The Name is Bond: For wedding photographers, that should have been a 16-55 F2 lens.
@ squire: you can see the lens on the link I posted above; as you see the 16-55 is big, with filter thread of 77mm it is bigger than some DSLR zooms. Anyhow for those who don´t mind the bulk it will be surely a great universal lens and for those who care about size there is great selection of primes.
steve mallen: Excellent. The medium telephoto prime finally arrives. Glad I stuck with Fuji - my XE-1 is still my main camera - although I suspect these new lenses will be just as expensive as the others; shame I can only really afford one lens per year (if that). The 90mm f/2 is going on my wish list though!
Exactly, when you go through the current Fuji primes offer, you have nice choice of wideangle and standard FL (14, 18, 23, 27, 35, 56, 60mm), but no telephoto prime (85 or 100mm), so the 90mm is a welcome adition.
Just as wolf said: f2 zoom would be huge, physical rules cannot be avoided (my Sigma 18-35/1,8 is only 2x zoom and has 800g). I am afraid even this f2,8 zoom will be huge, considering small mirrorless bodies like X-E2 the combo will be too "lens-heavy" and not easy to hold.Even on the biggest X mount camera - the X-T1 the lens is too big: http://i1266.photobucket.com/albums/jj524/picrumors/picrumors001/63_zps2772f5c3.jpg Anyhow 16-55/2,8 was my dream lens, better than usual 17-50 lenses with f2,8 so kudos to Fuji for making such lens.
While I am not raptured by superzoom lenses, I can understand many people like them for being very versatile and comfortable. When I put this lens on an E-M10, I get a very versatile combo for travelling, that is light and very capable. Compared to Pana FZ1000 it is lighter (681 g vs. 831 g) and although the lens is slower than that of Pana, the much bigger sensor will outweigh that. So from this perspective I think such a lens has it´s sense and choosing between CSC with this lens and a premium ultrazoom (RX10, FZ1000) I would choose the former.
Ramius: Wish they made this for mirrorless full frame FE mount instead. Its annoying how breakthroughs like this lens is made for the camera technology of the past.
It´s logical Tamron doesn´t make lenses in Sony FE mount: there is no marketing potential. There is only one camera with this mount and it has been here for couplne of months only. How many a7´s have already been sold? And how many of these (few) owners would buy a Tamron superzoom? So it is clear is is absolutely uninteresting for Tamron.
abolit: Hey, Fuji! Enough of F3.5 - F5.6 crap! Start making some good stuff! F2.8 all the way thru or , at least , F4 . Sick of it!
Paul JM: stay calm, I am not a CSC owner and my DSLR can handle big lenses perfectly. ;-)
For all those believing this 18-135 is not that big: you are right. The lenses that are on the way are even bigger: the 16-55/2,8 will have 77mm filter thread (itself indicating the bulk of the lens) and the 50-140/2,8... well, have a look: http://dc.watch.impress.co.jp/img/dcw/docs/635/061/022.jpgKinda funny imaging this beast on a X-E2/X-M1/X-A1.
@PaulJM: so when you think it is pointless to make huge f2,8 zooms for CSC and you believe Fuji thinks the same, why would Fuji announce two constant f2,8 zooms? They will be even bigger than this 18-135, especially the 50-140/2,8 will be huge: http://dc.watch.impress.co.jp/img/dcw/docs/635/061/022.jpgSo apparently your thoughts are not Fuji´s thoughts. ;-)
While I can see making such a lens with constant f2,8 would make the lens unacceptably big and heavy, I think Fuji could have done it like with their standard zoom 18-55: just a bit faster, something between the kit lens speed f3,5-5,6 and fast constant f2,8. Lets say 18-105/2,8-4.
ck139: I have the Pentax 18-135 WR zoom on my K3. It is only a 62mm filter size but has the same f3.5 - f5.6 aperture range as this. I need to seem them side by side but I suspect the Pentax lens is smaller. I am thinking of going totally mirrorless for all my photography but if the Fuji lenses are bigger than the Pentax ones then I need to look at the Olympus EM1 or just stick with the weight and bulk of the K3. These are only tools when all is said and done! I just want to carry less weight around, being in my 60s and a bit lazy!
Why would a Pentaxian ever think of going mirrorless? Pentax bodies and most importantly lenses are always smaller and lighter thad those from N/C, not mentioning the Limited primes. Pentax 18-135mm is a good example, smaller and lighter than a CSC lens (405g vs. 490g of Fuji), so changing this combo for Fuji combo would save only couple of grams for the body, actually nothing that you would notice. Plus K-3 is one of the best APSC DLSRs on the market today, there is nothing (except video) CSCs can do better.
Ido S: If I were a Fuji X user I'd preorder this lens because it's probably the best travel zoom for ILCs ever.
I on the contrary would not buy this lens alone, since 900 USD for a slow zoom is madness. However if it was combined with XT1 and it would cost half the price in the combo, then I would think of it.
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).
And one more thing: the nearest competitor from DSLR world could be the Pentax 18-135/3,5-5,6: the same FL, the same speed, also weather-sealed, fut despite being designed for cameras with mirrors, it is lighter (405g) and smaller (62mm filter). I know, stabilisation adds up something, but then: where is the size and weight advantage of CSC? And also the Pentax 18-135 costs cca. 500 USD; 900 USD for this Fujinon is too expensive.
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).
Prairie Pal: yawn
Exactly, yawn, you do such a kind of photos every day, so I understand it is boring for you. ;-)
marc petzold: It seems Barney likes the FZ1000 way much. Personally, i'd like the RX10 more, because the 24-200mm Range is enough for 99.9% of everyhting, adding another 200mm focal length, minus 1mm into the wide angle segment doesn't make any sense for myself, no offence. It's the same like with so called "soup zooms" lenses for DSLR here into germany, a "one lens does it all" does have too many compromises, in optical terms.
But i can see a market for the FZ1000 and RX10, etc...ppl who never want to exchange lenses, and to have it all, from wide angle to "supersizeme" telephoto focal length. For instance, for birders or wildlife photographers the FZ1000 might come in way handy.
While I agree that 200mm maximum is enough (at least for me), I can understand that if someone gives up the flexibility of exchangeable lenses, he wants something truly universal, better that he can get in DSLR world. And Sony´ s 200mm are not that attractive (cca. 135mm on APSC, that´s what you can get from many DSLR zooms). 200 vs. 400mm is quite a difference.
Wow, I am impressed. Although I can understand 4K video might be interesting for some, I appreciate more the combination of relatively big sensor and a big zoom with fast lens. Actually it is the first true ultrazoom with larger sensor (the RX10 reaching only to 200mm cannot be named ultrazoom). And also other novelties deserve praise: 2,36M EVF, great. Manual zoom, even better. Considering all theses specs the price is (especially in comparison to starting price of the RX10) very reasonable.Kudos to Panasonic!
jadot: I Appreciate what these cameras are supposed to be used for, but really?; NO pictures of people? Just a couple of headshots would be helpful.
Well, that´s also a field of use. ;-) Anyhow I don´t believe it is useful to give a camera to a 1 year old child. How about teaching a 6 year old boy to drive a car?
It must have been nice trip to Hawaii (only the last two shots somehow dont´t fit). ;-)
I appreciate underwater pictures much more, that´s basically what you buy such a camera for.
JanMatthys: Seriously, how much is Sony paying you (DPreview) to do these daily infomercials on the RX100III?? What's tomorrow's preview infomercial? A look at the sony battery, charger and neck strap?
Re: Like saying "Man, what an awesome car but I've never driven one".Exactly, that´s how it works with cars, cameras and other gear, doesn´t it? You must like it before you decide to go and try it. So what´s wrong with saying you like the camera (based on it´s specs, it´s looks, your experience with the previous model etc.)?