Nothing more annoying than this sort of ranting. There is no point opting for a compact system camera, and then screaming for a wide, long telephoto zoom. It must out of necessity be enormous. If you want such a lens, then buy a dSLR. Working with a CSC is all about embracing the smaller system, but accepting the compromises that a small size brings. If you want a fast prime, than Fuji have plenty. If you want a high quality zoom, then Fuji have plenty. If you want a high quality zoom with a long telephoto range, and a fixed 2.8 max aperture, you are looking in the wrong galaxy. Look at the options you have. if you compare with the Canon 24-70 2.8 (which is only about half as long at the long end) you are looking at almost twice the weight (490 vs 805 g). If you look at the Canon 70-200 2.8 with IS, then you are up to 1.49 kg ! Even if you accept f4 in the Canon 24-105, you are still at 670 g. So seriously forpetesake, take your whining elsewhere

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.

Paul JM: It's about options. Many people I know use primes to have a very portable mirror less system. But occasionally a fast zoom is advantageous, even if it costs wight and bulk. Nobody is forced to use or buy it. So your post is just an opinion of what you want, but please don't speak for everybody else.

It is also about keeping the range commercially viable. You may well feel that a huge lens on the front of this camera is going to sell. Fuji clearly (up to this point) dont. If you want to put a Canon 70-200 f 2.8 on the front of this camera, go and by an adaptor. No point flogging Fuji simply because they chose not to produce such an absurd combination. Not everyone wants to put Barbara Streisand's nose on Kate Moss' face.

Fuji also has two pro lenses on the road... some 16-55/2.8 and 50-140/2.8, both weather sealed, and so on...

When those will be available, you will either have the 2 pro 2.8 zoom, or this one (if you are into zooms).... or some fixed lenses for those who like those....

For me looks like a complete system. The price is high (and probably will be higher fr the other zooms)... but if the quality is there, it is justified.

@Paul JM
The most annoying thing is when some weak-wristed whiner thinks their opinion is absolute and goes online to protest others who have a different opinion, and complain about manufacturers who just slapped them in the face with the reality of their products…

(In case you missed that, your ‘opinion’ that its all about being smaller is obviously not what it is all about - else Fuji, Olympus, etc, would not release larger lenses! O.o)

MILC’s are ‘all about embracing’ the freedom of OPTIONS.

Size is of little concern to many as most mirrorless systems are going to be smaller than dslr’s to begin with. Options allow someone to buy into a system that allows them the freedom to use just about any lens they want for whatever occasion arises. When they want something small and light they can slap on a 24mm, 35mm, 50mm prime just like we used to do back in the film days, and when they need the reach they are comforted in knowing there are full featured system lenses for that also.

Mind if I suggest the Pentax FA Limited trio?

http://www.photozone.de/pentax/122-pentax-smc-fa-31mm-f18-al-limited-review--test-report

http://www.photozone.de/pentax/736-pentax43f19k5

http://www.photozone.de/pentax/128-pentax-smc-fa-77mm-f18-limited-review--test-report

A lot of APS-C mirrorless users have the intent of using APS-C mirrorless as a replacement for APS-C DSLRs. If that's the intent, "such bodies" and "such a lens" makes perfect sense. Because when combined with an entire kit in your bag, it results in a noticeable reduction in size, weight, bulk in your camera bag compared to a comparable DSLR gear collection.

I use m4/3. But I still have a preference for APS-C. I'm torn between the compactness of m4/3, and the larger sensor size of APS-C. However, both are a significantly lesser load compared to lugging around DSLR gear.

.. and, despite its head start in the mirrorless market, m43 has fallen well behind APSc in sales long ago. The smaller sensor advantage isnt so great if you need a camera bag in either case.

ASP-C is not system or a mount, Jogger.

@bluevellet - I'm pretty sure Jogger was using "APS-C" as shorthand for all APS-C mirrorless systems, given the context of this discussion.

@ Jogger: how is this relevant to a new sense, it specs and what we think about it?
@ Pete: In the end no 100% comparable lenses wil be made. They have the same fstops etc. Panny is much lighter, smaller but not weahtersealed. The Fuji is but has 28-200 instead of 28-280 mm range. Etc. I said that for me, this difference is precisely why I will not buy a mirrorless APS-c. For others it will be what they like. That is all.

@ T3: the lenses are nit smaller at all. The more lenses you carry, the smaller the difference. With m43s the more you carry, the bigger the difference with APS-c. Besides I already noted that for Fuji users this indeed is a very nice addition.

The 14-140mm it weighs 265 gram. Reviews note that it is good lens in its class, a notable fast focusser and much smaller than any APS-c version. Sounds like the reason why I bought m43s: smaller bodies and lenses, not just smaller bodies...

@bluevellet - I think it's rather short-sighted to be so dismissive of this lens just because it has slower variable aperture specs. Hasselblad makes some slow variable aperture zooms for their medium format H-system. It doesn't mean these lenses are cheap kit lenses! Not everyone needs fast apertures on all lenses. Sometimes, you just want the zoom range, but you still want good optical performance.

@bluevellet - This lens is actually far from unspectacular. If Fuji made it as good as optically as their previous lenses, it's a pretty darn good lens. It's going to be just 1/2 stop slower than their 18-55 kit, but 2.5 times longer, all that in a sealed package, rather small size and weight, priced under $1G. Find anything better or even comparable in the market today.

Fujinon is already one of the most respected lens manufacturers.
They just produce lenses that are not for the typical consumer (broadcast lenses, satellite optics, medium format lenses for its GX cameras, Hasselblad H series, X-Pan and so on).

Fujifilm X-series is like a playing with toys for them.

@mosc; "f2.8-f4, like the sped up 55-200"

nobody offers such a lens, where did you get it? If Fuji made the 18-135 a stop brighter it would have been 2-3 times heavier and correspondingly more expensive. Not many people would trade it for a stop. Also comparing it to a mediocre Pentax lens is ludicrous.

Mediocre...?

The 18-135 WR isn't prime sharp, but it's a phenomenal lens for what it does, especially when stopped down.

I guess that wasn't clear. Several Fuji zooms (and they don't make many) are faster than what you'd expect. Their 18-55 is 2.8-4.0 instead of the standard 3.5-5.6 and their 55-200 is 3.5-4.8 instead of 4.0-5.6. I just thought a similar aperture advantage for this common ranged zoom would be 2.8-4.0. Perhaps 2.8 to 4.8? Regardless, I expected an aperture advantage when comparing to Canon/Nikon.

Please read as "I thought it would be faster than the direct competition like several of the other Fuji zooms covering other ranges"

@Shadowww

fyi - Canon is a Japanese company.

I dropped my non-WR Nikon 70-300mm lens into a muddy puddle and it sat there for 5 minutes before I noticed it submerged!

I rinsed it off under a tap and it works fine. Even got the OK from the local shop.

Can't imagine what I could get away with a proper WR one!

Just an f2.8 to f/4... or constant f/4...

@ tkbslc - I don't know what's "boring" about an 18-135 zoom range. That zoom range covers a lot of ground, and it's a lens that you could keep on your body quite a lot. Not everyone needs faster apertures all the time. Sometimes you just want a good zoom range, and good IQ across that range. The Fuji 18-135 seems like it has the potential to do that. And with excellent image stabilization and weather sealing to boot! Not everything is about aperture, aperture, aperture.

It's not very wide, nor very long, nor very fast. Sure it's useful - I never said it wasn't. It's like a basic family sedan - pretty boring for car enthusiasts. This lens is boring. And it's got minivan specs with sports car price sticker.

@tkbslc - it's not a boring lens. Maybe you're just a boring photographer! LOL. Seriously though, would you consider a 35/1.4 non-stabilized lens a boring lens because it's not very wide, not very long, has no stabilization, and has zero range? Like I said, maybe it's you who is boring. Yeah, sure, you can load up on a bunch of fast primes, or shorter zooms with constant apertures. But there is absolutely a usefulness to having a lens that you can keep on your body, without having to constantly swap lenses. In some conditions, swapping lenses means missing shots. Furthermore, in some dusty, windy conditions, it's best not to change your lens at all because doing so would easily introduce dust into the body! Even worse if it's rainy and wet! Yes, many of us shoot in those conditions! So having a weather sealed 18-135 zoom is a huge benefit to us! Maybe you don't realize this, because you just shoot in more "boring" conditions! LOL.

Far too many people here sit around griping about specs, sitting around waiting for the "perfect" lens or body, rather than seeing the potential of existing lenses and bodies, and going out to shoot with them. Yes, fast primes or shorter zooms with constant apertures are great. But they are just one tool in your tool box. A lens like this weather sealed image stabilized 18-135 (with, hopefully, very good IQ) is another tool in your tool box. And given its range, weather sealing, and stabilization, I think it should be a far more versatile tool than most narrow-minded specs-whiners realize.

"It's for the easy shots that literally any lens could take and the only concern is framing it right."

You mean "any lens", as long as it's somewhere between 18mm and 135mm? LOL. That's the point of having such zoom range: it covers focal lengths from 18mm to 135mm, without having to swap lenses! And if it can do it while being weather sealed, delivering excellent image stabilization, and delivering good IQ, all the better! At least that's how I see it. And yes, if a lens can deliver all these things, then it should be able to command a higher price.

Lenses are neither inherently boring nor exciting. It's all about what you do with them. One man's "boring" lens is another man's "exciting" lens; it just depends on what you're doing with them. If you don't have the capacity, creativity, or vision to do anything interesting with them, any lens is going to be "boring". So maybe the person behind the lens that is boring.

The replies to limlh just show why we can't have nice things.

The idea with this lens is to combine high image quality with a useful zoom range and a relatively reasonable price and size. It's an 18-135. No way an APS lens with a x7.5 zoom range is going to be constant aperture, and no hope at all that it would start at f/2.8. Once again proof positive that many dpreview readers are completely divorced from reality.

I do not pick on Fujifilm lenses. When I decided to try the system I looked for lenses and found out that the 16-50 is mediocre, the 18/2 problematic (and not a true pancake like the 27/2.8), and as for the other "good" ones, very expensive. I'm not interested in picking on any manufacturer's lenses, have better things to do with my time. The 18/2 was highly praised was released for its construction and size so I started with it to realise how mediocre it was.

It's a matter of physics. There's no way to make the glass smaller without sacrificing light gathering capability.

It's called engineering, not physics. Tamron made a 16-300mm with similar aperture and it's the exact same length and only 50g heavier.

No, mirrorless lenses aren't "huge". I think people should reserve their judgment regarding the size of these lenses until they actually have one of these lenses in their hands. Meanwhile, DSLR users don't seem to mind using lenses that are just as proportionally large on their DSLR bodies as this lens is on a mirrorless body! And a lot of DSLR lenses are TRULY HUGE. Not to mention the fact that all DSLR bodies, even the small ones, are bigger compared to mirrorless bodies. Which results in body + lens combos that dwarf any mirrorless body + lens combo! It's total hypocrisy.

X-T1 is no smaller than a small DSLR. With this lens on, you only save the extra 20mm of mount depth and zero weight.

Now in combination with other small lenses, it's not that simple. The total kit might be significantly smaller.

@tkbslc - but you're forgetting that the X-T1 is the largest mirrorless body Fuji makes. When Fuji's *largest* body is the same size as the *smallest* DSLRs, that's still saying something about the size advantage of mirrorless. But the 20mm reduction in mount depth counts for a lot, especially in real world usage. Visually, a mirrorless body, even a "big" mirrorless body like the X-T1, produces a very slim visual footprint when you're out and about with it. It makes even small DSLRs look downright fat. Plus, the slim profile of mirrorless bodies means they take up very little room in a camera bag. You can slip a mirrorless body into a side pocket of a camera bag that a DSLR body-- even a small DSLR body-- would never fit into. Even better if you carry two bodies. And even better still if the second body is one of Fuji's smaller mirrorless bodies.

and you are.... who?

There is nothing particularly special about the 18-55mm. Yes it is 'slightly' better than most 'kit' zooms, but it is also considerably more expensive.

Canon 18-55mm IS STM and EF-M version, Panasonic 12-32mm, 14-42mm II, Samsung 20-50mm, Sony 16-50mm f2.8 SSM...

Why write such nonsense?

Apart from the Sony 16-50mm f2.8 none of them get close. And the Sony isn't really a kit lens.

"Pig in lipstick" typically refers to things that merely get superficial treatments to make them appear better than they are. But I don't think that applies to this lens at all.

Firstly, the weather sealing is REAL. And a lens you can comfortably use in the rain is still better than a lens you can't use in the rain! A lens doesn't take very good pictures if it's sitting in your camera for fear that water might get into it.

Secondly, are you really dismissing the value of improved image stabilization as something you only use to take pictures of figurines on your desk? Sorry, but the rest of us shoot out in the real world, were any improvements in images stabilization are welcomed.

Thirdly, you make claims about the IQ of this lens; can you please show us the rests of the extensive testing you've done with this lens?

Fourthly, there's not much point in comparing it to other zooms with much shorter zoom ranges. This is no 18-55 lens. It's an 18-135 lens.

You: armchair whiner.

Slower variable apertures do not indicate a typical "kit" zoom. That's just plain idiotic prejudice and bigotry, making a judgement merely on the most superficial of observations. I'll bet you do a lot of that in your life with other things too.

In the DSLR world, we regularly use very large lenses that are easily as proportionally larger than our DSLR bodies as this lens is on an a Fuji body. And yet, you never hear of DSLR users complaining "I don't see the point!"

The "point" is that even if some lenses are large, you still get an *overall* reduction in size when you consider the overall collection of mirrorless equipment you have in your bag. An overall reduction in size and weight is still an overall reduction in size and weight. Less to lug around, less in your carry-on bag at the airport, etc.

Furthermore, if you are supporting the size and weight of a lens solely from the camera body (and thus, your desire to have "a body that gives a comfort while you hold a lens like this") then you're not using proper holding technique. With larger lenses, you support the lens with your left hand. If you do that, it really doesn't matter how big or heavy the lens is, your camera body can handle it.

@jadot - no they are not. the EF-S 18-135 is a smidgen larger, and lighter.

also the lens has an equivalent field of view of a 200mm lens - it's not a 200mm lens.

Maybe you should understand how this stuff works. ;)

you'll save size on prime lenses under the registration distance focal length of a larger registration distance lens if you don't have to make it retrofocal - otherwise there's very little to gain from a short registration distance mount. (ie: under 45mm for canon EF versus under 18mm for Fuji)

@jadot
You got me wrong. Or I didn't expalian right.
I m not complaining on lens only or on body only. But on two of them together! This combo feels bad in hand when you actually take more photos during a day. It looks big on XT-1 wich have better hand ergonomy than XE-1.

I own SLR, Fuji X100, Ricoh and I know how it is to hold each of them.
When you have bih with hands like I do (205cm tall guy I'm) it just don't fit right. They don't suit well together. That's what I wanted to say.

This lens is not even close to wildlife lens,but on Fuji's you have to hold it like it is.
Voila! There you have a point.

@ZoranHR - you need to learn how to hold a lens! We DSLR users regularly hold MUCH larger lenses for very long periods of time (Canon 24-70/2.8L, Canon 70-200/2.8L, Canon 100-400L, etc). And we don't do it by supporting these very front-heavy lenses with the camera bodies they are mounted on! We do it by supporting these very large and heavy lenses with our left hand sitting below the lens. I've shot these big lenses on small Rebel bodies with no problems. Again, it's merely a matter of proper hand-holding technique. It's a misconception that the best way to hold a large and heavy lens is to add a large and heavy camera body. That just adds to the overall size and weight you have to support with your body! And. no, that's not more comfortable!!!

With this Fuji 18-135 zoom lens on any of Fuji's mirrorless body, I would simple use proper handholding technique: support the lens with your left hand. No big deal.

Seems the Pentax is probably the only other one with some weather resistance, from reading the comments below anyway... The new Panasonic 14-140 is impressively small tho, it's no larger than a standard DSLR 18-55 and smaller than some even. Obviously a compromise on other ways but still.