Very interesting ... all the negative comments.
If I would be able to justify the costs, I would buy one immediately as a second system which might be used more than my first system under certain circumstances. But even if I might effort it if I really want to, I really cannot justify the costs, that's just too much.
But it looks wonderful.
Philip Lanoue: I really don't need a constant reminder (and more photographic evidence) of my ever increasing bald spot on the back and top of my head but which looks even worse from above. Yikes
I had the same thought :D
Next step is to re-elect Berlusconi 😄😄
This FW-Update is a great thing. I am really looking forward to update my X-T1!
It's still a reason to like Fuji very much and if you compare it with other manufactures it is far from being naturally.
BTW: I've tried a generic one from China and had no luck - I was just lucky to get it from my camera without damaging anything. Therefore I will by one of these babies for my 2.4 60. With 99 Dollars it is also still quite reasonable priced.
I am not the target group. Nevertheless, I just opened this news to read the comments and I was not being disappointed and had my fun.
Stacey_K: " and successive cameras".... well that is unless Olympus decides to change the lens mount again. I'm done trusting this company to support the customers who invest in their system.
Through corporate mis-management and a partnership with a crappy sensor manufacturer (panasonic), Olympus killed the 4/3 mount right as they had a sensor (the one used in the OMD) in their hands that would have made their lovely ZD 4/3 optics shine. Instead they pull this bait and switch to m4/3. I give then 3-4 years before they bail on this format and switch to yet another mount.
Olympus's problem has never been their optics, and I'm sure these will be fantastic lenses. But I'm willing to bet they will decide in the future the 4/3 sensor is too small and ditch this mount, leaving anyone who buys these lenses left in an orphaned system. I would never trust this company again after what they did with 4/3.
I have to agree partially. I think they will continue with mFT, but I am also done with Olympus. I switched very early to the E-1, later E-330 and then E-3. Many nice optics. E.g. the 7-14 was a gem. And the best standard travel zoom I've ever owned is still the mighty 2.8-4 12-60mm. When they slowly started to abandon FT, I was able to sell everything just in time, however as usual with such changes, I've made my loss (BTW one year bevor they stopped the support, they promised that FT will continue to live and be supported...).
I've still a lot of sympathy for their products and the EM1 and the latest lenses are great and again the system looks very good.
However, not for me anymore ... and how many years have I begged for a FT f4 300mm lens, and now they bring it for mFT ... at least for the todays user that will be a great tele lens.
Peter 1745: Reliability also needs to be considered
Another reason to prefer the "70-200 equivalent" rather than an actual 70-200 is the unreliability of the latter.
Roger Cicala of Lens Rentals analysed the failure rate of lenses in his blog,http://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2013/08/lensrentals-repair-data-2012-2013and states.
"70-200 f/2.8 lenses are likely to fail no matter who makes them. We think of them as ‘built like tanks’ because they have that heavy, all-metal case. That case, though, is as packed with mechanics and electronics as anything you’ve ever seen. There’s a LOT of stuff in there that has to work perfectly. Inevitably, some of that stuff breaks."
I'm not saying you shouldn't buy a 70-200 f/2.8. I'm saying that reliability is a factor that needs to be considered alongside size, weight and focal length requirements.
He also mentioned that this most probably is a result of the very rough professional usage of these lenses. From his point of view those lenses are being abused more than others.
You've just made the same mistake many analysts for statistical data are doing. You've mixed up correlation and cause.
many of the comments here and in other places show me that some people do not want or are not able to see the whole system. Doesn't matter if Fuji X or Olympus or other mirrorless systems. BTW for example I am also a Fuji X owners.
With the new f2.8 zooms I read comments like "This is not why I went for", "With that I would have had the same if I would have stayed with Canikon FF" .. and so on, and so on.
Yes, these lenses are on the more hefty side, but the overall systems is still much smaller and lighter then a FF-System.And I for my self really appreciate the compactness of my Fuji-X System compared to my more and more shrinking Canon FF System .. and after nearly 3 years in parallel, I in fact will abandon the rest of my Canon System.
However, I also appreciate the new Zoom-Options, which will give me more choices. Luckily, you don't have to carry all of your lenses all the time, and choices are always good.
Wow, look how compact the 140-400 still is. I am really looking forward to this lens.
The 1.4 16mm is a beauty, but here I'll pass. I just can't buy every lens from Fuji, also if it is very tempting ;)
I am in Fujifilm, but this seems to be a lovely lens - also compared to the upcoming Fuji 50-140 f2.8 lens.
I expected that this lens will be a bit bigger and heavier. But 160mm length and 880 grams weight for that lens is very reasonable. The reach of 80-300mm with f2.8 is also great and a novum in the market.
Well done Olympus!!
peevee1: Isn't the electronic shutter going to be available for Black?
It will with the next FW-update on December.
Just from the technical data (except size and weight ;-) ) this lens looks amazing. The amount of special glass and the other technical specs are absolutely HighEnd - no question here.
However, I still have and am in the selling process of the Canon 70-200L IS II lens, and I am not sure if I really want such a big lens again (I know, compared to the Canon it is smaller). But possibly when I do more theater photography again, then this lens might come quite handy.
I am really curious about the first pics and the optical performance - I expect only the best.
The price is of course kind of ambitious, but the technical data are also promising.
I bow deep for the free improvements which are fact very helpful.
Sunshine and 1.2 56, are now good friends!
TheWhiteDog: I think, irregardless whether the lens is excellent or not, that Fuji made a misstep here. Instead of this, they should have introduced a 16-70mm, f4 lens, just like SONY has from Zeiss for the NEX(well, used to be NEX) line. This would be a 24-105 FIXED aperture lens. Advanced users(what the XT-1 is marketed to) like this range and fixed aperture zooms(plus it would be less bulky that this 18-135mm). Look at the success Canon has had with their "L" series one, even selling it as the kit lens with the 5D3. And with Fuji's upcoming X PRO2 it would have made a great kit lens with that. Yes, I know they have a 24-70mm f2.8 on their road map but that will be way more expensive than a 16-70mm f4 would be and also weigh considerably more. Canon has both, and neither interferes with the other. Hopefully Fuji will produce such a lens in the future. But doubtful, alas.
I partly agree. One of my most beloved lenses in the past was the Olympus 2.8-4 12-60, which is roughly 24-120. So a constant f4 or 2.8-4 16-70 or 16-80, would be lovely.
However, the 18-135 still looks very good but is sadly missing the 16mm, which makes a big difference for an all purpose travel lens.
On the other side, I would never travel without my 14, 23 and 56mm lenses ... and most of the time still take the 35 and 55-200 with me ... but not always everything on the daily tours.
However, I am still tempted, just for hiking and casual use.
.... continue ....
I am more a prime lens type, but like the convenience of the 18-55 when going on hike with my family. The 18-55 is optical quite good and still very small. The 18-135 would give me weathersealing and more flexibility, but for the price of much more bulk and some more weight. Therefore, personally I would have preferred to get a WR-Version of the 18-55, which I would have bought in an eye blink to replace my 18-55. With the 18-135 I am still not convinced, as it contradicts the small size of the system a little bit.
But still, it would be very convenient on a hike .....
don't know what the issue is.
The lens seems to me to be a very nice one of its kind. But it's still a super zoom, no question. People compare it with the Canon 18-135 and say its expensive, what is kind of funny. Have you ever held the Canon 18-135 in your hand? It feels crappy and cheap, no fun to work with - it also looks cheap and crappy and it doesn't have any sealing. Summarized, it's a cheap super-zoom kit-lens.The 18-135, in comparison, feels very solid and like a high quality lens, it is weather sealed and what I've seen so far optically superior. Therefore of course it is more expensive. Here in Malaysia the price is at around 700 Euro, the Canon is at 450 Euro. No problem, and a justified mark up.
... to be continued...
iudex: Man this lens is huge. Considering it is a lens for CSCs and it is so slow (f3,5-5,6) it should have been much smaller. But 490g and 67mm filter thread? Definitely not corresponding with the luminosity. And also more suitable for large DSLR with proper handgrip than for small CSC (OK, X-T1 is relatively usable, but this lens definitely doesn´t fit to X-E2/X-M1/X-A1).
you've made some good points, especially with the comparison of the Pentax lens. I've also hoped for an a bit smaller lens, as for the shorter focal lengths there is no retro-focus design necessary. In principle I am more the fixed focal lens user, but still thought that the 18-135 would may be tempting. Technical wise it is, but size wise it is really one beast of a lens.
A WR version of the good 18-55 in addition would have been very welcomed.
However, I first wait how it will do optically compared to the competitors before I finalize my opinion.
The best Fuji lenses are optically better than anything from Canikon.
Also drop the f/1.8 thing. For an APSC system this is f/1.2 lens.
What about purple fringing, CA and distortion? All are effectively reducing the final quality. And by far not everything in terms of microcontrast, colour etc. can be equivaly amended on the pc.
But my experience shows that these discussions can be interesting but they seldomly lead to any results. Mostly because the common nerd is not accepting anything beside 0 and 1. But, hey wecome, we are still in a analog world with some shades of grey ;) - and I am every bit glad about that.
To all the moaners and naysayers:
I do photography for many, many years now. I still own a complete Canon FF system with quality glas. I also own a Fuji X-System with some glas, as also the 1.2 56mm lens.
You see, plenty of experience and enough equipment to compare. And in my humble opinion the 1.2 56mm lens is one of the finest lenses I've ever used. It's just a joy to use und the results are lovely. Period.
P.S. Some pics taken with that lens are in my gallery
Looks like a great alround and very good travel camera to me.
For sure very appealing for many people.