Lenses: Did they get it right??

Started Jun 9, 2013 | Discussions
Adrian Tung
Senior MemberPosts: 2,809Gear list
Like?
Re: Lenses: Did they get it right??
In reply to lnbolch, Jun 10, 2013

lnbolch wrote:

A tribute to history—in the golden age of photojournalism half a century back, the classic kit was a rangefinder body with a 28, 50 and 90mm lens. The great shooters with Look, Life and the FSA used this combination for their timeless images. With the design of the X-Pro1, it certainly seems appropriate. Interestingly as well, the fourth lens was the 14mm—21mm equivalent view. Those who felt cramped by the 28mm added a 21mm SuperAngulon, which was the widest lens for a very long time. Fuji nailed the digital equivalent of this classic kit—perfectly appropriate for the initial offering.

I have always internally classified prime shooters as either a 35 person or a 50 person.

I can see how the 35ers will most likely not be comfortable with this lineup, whereas the 50ers will be perfectly at home with it. Fortunately, for 35mm shooters, Fuji also has a 23/1.4 in their line-up (which I am also looking forward to).

 Adrian Tung's gear list:Adrian Tung's gear list
Leica D-LUX 4 Canon EOS 10D Panasonic Lumix DMC-GX1 Canon EOS 5D Mark III Panasonic Lumix DMC-GX7 +10 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Asylum Photo
Senior MemberPosts: 1,277Gear list
Like?
Re: Lenses: Did they get it right??
In reply to deednets, Jun 10, 2013

deednets wrote:

Asylum Photo wrote:

Are you trolling, or just dense?

Zeiss and Fuji are SEPARATE companies. I quite clearly explained why Zeiss is making the lenses they are making (because Sony), and they have nothing to do with what Fuji is making.

Fuji's lens lineup has been nicely balanced so far. Is there something for everyone? Of course not, they still have releases to go. But your insinuation that Fuji is releasing Zeiss lenses that are close to their own releases is absolutely false.

If you don't find Fuji's releases up to your needs, there is plenty of wonderful other systems out there. OR you can be patient, as the 23mm and 56mm primes will be released soon. As well as the WA zoom (10-20?).

-- hide signature --

Why trolling? Noticed that whenever somebody is critical the troll-baton comes out ...no need for this really!

I was merely pondering the close range of the options available for the FUJI (not the NEX system!!!) system. Now you mention the 56/1.2 an interesting lens and I will possibly get one, but (!!!!) will then sell my 60/2.4!

You will then have the 50/2.8 Zeiss Macro, the 56/1.2, the 60/2.4 Macro and the zoom covering 55mm @4.8 ...

I was looking at what is available for the Fuji system, not for the NEX system, I wasn't pondering changing over to another system, but would have been happier than most if there had been a tad more variety rather than have a crowded space around the 14mm mark (Zeiss 12, Fuji 14mm, Voigtländer 15mm, only M-mount but mentioned here as an alternative to the 14mm Fuji) or the 56mm mark. If there are only less than 10 lenses in total why make this such a crowded affair? I get your point that Zeiss is not really worried about complimenting the Fuji range but going directly against the Fuji equivalent, because their main interest is Sony and the close proximity to the Fuji range is purely accidental, but I was commenting from a user and not so much from a manufacturer's point!

Is this really that difficult to understand where I am coming from?

Deed

Your complaints make no sense. Hence the trolling accusation.

The 56mm f1.2 and the 60mm f2.4 MACRO are two different lenses, regardless of focal length.

Zooms are zooms. Do you want the zooms to not touch 50mm ranges because there is a prime at that approx focal length? Do you want a 18-35 and a 100-200 because there is a 60mm prime?

If they released a 23mm, the 18mm and 18-55 would be "close" and you would complain about that. If they released a 100mm, you'd complain that the 55-200 covers that focal length, and that the 60mm might even be too close.

Fuji (not Zeiss, not Voigtlander (where did that come from?)) has a range of lenses by the end of the year that cover every focal length between 10mm and 200mm, what is your complaint?

-- hide signature --
 Asylum Photo's gear list:Asylum Photo's gear list
Fujifilm X-E2 Fujifilm XF 35mm F1.4 R Fujifilm XF 60mm F2.4 R Macro Fujifilm XF 14mm F2.8 R Fujifilm XF 23mm F1.4 R +2 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Daniel from Bavaria
Contributing MemberPosts: 731
Like?
Re: Lenses: Did they get it right??
In reply to deednets, Jun 10, 2013

Hi Deed,

first of all we have to accept (as many already pointed out) that Zeiss and Fuji are seperate companies. So see the Zeiss lenses just as an additional alternative and not as an addition to the available focal lengths of the X-System.

Maybe except of the 12mm, which would be a nice choice for people for who the 14mm is not wide enough.

Overall I think they nearly got it right so far.

- 14mm (21mm) - bought

- 18mm (27mm)

- 35mm (52mm) - bought

- 60mm macro (90mm macro) - bought

That's already a very nice line. In addition they brought the 18-55mm lens (bought), which is a very nice general walkaround zoom. Of course it does overlap with the primes, but primes are primes (IQ, apperture) and zooms are zooms - as with every other system it is the case.

Just recently (roughly on year after launching the system(!)), they started selling the 55-200mm, which is again a very nice and flexible addition for the tele-range. I, for example, initially have not planned to buy a tele for the XP1, as I still have my FF DSLR, nevertheless for easy travelling, again it would be a nice and handy addition

Still outstanding is the 1.2 50mm portaiture lens (I'll skip this one for sure, as for this kind of stuff I use my 1.4 85 Sigma on the 5dmkII) and the super wide angle zoom - which I know is also tempting for many people.

The only major failure I see so far is the still missing 1.4. 23mm lens. That there is still no 35mm (in terms of film) lens available is really a pitty. I always loved the 35mm on my 5d, sold it for the X100, which I still like but do not own any more, and hoped when I ditched the X100 for the XP1 that by end of 2012 (what was shown on the first roadmaps) the 23mm lens will be available.

Now by mid of 2013 I'm still desperately waiting for that lens, which is from my point of view the most important lens for that system - also to pull in some more from the Leica-crowed.

I refused to buy again a 35mm lens for the 5dmkII or again a X100(s) as a substitute for the missing 23mm lens - but now I just got weak and bought the 1.7 23mm from SLR-Magic.

Maybe I will be that happy with this lens that I may skip the 23mm from Fuji, once it hits the shelfs. So one lens less to sell for Fuji - maybe.

Overall Fuji did, in my opinion, an outstanding job with the lenses and the line-up. Quite fast, high quality primes first and the system is just a good year on the market.

Regards,

Daniel

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
David McGaughey
Senior MemberPosts: 2,245
Like?
Re: Uh, what?
In reply to deednets, Jun 10, 2013

deednets wrote:

David McGaughey wrote:

Are you aware the Zeiss and Fuji are independent companies? Are you aware that Fuji's roadmap was released long before Zeiss announced their lenses? Are you aware that those Zeiss lenses make a lot more sense to Nex users? Are you aware that a lot more Nex bodies have been sold than X-E1s and X-Pro1s?

The rest of your ranting appears to be of the "I don't like this focal length, so Fuji is stupid" variety....

Availability of lenses I had in mind and this is the Fuji Forum! I wasn't speaking for NEX users, why you think I should consider them on the Fuji Forum I find puzzling.

You got a few thumbs up for your rather constructive response so you must be right!

Good on you!

Cheers

Deed

You have this unusual idea that Zeiss should be trying to "fill holes" in Fuji's lineup. Zeiss obviously doesn't give a crap about what Fuji/Sony is doing - otherwise they would not be releasing a 32mm prime that kind of overlaps Fuji/Sony. Rather Zeiss is releasing whatever they feel is appropriate for their new mirrorless lineup. Look at their Canon/Nikon lenses - same thing. Most of their lenses are "in addition" to what Canon/Nikon already have.

As for Fuji's lenses, they have 21/28/50/90(macro) as well at 28-85 and 85-300. A fast 35, fast 85, compact 40, and a 15-35 is coming in the near(ish) future. What is your problem with this lineup? They only things I see missing are super-fast zooms (not likely - mine as well use a DSLR), a super telephoto zoom (also not likely - use a DSLR or a m43 system), and some longer primes.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
lnbolch
Senior MemberPosts: 1,862Gear list
Like?
Re: Lenses: Did they get it right??
In reply to Adrian Tung, Jun 10, 2013

Adrian Tung wrote:

lnbolch wrote:

A tribute to history—in the golden age of photojournalism half a century back, the classic kit was a rangefinder body with a 28, 50 and 90mm lens. The great shooters with Look, Life and the FSA used this combination for their timeless images. With the design of the X-Pro1, it certainly seems appropriate. Interestingly as well, the fourth lens was the 14mm—21mm equivalent view. Those who felt cramped by the 28mm added a 21mm SuperAngulon, which was the widest lens for a very long time. Fuji nailed the digital equivalent of this classic kit—perfectly appropriate for the initial offering.

I have always internally classified prime shooters as either a 35 person or a 50 person.

I can see how the 35ers will most likely not be comfortable with this lineup, whereas the 50ers will be perfectly at home with it. Fortunately, for 35mm shooters, Fuji also has a 23/1.4 in their line-up (which I am also looking forward to).

And of course they have the X100 and X100s which is a very comfortable camera along with the X-Pro1. An excellent f/2.0 35mm equivalent Fujinon that happens to have a particularly nice little camera hanging off the back end. With its leaf shutter, it syncs fill flash in harsh daylight with no problems whatever.

-- hide signature --
 lnbolch's gear list:lnbolch's gear list
Nikon Coolpix 8400 Fujifilm FinePix Real 3D W1 Fujifilm FinePix X100 Nikon D700 Fujifilm X-Pro1 +12 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Wheatfield
Senior MemberPosts: 6,297
Like?
Re: Lenses: Did they get it right??
In reply to deednets, Jun 10, 2013

It's easy to say, "they should have made a 33mm instead of a 35mm, or whatever. The fact is, they made a 35mm. Live with it or move on. They can't make a lens in every imaginable focal length.

They make a zoom that covers the oddball focal lengths.

Buy a zoom lens and be happy.

-- hide signature --

Always remember, whenever you declare someone the dumbest person on Earth, someone else will stare at their screen intently, cross their arms and say ‘Challenge accepted’.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
CraigArnold
Contributing MemberPosts: 508Gear list
Like?
Re: Lenses: Did they get it right??
In reply to deednets, Jun 10, 2013

deednets wrote:

For my personal taste the lens selection available for the Fuji's is just plainly wrong! There is the 18/2.0 (since this is a wide angle the difference versus the zoom not compelling enough for me). The 35/1.4, there seems to be a lot of people here who like that lens? The equivalent of 52.5mm on FF, close enough to 50mm. I find this lens is neither here nor there, neither close enough to be a portrait lens nor wide enough for landscapes. Close enough to the "normal" viewing angle, the way we allegedly perceive the world. Beats me what is so great about 50mm?

The traditional prime set for most photographers was either 28+50+90 or 35+85. Fuji decided to go with the 3-lens prime set at launch.That was a wise choice covering the classical wide angle, normal and short-telephoto set. And of course there was the X100 which already covered 35.

When releasing their first zoom they went for the standard zoom range of 28-80. That was certainly a wise choice. What possible other choice could there have been for a standard zoom?

But then it gets better: Fuji releases the fantastic (IMO) 14mm lens - and Zeiss releases a 12mm lens. I understand that those 2 mm are in fact quite big, but again: compelling enough or more a matter of this one or the other rather than both? Is this wise policy? Is it? Really?

Zeiss are not a Fuji partner, they have simply licensed the mount. Therefore you should expect them to create lenses in direct competition with Fuji, not as a complementary set.

So yes it is a wise policy by Zeiss to release a lens which is in direct competition with a Fuji lens where they feel they might have an advantage. Fuji have no policy addressing this question, their only policy was to allow Zeiss to license the mount.

The 32mm Zeiss (48mm versus 52.5) spot the difference?? Get both? Sure, but again: really??

Yes another excellent choice by Zeiss; they have a tradition and the skills to produce some truly extraordinary short telephoto Planar design Macro lenses. This lens should be very competitive with the Fuji offering.

Regarding the bigger zoom the 55-200, why not make a 50-150/4.0? I personally don't care about the extra 50mm (not that huge anyway) on a mirrorless system, 300mm on the wobbly EVF. Would Zeiss, not really known for their expertise re zooms fit the bill here?? I doubt it, they might make a 59/1.3 ... for some reason the lenses have to be so close to the originals, but why not a 75/1.8 by Zeiss?? Or a 90/2.0? It just had to be a 32/1.8 ...

Well done, right??

Yes another good choice. The most popular telephoto zooms have always been in the 75-300 (equivalent range) with a variable aperture. This range complements the standard zoom range very nicely and rounds out the two-zoom set that many photographers will prefer to prime lenses. Faster lenses with fixed aperture are more expensive to make and much heavier, so will be of less interest to the target market for the mirrorless segment.

Am I alone here thinking that there was a great opportunity here starting from scratch so it doesn't take rocket science, as a taxi driver/hairdresser equivalent of a photographer anywhere in the world and they might have given them some ideas. Hard to believe they would have come up with a statement like: We want a 35mm lens - and a 32mm, we would in fact buy both! Simply because some people just "need" the extra 4.5mm ...

Well lens connoisseurs will certainly like having both to choose from and ruminate at length over the subtle rendering differences.

But of course you must be joking here because obviously most people will be choosing one or the other. Zeiss are aiming to make themselves a viable choice for consumers over the Fuji lens options. Fuji presumably licensed the mount because they believe (correctly in my view) that they will be capturing extra customers by having a larger "ecosystem" available.

Why not release a 38mm lens? 2.0?? And then a 41?? You think I am exaggerating?? Well they did the 32/35 ... some people here might think this is great, I think it is wasted engineering and could have been spent differently ...

Can you really be serious? Zeiss and Fuji are different companies. Once again I feel you must be joking.

Just frustrating to see how opportunities are being wasted, but maybe they have got it right and I am just a dino with no concept as to what people really need or want these days??

No, I'm sure you are just having fun seeing what responses your post can provoke. This whole thread is just another example of Poe's law.

Anyway, it's all good fun.

-- hide signature --

Blog ------------------------ http://craigspics.net/?tag=blog
X100 Blog ----------------- http://craigspics.net/?cat=6
X100 Quickstart Guide -- http://craigspics.net/?page_id=1345

 CraigArnold's gear list:CraigArnold's gear list
Fujifilm FinePix X100 Sony Alpha 7R Sony FE 35mm F2.8 Sony FE 55mm F1.8
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Toccata47
Senior MemberPosts: 2,161
Like?
If you spent the time thinking rather than typing
In reply to deednets, Jun 10, 2013

you probably would have come up with the rather obvious answers to your rant/query. Critical thinking is good for you.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
nawknai
Contributing MemberPosts: 943Gear list
Like?
Re: Lenses: Did they get it right??
In reply to deednets, Jun 10, 2013

I hope the OP is a troll.   At least he'd have an excuse for his posts.

 nawknai's gear list:nawknai's gear list
Fujifilm FinePix X100 Fujifilm X-Pro1 +1 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
jyhfeei
Forum MemberPosts: 72Gear list
Like?
Re: Lenses: Did they get it right??
In reply to CraigArnold, Jun 10, 2013

CraigArnold wrote:

deednets wrote:

For my personal taste the lens selection available for the Fuji's is just plainly wrong! There is the 18/2.0 (since this is a wide angle the difference versus the zoom not compelling enough for me). The 35/1.4, there seems to be a lot of people here who like that lens? The equivalent of 52.5mm on FF, close enough to 50mm. I find this lens is neither here nor there, neither close enough to be a portrait lens nor wide enough for landscapes. Close enough to the "normal" viewing angle, the way we allegedly perceive the world. Beats me what is so great about 50mm?

The traditional prime set for most photographers was either 28+50+90 or 35+85. Fuji decided to go with the 3-lens prime set at launch.That was a wise choice covering the classical wide angle, normal and short-telephoto set. And of course there was the X100 which already covered 35.

When releasing their first zoom they went for the standard zoom range of 28-80. That was certainly a wise choice. What possible other choice could there have been for a standard zoom?

But then it gets better: Fuji releases the fantastic (IMO) 14mm lens - and Zeiss releases a 12mm lens. I understand that those 2 mm are in fact quite big, but again: compelling enough or more a matter of this one or the other rather than both? Is this wise policy? Is it? Really?

Zeiss are not a Fuji partner, they have simply licensed the mount. Therefore you should expect them to create lenses in direct competition with Fuji, not as a complementary set.

So yes it is a wise policy by Zeiss to release a lens which is in direct competition with a Fuji lens where they feel they might have an advantage. Fuji have no policy addressing this question, their only policy was to allow Zeiss to license the mount.

The 32mm Zeiss (48mm versus 52.5) spot the difference?? Get both? Sure, but again: really??

Yes another excellent choice by Zeiss; they have a tradition and the skills to produce some truly extraordinary short telephoto Planar design Macro lenses. This lens should be very competitive with the Fuji offering.

Regarding the bigger zoom the 55-200, why not make a 50-150/4.0? I personally don't care about the extra 50mm (not that huge anyway) on a mirrorless system, 300mm on the wobbly EVF. Would Zeiss, not really known for their expertise re zooms fit the bill here?? I doubt it, they might make a 59/1.3 ... for some reason the lenses have to be so close to the originals, but why not a 75/1.8 by Zeiss?? Or a 90/2.0? It just had to be a 32/1.8 ...

Well done, right??

Yes another good choice. The most popular telephoto zooms have always been in the 75-300 (equivalent range) with a variable aperture. This range complements the standard zoom range very nicely and rounds out the two-zoom set that many photographers will prefer to prime lenses. Faster lenses with fixed aperture are more expensive to make and much heavier, so will be of less interest to the target market for the mirrorless segment.

Am I alone here thinking that there was a great opportunity here starting from scratch so it doesn't take rocket science, as a taxi driver/hairdresser equivalent of a photographer anywhere in the world and they might have given them some ideas. Hard to believe they would have come up with a statement like: We want a 35mm lens - and a 32mm, we would in fact buy both! Simply because some people just "need" the extra 4.5mm ...

Well lens connoisseurs will certainly like having both to choose from and ruminate at length over the subtle rendering differences.

But of course you must be joking here because obviously most people will be choosing one or the other. Zeiss are aiming to make themselves a viable choice for consumers over the Fuji lens options. Fuji presumably licensed the mount because they believe (correctly in my view) that they will be capturing extra customers by having a larger "ecosystem" available.

Why not release a 38mm lens? 2.0?? And then a 41?? You think I am exaggerating?? Well they did the 32/35 ... some people here might think this is great, I think it is wasted engineering and could have been spent differently ...

Can you really be serious? Zeiss and Fuji are different companies. Once again I feel you must be joking.

Just frustrating to see how opportunities are being wasted, but maybe they have got it right and I am just a dino with no concept as to what people really need or want these days??

No, I'm sure you are just having fun seeing what responses your post can provoke. This whole thread is just another example of Poe's law.

Anyway, it's all good fun.

Nice summary.

I do think that Fuji is missing a telephoto prime.  In the old days, by far the most popular telephoto lens was 135 f/2.8 (FF).  A useful portrait lens for speed, size and low cost due to the relatively simple optical design. The 55-200 zoom's speed (~f/6 FF) in this range may not provide the bokeh many are looking for.  The 56 f/1.2 (85 FF) will be there for portraits, but it will not have much reach and I suspect may be pricey.  A 90 f/2 would have been a complimentary lens to add to Fuji's list, especially for those who already bought the 60 f/2.4 macro.

Perhaps this omission is not such a bad thing as it allows me to dust off my old Zuiko tele lenses and use them for this purpose.  I can't wait for the phase peaking to make it to the XE1s/XPro1s.

 jyhfeei's gear list:jyhfeei's gear list
Fujifilm X-E1 Fujifilm XF 18-55mm F2.8-4 R LM OIS
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
TORN
Contributing MemberPosts: 694
Like?
Re: Lenses: Did they get it right??
In reply to deednets, Jun 10, 2013

The only thing about the Fuji lenses worrying me is that the 3 lenses I am interested in (10-24, 23, 56) are the last ones to appear and I still wonder if Fuji will ever get the AF right. So it seems I have to wait some more months to find out. Till then I am fine with the Kit on the X-E1.

Zeiss? Well the more the merrier. Options are good.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
deednets
Senior MemberPosts: 1,910Gear list
Like?
Re: Uh, what?
In reply to David McGaughey, Jun 10, 2013

David McGaughey wrote:

You have this unusual idea that Zeiss should be trying to "fill holes" in Fuji's lineup. Zeiss obviously doesn't give a crap about what Fuji/Sony is doing - otherwise they would not be releasing a 32mm prime that kind of overlaps Fuji/Sony. Rather Zeiss is releasing whatever they feel is appropriate for their new mirrorless lineup. Look at their Canon/Nikon lenses - same thing. Most of their lenses are "in addition" to what Canon/Nikon already have.

As for Fuji's lenses, they have 21/28/50/90(macro) as well at 28-85 and 85-300. A fast 35, fast 85, compact 40, and a 15-35 is coming in the near(ish) future. What is your problem with this lineup? They only things I see missing are super-fast zooms (not likely - mine as well use a DSLR), a super telephoto zoom (also not likely - use a DSLR or a m43 system), and some longer primes.

I have absolutely no affiliation to Zeiss or any other company. I was merely pondering what is available. When I heard that Zeiss would be making Fuji lenses I thought there would be a tad more variety.

That's all.

I got quite a hiding here for expressing a thought, coming from the angle of what is available. I never said that lens manufacturers should work together in harmony to fill gaps, I was only looking at what is available. I found there were no real compelling reasons for getting any of the extra lenses and was a bit disappointed, that's all.

It seems that this disappointment re 32/34mm or 50/60mm zoom or various overlaps re 18-55 vs 18/2.0 and 23/2.0 (just guessing, it is meant to be faster than that??) is not shared by anybody, astounding that everybody here seems to think that it's all just fabulous.

Of course you have a point regarding the current lineup if you look at Fuji only, but I was thinking of lenses available as a whole.

Deed

 deednets's gear list:deednets's gear list
Fujifilm X-E2 Fujifilm XF 35mm F1.4 R Fujifilm XF 60mm F2.4 R Macro Fujifilm XF 14mm F2.8 R Fujifilm XF 23mm F1.4 R +2 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
deednets
Senior MemberPosts: 1,910Gear list
Like?
Re: Lenses: Did they get it right??
In reply to Asylum Photo, Jun 10, 2013

Asylum Photo wrote:

Your complaints make no sense. Hence the trolling accusation.

The 56mm f1.2 and the 60mm f2.4 MACRO are two different lenses, regardless of focal length.

Zooms are zooms. Do you want the zooms to not touch 50mm ranges because there is a prime at that approx focal length? Do you want a 18-35 and a 100-200 because there is a 60mm prime?

If they released a 23mm, the 18mm and 18-55 would be "close" and you would complain about that. If they released a 100mm, you'd complain that the 55-200 covers that focal length, and that the 60mm might even be too close.

Fuji (not Zeiss, not Voigtlander (where did that come from?)) has a range of lenses by the end of the year that cover every focal length between 10mm and 200mm, what is your complaint?

-- hide signature --

I was only pondering my options re lenses currently available to the Fuji system and found there are IMO too many overlaps. I use the 60/2.4 as my portrait lens but might replace it with the 56/1.2. The emphasis is on replace! I won't use 2 lenses for portraits, one at 2.4 and the other one faster (possibly stopped down a bit anyway). For my personal purpose of using the lens as a portrait lens this is an overlap, nothing new whereas an 85/90 or even a 75mm fast lens would have given me a different angle rather than 56 vs 60 for portraits ...

This makes no sense to you, right?

Regarding me "complaining" that a 100mm fast lens would be within the same range as a 55-200 is not true as such because I consider a fast medium tele very, very usable versus a zoom regarding bokeh, subject separation, contrast etc. The same doesn't necessarily hold true for the wide end of the spectrum.

I mentioned Voigtländer because the 15mm lens in particular has frequently being mentioned here on the forum as an alternative to the 14mm lens. Availability for the Fuji system was my emphasis.

And: It was a question! I got quite a hiding here for even thinking that Fuji didn't get it right, but maybe my example of application (portrait) and the overlap of the 60 vs 56 has clarified where I as a user am coming from?

Possibly still makes no sense, but then, somebody might ask in a year's time: who has kept the 60/2.4 after the 56 came out??

And get a hiding!

Appreciate the time you put into answering my question!

Deed

 deednets's gear list:deednets's gear list
Fujifilm X-E2 Fujifilm XF 35mm F1.4 R Fujifilm XF 60mm F2.4 R Macro Fujifilm XF 14mm F2.8 R Fujifilm XF 23mm F1.4 R +2 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
deednets
Senior MemberPosts: 1,910Gear list
Like?
Re: Lenses: Did they get it right??
In reply to Jeff Seltzer, Jun 10, 2013

Jeff Seltzer wrote:

It seems to me I am the only one who thinks the overall choices are a tad too close to each other, but as other posters here have pointed out, the Zeiss is mainly concerned about NEX so barking up the wrong tree here. To even remotely compare the lens selection of your Canon to the Fuji is an interesting approach! I just checked the New Zealand website for Canon and there are 90 lenses listed ...

Will leave it at that!

Deed

Lens manufactures don't necessarily sit around and try to fill holes with different focal lengths. For example, Zeiss doesn't think "what focal lengths doesn't Canon make? Let's make those." Zeiss, in fact, makes many of the same focal lengths as Canon. Same with Sigma, etc. The reason to go with one vs. the other is not focal length, but rather quality or optical performance.

What kind of photography are you doing that isn't covered in the Fuji road map??

I take portraits and have in the past used the 85/90 as well as the 105/135 equivalents e.g. the Nikkor 105/2.5 for many years one of my favourite lenses. I currently still use one on the Fuji, but struggle with the manual focus when not absolutely still and on tripod. When I take portraits, the available light can be quite dim, use softboxes and modifiers with flash but when I stop down the Nikkor and then enlarge the current view the amplification of the image in the EVF can often look quite grainy making it difficult to find perfect focus. I hate it when the eyes are OOF (who doesn't so a longer lens would have been nice).

Not sure about third party manufacturers not looking at filling gaps, but you might be right, as asylum has pointed out before Zeiss more interested in the SONY NEX system.

I was only thinking that since there aren't really gazillions of lenses around for the Fuji system yet, why make lenses that are so close?

An example? I currently use the 60/2.4 as my portrait lens and will possibly get the 56/1.2. BUT: would I keep both for portraits? Maybe, but certainly not for the different angle. My suspicion is that I would have to check exif to see the difference, so a bit of wasted territory for me here! Same applies to the current 12/14mm ... I will just not get the 12mm, BUT would have been very, very interested if Fuji had only had the 18mm ... So my pondering more around the light to medium telephoto here, I personally would have preferred a 90 or thereabouts fast prime over the 56 - and then have used both the 60 AND the 90 ...

Cheers

Deed

 deednets's gear list:deednets's gear list
Fujifilm X-E2 Fujifilm XF 35mm F1.4 R Fujifilm XF 60mm F2.4 R Macro Fujifilm XF 14mm F2.8 R Fujifilm XF 23mm F1.4 R +2 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
deednets
Senior MemberPosts: 1,910Gear list
Like?
Re: Lenses: Did they get it right??
In reply to Daniel from Bavaria, Jun 10, 2013

Daniel from Bavaria wrote:

Overall Fuji did, in my opinion, an outstanding job with the lenses and the line-up. Quite fast, high quality primes first and the system is just a good year on the market.

Regards,

Daniel

Hi from Auckland,

I can see where you are coming from and yes: I do understand that Zeiss and Fuji are 2 different companies!

When I look at the lenses currently available, the only one's with AF are the Zeiss and the Fujis. I use the 60/2.4 for portraits. I have a 105/2.5 Nikkor but find the focusing with moving objects in dim light with high light amplification in the EVF, lets say challenging, so would prefer an AF prime. Now Fuji is going to release the 56/1.2 next year. I will possibly get this lens, but then I cannot see myself take portraits with bot the 60 as well as the 56mm ...

At the wide end I am happy with the 14mm.

So in short: For my personal use I would have preferred a 90/85/1.8 or 2.0 by Zeiss over the 12 or 32mm.

It didn't happen and the 50/2.8 Macro by Zeiss?? Don't do enough Macro (none really, but the optics might still be interesting!) but then again, 50mm quite ok for portraits, maybe a tad too close but wouldn't get 50, 56 AND the 60 and use them all for portraits.

Would you? Anybody?

Cheers

Deed

 deednets's gear list:deednets's gear list
Fujifilm X-E2 Fujifilm XF 35mm F1.4 R Fujifilm XF 60mm F2.4 R Macro Fujifilm XF 14mm F2.8 R Fujifilm XF 23mm F1.4 R +2 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
deednets
Senior MemberPosts: 1,910Gear list
Like?
Re: Lenses: Did they get it right??
In reply to CraigArnold, Jun 10, 2013

CraigArnold wrote:

deednets wrote:

For my personal taste the lens selection available for the Fuji's is just plainly wrong! There is the 18/2.0 (since this is a wide angle the difference versus the zoom not compelling enough for me). The 35/1.4, there seems to be a lot of people here who like that lens? The equivalent of 52.5mm on FF, close enough to 50mm. I find this lens is neither here nor there, neither close enough to be a portrait lens nor wide enough for landscapes. Close enough to the "normal" viewing angle, the way we allegedly perceive the world. Beats me what is so great about 50mm?

The traditional prime set for most photographers was either 28+50+90 or 35+85. Fuji decided to go with the 3-lens prime set at launch.That was a wise choice covering the classical wide angle, normal and short-telephoto set. And of course there was the X100 which already covered 35.

When releasing their first zoom they went for the standard zoom range of 28-80. That was certainly a wise choice. What possible other choice could there have been for a standard zoom?

But then it gets better: Fuji releases the fantastic (IMO) 14mm lens - and Zeiss releases a 12mm lens. I understand that those 2 mm are in fact quite big, but again: compelling enough or more a matter of this one or the other rather than both? Is this wise policy? Is it? Really?

Zeiss are not a Fuji partner, they have simply licensed the mount. Therefore you should expect them to create lenses in direct competition with Fuji, not as a complementary set.

So yes it is a wise policy by Zeiss to release a lens which is in direct competition with a Fuji lens where they feel they might have an advantage. Fuji have no policy addressing this question, their only policy was to allow Zeiss to license the mount.

The 32mm Zeiss (48mm versus 52.5) spot the difference?? Get both? Sure, but again: really??

Yes another excellent choice by Zeiss; they have a tradition and the skills to produce some truly extraordinary short telephoto Planar design Macro lenses. This lens should be very competitive with the Fuji offering.

Regarding the bigger zoom the 55-200, why not make a 50-150/4.0? I personally don't care about the extra 50mm (not that huge anyway) on a mirrorless system, 300mm on the wobbly EVF. Would Zeiss, not really known for their expertise re zooms fit the bill here?? I doubt it, they might make a 59/1.3 ... for some reason the lenses have to be so close to the originals, but why not a 75/1.8 by Zeiss?? Or a 90/2.0? It just had to be a 32/1.8 ...

Well done, right??

Yes another good choice. The most popular telephoto zooms have always been in the 75-300 (equivalent range) with a variable aperture. This range complements the standard zoom range very nicely and rounds out the two-zoom set that many photographers will prefer to prime lenses. Faster lenses with fixed aperture are more expensive to make and much heavier, so will be of less interest to the target market for the mirrorless segment.

Am I alone here thinking that there was a great opportunity here starting from scratch so it doesn't take rocket science, as a taxi driver/hairdresser equivalent of a photographer anywhere in the world and they might have given them some ideas. Hard to believe they would have come up with a statement like: We want a 35mm lens - and a 32mm, we would in fact buy both! Simply because some people just "need" the extra 4.5mm ...

Well lens connoisseurs will certainly like having both to choose from and ruminate at length over the subtle rendering differences.

But of course you must be joking here because obviously most people will be choosing one or the other. Zeiss are aiming to make themselves a viable choice for consumers over the Fuji lens options. Fuji presumably licensed the mount because they believe (correctly in my view) that they will be capturing extra customers by having a larger "ecosystem" available.

Why not release a 38mm lens? 2.0?? And then a 41?? You think I am exaggerating?? Well they did the 32/35 ... some people here might think this is great, I think it is wasted engineering and could have been spent differently ...

Can you really be serious? Zeiss and Fuji are different companies. Once again I feel you must be joking.

Just frustrating to see how opportunities are being wasted, but maybe they have got it right and I am just a dino with no concept as to what people really need or want these days??

No, I'm sure you are just having fun seeing what responses your post can provoke. This whole thread is just another example of Poe's law.

Anyway, it's all good fun.

-- hide signature --

Blog ------------------------ http://craigspics.net/?tag=blog
X100 Blog ----------------- http://craigspics.net/?cat=6
X100 Quickstart Guide -- http://craigspics.net/?page_id=1345

Appreciate your lengthy response!

Originally when Zeiss announced that they would make AF lenses for the Fuji mount I thought, this would be an opportunity to compliment their lineup and offer lenses Fuji doesn't e.g. a fast medium telephoto lens for portraits, there are a few examples around the 85/90mm mark.

This would have worked for me, would have kept the 60/2.4 for portraits and would have loved an 85/1.8 (size matters!) to compliment this. Instead the offering by Zeiss is a 50mm Macro (not a Macro shooter, but might still be interesting re optics!) an 12mm (14mm by Fuji brilliant lens and just the lens I would have bought when given the choice) and the 32mm ... well ... The 56/1.2 an interesting lens I might get but cannot for the love of God see me shoot with the 60 and the 56 at the same session because of ... we will see, there might be some Noctilux factor here, I used the Voigtländer 50/1.1 Noctilux a few weeks ago and although the portraits were far from tack sharp there was something quite special about that lens. Pity it's a manual lens, the light was dim, manual focussing a real hassle and not too many "keepers" ... but the lens itself, well there's something there ...

So for me personally there wasn't anything in the box this Christmas and I was merely pondering whether I would be the only one who thought along those lines.

Since I got such a hiding for even thinking that the currently lineup lacks something ... even Samyang/Rokinon and all the others are making 80-90mm fast lenses ... but everybody here happy right?? I mean within reason!

Cheers

Deed

 deednets's gear list:deednets's gear list
Fujifilm X-E2 Fujifilm XF 35mm F1.4 R Fujifilm XF 60mm F2.4 R Macro Fujifilm XF 14mm F2.8 R Fujifilm XF 23mm F1.4 R +2 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
deednets
Senior MemberPosts: 1,910Gear list
Like?
Re: Lenses: Did they get it right??
In reply to jyhfeei, Jun 10, 2013

jyhfeei wrote:

Nice summary.

I do think that Fuji is missing a telephoto prime. In the old days, by far the most popular telephoto lens was 135 f/2.8 (FF). A useful portrait lens for speed, size and low cost due to the relatively simple optical design. The 55-200 zoom's speed (~f/6 FF) in this range may not provide the bokeh many are looking for. The 56 f/1.2 (85 FF) will be there for portraits, but it will not have much reach and I suspect may be pricey. A 90 f/2 would have been a complimentary lens to add to Fuji's list, especially for those who already bought the 60 f/2.4 macro.

Perhaps this omission is not such a bad thing as it allows me to dust off my old Zuiko tele lenses and use them for this purpose. I can't wait for the phase peaking to make it to the XE1s/XPro1s.

Indeed a nice summary it was! I was thinking along the same lines as you when I realised there was nothing in it for me. As I have mentioned in a couple of responses to other posters, the 56 vs 60 if you use the 60/2.4 as a portrait lens - as I do - then the difference in angle might not be compelling enough.

Regarding manual lenses, I use a 105/2.5 Nikkor, bi-colour, fantastically sharp lens, great on tripod for cityscapes but horribly slow for tack sharp portraits in low light and manual focusing. I must say I struggle with the 105 and 3x magnification when the subject is even moving a bit. Changing aperture helps with focusing but find the amplification of light in the EVF in dim light distracting and then I still have to reset the aperture afterwards a fiddly process ...

Focus peaking would help, for sure - or a 90/2.0 Zeiss or Fuji that never eventuated.

Yet.

Cheers

Deed

 deednets's gear list:deednets's gear list
Fujifilm X-E2 Fujifilm XF 35mm F1.4 R Fujifilm XF 60mm F2.4 R Macro Fujifilm XF 14mm F2.8 R Fujifilm XF 23mm F1.4 R +2 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
deednets
Senior MemberPosts: 1,910Gear list
Like?
Re: If you spent the time thinking rather than typing
In reply to Toccata47, Jun 10, 2013

Toccata47 wrote:

you probably would have come up with the rather obvious answers to your rant/query. Critical thinking is good for you.

I was just thinking myself a fast 90mm ... Studied philosophy so please, please don't get me started here. I still use petrol for my car and lenses for my camera.

Rant it was alright, sorry about this, but when the Christmas pressies were unwrapped and I could see that there was nothing in it for me I felt like giving my old rattle from last year a bit of a workout.

Somebody then said: Don't worry, maybe next year we will have something for you ... silly enough to see how some industry offering can make a difference as to how you use certain devices, I had been hoping for a fast medium telephoto lens, not game changing of life threatening but would have been nice.

Cheers

Deed

 deednets's gear list:deednets's gear list
Fujifilm X-E2 Fujifilm XF 35mm F1.4 R Fujifilm XF 60mm F2.4 R Macro Fujifilm XF 14mm F2.8 R Fujifilm XF 23mm F1.4 R +2 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
deednets
Senior MemberPosts: 1,910Gear list
Like?
Re: Lenses: Did they get it right??
In reply to nawknai, Jun 10, 2013

nawknai wrote:

I hope the OP is a troll. At least he'd have an excuse for his posts.

And why would your imagination be limited to that? You need an excuse for expressing a thought?

Well done!

Deed

 deednets's gear list:deednets's gear list
Fujifilm X-E2 Fujifilm XF 35mm F1.4 R Fujifilm XF 60mm F2.4 R Macro Fujifilm XF 14mm F2.8 R Fujifilm XF 23mm F1.4 R +2 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
deednets
Senior MemberPosts: 1,910Gear list
Like?
Re: Lenses: Did they get it right??
In reply to TORN, Jun 10, 2013

TORN wrote:

The only thing about the Fuji lenses worrying me is that the 3 lenses I am interested in (10-24, 23, 56) are the last ones to appear and I still wonder if Fuji will ever get the AF right. So it seems I have to wait some more months to find out. Till then I am fine with the Kit on the X-E1.

Zeiss? Well the more the merrier. Options are good.

Sure, I had been hoping for a medium fast telephoto lens since I take portraits. The 56/1.2 too close to the 60 I currently use, cannot imagining that I would use bot the 60 and the 56 (plus the Zeiss 50/2.8 Macro??).

Somebody further up this thread has mentioned that Zeiss wasn't really interested in complimenting Fuji lineup but competing directly against their offering. I personally think this is an opportunity missed if this was true, but obviously the only one here who sees it that way.

Deed

 deednets's gear list:deednets's gear list
Fujifilm X-E2 Fujifilm XF 35mm F1.4 R Fujifilm XF 60mm F2.4 R Macro Fujifilm XF 14mm F2.8 R Fujifilm XF 23mm F1.4 R +2 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum MMy threads