Fujifilm gives more details on lens roadmap and XF 55-200mm telezoom

Fuji should redesign all of their current XF lenses before making a roadmap that starts from bad quality.

Mar 7, 2013permalink

Petka

The first lens, 35mm f:1.4, is one of the sharpest lenses introduced during the past few years... Not a bad start, methinks. 18mm is a merely a good one, all others so far are great, what comes to optical quality.

Mar 8, 2013*permalink

Don't feed the troll.

Mar 8, 2013permalink

this is a 53mm f/2.1 equivalent which is among the easiest lenses to make (100 US class and can still deliver high quality image). however the performance is not high (the center is good) even stopped down beyond f/2.8 and the price is more than 4 times (2 stops) higher than equivalent 35mm-format ones. the bokeh is terrible.

Mar 10, 2013permalink

archtop

Hey nerd, quick hating with your overly critical jargon. Please post your credentials as a lens maker or a spectacular portfolio of your photography. If you have neither, don't go around saying making lenses are easy, you're embarrassing yourself.

p.s. sorry Den Sh, had to feed the troll a little bit.

Mar 10, 2013permalink

no need to get nasty. just show us if you can find proof that any of the XF lenses is good, a mission impossible for me, maybe a peice of cake for you.

Mar 11, 2013*permalink

vratnik

I bet there was Spring 2013 next to10-24 lens a few months ago. Now there's just 2013. FML

Mar 7, 2013permalink

Rambazamba

If Fuji had continued with the Nikon mount they wouldn`t need a roadmap.

Mar 7, 2013permalink

slncezgsi

What mount? The F one? Really? Did you notice that this is about mirror-LESS cameras?

Come on, relax

Mar 7, 2013permalink

forpetessake

F-mount is not a bad idea. The size of the camera is limited by the grip, not the mount; the size of the lenses is limited by image circle, speed and presence or absence of mirror, not the mount. Going with F-mount would have made a lot of quality lenses available, but new lenses would still have to be designed due to CDAF limitations and improvements in size & weight, especially on the wide end due to the absence of mirror. Still having Nikon working on your side would have been a big advantage.

Mar 7, 2013*permalink

samhain

The 56mm isn't coming out till the end of the year!?! Wtf fuji.
I'd like to know what marketing genius at Fuji said "hey- we're gonna make this awesome retro rangefinder style camera- but lets do the initial release with a slow 60mm macro and wait 3 years to put a proper portrait lens out, because this camera is much more suited to people shooting macro than portraiture & candid street shots ".
That guy should be fired, but only after being kicked in groin repetedly.
The initial 3 should've been:
23mm 1.4
35mm 1.4
56mm 1.4
Macro/wide angle/zoom should've been secondary.

Mar 7, 2013permalink

starwolfy

Or maybe that marketing genius just thought:

Hey ! Let's make a crazy sharp sensor with crazy igh iso so that any amateur jumps on it. Then let's make some basic slow lenses so that they can buy them all as they are on GAS...and wait a bit more to launch crazy bright glass so that they are on GAS again !

So finnaly that guy is not fired but promoted ! ;)

Mar 7, 2013*permalink

I agree (would have loved to see the 23 and 56 first), but from a marketing perspective it may make sense. We are not a first-priority target group I guess.

Mar 7, 2013permalink

gzig

if any camera/lens maker could design en produce in mass about 20 lenses a year, one would. But they can not do that. Not even Canon (see 200-400 converter of the new tele is lenses). And for Fujifilm, a company that is new in this field and don;t have the mass factory capacity to do this stuff or the money for it ...

Mar 7, 2013permalink

pomoville

In general I found Fuji did pretty well launching this system with a fairly solid assortment of lenses. There's only so much they can do at one time. It's already a drastically more appealing lineup than the Nex system.

Mar 8, 2013permalink

> The initial 3 should've been:
> 23mm 1.4
> 35mm 1.4
> 56mm 1.4

these are equivalents of 35mm-format
35mm f/2.1 for 320 US,
53mm f/2.1 for 150 US, and
85mm f/2.1 for 320 US if they can deliver similar performance of current Nikon lenses (current XF lenses are far from that).

Mar 10, 2013*permalink

TwoMetreBill

When are we going to get fully functional lens adapters for Nikon and/or Canon lenses? Fuji is just not addressing the pro market for either longer zooms (70/80-200 and longer) or long macro lenses (150mm).

Mar 6, 2013permalink

Petka

DSLR are better suited for the kind of photography where long lenses are needed. These cameras are ideal for wide to short tele lens range and street style / travel photography. One camera (style) can not be ideal for everything. I do have both X-series Fujis and newest pro Nikons (D4, D800e), by the way, nice to be able to choose the best tool for everything thrown at me. Fujis I take to reportage assignments, Nikons for news, sprouts, studio, nature.

Mar 8, 2013permalink

thx1138

It's a shame they didn't make the equivalent of a 24-70 f/2.8. The 18-55 would have been nicer as a 16-50 f/2.8, but overall looking a pretty decent line-up. The 10-24 OIS sounds perfect for landscape. Assuming they one day get great AF speed, especially for servo mode, it's be nice to see some fast telephotos, like a 200 f/2.8 and maybe a 75-300 f/4

Mar 6, 2013permalink

Do you really want a huge 600g+ zoom on a lightweight body? Why would you go mirrorless for that?

Mar 6, 2013permalink

there are needs of trading-off image quality for portability.
the issue is that XF lenses trade off image quality too much.

Mar 10, 2013permalink

liquid stereo

Please Fuji, Produce a decent/professional flash.

Mar 6, 2013permalink

YES! All of their flashes except for EF-X20 are just rebranded versions of http://www.sunpak.jp/english/

Mar 6, 2013*permalink

samhain

Yes, quality flash would be nice.

Mar 7, 2013permalink

Any close-ups of the lenses?

Mar 6, 2013permalink

Found something:
http://www.fujirumors.com/hot-new-fuji-x-lens-pictures/

Mar 6, 2013permalink

Yesterday noticed that this is actually an old link (sept 2012)... but it's still likely that this is what we can expect.

Mar 7, 2013permalink

mike kobal

am I the only one who wants the 27mm pancake? 40mm equiv - just perfect.

Mar 6, 2013*permalink

Was more focused on the 23mm. But now that see how big it seems...

Mar 6, 2013permalink

mike kobal

yes, looks huge, well, had to be expected for a 1.4 wide angle prime

Mar 7, 2013permalink

rockjon

No, though that particular FL is a bit lower on my list of needs. I'm leaning towards picking up the 23mm or 55-200 first. I think the 27mm will make a nice lightweight option though.

Mar 7, 2013permalink

Pixel Judge

I want this 55~200mm. ASAP! Please!

Mar 6, 2013permalink

Even though I'm not a huge fan of the zooms, kudos for having such a great prime selection! IMO the only thing that's missing from the roadmap is 90mm f/2 and 135mm f/2 (preferably with OIS).

Mar 6, 2013*permalink

Bernie Ess

Yes yes yes! Fast 90mm corresponding to a 135 F2: A true classic! Maybe even 1,8 for smaller DOF.
Anyway, it's the lenses that will draw half of the people to that system, not just the cameras.

Mar 6, 2013permalink

I wouldn't mind having 90mm f/2.8 because of the size concerns. It would be great to have f/1.4 but we all understand that this will mean a huge and heavy lens. f/2 seems to be reasonable tradeoff between speed and portability.

Mar 6, 2013permalink

f/1.4 for APS-C does not mean huge nor heavy. f/1.4 is quite taste-flat and cheap for it can do no more than f/2.1 on 35mm format.

Mar 10, 2013permalink

Clint Dunn

Start selling that dang 10-24!!!! I like wide angle...and the 10-24 is the only lens I am waiting for.

Mar 6, 2013permalink

codeNsnap

ditto ditto ditto

And I'm waiting for X-E1S/ X-E2.

Mar 6, 2013*permalink

NumberOne

Another One in the same boat! :-)

Mar 6, 2013permalink

El Chubasco

Same here! I will switch to X system once they offer the 10-24.

Mar 7, 2013permalink

Photo Grapher

Good to see Fuji caring about new lenses.

Mar 6, 2013permalink

Unlike the other notable mirrorless brand which only seems to care about camera bodies.

Mar 6, 2013*permalink

the reason

Cough cough sony cough...

Mar 6, 2013permalink

Tom Schum

Quite a large lens, compared to the 18-55.

Mar 6, 2013permalink

Pixel Judge

It's bigger because it's 55~200mm.

Mar 6, 2013permalink

qwertyasdf

I always wondered why ALL camera manufacturers are so conservative and complacent with kit lens apertures. it's been 3.5-5.6 for general purpose and 4-5.6 for telephoto since the beginning of time.
Fuji is the only exception, taking half a step (stop) at a time, now that's progress!

Mar 6, 2013permalink

Photomonkey

It's all about the price.

Mar 6, 2013permalink

AndreaV

Well, most manufacturers offers also f/2.8 constant aperture zooms, but they're much bigger and much more expensive...

Mar 6, 2013permalink

digby dart

And not often, if ever, sharp from near wide open - by the time you stop down for sharpness the benefit is gone.

Mar 6, 2013permalink

fatdeeman

As evidenced by the canon 70-200 f4 and F2.8 and their Nikon counterparts?

Mar 6, 2013permalink

kjbkix

@fatdeeman - those aren't kit lenses

Mar 8, 2013permalink

Peiasdf

23mm and 56mm are still using the same markup.

5-stop OIS, never heard that claim before.

Mar 6, 2013permalink

kjbkix

Nikon 70-200 f/4 is claiming that.

Mar 8, 2013permalink

rjx

Please Fuji, I hope the 23mm manual focus isn't as sensitive as the 18mm and as easy to accidently move the focus ring while zone focusing. I love the f1.4 in the new 23mm. But I and many others will be using that lens on the street in manual zone focus at around F11 and we need to know the focus ring won't be so easy to accidently rotate. I shouldn't have to put rubber bands on my lenses to make the focus ring less sensitive.

Mar 6, 2013permalink

Absolutic

Another slow variable aperture lens? Why does it weigh so much? We r talking apertures similar to canons 55-250 is lens which is lighter. X system is supposed to be somewhat a compact system from the get go. Why not have a quality constant f/2.8 tele zoom instead?

Mar 6, 2013permalink

Tonio Loewald

Metal construction perhaps and it's half a stop faster.

Mar 6, 2013permalink

viking79

Better yet Absolutic, why not make quality smaller aperture zooms that fit the camera better. People forget that smaller aperture zooms can also be high quality. Normally Nikon/Canon make their large aperture lenses high quality, and make their smaller aperture lenses shoddy to justify the price difference. If this lens is as good as the 18-55mm f/2.8-4 I imagine most complaints will evaporate.

Mar 6, 2013permalink

Michael Perham

Metal construction and glass, as opposed to plastic, lenses.

Mar 6, 2013permalink

Isit13

Always this fast aperture/bokeh obsession these days, there are lens designs that can stop down further than others without getting huge diffraction but people do not care about that anymore?

Mar 6, 2013permalink

digby dart

Its always good to have confirmation, especially with physical objects, looking good Fuji. :-D

Mar 6, 2013permalink

elvedhel

so want the 10-24. loved my ultra wide 10-20 sigma on my old canon 500D.. must have lens for me but i bet it wont be cheap!

Mar 6, 2013permalink

smatty

Although I would love the 23mm f1.4 and 56mm f1.4, they seem to be a bit too bulky for the compactness that I learned to love the X-Pro 1 for.

I might actually rather get the XF 27mm f2.8 pancake and have to compensate the larger DOF with better composition of more interesting subjects - now how is that for a concept? ;)

Mar 6, 2013permalink

viking79

I like Fuji because they are the first mirrorless system not concentrating on being too compact (still small enough). When you buy f/1.4 glass you can't expect it to be too small. The 23mm is larger because they must use a different lens design to improve on the short flange distance instead of a typical symmetric range finder style lens, not unlike the Zeiss 24mm f/1.8 for Sony. The 56mm is larger because it is a lot longer focal length then the 35mm. If you want a small 23mm, but the X100s.

Mar 6, 2013*permalink

marcuz

I kind of think that's more because they did not want to overlap with the X100 / X100s offer.
Me too I would have preferred a pancake 23mm though.

Mar 6, 2013permalink

viking79

Than buy an X100s, I wouldn't be surprised to see the X100s cheaper than the 23mm f/1.4, or about the same price. An alternative would be to buy a compact manual focus 24mm lens. Voigtlander makes both 21 and 25mm f/4 lenses which are very small.

I don't disagree though, a 23mm f/2.8 pancake would also be nice.

Mar 6, 2013*permalink