Bastian Junker: Would be great to see some sampleshots. I guess the bokeh should be affected by the longer distance. They say it's still F2.0 with the TLC, but when the area where the light comes through is the same but the mm distance changes (from 23mm to 33mm) there should be a difference in F-stop too.
23mm / 2.0 => d = 11,5mm 33mm / 11,5mm => F-stop = 2,86
I'll buy one anyway. Great job fuji;-)
p.s. the same happens with the older WCL-X100, too. When you attach it to the camera, the aperture appears to get smaller when looking at it through the front of the lens, so the effective aperture remains at f2.
Of course, the disadvantage of teleside converters is that they're difficult to make with high quality, which Fuji seems to be doing a good job of.
Apertures are calculated by the focal length divided by the size of the entrance pupil, rather than by the focal length divided by the size of the actual physical aperture opening.
It's a pretty common mistake you're making, because there is a difference between the size of the entrance pupil and the size of the physical aperture opening. The entrance pupil is a virtual image that you see when looking at the hole of the aperture through the front of the lens. The physical aperture opening is the actual size of that aperture opening.
When you put a teleside converter on a lens (that's what the TCL-X100 really is, rather than just a teleconverter,) it changes the size of the virtual image of the aperture (entrance pupil,) so the effective aperture stays the same.
In other words, teleconverters between the lens and the camera body reduce the effective aperture size, but teleside converters on the front of a lens, like the TCL-X100, keep the same effective aperture.
The MTFs look like we won't be giving too much up in the way of IQ.
nathondetroit: Pardon me while I place a football helmet on my Chihuahua.
It doesn't really look anymore ridiculous than a kit zoom on a T3i.
Jogger: Better to get an RX1/r and crop.
Not sure why, HotShot106. You XM-1 doesn't have the optical viewfinder or leaf shutter of the X100s, and it isn't in the same universe of image quality as the RX1, so I don't think it's a good comparison.
AV Janus: I thought the TC was already out. Fuji is s l o w in this regard.Now X100(s) needs a 2.2x or 2.5x TC and a wide one so that you can have a body small bag, one body and 3 TCs for 24mm, 35mm, 50mm, 85mm small f2.0 kit.
NomadMark, there is no sub-MFDB digital camera on the market that has an optical viewfinder, leaf shutter and offers interchangeable lenses. The optical viewfinder and leaf shutter are two of the major reasons to buy an X100 in the first place, and adding a couple of converters doesn't change that.
Edmond Stuart: I still insist that a TLC which extends the focal length by only a factor of 1.4 makes little sense. You get (almost) the same result by cropping the picture with a factor of 1.4. Admittedly, you will lose some resolution, but any TLC will degrade the performance as well. To me, only a TLC which approaches the focal length of a portrait lens (X2.0 or so) is worth the money.But even then it makes little sense as it runs counter to the philosophy of the X100(S), which was intended as *compact* camera.I agree with NomadMark: "Buy an ILC and be done with it".
28/35/50 is a common street photographers lens setup, which this TC allows for with the X100/s and the WCL-X100. The WCL-X100 doesn't degrade the X100's performance, so it's possible that Fuji pulled the same trick with the TCL-X100.
AngryCorgi: $350 for a filter-ring-TC?? Ehhhh...
If it's as good as the filter-ring-WC that is already available, it's not a bad price.
Kelvin L: I really like my X100, it's been everywhere for the last 3 years, but given the price of the WCL-X100 adapter (USD$315 on a well known website) I think I'd be better served putting the money for both wide and tele adapters towards another camera. I love the X100 for what it is - the digital version of the Konica Hexar AF, just grab and go.
I'd end up using the electronic viewfinder with the adapters anyway so I might as well use something else for wider or longer focal lengths. Adapters are a neat concept but pretty fiddly to use in practice.
The X100 concept is still valid with these adapters, and the system is interesting for several reasons:
- 28/35/50 is a common focal length trio for street shooters.- I believe this is the only digital system that has those 3 focal lengths with an optical viewfinder and leaf shutter (outside of medium format digital.) - all three focal lengths are still f2- no worries about sensor dust.
I'll still use my X100 on its own most of the time, but I have a second X100 body (camera backups are wise) that always has the 28mm converter attached, and I'll add this new 50mm to my kit for those times when I don't mind bringing a bit more gear. Modularity isn't necessarily a bad thing.
My RX1 didn't have the same optical viewfinder capabilities of my X100. The OVF is a major reason to buy the X100/s.
Everyone needs to remember that, while this converter will block more of the OVF, the framelines for the converter will be a lot smaller in dimension, so it should still be as usable as some of the larger Leica 50mm lenses on an M body.
p.s. to answer a common question in this thread, aperture is still f2.
Donnie G: "Canon should do things the same way that Sony does". REALLY? Sony is closing 65 stores in the U.S. and eliminating 1,000 jobs. They call it restructuring or cost control. Others might call it RETREAT. Canon controls their costs by selling specific products to the regions of the globe where there is an actual demand for that product, (ie., the EOS M2). Thus, no excess inventory and no wasted marketing dollars. Which is the better cost control strategy? Don't know? Sony does!
"Canon should make their CMOS chips the same way that Sony does, because the Sony chips are way better". REALLY? Some Gear Heads may indeed see an advantage in the Sony chip design, but Gear Heads make up less than 1% of the camera market, and chip design, by itself, doesn't sell cameras. Brand identity does. Over 70 million Canon EOS DSLR owners think the Canon brand is perfect for their needs. How many Sony Alpha, DSLR, SLT, NEX, etc., owners feel as strongly about the Sony brand?
Sony's camera division issues are mostly tied to the drop in compact camera sales. They are doing ok in mirrorless cameras.
I don't think any Canon user would argue against a sensor that performs as well as Sony's EXMOR. Sony, Pentax/Ricoh, Nikon, Hasselblad, Fuji, Olympus, Leica and Phase One all use Sony Exmor sensors.
nathondetroit: Beautiful. There's obviously some serious X series glass if you want to go that route, but this available X100S kit offers a lot of capability for the enthusiast.
Everyday, there are plenty of budding photographers tearing it up doing 55mm 5.6 portraits with their kit lens. This 50mm 3.5 will definitely be capable of amazing work as well.
Yeah, this will essentially make the lens a 35mm f2 lens on the X100, has a FF equivalent of about 55mm f3.1.
Where are you getting f3.5 from? The lens says 135 on the front, meaning 135 format equivalent.
Mattersburger: That's a lot of metal & glass to get to an f2 normal.
Correct, Summi, but this isn't a teleconverter, which would go between the lens and the sensor. This is a teleside converter that goes on the end of the lens and does not reduce brightness. Big difference.
Michael Ma: I almost bought a wide teleconverter for my fixed lens camera decade ago before I got my first DSLR a few years later. I am still glad to this day that I didn't make the purchase even though I had an itch to buy it for months.
In theory, it'll never perform as well as a descent prime lens on a ILC/DSLR but it's priced like one. When the X100S is replaced with it's successor in a short few years, you'll just be left with heavy glass with no compatibility with anything to be released in the future and no resale value. It will be in the box labeled "what was I thinking".
The wide converter for the X100 is outstanding. Some even think it actually improves on the X100's lens, so it really just depends on how well the converters are designed.
AshMills: "minimum aperture not affected" - yes, but what about MAXIMUM aperture?
Maximum aperture also not affected, just like the wide converter they already have on the market.
Richt2000: That is a LOT of camera for $650. Lets just hope the AF is as good as it is claimed, and the IQ is as good as the Nex7 at base ISO.
"First impressions" is missingany first impressions so its a wait and see I guess.
I can't believe the poster above actually said the build of the OMD is better than the RX1. That is laughable. The RX1 is more solid than anything this side of a Leica M. It makes my x100s feel like a toy.
Marek Rucinski: "which bring full-frame imaging to the mirrorless interchangeable lens market"... not. Leica's been there since like 2009...
Rangefinders use mirrors in the rangefinder assembly. They aren't actually mirrorless, if you're gonna get technical about it.
robertophoto: Apple Raw Compatibility Update v4.05 adds Fujifilm X-Trans supportApr 18, 2013
If Aperture also converts these raw files, why did you omit Aperture from your comparison?
I switched from LR to Aperture for my X100s, and, while the detail was much better, there were issues with artifacts. There is no free lunch with this sensor.