XF 90mm f/2 R is on the roadmap

Started Jul 24, 2014 | Discussions thread
Senior MemberPosts: 1,493Gear list
Re: I'm excited. But I'd be more excited if it was faster
In reply to wyldberi, Jul 26, 2014

wyldberi wrote:

shigzeo ? wrote:

The Nikon and Canon 1,4 lenses are ver nice on a speed booster on an X. Otherwise they function very like a 135/2,0 lens, which is even more interesting. The 2,0 speed of the Fujifilm will of course make the 90 act like a 135/2,8, which is still decent. The funny thing is how big this lens will be. 90/2 lenses are big. 135/2,8 lenses are not. But because to achieve the equivalent speed/etc., the 90 will be big.

The apparent angle of view of a lens changes when the size of the recording medium changes. That's why the 90mm lens on an APS-C sensor will have an equivalent FOV of a 135mm lens.

The aperture of a lens does not change, ever. An f/2.0 lens has an aperture of f/2.0 always.

The lens does not change. That is an 'of course'. But the sensor size does, hence, as you say, the FOV. And when mounted to a smaller sensor, the exposure metering remains the same as the lens still is an f/2 lens, but the image captured will look like it was taken with a 135/2,8 lens on FF.

The point is that APS-C gives one set of monetary savings: bodies are a bit cheaper than equivalent FF dSLR cameras (6D, D600 being the closest to the X-T1 in build quality and feature set). But lenses are more expensive.

A 135/2,8 FF SLR lens is a budget lens. So is an 85/2 lens (the look of which the 56/1,2 pretty much replicates). But we are spending at least twice the amount on lenses when compared to their equivalents in both DOF and FOV. An 85/1,8 Nikkor costs around 500$ or less. A 50/1,8 costs less than 200$. A 35/2 far less than the 23/1,4 XF lens.

And the APS-C lenses, because they are wide angle in compared to their FF counter parts (in order to achieve the same FOV), they often are larger.

Of course, this conversation extends far beyond FF and APS-C. I shoot large format lenses on a variety of digital cameras, MF, APS-C, and FF 35mm. These lenses are considered wide angle on their native mounts, but on any of the above-mentioned formats, they are moderate to telephoto lenses.

And an aperture opening of f/5,6 on 6x7 or 4x5 will giveĀ a shallow DOF even at wide angle, whereas on APS-C or FF 35mm or even MF, that effect is diminished. It's not the lens that changes, it's the camera. In order to replicate the same look on an APS-C camera, I would need something like a 16/1,4 - 2 lens, which is massive, expensive, and unwieldy.

Almost always, equivalents (in both DOF and FOV) play out in favour of the larger formats. They are less expensive as they can use cheaper glass, less of it, and the lenses don't have to be so large. Returns are diminished when long lenses are taken into account. Still, LF lenses are tiny next to their equivalents elsewhere. The cameras, however, are huge.

In the case of APS-C, however, today's 'compact' cameras like the X-T1 are about the same size as a 35mm SLR from the 1990s. My FE is roughly the same size as the X-T1. In some areas it is longer, in others, it is shorter.

So I'm the lad who very well knows the tradeoffs of APS-C, am willing to talk about them, and hoping that Fujifilm will begin designing lenses that are smaller, cheaper, and focused on keeping total system volume down rather than building only equivalents, which are expensive, large, and in some cases, unwieldy.

I also wish that some of the XF lenses would better match the styling of the X-Pro 1, which looks amazing with rangefinder-style lenses mounted, and awkward with SLR lenses mounted.

 shigzeo's gear list:shigzeo's gear list
Nikon D200 Fujifilm X-Pro1 Nikon D800 Leica M Typ 240 Sony Alpha 7R +9 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Post (hide subjects)Posted by
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark post MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow