Actually a hood is supplied just alike all Fuji lenses. DPReview made an error in their text.

Snapper2013: Hoods helps prevent flare, adding glass (like filter) may introduce new flare.

Depends where you get your benchmark. Relative to old non-weather sealed Canon's which have a more straight forward design and construction, of course they are expensive. Relative to Zeiss and the top-end offerings from even Sony and Panasonic they are pretty much identically priced. Each time a new Ferrari is released I assume the car forums don't get filled up with people who believe the Ford Focus represents better value?

The Zeiss APO is £1,600 whereas this lens (at US$949) is likely to be less than half that amount, so indeed I wold not expect Zeiss APO performance.

I agree with John. The 85 1.8 is really good on crop. I think Fuji are really pushing it with the ridiculous pricing. This is same price as the legendary Canon 135L! and similar size too. I think it will drop to £599 after a few months. I remember the 18-135 price.. 699 at launch which has to be one of the most over priced lens by Fuji.

Anyone comparing this lens with the Canon 85mm f1.8 obviously has no real idea what he/she is talking about. The Canon 85mm f1.8 is a pretty sharp lens but its an old optic with contrast that is no where near as good as better 85mm lenses. Neither is the bokeh anything great.

OK, Nikon 85/1.8G is perfect, one of the best AF lenses on DxOMark, and it is FF and $500 max, not $950.

@Pandimonium - excuse me?

@Celsus - the circa 175 years history of photography proves you are wrong.

So I did ;)

Okay, lets play fair and compare Nikon 58mm f/1.4 to Fujinon 56mm f/1.2

Oh, it's 1.2 vs 1.4... :(
We can't compare then? What should we do? I am so sad as a Fuji and full frame Nikon user because I still find my Fuji system lighter and comfortable to carry all day in my shoulder bag... I think something is wrong with me because I have the same, equivalent lenses and the mirrorless should have lost its advantage.
I don't understand it :(

Still not f/1.2 :(
It's a huge advantage if you shoot portraits along low light and your lens is able to provide the expected sharpness wide open, what my Canon 50/1.2 and 85/1.2 had never done.

That is your opinion. I don't have to share it I guess especially because I am a Fujinon user and I have that little inkling your experience might be based on what you have read on the internet ;)

Oh believe me nobody will tell which picture was taken with Fujinon 56mm f/1.2 and Nikon 85/1.4 (sorry for sticking to this example but this is what I have in my camera bag) after it was published in a magazine or posted via any social media or photo sharing service.
You could tell me if you have the original files and 'peep the pixels' but photography should be art and expression of your creative individual not science.
So you may call me naive but I hope I will not fail any of my clients because I choose my Fuji over the D800 in certain situation.

I could say science should help and not get in the way of art.

In all honesty I hope that in the near future mirrorless systems in general, and Fuji X in particular, will cover 99% of the photographic needs pros have today.

Cipher:
Pentax FA* 77mm 1.8 limited (a full frame lens).
64 diam x 48 mm length (2.5 x 1.9 in.) 270 g (9.5 oz)

M.ZUIKO DIGITAL ED 75mm 1:1.8 (a m43 lens)
64 mm Ø, 69 mm length (2.5x 2.7 in.) 305 g (10.8 oz)

Nailing Focus might be impossible at minimum focus distance, because camera and subject move ever so slightly while being alive/held by a living, breathing person.

However, as soon as you step back a few steps, the DOF gets ever so much bigger and f/1.2 proves to be quite useful.
1. It gives you 75% more light over f/1.4, that's almost a full stop of ISO you can save on the noise side, or almost a full stop at the shutter speed where it can make all the difference about motion blur on the subjects part!
2. The DOF at a distance of 2 m is around 10cm which is more than enough for a face to be in focus and you to easily nail focus. (At least, I hope so!)
3. Being an f/1.2 it will most likely be sharper at f/1.4 than any f/1.4 lens, and a hell of a lot sharper than any f/1.8 lens out there.

4. Being an f/1.2 lens the viewfinder will be sooo much more fun to use..
Ah, sorry.. You EVF-people don't see that anymore.. my mistake.

@Pandimonium - You need to compare a Pentax 100mm f1.8 size...not a 77mm on APS-C. The Olympus 75mm gives 150mm FOV on a m43 body.

So the closest is:
Pentax-D FA 100mm f/2.8 (a APS-C lens).
63.5 diam x 81.3 mm length (2.5 x 3.2 in.) 340 g

M.ZUIKO DIGITAL ED 75mm 1:1.8 (a m43 lens)
64 mm Ø, 69 mm length (2.5x 2.7 in.) 305 g (10.8 oz)

On m43, a Panasonic 20mm is close to the Pentax 77mm on FF. But the Panasonic is a bit faster and waaaaaaaaaay smaller. 2.48 x 1.00" (63 x 25.5 mm) and 87g.

And this 100mm Pentax is an f2.8...make it a an f1.8 and it'll be even bigger. If you want 150mm f1.8 on a full frame...that'll be pretty massive. Sorry...but maybe in another universe where the laws of physics are different, you can't make the lense smaller.

That's what I'm always preaching..
Mirrorless is fine for Street and a little travel photography, but as soon as you get into Tele-territory you're better off with a DSLR that lets you hold the camera comfortably.
I really can't imagine shooting a sports event with a Sony A7 and a 300/2.8 mounted on there, don't get me started on the longer teles you most likely need when shooting sports on FX bodies..

@ Gabor Szantai "Still not f/1.2 :(
It's a huge advantage if you shoot portraits along low light and your lens is able to provide the expected sharpness wide open, what my Canon 50/1.2 and 85/1.2 had never done."
Sorry. But you compare apples to oranges. The Fuji at 1.2 (I had it) is not sharper than the Nikon 85/1.8g wide open. As you have twice the sensor area on FF you can easily compensate for the faster aperture by increasing ISO and get similar DOF and S/N ratio as well as FOV. Comparing to a 58/1.4 or 85/1.2 makes no sense. Read the Dpreview "Equivalence" article.

Understandable. My favorite FL is 135mm. A new Sigma ART or Nikon 135/2 would be nice for me. For me the benefit of FF is the subject separation possible at larger distances and wedding photography. I have an A7ii, too, but it doesn't provide the response and AF-capabilities to replace the Nikons.

@Szantai: Of course, that is why it is equivalent to an 1.8 on FF in terms of total light (aperture diameter determining the total amount of light hitting the sensor is almost the same, minimally larger on FF). So on FF we need to increase ISO for similar brightness and we end up with the same FOV, DOF and S/N ratio. No benefit in this case (apart from coatings, etc.).
Don't forget that we can easily downsize the image at higher ISOs to 16MP and increase S/N ratio and DR. I do it all the time at higher ISOs with my D810 and the image will be cleaner than the Fuji (I used to shoot it. Incorporate the 2/3-1ev ISO exaggeration by Fuji, use additional noise reduction and you get for similar f-stops much cleaner images). The Fuji was a nice camera but didn't suit my style of shooting.

Ironically your first phrase is comparing apples and pears and is a gross exaggeration. :)

You really can't compare old outdated lenses to a modern weather sealed prime lens.

Just compare the Sigma 50mm f1.4 ART to a Nikon 50mm f1.4 D. The Nikon is a very sharp lens stopped down to f4 but wide open there is no competition and the Sigma is far sharper and has more contrast.

The Canon 100mm f2 is 1990 optic and so its design is 25 years old. Lens design hasn't stood still and I would bet that the 90mm is a far better lens than the old Canon 100mm.

The 135mm f2 is no doubt a superb lens but you need to spend on a good FF body and no the 6D with one good AF point doesn't count. You need something like the 5D mk 3 to compare to the Fuji XT10 or XT1. And then the 5D mk 3 is huge and heavy and most people who go to Fuji are fed up of huge and heavy bodies.

but where is the benefit?
To got a longer, heavier lens and pay twice as much?
And for having fund and playing around - Fuji is an expensive choose - not even close to perfect, by today technical standards.

And if you just look for sharpness - how will Fuji beat a 2,0/135 mm on a 5d3 or 5Ds full frame - or a Nikon 1,8/85 mm on a D810?
Simply not possible.

I am just against the price terror and nobody seems to check it.
The Fuji will be fantastic for 400-500$ but the prices are going crazy.
Not because I can't afford them, i use much more expensive photo gear.

I like the 'no the 6D with it's one good AF point doesn't count'. Of course it counts. That one good AF point is really, really good- it will AF in light 1/8th as bright as the XT-1 or XT-10 will- *after* the latest AF update. And it will actually track while shooting continuously. And it will nail focus with f/1.2 L lenses. In the dark.

Comparing a 20MP 6D with an AA-filtered Bayer CFA to a 16MP X-trans unfiltered CFA, with a 135/2 on the 6D and this 90/2 on t he X-T1, you get a bit more bulk with the full-frame setup, but you also get much better AF, more depth of field control, better low-light performance, and a lower price of entry.

I get why this lens is important to Fuji, and I regularly stop by these articles to feed my Fuji lust- but it's still a crop camera with a relatively slower lens.

Want to compare it to full-frame? Put an 85/1.4 on it.

@halfwaythere : yes, you are right, APS DSLR bring similar weight advantages to XT1 & c°. However, compare XT1 with D5500 and similar on fit, finish, ergonomics, depth from back to flange, etc, and you will recognise they are playing on different fields. Compare the build, finish and ergonomics of any of the G f1.8 primes with their Fuji counterparts, and again you'll recognise we are looking at very different beasts. I feel that the build quality/look & feel of the high end Fuji primes are in broadly the same league as the Zeiss or the old Nikkor AI, and miles ahead of the equivalent Gs. I will compare the XT1+90mm against my Df+135CZ with very high hopes! ;-)

I'm not planing on being buried with the gear I own at the moment. I have my manual film camera and lenses and I'm sure they will outlive me. :)

The problem with digital is that they are consumables. I don't see any camera on the market today being museum worthy 50 years from now.

I could've said just as well the D7200 but I wanted to show that weight and cost savings are relative to what someone values. That's why a relatively cheap APS body with a cheap 85/1.8 lens will get you similar results as this lens on a Fuji X body.

"That's why a relatively cheap APS body with a cheap 85/1.8 lens will get you similar results as this lens on a Fuji X body": yes, I agree. But not the same experience. I like the XT1 (and the Df) as much as I like my FM3A.

If you're using an 85/1.8 on a crop body they are very similar.

I understand that. It seems that Fuji likes to market said lenses that are identical in spec to the 1.5 crop equivalent vis a vis 56mm 1.2 <=> Canon 85mm 1.2 and now this 90mm f/2 <=> Canon 135mm f/2.

So they are designed and priced according to that competition, not the taking of FF designed glass and adding to a crop body.

And I don't disagree with the above comments, just from a marketing perspective that is what they are playing on.

When I originally heard of this lens, my first thought was of the classic SuperTakumar 135mm f2.5.

You have to be quite gullible to believe this is a 135mm/F2 equiv. lens.

It'll give you the shutter speed advantage, and if it's fast-focusing like the 135/2L it might be useful for sports in lower light- but yes, it won't be giving you the same depth of field control ;).

" it won't be giving you the same depth of field control" : I really do not get this. At same aperture, the 90mm on APS will give more DoF than 135mm on FF for same field of view. Which means you gain an advantage of a few mm additional sharpness at portrait distance with the 90mm @f2. With similar low light abilities. I cannot think of any situation where I'd want LESS DoF at portrait distance wide open.

There are always people who like math more than art in photography :)
I always wonder if HCB or Avedon was ever thinking about DOF when they casually changed their 35mm camera to medium format :)

Please spare us the hyperbole and get off your imaginary high horse.

The ability to control dof is an advantage if you have it and a disadvantage if you don't and doesn't give you the right to call someone a dof abuser or a limited photographer.

@Gabor Szantai: you have a very nice portofolio but I'm wondering how much of your paid work was done with the Fuji?

@halfwaythere: "I guess you never shot a full body with a 135mm lens because you would know that you get all the dof you want while the background fades away."

Again I do not understand this. I use a Df and 135 routinely, and I love the output, the build and ergonomics. I do not love the weight. And sometimes, I'd like AF without sacrificing optical quality or other ergonomics (aperture ring, easy access to manual focus, minimum focusing distance, build quality).

I know by experience that, in imaging terms, I will benefit from the additional DoF provided by APS+90mm @f2 for this lens's main application (portrait at medium distance) without loosing anything substantial in the ability to keep background out of focus.

The design of this new lens gives us high hopes for optical quality close to the stellar Zeiss 135mm (sharpness, contrast, bokeh, etc). That is my expectation anyway. We'll see when we can get our hands on it!