree. It is small and light. It takes filters. And it’s focal range is sufficient for the vast majority of needs. F4 is fast enough for an ultrawide. That’s what makes Fuji’s neglect of the optics so frustrating for me. It is a missed opportunity.


  2. Jamie
    September 7, 2021 @ 3:37 am

    Incredible shots! Thanks for sharing them and doing this write-up! 🙂


  3. Pseudo Breccia
    February 1, 2022 @ 11:14 pm

    I find it hard to believe that the cover shot of the mountain peak jutting from the clouds was taken with a 10-24mm lens. It was likely taken with a telephoto.


  4. J.
    November 14, 2022 @ 6:33 pm

    Which film simulation did you use for this image, looks great.


  5. Fabio Morniroli
    January 4, 2024 @ 8:03 pm

    Very nice pics! Can you please tell me more details about the last shot? Did you use JPEG or Raw? In case of JPEG did you use any film recipe? Thanks!


    • Geoffrey
      January 5, 2024 @ 2:01 am

      Hey there, the last image was shot as a RAW image and then processed in CaptureOne. That said, for city images like that I typically shoot a recipe similar to the following (Classic Chrome, Shadows -0.5, Clarity +1. WB Flourescent or WB K4500) Hopefully that helps!


Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

The maximum upload file size: 96 MB. You can upload: image, audio, video, document, spreadsheet, interactive, text, archive, code, other. Links to YouTube, Facebook, Twitter and other services inserted in the comment text will be automatically embedded. Drop file here