XF 90mm f/2 R is on the roadmap

Started 6 months ago | Discussions thread
Caerolle
Senior MemberPosts: 1,783Gear list
Like?
Re: I'm excited. But I'd be more excited if it was faster
In reply to shigzeo, 6 months ago

shigzeo ? wrote:

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.

I don't know anything about Nikon lenses, but I am pretty sure that my Canon 85/1.8 is nowhere near as sharp wide open as the Fuji 56/1.2 is. Same goes for my 50/1.4 at 2.0 and the Fuji 35/1.4. And of course the 56/1.2 is far cheaper than the Canon 50/1.2. It doesn't have to cover as large an area, of course, and I think the build quality is better on the Canon (plus it has mechanical manual focus!), but it isn't as sharp wide open, and has focal plain curvature and horrid focus shift. You have to shoot it in the center, and either wide-open or stopped down. I shoot a lot with my 50 at 2.0 - 4.0, and that is worst-case for getting focus with the 50/1.2.

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 give 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.

I think every format has a sweet spot for particular applications. If you don't need much DOF, or really low light performance, a m4/3 will do what you need, likely. If you tons of detail, you use LF, I guess, and join the f/64 club, if you need large DOF. For most of us, APS-C with very fast lenses or 35mm with fairly fast lenses covers a pretty good range of what we need to do, maybe?

-- hide signature --

Not because I think they are good, but because I would like to improve (feel free to provide me with feedback):
http://500px.com/carolteater

 Caerolle's gear list:Caerolle's gear list
Canon EOS 6D Canon EF 50mm f/1.4 USM Canon EF 85mm f/1.8 USM Canon EF 28mm f/2.8 IS USM Tamron SP 90mm F2.8 Di VC USD 1:1 Macro
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