Previous news story    Next news story

Fast and wide: Fujifilm releases XF23mm F1.4 R for X system

By dpreview staff on Sep 5, 2013 at 05:00 GMT
Buy on GearShop$899.00

Fujifilm has announced the FUJINON XF23mm F1.4 R, a premium fast wideangle lens for its X system mirrorless cameras. It offers the same moderate wideangle view as the fixed-lens X100S, but with an extra stop of brightness. The overall design approach is similar to the company's recent XF14mm F2.8 R, with distance and depth of field scales for manual focusing, and fully optical (rather than digital) correction of distortion. The 23mm F1.4 will be available in October 2013 with an SRP of $899.95 / £849.99. 

Some X system users might wonder why it's taken so long for Fujifilm to launch a 35mm equivalent lens - after all, it's a classic focal length to complement the rangefinder-esque X-Pro1. Cynics might suggest that it's been purely to protect sales of the X100 / X100S, which use a 23mm F2 lens, at least until the X system became more established on the market.

The explanation we've been given by Fujifilm's own representatives is slightly more prosaic. They felt that early buyers of the X-Pro1 would likely own an X100 already, so making a 23mm prime for the X system immediately would count as unnecessary duplication. Instead they decided to concentrate on producing a set of lenses with focal lengths around the X100's, to make a more flexible overall system. Once that was done, it was time to build the 23mm F1.4.

The new lens obviously doesn't just replicate that on the X100. It's a full stop faster, and therefore rather more complex, with an 11 element / 8 group design compared to the X100's 8 elements / 6 groups. This means it's also a whole lot larger - 63mm (2.5") in length, compared to 54mm (2.2") for the thickness of the X100 lens and body combined. So there could still be a place for both the XF23mm F1.4 and X100S in a photographer's bag; the former for its speed, the latter for its portability and silent operation.

Jump to:


Press Release:

FUJIFILM LAUNCHES ULTRA FAST FUJINON XF23MM F1.4 R WIDE-ANGLE LENS 

New lens features outstanding speed for stunning photography, even in low light

Valhalla, N.Y., September 5, 2013 – FUJIFILM North America Corporation today announced the new FUJINON XF23mm F1.4 R, a premium wide-angle lens designed to work seamlessly with the award-wining line of X-Series compact system cameras.

The FUJINON XF23mm F1.4 R has a focal length equivalent of a 35mm lens, and is ideal for a wide range of applications including portraits and landscapes, as well as everyday photography. The fast maximum aperture of F/1.4 allows users to shoot hand-held in low light conditions and achieve sharp images, while also delivering beautiful bokeh for artistic images.

“Fujifilm is committed to expanding the X-Series line of high quality FUJINON lenses, and today’s announcement brings the total number of available lenses to nine,” said Manny Almeida, senior vice president and general manager, FUJIFILM North America Corporation. “The new XF23mm gives photographers everything that they want in one lens: speed, performance and versatility, and we know this new lens will exceed our users’ expectations.”

Ideal Lens for Everyday Photography 

The new FUJINON XF23mm F1.4 R provides enhanced resolving power with crisp contrast to draw maximum performance out of the highly descriptive X-Trans CMOS sensor. The fast F/1.4 aperture allows the user to reduce blurring in low light conditions and achieve stunning shallow depth to field photography.

The FUJINON XF23mmF1.4 R features a camera-to-subject distance indicator and a depth-of-field scale on the barrel. Both are useful when manually pre-focusing to capture a fast moving subject, or minimize the shutter lag to capture a fleeting moment.

Lens distortion has been reduced to an absolute minimum using only optical rather than digital correction, thereby delivering the highest possible picture quality. The rounded seven-blade diaphragm ensures smooth bokeh even when shooting portraits or product shots at a medium aperture to maintain reasonable depth-of-field.

High Speed Autofocus

The FUJINON XF23mmF1.4 R uses an internal focusing system which incorporates a lens group consisting of three cemented lens elements and one aspheric lens element in order to keep weight down. Additionally, the built-in high-torque DC coreless motor delivers ultra-fast AF performance for the most demanding shooting opportunities. 

All lens elements are treated with Fujifilm’s multilayer HT-EBC (High Transmittance Electron Beam Coating) which delivers enhanced durability and ensures an even spread of light across the sensor.

Compact Size and Premium Design

The FUJINON XF23mmF1.4 R weighs 10.6oz and measures just 2.48” in length making it the most compact and lightweight lens in its class. Metal parts are used for the focus and aperture rings, which are designed to give just the right amount of torque and feel.

FUJINON XF23mmF1.4 R key features

  • 35mm equivalent F1.4 lens
  • Fully compatible with FUJIFILM X-Mount
  • 1 lens group consisting of 3 cemented lens elements and 1 aspheric lens element
  • Built-in high-torque DC coreless motor
  • Seven round-edged aperture blades, which offer 22 stops in 1/3 EV steps
  • Lens elements treated with Fujifilm’s multilayer HT-EBC (High Transmittance Electron Beam Coating)

The FUJINON XF23mm F1.4 R will be available in October 2013 for $899.95.

The current Fujifilm lens family includes the following FUJINON XF and XC lenses: 

  • XF 14mm F2.8
  • XF 18mm F2.0
  • XF 27mm F2.8
  • XF 35mm F1.4
  • XF 60mm F2.4
  • XF 18-55mm F2.8-4.0 OIS
  • XF 55-200mm F3.5-4.8 OIS
  • XC 16-50mm F3.5-5.6 OIS

Fujifilm FUJINON XF 23mm F1.4 R specifications

Principal specifications
Lens typePrime lens
Max Format sizeAPS-C / DX
Focal length23 mm
Image stabilisationNo
Lens mountFujifilm X
Aperture
Maximum apertureF1.4
Minimum apertureF16.0
Aperture ringYes
Number of diaphragm blades7
Aperture notesRounded blades
Optics
Elements11
Groups8
Special elements / coatings1 aspherical element, High Transmittance Electron Beam Coating
Focus
Minimum focus0.28 m (11.02)
Maximum magnification0.1×
AutofocusYes
Motor typeMicromotor
Full time manualNo
Focus methodInternal
Distance scaleYes
DoF scaleYes
Physical
Weight300 g (0.66 lb)
Diameter72 mm (2.83)
Length63 mm (2.48)
Filter thread62 mm
228
I own it
146
I want it
7
I had it
Discuss in the forums
Our favorite products. Free 2 day shipping.
Support this site, buy from dpreview GearShop.
Fujifilm XF 23mm F1.4 R

Comments

Total comments: 219
12
FujiSam
By FujiSam (6 months ago)

Anyone know if these will be shipping from Amazon or wherever else on the 16th as planned?

0 upvotes
Aivar
By Aivar (6 months ago)

who knows what is the number of maximum wide open aperture in compare with full frame?

0 upvotes
pictureAngst
By pictureAngst (6 months ago)

In terms of light gathering ability for the same shot, it's the same (e.g. 1/250 f1.4 for the same shot on both formats).
In terms of depth of field for the same shot, this is around f2 I believe.

1 upvote
Zvonimir Tosic
By Zvonimir Tosic (7 months ago)

Nice, smooth helicoid focusing mechanism ... or fly-by-wire?

Comment edited 5 minutes after posting
0 upvotes
ThePhilips
By ThePhilips (7 months ago)

Another largish 35mm eq prime lens... Now in a Fuji X flavor. *Yawn*

0 upvotes
doctorbza
By doctorbza (7 months ago)

Can anyone tell me if the X-Pro1 will display 35mm equivalent frame lines for this lens?

0 upvotes
pictureAngst
By pictureAngst (7 months ago)

It will.

In fact, Fuji could make any focal length they liked and the framelines would appear.

0 upvotes
sportyaccordy
By sportyaccordy (7 months ago)

Now all Sony has to do is make a lens of this quality, FL and speed for 1/3 the price in pancake form!

1 upvote
Timmbits
By Timmbits (7 months ago)

NICE!

0 upvotes
DanielFjall
By DanielFjall (7 months ago)

Saving the bucks for 56mm!

4 upvotes
yabokkie
By yabokkie (7 months ago)

or just get a Canikon 85/1.8 with a larger aperture.

0 upvotes
technotic
By technotic (7 months ago)

What are you taking about yab? A) it's a Canon lens for EF mount and b) it's a much longer focal length? Why would you have that lens instead of the 56mm for a Fuji X camera?

1 upvote
yabokkie
By yabokkie (7 months ago)

we want cameras/lense to take photos. we don't care if it's Canon or Nikon or whoever as long as it can get the job done in good quality.

what we really want in lens spec are angle of view and aperture size. not focal length or f-number which cannot be carried across different formats.

a 56/1.2 for APS-C will have the same angle of view and aperture size as a 85/1.8 for 35mm format, and same indistinguishable images as their specs suggest.

Comment edited 45 seconds after posting
0 upvotes
calking
By calking (7 months ago)

Such an old and tired argument by now yab

2 upvotes
technotic
By technotic (7 months ago)

yab by "we" you mean "you" right? I don't want a big heavy camera thanks. The X cameras produce beautiful images and are small and light. I'm not sure what point you are trying to make. This news item is obviously of interest to people who HAVE or WANT a Fuji X camera and NOT those who want Canon or Nikon lenses.

3 upvotes
yabokkie
By yabokkie (7 months ago)

okay, I'm talking about the quality of photo and you are talking about size and weight of the lens/camera. it's valid that I need small cameras sometimes, too, like G5 that has worse image quality.

then what's the weight of the 56/1.2 if you happen to know?

Comment edited 24 seconds after posting
0 upvotes
technotic
By technotic (7 months ago)

Hey yab did you read the bit where I said the X cameras take beautiful images. Why are you now rambling about the G5? This 56mm lens is, going by Fuji's record, going to be a fine piece of glass that makes beautiful images on Fuji X cameras. I'm not sure where you are going with your point. Do you have one?

0 upvotes
yabokkie
By yabokkie (7 months ago)

we know that 85/1.8 on D800 can give us high quality image
how 56/1.2 will perform against that we don't know yet except their specs are similar.

0 upvotes
calking
By calking (7 months ago)

Yab, it's utterly pointless trying to understand your arguments for, or against anything. Someone says Fuji, you say Canon. Someone says 23mm f1.4, you say 35mm f2. Someone says optical, you say digital. Someone says resolution, you say quality. someone says metal, you say plastic. Someone says expensive, you say cheap. Someone says APS-C, you say full frame.

I don't believe that you are a photographer, or that you actually own any of the equipment you comment about here. I think you love to argue. You are a fan of nothing and a proponent against everything.

You are a guy with a calculator and a computer with 4 monitors running at once who uses specs and conversion factors to ARGUE every point about everything. Sadly, that is gratifying enough for you to continue doing despite the lack of influence your opinions have, or what anyone thinks about it.

"Mary, Mary, quite contrary" comes to mind.

Can you at least try to make statements based on experience rather than conjecture?

6 upvotes
Timmbits
By Timmbits (7 months ago)

yab, regardless of the unit of measure you choose to use, use it properly.

0 upvotes
Craig Atkinson
By Craig Atkinson (7 months ago)

confirmed uk price is £799. A bit steep that I reckon.

0 upvotes
Peiasdf
By Peiasdf (7 months ago)

MSRP is incorrect. Amazon is preordering this at $849.00

0 upvotes
yabokkie
By yabokkie (7 months ago)

it says "fast and wide" in the title.

I'd say moderately fast and moderately wide for a 35/2.1 equiv.
that's the work it can do, no more, no less.

0 upvotes
Corwin Lee
By Corwin Lee (7 months ago)

I think you are not understand what is aperture. The fact is aperture not only affect DOF, f1.4 is always f1.4 in exposure triangle not matter what format the sensor are. So yes, it is fast.

Comment edited 30 seconds after posting
8 upvotes
Photomonkey
By Photomonkey (7 months ago)

Boy, It sure is amazing how much misunderstanding there is about aperture. Ever since the discovery of DOF differences between FF, APS, m43 and on, so many would be "experts" make condescending remarks about "effective aperture". Do we ever hear of it in the other direction? The effective aperture of an 80f2.8 on a MF camera? Or maybe a 360mm f5.6 on 8x10?
No, I did not think so. That is because you actually do not seem to remember that this phenomenon actually existed since the invention of lenses and that only since the recent obsession with the fashion of shallow DOF that we can adopt, yet again another pose that marks us as "effective cognoscenti".

9 upvotes
57even
By 57even (7 months ago)

@Yabokkie

Did you learn everything you know about photography from the forums? I only ask because most actual photographers I know don't make such silly comments.

11 upvotes
yabokkie
By yabokkie (7 months ago)

I don't care what they say. I only care what they do. there is nothing you can find in the result that this lens can do better than a 35/2.1 on 35mm format.

btw, about the aperture, 23/1.4 ~= 35/2.1 ~= 16.5mm

Comment edited 58 seconds after posting
1 upvote
balios
By balios (7 months ago)

What can't the 35/2.1 FF do? Take the same shot in low light as the F1.4 lens, without slowing the shutter speed or raising the ISO.

7 upvotes
yabokkie
By yabokkie (7 months ago)

@balios, the image quality will be exactly the same.

or more precisely, in the same environment and at the same shutter speed, the same amount of light will hit the sensor at the same angle of view (63 deg) and aperture size (16.5mm), regardless of the sensor size.

as long as it's 63 deg AOV with 16.5mm aperture, we get the same image regardless of focal length or sensor size, or about
58mm f/3.5 for 645 film,
35mm f/2.1 for 35mm format,
18mm f/1.1 for 4/3", and
13mm f/0.8 for Nikon 1.

Comment edited 10 minutes after posting
0 upvotes
marike6
By marike6 (7 months ago)

Pedantic DOF calculators are sooooo annoying.

:-)

4 upvotes
yabokkie
By yabokkie (7 months ago)

it's not only DOF but everything that you can see in the photo that's controlled by the aperture.

Comment edited 15 seconds after posting
0 upvotes
balios
By balios (7 months ago)

But the shutter speed and ISO setting will NOT be the same.

If I am exposing at low light at max aperture, then I am using the slowest shutter speed that won't introduce blur, then adjusting the ISO setting to get the proper exposure. If I use a F/2.1 lens then I have reduce the shutter speed (and introduce blur) or increase the ISO (and introduce more noise). When you're shooting ISO 3200+ the affect is huge as noise tends to increase exponentially with ISO.

1 upvote
yabokkie
By yabokkie (7 months ago)

> the shutter speed and ISO setting will NOT be the same

shutter speeds has to be the same or it won't be a fair comparison. ISO settings should not be same for we won't get the same image quality at same ISO (ISO100 on APS-C will get us same quality as ISO240 on 35mm format).

what we want is good quality of image, not ISO settings. we cannot require different image quality as a condition for the comparison right?

Comment edited 4 times, last edit 6 minutes after posting
1 upvote
attomole
By attomole (7 months ago)

Bigger sensor should theoreticaly give you more image fidelity, and 35mm size is blessed by decades of investment in lenses. So in the school of more is always better you are correct. But APSC sensors are darn good these days such that in most circumstances they work great. Given that this is also well understood seems a bit obsessive to keep on with this equivilant aperture stuff

0 upvotes
yabokkie
By yabokkie (7 months ago)

> give you more image fidelity

and that has something to do with ISO, in that we don't have low enough ISOs for smaller sensors to compete in image quality even in good light or with slow shutter speed.

like ISO80 on a 1/1.7" sensor is about ISO1600 on 35mm format and that's the best image quality it can have.

for example, DxOMark tested Nikon P330 at ISO80=34.1dB, while Nikon D600 at ISO1600=34.2dB (with some error for sensor size and maker advertised ISO may not be given accurately).

Comment edited 5 times, last edit 15 minutes after posting
0 upvotes
Revenant
By Revenant (7 months ago)

This lens does exactly what a 23mm F1.4 lens is expected to do on an APS-C sensor camera. It's pointless to speak of its equivalent performance on a sensor format that it's not supposed to be used with.

1 upvote
balios
By balios (7 months ago)

"shutter speeds has to be the same or it won't be a fair comparison"

I'm not talking about comparisons, I'm talking about REAL WORLD usage of the lens to produce REAL PHOTOS. The purpose of a 23/1.4 lens is to produce photos, not produce comparisons to 35/2.1 lenses.

In the REAL world a 23/1.4 crop can do things a 35/2.1 ff cannot. They are NOT the same. If I am sitting in front of a stage taking photos of a performer in low light, a 23/1.4 crop and 35/2.1 FF will produce different results. The difference is because the constraints of the situation demand that they be at different shutter speeds or ISO settings. They will be at different shutter/ISO settings because one is a F1.4 lens and the other is a F2.1 lens. That means they are NOT the same.

The fact you *can* (if you want to, and under certain conditions) produce similar photos with 35/2.1 does not mean they are equivalent.

0 upvotes
yabokkie
By yabokkie (7 months ago)

> not mean they are equivalent.

"equivalent" means different things that bring us the same result. different focal lengths, f-numbers, and ISOs yes, but the same result in the output image. some controlled by aperture are:

- image quality (photon shot noise),
- depth of field, size of bokeh,
- diffraction, size of Airy disk against the frame,

1 upvote
mosc
By mosc (7 months ago)

why would you ever restrict a camera to any ISO? They change ISO's easily, automatically even. Forcing a max aperture comparison with identical ISO doesn't make much sense. You have X light and you're standing Y away from it and you have time for z shutter. Everything you set internally to the camera is kind of a given that you'll be as flexible with it as possible with it don't you think? It always seems silly to me to talk about equivalent focal length but not aperture.

0 upvotes
Northgrove
By Northgrove (7 months ago)

Of course it does better than a 35/2.1 on full frame, unless you don't count how much light it gathers. *shrug* If you disregard ISO settings, then it's pretty hard to compare, especially with as powerful APS-C sensors as the one in the Fujifilms.

Comment edited 2 minutes after posting
0 upvotes
yabokkie
By yabokkie (7 months ago)

ISO is a detailed technical issue that some sensors perform differently at different ISOs (like less perceived read noise at higher ISOs, Canon).

but there are also sensors that are called ISO-less (Sony) that you can just set at lowest ISOs and the image quality won't change (with small error) at whatever exposure compared with those taken with higher ISOs.

after all, it's the amount of light, not ISO, that decides the image quality. ISO is basically irrelevant.

Comment edited 5 times, last edit 4 minutes after posting
0 upvotes
attomole
By attomole (7 months ago)

Your doing photography by maths Yabokkie. What the heck size sensor is big enough? Those tiny sensor p&s are capable of great looking pictures if the light is reasonable the exposure is set accurately and the skill of the photographer points in an intresting dirrection

0 upvotes
yabokkie
By yabokkie (7 months ago)

> doing photography by maths

those who don't do it by maths won't tell me "f/1.4 is f/1.4".

anyone who look at the photos can tell the difference. they have been doing wrong maths and refuse to see the reality.

1 upvote
peevee1
By peevee1 (7 months ago)

"like ISO80 on a 1/1.7" sensor is about ISO1600 on 35mm format and that's the best image quality it can have."

You suppose that 1/1.7" sensors and 36x24 sensors are made using the same technology, and you are completely wrong, the small sensors at any point in time are made on much better newer (and more expensive by sq mm) technology, and it manifests in about twice the efficiency (giving them about a stop advantage over your calculations based purely on area of the sensors). But in APS-C vs FF, you are right - they are made on the same factories and equipment, and APS-C sometimes has even a little (0.2EV or so) worse efficiency per area, obviously due to bigger interconnectors etc compared to photodiodes.

1 upvote
Shamael
By Shamael (7 months ago)

Stop your mathematical bullsh. here. If you use a FF lens, the center is sharp and the edges are generally more blurry. An apsc lens concentrates more light to the center part, just like you do with a magnifying glass in sunlight. Here you get more center sharpness on broader scale and less DOF on edges. Now, the sensor does a big difference too, since the diffraction angle is steeper in a smaller sensor, and flatter in a larger sensor, all that makes bigger sensor produce more DOF and smaller sensor better in depth sharpness. None of the both does a better shot at same small picture size. If you reduce a D800 shot to a 6 mpix size, the result will not be seen by anyone compared to the same shot taken by a 1 1/7 sensor. Yes, an adverted photographer will see it when he magnifies the picture, but is that the goal of shooting photos. Many, comparabely "bad" quality shots have made history, and today, there is no such "bad" camera on the market anymore.

0 upvotes
yabokkie
By yabokkie (7 months ago)

> You suppose that 1/1.7" sensors and 36x24 sensors are made using the same technology

I don't.

actually I don't have to assume anything about the sensor when I'm talking about the lens, what image a lens can project on current and future sensors, what job a lens can do and how much does it worth.

lucky or not different technogies produce similar results across 5 stops in sensor area.

if we know the performance of the sensors, we can just add that to the calculation, like about 0.44 stops between D7100 and 70D according to DxOMark, no problem about that.

but remember that 0.44 stops are credit to the camera, not the lens. the lens still worths the same.

Comment edited 4 times, last edit 9 minutes after posting
0 upvotes
yabokkie
By yabokkie (7 months ago)

I may have assumed a perfect sensor but I'd rather say "doorstep delivery." whatever after that is no lens' business and doesn't change the lens' value, same for both film and digital.

Comment edited 3 times, last edit 3 minutes after posting
0 upvotes
attomole
By attomole (7 months ago)

58mm f/3.5 for 645 film,
35mm f/2.1 for 35mm format,
18mm f/1.1 for 4/3", and
13mm f/0.8 for Nikon 1.

If your at base ISO and set exposure at f3.5. 250th on your 645. Cranking your 13mm Nikon 1 lens open to f0.8 is going to blow all your highlights and midtones to hell. How can that be equivalent Yabbokie?

0 upvotes
yabokkie
By yabokkie (7 months ago)

> If your at base ISO

so you know very well where is the problem which has nothing to do with the equivalency calculation right?

there will be no problem if Nikon 1 got a base ISO of 1/27 of that of a 645 film (sensor area ratio), or if it's Fujichrome 50 on 645, it'll have to be Nautichrome 1.852 on Nikon 1.

we don't have a consumer grade sensor that can do ISO 1.852 which is a technical issue. it's a real issue which favors larger sensors (we have some that favor small ones, too).

Comment edited 2 times, last edit 8 minutes after posting
0 upvotes
attomole
By attomole (7 months ago)

"so you know very well where is the problem which has nothing to do with the equivalency calculation right?"

Well it has everything to do with the equivilancy calculation Yabbokie. For me it it shows its limitations in the same way as F1.4 is F1.4. sure you can use it to show a point. But practicaly its no more use to a photographer than
1. Sticking to the lowest ISO settings for the best quality.
2. Larger format sensors give better quality
Assuming the tech is similar

F1.4 being eqivilant to F2.1. I'm sorry Yabbokie having read a I believe I understand the underlying maths I don't think its particularly useful other than showing what we know already.

0 upvotes
mrook
By mrook (7 months ago)

@Yabokkie

Not to be offense but I think you're messing up concepts of FoV(wikipedia.org/wiki/Fov), DoF(wikipedia.org/wiki/Depth_of_field) and CoC(wikipedia.org/wiki/Circle_of_confusion). 23mm focal length in equivalence of 35mm on FF is just for FoV, nothing more. It merely means that to get the FoV of 35 on FF, you need 23 on APC-S to compensate the crop factor of its smaller sensor size.

For wide-open aperture or bokeh effect, it majorly depends on DoF and CoC. Per formula given in calculating CoC, the absolute ratio for 35/23 is approximately 2:1 given a relative close object distance, but the CoC limit of a FF sensor is also nearly twice as that of an APS-C. For DoF 35mm is for sure less than 23mm, results in more blur or out-of-focus area.

After all, this is just a 23mm 1.4 lens, which produce more DoF and slightly smaller CoC than a 35 on FF but with the same FoV. f-number (=f/A) is still 1.4, which brings fast shutter speed under same ISO. In this way, yes it is a fast lens.

0 upvotes
yabokkie
By yabokkie (7 months ago)

> 23mm focal length in equivalence of 35mm on FF is just for FoV, nothing more.

that's right.

at a certain FoV (solid angle of square degrees), the aperture size decides DoF as well as light gathering capability regardless of format size.

this is because DoF is measured using CoC which is traditionally defined as 1/1300 diagonal. it's really 1/1300 of angle entering the lens and has nothing to do with sensor size (here CoC = 2.9 minutes for both 35mm format and APS-C).

same is true for light gathering capacity. it's the light within the solid angle that enters the aperture. what's behind the aperture cannot provide any capacity (maybe negative capacity or waste light).

since all of these are decided by the FoV and apeture (measured in mm or mm2) when the light enters the lens already, whatever sensor size or f-number can have no effect on the result.

Comment edited 3 times, last edit 13 minutes after posting
0 upvotes
yabokkie
By yabokkie (7 months ago)

f-number is a convenient (but no accurate) tool for
same format, different FoVs (it's not focal lengths)

aperture (diameter or area) is a useful tool for
different formats, same FoV,

FoV and aperture decides photographic effects regardless of sensor size.

0 upvotes
attomole
By attomole (7 months ago)

"f-number is a convenient (but no accurate) tool for
same format, different FoVs (it's not focal lengths)

aperture (diameter or area) is a useful tool for
different formats, same FoV,

FoV and aperture decides photographic effects regardless of sensor size."

f number is a guide (accurate if your equipment is calibrated)
For exposure and exposure calibrations that spans formats.

0 upvotes
yabokkie
By yabokkie (7 months ago)

we used to use exactly the same film across very different formats from half-size to large format and it requires same exposure and processing but image qualities are totally different.

that same exposure (to the unit area for not photographic but chemical reasons) won't get us same quality of image if the sensor size is different.

comparing at same exposure requires different image quality as precondition (the difference is propotional to the sensor area, same for both film and digital).

same exposure to the whole sensor should be used which will get us same image quality (in terms of photon shot noise).

Comment edited 6 minutes after posting
0 upvotes
peevee1
By peevee1 (7 months ago)

Well, Sigma 18-35/1.8 on a a small APS-C DSLR replaces 18/2, 23/1.4, 27/2.8 and 35/1.4, $2,550 total cost, in one big swoop for just $800 (the DSLRs like D5200 are cheaper than say X-E1 too and focuses much faster and has like triple battery life). The combination is also much smaller and lighter than X-E1 with the 4 lenses, and gives you all the FLs in between and unsurpassed convenience of zoom. And the Sigma is very sharp from wide open, unlike 18/2 and 35/1.4 which only get decent by f/2.8 (I bet the 23mm is similar), so in practice if you want sharp pictures, Sigma 18-35 is faster too at any FL.
Just a reality check for Fuji buyers. X system needs to fall in price by about 2/3 before becoming competitive.

Comment edited 3 minutes after posting
1 upvote
marike6
By marike6 (7 months ago)

First of all, third party lenses are almost always less expensive than manufacture lenses.

Second of all, the Fujinon 35 f/1.4 definitely does not need 2 EV stopping down to perform well but is good wide open, excellent by f2 and brilliant at f/4.

And the XR 35 f/1.4 is significantly sharper than the Sigma 18-35 f/1.8 beast, which only reaches 50 lpmm max at 35mm while the Fujinon 35 f/1.4 reaches a whopping 65 lpmm!!! So there goes that theory.

Have a look for yourself.

Fujifilm 35 f/1.4

http://www.lenstip.com/348.4-Lens_review-Fujifilm_Fujinon_XF_35_mm_f_1.4_R_Image_resolution.html

Sigma 18-35 f/1.8

http://www.lenstip.com/374.4-Lens_review-Sigma_A_18-35_mm_f_1.8_DC_HSM__Image_resolution.html

Comment edited 1 minute after posting
2 upvotes
yabokkie
By yabokkie (7 months ago)

> a whopping 65 lpmm!!!

why you have to stop down the lens.
3 stops to get that resolution.

Comment edited 2 times, last edit 5 minutes after posting
1 upvote
marike6
By marike6 (7 months ago)

> why do you have to stop down

Most lenses peak in terms of resolution at f/4-5.6, and the 65 lpmm is one of the highest marks reached for an APS-C lens on Lenstip. So "that resolution" is a great achievement.

The Sigma 18-35 f/1.8 reached 53 lpmm, still outstanding for an APS-C lens, especially a zoom.

2 upvotes
yabokkie
By yabokkie (7 months ago)

35/1.4 for X-mount is the easiest lens to make, just like 50mm primes are the easiest and cheapest lenses to make at highest qaulity for 35mm format, and most of them at larger apertures than this Fujinon.

why it has to be called a so-so lens.

and it doesn't have a long back focus to overcome as the Sigma, which is way more difficult to design and make.

Comment edited 1 minute after posting
1 upvote
peevee1
By peevee1 (7 months ago)

marike6, you cannot read your own links it seems. Edge (not even corner!) performance of 45/1.4 is only 27 lpmm at f/1.4, 32 at f/2, 40 at f/2.8 (decent), while 18-35 is 37@1.8, 38@2, 42@2.8 (higher at every point). Now look at slrgear which shows more than just center point and edge and see what kind of junky performance this lens gives across the frame @ f/1.4 and even f/2. Your cited performance is @ f/4 and only in the very center - you don't need a prime for f/4 and the center point, even decent kit zooms are good enough at that.

Comment edited 2 times, last edit 3 minutes after posting
0 upvotes
Frank_BR
By Frank_BR (7 months ago)

Too many people think that distortion correction by software is a bad thing. Nothing is so further from the truth. In certain cases, for example, when the lens suffers from pincushion distortion, the distortion correction by software can even increase the resolution!

Another misunderstanding is that distortion correction by software reduces the angular coverage. To be exact, if the lens suffers from barrel distortion, the vertical angular coverage doesn't change after software correction. On the other hand, if the lens suffers from pincushion distortion, it is the diagonal coverage that is kept constant. Finally, less angular coverage is not a bad thing by itself. For example, a 200mm lens has less angular coverage than a 180mm lens, but 200mm has more reach than 180mm. What is better, more angular coverage and less reach, or more reach and less angular coverage?

Comment edited 7 minutes after posting
1 upvote
peevee1
By peevee1 (7 months ago)

Prices in the Fuji system are mind-blowing.

0 upvotes
marike6
By marike6 (7 months ago)

Prices in all crop sensor mirrorless systems are mind-blowing. In m43, $1000 for a f/4 UWA zoom or $1300 for a standard zoom are not exactly budget friendly prices.

2 upvotes
57even
By 57even (7 months ago)

So far I would conclude that I got what I paid for. These are not cheap plastic lenses like nearly all the APSC lenses made for SLRs.

Compare with Nikon and Canon's professional primes and they start looking quite cheap.

3 upvotes
marike6
By marike6 (7 months ago)

@57even

I like the Fujinon X lenses too, but to say that nearly all APSC SLR lenses are "cheap plastic" is nonsense (no offense). Pentax DA primes are solid metal (a lot nicer quality than the Fujinon lenses). Tokina tanks like the 12-24 f/4, Sigma "Art" lenses, and the better Nikon and Canon lenses are all excellent quality build wise. You mostly get what you pay for with lenses.

0 upvotes
yabokkie
By yabokkie (7 months ago)

plastic has some better qualities over metal and a metal outer barrel is more for decoration than anything good.

1 upvote
peevee1
By peevee1 (7 months ago)

"Prices in all crop sensor mirrorless systems are mind-blowing. In m43, $1000 for a f/4 UWA zoom or $1300 for a standard zoom are not exactly budget friendly prices."

Well, and what do you compare it with? Because X does not have f/4 UWA zoom OR constant f/2.8 standard zoom. And when you go ahead and compare what is available, Fuji tele zoom is $700 vs $99 (or $149) for Oly tele zoom which just 1/3EV slower or Pana 45-200 which has wider range. Oly weather-sealed full macro is $400 while Fuji half-macro is $650 - and Oly can shoot subjects 3 times as small.

0 upvotes
mr_landscape
By mr_landscape (7 months ago)

It`s a pity that Fuji having such excellent lenses, use relatively small sensors in their cameras ..

0 upvotes
calking
By calking (7 months ago)

The x-series sensors are standard APS-C. Plenty of other high end cameras are APS- C and have good glass. Full frame sensors aren't needed to create great images.

3 upvotes
mr_landscape
By mr_landscape (7 months ago)

Agreed. Anyway they can't compete with Nikon d5200 or Sony Nex7 for example. But their lenses are true gems, and not comparable with lossy Sony E-mount crap glass.

0 upvotes
M Jesper
By M Jesper (7 months ago)

Any of them are great sensors, so what is the problem exactly ?

1 upvote
Mike99999
By Mike99999 (7 months ago)

Relative to what? Only Leica offers a mirrorless system with a larger sensor than the Fuji.

0 upvotes
M Jesper
By M Jesper (7 months ago)

Indeed he is making no sense whatsoever.

1 upvote
yabokkie
By yabokkie (7 months ago)

> Full frame sensors aren't needed to create great images.

definitely not.
it's lenses that make great images in the first place.
and we have best lenses for the 35mm format.

Comment edited 2 minutes after posting
0 upvotes
mr_landscape
By mr_landscape (7 months ago)

Look at the image quality resolution RAW comparison. NEX7 is ahead in terms of resolution. This is what i am trying to say..

0 upvotes
57even
By 57even (7 months ago)

If this lens replicates the performance of the 14mm and the 35mm I will be more than happy. So far it's looking hopeful that I can switch back to using primes exclusively as 35mm is my favourite focal length. With the 14 and the 60 just about everything I need is covered.

Nice going Fuji, you are doing a great job of covering the bases with consistently good optics.

0 upvotes
yabokkie
By yabokkie (7 months ago)

the performance of XF35mm f/1.4 is quite standard for a 54mm f/2.1 equiv. lens.

XF14mm f/2.8 may be slightly better than old 20mm primes stopped down to f/4-4.5 (those 20mm ones haven't seen service for a decade).

Comment edited 2 times, last edit 6 minutes after posting
0 upvotes
57even
By 57even (7 months ago)

@yabokkie

Have you even used one?

3 upvotes
yabokkie
By yabokkie (7 months ago)

XF35/1.4 quite carefuly, a so-so lens that may worth 100 US.

0 upvotes
marike6
By marike6 (7 months ago)

@yabokkie

I usually ignore your comments, but if you think the Fujinon 35 f/1.4 is a so-so lens, it's obvious you haven't used it.

Perhaps if you are going to comment on everything under the sun, at least take the time to read a couple of lens test reviews to avoid such embarrassing comments.

2 upvotes
yabokkie
By yabokkie (7 months ago)

I was disappointed that I didn't go on to look at 18-55/2.8-4 which is not bad compared with APS-C SLR ones.

a so-so lens compared with popular 50mm primes. worths 100 dollar because it cannot be more expensive than 50/1.8.

Comment edited 2 times, last edit 5 minutes after posting
0 upvotes
iShootWideOpen
By iShootWideOpen (7 months ago)

Well I hope this new 23mm is better optically than the one on the X100/S. The 22mm from the EOS M is significantly sharper wide open in close and midrange than the Fuji.
I'm still holding out for the expected X2 Pro.

2 upvotes
Ovarland
By Ovarland (7 months ago)

what about sensor size, how can you compare small vs large sensor.. most likely it is just DOF

0 upvotes
JackM
By JackM (7 months ago)

Eos M is aps-c.

4 upvotes
yabokkie
By yabokkie (7 months ago)

> most likely it is just DOF

if it's DOF, it's everything else, regardless of the format.
all the effects controlled by the aperture have to be the same
because we have only one aperture.

Comment edited 5 minutes after posting
1 upvote
M Jesper
By M Jesper (7 months ago)

Fuji has recommended from the start that you use at least F4 close-up and indeed that does the trick, no problem whatsoever then and just awesome for everything else as well, wide open or not.

Also the rendering is very pleasing unlike the sometimes very harsh images from the Canon 22mm. In the end it's not the MTF charts that you'll be showing to your friends and family you know. :)

0 upvotes
Rooru S
By Rooru S (7 months ago)

oh man...wish Sony also focused on really fast lenses. The fastest we have on E-mount is F1.8

0 upvotes
codeNsnap
By codeNsnap (7 months ago)

IMO Sony will probably borrow in-body OSS technology from Olympus and stick to f/1.8 lenses.

I wonder if Fuji might ever bring in-body OIS. Whatever it is I'm waiting to buy X-Pro2 with this 23mm baby.

Comment edited 4 times, last edit 7 minutes after posting
0 upvotes
yabokkie
By yabokkie (7 months ago)

would like to have high quality f/1.8 equiv. lenses at reasonable prices, f/1.2 ones for APS-C and f/0.9 ones for 4/3".

1 upvote
rxbot
By rxbot (7 months ago)

If I ever went to X system I would go with the 27mm as to me it sits nicely between this and the 35mm. To me the 40mm equivalent is perfect for walkabout street shooting

0 upvotes
arhmatic
By arhmatic (7 months ago)

There are probably reasons to do it this way, but one thing that really bothers me - Focus by wire, as opposed to mechanical. I think it's losing some of the great manual control - mechanical - that is achieve with the X cameras.

We have hard dials for exposure, aperture (it might be electronically controlled inside...) we have mechanical zoom for the 18-55, and I think focus should have been kept mechanical as well.

Again, there are probably reasons for this, but it really bothers me. I am surprised very few really care about non-mechanical focus.
What am I missing?
.

4 upvotes
Stephen Scharf
By Stephen Scharf (7 months ago)

What you're missing is that most people use autofocus. With rev 3 of the firmware, it's now very good.

2 upvotes
DDWD10
By DDWD10 (7 months ago)

You're not just mindlessly twirling a soft dial with this system - the MF ring has markings that will always correspond to the focusing distance and the lag is minimal. Not perfect, but it's a much more pleasant experience than using the 35/1.4 which has no such markings.

2 upvotes
arhmatic
By arhmatic (7 months ago)

The manuam focus on the 23mm should be realy good.
I am just not convinced that the focus by wire experience is equal or better than having a mechanicall coupled ring to the focusing elements.

1 upvote
white shadow
By white shadow (7 months ago)

I would still prefer mechanical manual focus as highlighted by arhmatic.

If the professional grade DSLR AF lenses can have mechanical manual focus I don't see why mirrorless cameras cannot do the same.

A long throw manual focus lens is always more precise. This is especially useful for macro photography. A mechanical infinity stop is absolutely useful for low light and landscape photography.

Sometimes, the old fashion way is still the better way. More precise and you know what you will be getting.

Comment edited 2 times, last edit 9 minutes after posting
2 upvotes
Peiasdf
By Peiasdf (7 months ago)

Me likey. Still, I wish it has OIS.

0 upvotes
M Jesper
By M Jesper (7 months ago)

Which of course magically wouldn't have any effect on price, size, weight or quality. They just need to change the label and there it is. Amiright ?

0 upvotes
mosc
By mosc (7 months ago)

It would if the body had IS, which is where it should be.

0 upvotes
Frank_BR
By Frank_BR (7 months ago)

"Lens distortion has been reduced to an absolute minimum using only optical rather than digital correction, thereby delivering the highest possible picture quality."
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Hmmm…. Compare the statement above with what Hasselblad says in a technical article in its site:

"Images shot with an HC or HCD lens are automatically corrected for distortion, lateral chromatic aberration, and vignetting when processed in our Phocus™ software."

Everybody knows that the Hasselblad lenses are made today by Fujifilm, and that Hasselblad is all about picture quality. So, when Fujifilm draws attention to the "advantages" of optical correction of distortion, Fujifilm is being contradictory, to say the least.

The true is: Optical correction of distortion was important in the film era, but has no real advantage in the digital age.

Comment edited 3 times, last edit 2 minutes after posting
0 upvotes
LeitzKameraAktion
By LeitzKameraAktion (7 months ago)

"Optical correction of distortion was important in the film era, but has no real advantage in the digital age".

Really? Do you not realise that a wideangle lens with (say) 5% distortion loses a significant degree of width (angle of view) after being corrected electronically? There's no free lunch here! Fuji's success in correcting lens distortion optically is to be applauded. It clearly demonstrates their mastery of lens design. Alas, far too many manufacturers (even Hasselblad it seems) are taking the easy (cheap) way out and doing it electronically.

11 upvotes
Frank_BR
By Frank_BR (7 months ago)

The Zeiss Touit on the Fujifilm X line camera also has the distortion corrected by software.

Is Zeiss a crappy lens maker that doesn't share the expertise Fujifilm has in correcting distortion by optical means?

0 upvotes
AbrasiveReducer
By AbrasiveReducer (7 months ago)

People pay top dollar to get that last little bit of sharpness in the corners but they don't mind letting the camera software move the pixels around to correct the distortion.

3 upvotes
BobYIL
By BobYIL (7 months ago)

"Lens distortion has been reduced to an absolute minimum using only optical rather than digital correction, thereby delivering the highest possible picture quality. " by Fujifilm and then DPR..

0 upvotes
57even
By 57even (7 months ago)

With reference to Hasselblad's distortion correction in software - it is much easier to deal with the correction on a small sensor lens than a large one, especially if the lens' image circle is wider than the sensor. It's one of the reasons FF lenses always do rather well on APSC sensors. Most of the distortion is around the peripheral part of the image.

Also, on MF cameras, the standards of accuracy are a lot greater. The only way to eliminate it completely is through software, but the more you do in hardware the less detail you lose in the manipulation. What Hasselblad defines as "corrected" is probably at a fairly extreme level.

0 upvotes
Frank_BR
By Frank_BR (7 months ago)

No, the amount of distortion is not proportional to sensor size. Otherwise, lenses for the 8x10 format would have tremendous distortion, and lenses for compact cameras, virtually zero distortion.

The standard of distortion correction for MF is not better than for smaller formats. For example, the Leica 24mm F/3.5 (wide-angle for the S system) has about 5% of distortion for close distances, and 2.5% for infinity. The Leica 70mm F/2.5 (normal lens) has distortion of 1.5%. These values are typical for lenses with similar angular coverage for all formats.

0 upvotes
PenGun
By PenGun (7 months ago)

An amazing stack of moronic comments.

It's a very fine lens. You will need to learn how to work a camera to use it. You will need to learn how to use a camera well to even come close to what it can do.

That said I will probably not buy this one as the 35mm is just about perfect for what I do. I take pictures of nature. Very seldom is there a person and never a street! ;)

The 14mm is an amazing lens and I am still learning how to use it well. The 60mm is stone deadly and right where I like a lens. I will buy the 55-200mm in a while as well as the 35mm.

I think Fuji was toying with Zeiss and the results are just Fuji ads as the reviews come in.

Comment edited 1 minute after posting
3 upvotes
BobYIL
By BobYIL (7 months ago)

Amazing sharpness down to the corners in the JPEG samples. Optical distortion correction is a big PLUS these days; no sacrifice on the resolving power.

0 upvotes
yabokkie
By yabokkie (7 months ago)

how would you know that optical distortion correction doesn't compromise resolution?

Comment edited 9 minutes after posting
1 upvote
viking79
By viking79 (7 months ago)

The Sony E 16mm f/2.8 is an optically correct lens, yet performs terrible compared to software corrected Samsung 16mm f/2.4. Some software corrected lenses perform very well. Optical/software don't matter to user, only the results. Yes, removing barrel distortion decreases corner resolution, but so can optical corrections.

3 upvotes
LeitzKameraAktion
By LeitzKameraAktion (7 months ago)

Correcting distortion optically actually risks lowering resolution. So, to have a lens that offers high resolving power AND low distortion is really quite something. The difficulty in achieving low distortion and high resolving power partly explains the high cost of Leica M lenses. The drawback with correcting distortion electronically is that it reduces the angle of view. However, for some reason, this is rarely mentioned in lens reviews.

Comment edited 7 minutes after posting
0 upvotes
headofdestiny
By headofdestiny (7 months ago)

Really only the newer Leica designs at 50mm and wider, like the 50/2 AA, resolve highly and evenly across the whole frame, and I'm still not sure that it justifies $7K. Either way, what m4/3 tends to do is make their lenses slightly wider than the stated focal length, so that, once the distortion correction is added in, the focal length equals what is listed on the lens barrel. Tricky.

0 upvotes
LeitzKameraAktion
By LeitzKameraAktion (7 months ago)

Interestingly, Fuji claim a slightly wider angle of view at 18mm for the 18-55mm zoom compared to the 18mm f2 prime - 79.1 degrees compared to 76.5 degrees. Yet (according to Photozone), both lenses produce virtually the same amount of distortion - 4.8% for the 18-55mm compared to 4.6% for the 18mm prime. Your claim that m4/3 lenses with distortion are deliberately made a touch wider - so that you get the 'correct' angle of view after software correction - sounds reasonable, but is it true? Just compare the 4/3 12-60mm to the m4/3 12-60mm. The former is a much bigger, faster, and better corrected lens than its tiny m4/3 equivalent, and it delivers a significantly 'wider' view when set to 12mm. According to Photozone, the 4/3 12-60mm has around 2.3% distortion, while the m4/3 version produces a whopping 6.87%! I own both lenses, and the difference (in terms of angle of view at '12mm') is massive.

0 upvotes
white shadow
By white shadow (7 months ago)

Better late than never.

This would definitely make the X series interchangeable lens cameras more complete. This would make the new X-M1 a more formidable camera to use for travelling. The f/1.4 aperture would make it a great low light performer.

Now, DPR should get hold of one as soon as possible before everyone else to give it a thorough review. Let's hope there would not be any focus issues compared to the Sigma recently.

The photo of the lens sure looks good but since it is only 300g. I don't expect the built quality to be as good as a Zeiss. Most likely, it will be mostly plastic and manual focusing will be "fly-by-wire". Hopefully, there will be an infinity stop.

To many, the asking price of $899.95 maybe a bit high for the overall built and finish. Let's see whether the quality can justify the price.

Comment edited 8 minutes after posting
0 upvotes
DDWD10
By DDWD10 (7 months ago)

Well, compare it to the XF 14mm. Entirely metal, including the filter threads, and it does have a hard stop at infinity. It is focus-by-wire, though.

0 upvotes
Stephen Scharf
By Stephen Scharf (7 months ago)

The 14 is an amazing lens, one of the best I've ever used. Build quality is first-rate. I use it on my XP1 quite often, as much as I use the 18-55.

0 upvotes
BadMike
By BadMike (7 months ago)

You think $899 is expensive, it's £849 in the UK! That's $1,325 by my reckoning...

0 upvotes
white shadow
By white shadow (7 months ago)

@Stephen Scharf

You are very correct. The 14mm is an excellent lens for the X series.

@Badmike

Just too bad you are buying camera equipment in UK. Probably, that's the reason why there are so few camera shops left even in London.

Best to buy them in Hong Kong, Bangkok or Kuala Lumpur.

0 upvotes
Puddleglum
By Puddleglum (7 months ago)

Nicely done Fuji.

0 upvotes
Gesture
By Gesture (7 months ago)

GREAT JOB FUJI. A real set of lenses, modern advantages but traditional intent and quality. Excellent competitor to Leica with some more affordable entry options. PLUS one of the few innovators, especially with respect to viewing systems.

6 upvotes
yabokkie
By yabokkie (7 months ago)

I like high resolution, low aberration, light weight, and cheap f/1.8 primes for 35mm format cameras (like some recent Nikon AF-S/G ones), or f/1.2 primes for APS-C to get the job done.

Comment edited 32 seconds after posting
0 upvotes
tkbslc
By tkbslc (7 months ago)

Most sensors can't actually get more than f1.4 worth of light anyway, so not much point paying big bucks for an f1.2 over f1.4.

1 upvote
yabokkie
By yabokkie (7 months ago)

but this Fujinon got f/2.1 worth of light, not even f/1.8.
also the light may enter and exit the lens differently.

0 upvotes
JConrad
By JConrad (7 months ago)

tkbslc - Wait, what? What in the heck do you mean by 'sensors can't get more than f/1.4 worth of light?' What a bogus statement. The aperture of the lens has absolutely nothing to do with the amount of light the sensor can 'handle'. I assure you that an f/0.95 lens on Micro 4/3 gets a full stop of light more than an f/1.4 lens on m4/3...and that's a lot more than the difference to f/1.2.

Sensors are exposed and 'get' however much light is passed by the lens on to the sensor. The amount of light that's passed on is more based on the brightness of the light source. Interestingly enough, if I meter the blank white wall at my desk with my f/1.4 lens on, wide open, I get 1/60s at my current settings. If I remove the lens entirely, I get 1/180s, or 1.5 stops faster, equivalent to f/0.85. At this point, the lens mount is acting like the aperture. This defines the maximum possible aperture opening to the sensor, but that's about all.

Comment edited 3 times, last edit 5 minutes after posting
2 upvotes
tkbslc
By tkbslc (7 months ago)

Are you positive about that, JConrad?

http://www.dxomark.com/index.php/Reviews/F-stop-blues

0 upvotes
rfsIII
By rfsIII (7 months ago)

Cray-zee! I have no reason to doubt the DXO people so I wonder how a scientist would account for their observations. It's like the photons are in rebellion!
Has anyone seen articles in optical engineering journals about this phenomenon?

Comment edited 5 minutes after posting
0 upvotes
Dave Luttmann
By Dave Luttmann (7 months ago)

Oh god...more DxO drivel. F1.2 is f1.2. Sensors have no problem with it.

0 upvotes
calking
By calking (7 months ago)

no, but yabokkie does. hahahaha

0 upvotes
yabokkie
By yabokkie (7 months ago)

DxOMark's study is on lenses of old design from the film age on sensors available at the time of the test.

as I said we can control how the light exits the lens, but the current trend is to do as little as possible on the lens side which often costs more than on the sensor side.

this is a temporary issue with no hard limit.

Comment edited 2 times, last edit 8 minutes after posting
0 upvotes
Olymore
By Olymore (7 months ago)

An F1.2 lens will still give more light than an F1.4 lens. The sensor might not receive the full amount of light but it will still be more than a smaller aperture lens which will also suffer some light loss.
It's the same as more MPix whch will still be better than fewer Mpix even though the lens may not resolve as well as the sensor.

0 upvotes
qwertyasdf
By qwertyasdf (7 months ago)

Optical correction of distortion is such a novelty these days, kudos Fuji!

4 upvotes
qwertyasdf
By qwertyasdf (7 months ago)

I mean for mirrorless.

0 upvotes
yabokkie
By yabokkie (7 months ago)

we care much more final result than how it's done.

Comment edited 5 minutes after posting
3 upvotes
tkbslc
By tkbslc (7 months ago)

Software distortion correction kills sharpness, so I think "we" care that it is done in lens if possible.

3 upvotes
yabokkie
By yabokkie (7 months ago)

> Software distortion correction kills sharpness

then it will be held accountable,
and we have nothing to worry.

Comment edited 13 seconds after posting
2 upvotes
viking79
By viking79 (7 months ago)

Optical distortion correction can also hurt resolution and usually increases flare and decreases transmission (extra elements). Dont buy a lens because of how it is corrected, but buy based on how good it performs. I imagine that the Fuji will be fine

11 upvotes
Jogger
By Jogger (7 months ago)

Great addition to the line.

3 upvotes
Petka
By Petka (7 months ago)

The mechanical manual focus coupling certainly makes MF more precise and gives a solid feel, but my experiences with the same system in 14mm lens was not 100% joy only: the focus ring has often moved to MF position inadvertently when changing lenses (pushed back when placed in the camera bag). This has meant maybe a few dozen missed shots, camera (and me) on AF, lens on manual. After a few times I learned to push the focus ring forward every time after attaching the 14mm on XPro1, just in case. Some kind of lock would be nice.

About lens sizes: f/1.4 23 lens for APS-C (or any other smaller than 135 format) can not be much smaller than a same focal length lens for FF, the maximum aperture dictates the smallest possible lens diameter, no matter what the image circle is. Slightly smaller, yes, because smaller image circle means less image corrections = less lenses and lens groups. This mostly makes the length of the lens shorter, not so much smaller diameter.

Comment edited 42 seconds after posting
1 upvote
viking79
By viking79 (7 months ago)

Size is similar only in case of lenses with focal length around flange distance or longer. This lens is significantly smaller than SLR lens since the design doesn't have to be retrofocal. You are correct, something like an 85mm will be similar in size (probably larger on the shorter flange camera to make up the extra length).

1 upvote
yabokkie
By yabokkie (7 months ago)

it is quite heavy at 300g compared with about 200g of popular 35/2 lenses from the film age but is lighter than Canon 35/2IS of 335g.

for lenses wider than SLR back focus (40mm something), we should be able to make higher quality, more compact lenses at lower cost for APS-C mirrorless mounts.

image circle doesn't affect the compactness of a lens (imagine we have a variable speed booster/suppressor at the end of the lens that can change image circle freely).

the aperture size is more important (as well as peripheral performance which often requires larger caliber elements). for this lens the aperture = 23/1.4 = 16.4mm or same as a 35mm lens of f/2.1.

0 upvotes
viking79
By viking79 (7 months ago)

Spot on Fuji, they really understand their customers. The price is great next to the $1100 US Sony 24mm f/1.8, size looks right (buy x100s if smaller lens is needed).

7 upvotes
yabokkie
By yabokkie (7 months ago)

Sony 24/1.8 is near 0.5 stops faster than Canon 22/2 but it's near 2 stops more expansive.

this Fujinon is near 1.2 stops faster than EF-M but slightly cheaper (or less unreasonable) than Sony Zeiss.

2 upvotes
audijam
By audijam (7 months ago)

it looks beautiful

2 upvotes
JackM
By JackM (7 months ago)

Wonderful news. Fuji really "gets it". However I'll caution anyone about buying this for blurred backgrounds. I owned a 35/1.4 on Full Frame for about a year. It doesn't blur the bg as much as you might think. If you can get close to your subject it will blur the bg quite a bit, but at typical shooting distances it's not so dramatic. The speed is the bigger story here. Great looking lens though. Very lustworthy.

Comment edited 2 minutes after posting
0 upvotes
DDWD10
By DDWD10 (7 months ago)

Those looking for killer bokeh should wait for the 56/1.2. I'm hoping that excellent wide-open IQ is what will set this lens apart.

2 upvotes
Petka
By Petka (7 months ago)

You can not really get much shallow DOF effects with wide-angles, except at very close focus. I do not think that would be the main reason for most people to by this lens. More lens speed is often nice to have in low light situations, even if the low light performance is as good as it is with Fuji. With better high ISO performance and faster lenses we seem to find darker and darker places to photograph in...

2 upvotes
Gordon L
By Gordon L (7 months ago)

You've clearly not used the x100. The ability to use selective focus at medium distances is astounding. And at f2, what is in focus is very sharp. It's an amazing little machine. This new 1.4 looks very promising. I'm thinking an interchangeable lens x camera is in my future.

1 upvote
yabokkie
By yabokkie (7 months ago)

I'm also looking forward to seeing a 55/1.2 that can perform as well as or better than 85/1.8 primes (AF-S/G or EF).

0 upvotes
JackM
By JackM (7 months ago)

Gordon, I have not used an X100. I own the X100S. ;-)

My 35/1.4 on my 5D2 had shallower DOF, and it was still not that shallow unless I was close to my subject.

1 upvote
yabokkie
By yabokkie (7 months ago)

I don't need 35/1.4L. any popular 35/2 can do the same job, maybe more aberration at open or peripheral due to an old and economical design but that we have to see.

0 upvotes
JackM
By JackM (7 months ago)

yabokkie, I had the 35/2 at the same time and then sold it. It's a great lens, much better than a 50/1.8, but it had a lot more vignetting at f/2 than the 35L did at f/1.4.

I haven't tried the new 35/2 IS.

0 upvotes
DDWD10
By DDWD10 (7 months ago)

Photographyblog hands-on pictures confirm it's "Made in Japan".

4 upvotes
GabrielZ
By GabrielZ (7 months ago)

A handsome quality looking product. Resembles Leica's M series lenses a little, which is no bad thing and maybe even deliberate!

Comment edited 45 seconds after posting
1 upvote
JackM
By JackM (7 months ago)

Agreed. Fuji gets it.

3 upvotes
tkbslc
By tkbslc (7 months ago)

Fuji gets what? How to make a niche product?

1 upvote
yabokkie
By yabokkie (7 months ago)

if you go back to 1970s you will find all the cheap cameras and lens got the same all metal build. we had to wait until 1980s and 1990s for them to be built with a better material, the plastic.

0 upvotes
calking
By calking (7 months ago)

plastic .... hahahaha

1 upvote
Sdabur
By Sdabur (7 months ago)

@ Dear Yabokkie.. Your comments are as stupid as you're. You're just talking with no sense. I reckon you know nothing about photography or you're living in a totally different world of photography which no one understands..!! I feel pity on you man. Come on .. Grow up..!!

1 upvote
Griffo 155
By Griffo 155 (7 months ago)

Lens looks lovely, bigger than I expected it to be in terms of dimensions.
Would I buy it?
Tough call that with the 18-55mm lens I have do I need it?
Another tough call...
Oh alright then! It's on my shopping list to Santa!

or do I get the XF 18mm f2.

0 upvotes
attomole
By attomole (7 months ago)

Interesting to compare results with the RX1, in similar lighting and for DOF control given that this is a significantly faster lens on a smaller sensor

Comment edited 12 seconds after posting
3 upvotes
calking
By calking (7 months ago)

not to mention more stuff to argue about, depending on whether one is a Sony FB or Fuji FB.

0 upvotes
Expat Nomad
By Expat Nomad (7 months ago)

"So there could still be a place for both the XF23mm F1.4 and X100S in a photographer's bag; the former for its speed, the latter for its portability and silent operation."

Or for me, a new lens, or a new X100.

Nice looking lens. I'm sure it will sell pretty well.

0 upvotes
Rod McD
By Rod McD (7 months ago)

It should be very good. Let's see how user experience and the reviews pan out. Personally I'm hoping that the extra stop (over the 23mm f2) hasn't compromised other aspects of IQ like flare resistance and contra light performance.....

0 upvotes
calking
By calking (7 months ago)

Lets actually use one and make our own determinations based on our own results and stop relying on pixel-peeping other people's stuff and letting other people's opinions decide what we should or shouldn't like.

0 upvotes
Marek Rucinski
By Marek Rucinski (7 months ago)

"fully optical correction of distortion" is the newspeak of the month...

1 upvote
Red5TX
By Red5TX (7 months ago)

What are you talking about? There's nothing new or misleading about that phrase.

0 upvotes
Daniel from Bavaria
By Daniel from Bavaria (7 months ago)

Finally!
Ok, a bit on the expensive side, but if it is near to perfect I am fine with it.

And yes, I know several people not buying into the Fuji System because that lens was missing - some of them are lost now.

For this kind of system and the adressed clients, the 35mm equiv. is the most important lens, if not the only one which counts.

Now bring fast and in sufficient quantity into the shops and everything is fine.

Daniel

P.S. And please do it right with the apperture-ring, so that we can avoid discussions as we had them on the 14mm lens (too loose etc.)

1 upvote
comet suisei
By comet suisei (7 months ago)

you can find tons of articles comparing Zeiss or Leica lenses with the Fujifilm X series, do your really think this lens is expensive?

2 upvotes
SeeRoy
By SeeRoy (7 months ago)

Jewellery is usually a bit expensive.

2 upvotes
PatMann
By PatMann (7 months ago)

Yeah, when I can get an equivalent for my D300 for only $2,000, that weighs 1.4 pounds, and uses 77mm filters, why would I look to Fujifilm for an APS-C system with a 35-equivalent f/1.4 given the excessive price of this Fujifilm lens?

Comment edited 2 times, last edit 3 minutes after posting
1 upvote
Petka
By Petka (7 months ago)

New Sigma 35mm f/1.4 in Nikon mount is less than $1000 I believe... And it is one of the sharpest lens ever available for FF cameras.

1 upvote
calking
By calking (7 months ago)

Most people would be amazed at the results they'd get at the 23mm setting on the 18-55 OIS lens, taped so it doesn't move. No, it's not f1.4, but unless one is shooting in the dark you'd be hard pressed to notice a difference I'd wager.

0 upvotes
sproketholes
By sproketholes (7 months ago)

Im excited about this lens. If their 35/1.4 is anything to go by and the rave reviews of the 14/2.8 then I have little doubt that this thing will be the Summilux ASPH of the Fuji X series. I am still blown away by the 18/2 ~sharp at every aperture..

2 upvotes
Craig Atkinson
By Craig Atkinson (7 months ago)

the 18 isn't a great lens I don't think. It's ok. The 35 is amazing.

4 upvotes
Petka
By Petka (7 months ago)

If this 23mm is like the 14mm and 35mm, you are going to be pleasantly surprised: 18mm is merely good compared to those excellent lenses.

2 upvotes
autoy
By autoy (7 months ago)

The 18mm f2 is a much better lens than reviews would make you believe. It's just not as stellar as the 35mm with its off-the-charts sharpness, but overall it's way ahead of what Canon and Nikon offer at 20mm (sorry, no 18mm primes, only crazy-expensive 14mm), to put things in perspective.

8 upvotes
Craig Atkinson
By Craig Atkinson (7 months ago)

The lens on the Ricoh GR is all round better than the fuji 18, slightly more expensive but you get a pocket camera. xpro1 + 23mm & 35mm (35 / 50) alongside ricoh 28mm / 21mm. Win

0 upvotes
Beat Traveller
By Beat Traveller (7 months ago)

The 18mm is a very good lens. It does suffer a bit from 'middle child' syndrome, in a family with the excellent 14mm and 35mm.

1 upvote
calking
By calking (7 months ago)

and it's SMALLER

0 upvotes
peevee1
By peevee1 (7 months ago)

Self-hypnosis is good, but here are the facts:

18/2 is very bad outside of the center at f/2 and so-so in the center, and only becomes decent (but not great) stopped down.
http://slrgear.com/reviews/zproducts/fuji18f2r/tloader.htm

35/1.4 sucks even worse until you stop it down to f/2.8.
http://slrgear.com/reviews/zproducts/fuji35f14r/tloader.htm

0 upvotes
Hubertus Bigend
By Hubertus Bigend (7 months ago)

Fuji seems to do everything right, as of now. The whole X sytem makes the impression of a completely different (higher) level of perfection than the other mirrorless systems, better thought-out and much more consistent. Why do Olympus or Sony fail to design such lenses? They have nothing comparable, and what they have sometimes is still even more expensive.

On the other hand, the X system bodies do feel slightly plasticky in hand, and while the X system lenses look nice and solid, their internal mechanical parts are completely made of plastic (i've seen several cut-in-half lenses on display), so we don't know yet whether the stuff will be as durable as it looks.

Comment edited 1 minute after posting
8 upvotes
don_van_vliet
By don_van_vliet (7 months ago)

Fuji's system does look compelling, and well thought out with regards to the needs of photographers. I don't think you should discount Oly/Pany/Sony's offerings though, as they do some things significantly better than Fuji (e.g. size, focus, IS etc). Everything is a compromise.

8 upvotes
shigzeo ?
By shigzeo ? (7 months ago)

I don't think that 'perfection' can be improved upon. Fuji's stuff is interesting and certainly unique today, but it is still early. I love the X-Pro but it is a very compromised system, and, unless X is going to stay around for 30 years, requires a bit of faith in order to invest in.

The price on the bodies has fallen over 50% in Japan in less than a year. That is the biggest problem. Fuji are not protecting the market. They build for an instantly obsolete market point.

No perfect or professional-leaning product should do that. Nikon (god bless them) don't even do with their cameras that seem to get bigger and heavier every iteration.

I think Fuji need: to fix AF speed for AF users; to allow visual focusing via the OVF (patch or emulated image match); get professional support service; up quality build; up speed; and protect their products from instant market value obsolescence.

Those fixed and I will agree: in the mirror less market, at least in their niche, they'll be perfect.

2 upvotes
don_van_vliet
By don_van_vliet (7 months ago)

All mirrorless cameras lose value quickly (at the moment), as the technology is developing so rapidly. Nikon's 1 series is one of the worst in this regard. In my opinion nobody should buy a mirrorless camera as an investment, or with the expectation of a good resale value (unless selling very soon after buying). Buy it to take photos with and you should be happy, however.

Comment edited 12 seconds after posting
7 upvotes
comet suisei
By comet suisei (7 months ago)

@shigzeo i couldn't find the 50% of price fall in Japan

0 upvotes
mferencz
By mferencz (7 months ago)

Shigzeo? that has to be the most absurd thing i've read in a while 'unless X is gonna stay around for 30 years, it's a bit of a leap of faith in order to invest'. Put it this way, if your around in 30 years you are NOT going to be using what your using now. Unless you have some fascination with using relics or giant lenses from the past. That I know for sure. What I don't know is if Fuji or M43 or FF is going to be around in the next 10 years, and if so how.

2 upvotes
shigzeo ?
By shigzeo ? (7 months ago)

@Don: it's not resale value I'm worried about. I've never sold a camera. It's that a 'pro' labelled camera that sold new for 1700$ was in six months selling for 1000$, and then for 800$ a few months after that.

Fujifilm could protect their market by setting a firm price for all distributors. (I used to work for audio/video distributors in Japan and found that companies that built only to sell millions with no other care let the market only dictate the price. Conscientious makers would set a price that their distributors had to follow. Barring black market stuff from factory, prices fell when the company felt the should.)

That way, every distributor in the same country sat on equal footing, offering service, not barrel scraping deals. The brand is also more respected and becomes less a commodity.

Fuji should fix that if they want their image to remain 'high' or whatever it is. They are treading dangerous water though and may find themselves in a race to the bottom if not careful.

0 upvotes
Cane
By Cane (7 months ago)

Great cameras for shooting sleeping turtles. Unless they can figure out how to appeal to more than the street and landscape shooter, they won't last.

1 upvote
justinwonnacott
By justinwonnacott (7 months ago)

the investment is not the camera - it is the lenses.

0 upvotes
calking
By calking (7 months ago)

@ shigzeo: the same thing happens to all cameras to different degrees -- it's called depreciation. When the "new" X-Pro2 is released it will be the same thing. What I'm not getting is how you compare PRICE to RESULTS for professionals. Regardless of what happens to the price, the Internet is chock full of images shot with the XP1 by real professionals that are amazing. Same goes for the X100, which is substantially cheaper now but produces stunning results for actual professionals that use it. I don't think price is a barometer for what constitutes "professional" -- it's the results that matter.

On a sidenote, only "enthusiasts" whine like little girls about "slow AF" on the Fujis, and it seems that no matter what firmware updates released do to improve on that the same crowd is still crying in their cereal. Pros tend to say, "AF could be a bit faster, but the results more than make up for that."

0 upvotes
peevee1
By peevee1 (7 months ago)

"Fuji seems to do everything right, as of now. The whole X sytem makes the impression of a completely different (higher) level of perfection than the other mirrorless systems, better thought-out and much more consistent. Why do Olympus or Sony fail to design such lenses?"

Oly 12/2 is the whole stop faster than Fuji 14/2.8, and of course smaller, lighter, cheaper and sharper at f/2 than Fuji at f/2.8. Build out of metal too.
Fuji 18/2 and 35/1.4 are not any good wide open, Oly 17/1.8 is better than 18/2 and Panasonic 25/1.4 is better than 35/1.4.
And of course Oly 60 macro is sharper at macro distances than Fuji 60 half-macro, and able to shoot much, almost 3 times smaller subjects - weather sealed too.
And many, many m43 lenses have nothing comparable for X. Find replacement for 45/1.8 (56 should be when?), 75/1.8, 12-35/2.8, 35-100/2.8, 100-300, 75-300, 14-140/150, 9-18, 7-14, upcoming 12-40/2.8, all stabilized on Oly...
And of course prices - as expensive m43 is, X even more so.

Comment edited 35 seconds after posting
1 upvote
abortabort
By abortabort (7 months ago)

Also quite large because it is fully optically corrected rather than digitally like so many mirrorless lenses these days. Even Sony dropped optical correction in favour of smaller digitally corrected lenses.

2 upvotes
peevee1
By peevee1 (7 months ago)

How do you know it is fully corrected? Fuji 18 and 35 are not good wide open.

0 upvotes
tjbates
By tjbates (7 months ago)

Nicely written!

"Cynics might suggest that it's been purely to protect sales of the X100 / X100S, which use a 23mm F2 lens, at least until the X system became more established on the market."

This may sound a little cynical - but I still find it far more realistic and less cynical than Fuji's explanation.

Note to Fuji - consumers may have held off buying into the Fuji system until the release of the XF 23mm f1.4 lens.
Meanwhile these same potential customers may have discovered that the micro 4/3 system meets their needs (faster auto focus, smaller form factor etc) and have abandoned the idea of purchasing Fuji altogether.

Marketing spin is amusing.

3 upvotes
autoy
By autoy (7 months ago)

No fast wide primes for micro four thirds, no contest there sorry.

3 upvotes
Terry Cioni
By Terry Cioni (7 months ago)

autoy
No fast wide primes for m4/3. I went and had a look. Oly 12mm F2/ Oly 17mm F1.8/ Panasonic 25mm F1.4. This does not take into account the manual focus wide VC lens - 17.5mm F0.95. There are others but you can do the search just as I did.
But never let the facts get in the way.

Comment edited 2 minutes after posting
4 upvotes
autoy
By autoy (7 months ago)

I guess you didn't take into account the crop factor. Whatevs.

4 upvotes
tjbates
By tjbates (7 months ago)

Crop factor is x2 on m4/3 - easy math really.
12mm f2 = 24mm
17mm f1.8 = 35mm
17.5mm f0.95 = 35mm
What's not fast and wide about them apples?

1 upvote
calking
By calking (7 months ago)

@ TJBATES
and consumers waiting for the Nikon D400 have discovered that other brands and form factors are more appealing. This is something you can say about anyone holding out for a particular model of anything from one source that doesn't come quickly enough.

1 upvote
autoy
By autoy (7 months ago)

@tjbates by no means any of those 35mm equiv. would qualify as wide, falling more into the normal field of view. Only the 24mm equiv would make it into the category, still not wide enough for many shooters that work at 20mm equiv. and below. For those, the wider and much higher quality Fuji XF 14mm will do a better service.

0 upvotes
tjbates
By tjbates (7 months ago)

Personally, I've never wanted to shoot wider than 24mm. For wider angles, sometimes I've stitched and sometimes I've simply taken two steps backwards.
Remind me, what's the crop factor on the Fuji system again?

0 upvotes
Raist3d
By Raist3d (7 months ago)

Awesome lens for 35mm shooters.

1 upvote
SeeRoy
By SeeRoy (7 months ago)

What do you think the unboxing experience will be like? Equally awesome?

0 upvotes
Craig Atkinson
By Craig Atkinson (7 months ago)

ha, you're joking. Must be joking...?

3 upvotes
justinwonnacott
By justinwonnacott (7 months ago)

Uh . . . open the box, place on the camera and take a few pictures? Sort of mundane, but I expect that will be the unboxing experience for the majority of people eh?

That said, there will probably be a small percentage of consumers who chortle or giggle while opening the box and maybe someone will get a little paper cut from the brochure packed with it.

0 upvotes
calking
By calking (7 months ago)

a paper cut would actually add some excitement to what is arguably the stupidest thing ever created -- the unboxing video.

1 upvote
Stealthy Ninja
By Stealthy Ninja (7 months ago)

This is the lens I've been waiting for. 23mm is about 35mm on FF and that is my favourite focal length. The current 35mm lens I have (equivalent of 50mm on FF) isn't my personal favourite length on the x-pro 1. I find 50mm (FF) a little long for most things (I'd prefer 85mm if I'm going to go long).

Comment edited 7 minutes after posting
7 upvotes
shigzeo ?
By shigzeo ? (7 months ago)

I bit large (I'm used to rangefinder lenses), but looks like a solid release for X users. I am an X-Pro 1 user, but I think I will keep with M mount stuff simply because it is smaller, lighter, and practical for a number of different cameras.

If I didn't have the M and LTM stuff, I would definitely jump.

1 upvote
samhain
By samhain (7 months ago)

11 elements + aspherical element.
Very nice! Definintley on my to-buy list.

1 upvote
Total comments: 219
12