Loving many cameras can lead to a life of shallow relationships... but I think she's a classic looking girl myself

Sorry the X-Pro1 is not to your liking. But for many people, including me, it is near-perfect.

Also, Fuji has shown themselves to be very responsive to customer needs and has even upgraded the firmware for obsolete models (X100).

I wish Fuji great success.

please never touch x-pro again!!!

I'll bet this lens is great, but I'll need more than a photo and a press release to be sure. I can't even state that I have compared it to the Canon 11-22 and found the Fuji is superior, although some fans have already made that determination. If only DPR could test lenses this quickly!

You mean to replace the Nikon 16-35/4 that is
82.5mm in diameter
125mm in length
and weighs 680 grams?

You bet I would.

AND the IQ (mostly dynamic range) of the Fuji sensors is a whole lot better than m43.

In equivalent terms, the Nikon 16-35/4 is also a full stop faster as it covers a full frame sensor. If you don't like the size of the faster lens that's fine, but don't act like you are getting something equivalent but with less size going with Fuji.

The only thing I'd be giving up going from FX to APS-C is shallow DOF at f/4 - something I'm not worried about with an ultra-wide.
Exposure is the same at the same ISO.

joejack951 .. why don't you guys stop talking about conversion between two sensor types and sizes when you don't understand f-stop, aperture, brightness, dof measurement and simple maths!!

isn't it easier? none of the two is any stop faster .. fast is for shutter speed .. not physical opening size of aperture!! at equal exposure, both of these lenses including the one on 4/3 or 1" with f/4 will be equally fast (takes same time)

@: Naveed Akhtar - "fast is for shutter speed .. not physical opening size of aperture!!" - wait what?? Aren't 2.8 lenses *faster* than f/4 lenses?

"at equal exposure, both of these lenses including the one on 4/3 or 1" with f/4 will be equally fast" Does this even mean anything? At equal exposure the image from a FF sensor will always have less noise than APS-C, which is what is called as the one stop advantage - as the noise performance of FF sensors is typically one stop better than APS-C as the same exposure.

So, yes, the continuing equivalence talk.
Yes the FF will have less DOF and will be a stop better in noise for the same aperture and shutter speed.
But with a super wide angle used at base ISO that difference will be a very happy trade for many.
Plus for the equivalent DOF (if that's what you are after) the APS-C will be one f-stop wider, thus enabling a lower ISO (if not already at base ISO) for the same shutter speed.
There are no clear winners in every situation, but this lens is much smaller and lighter than the FX "equivalent" taken on whole.

glad to hear you're finally willing to learn.

Oh I forgot about the huge market share and profits Fuji has developed with it's mirrorless cameras. It's substantially less than M43 let alone Canon or Nikon. Lets create a camera that nullifies half the advantages mirroless provides and make lenses the size of FF telephoto zooms. Being a 'cult' camera only works if the masses see it as such, if they see it as more of the same, it's an extinct camera line and you sir sound as if your a camera paleontoligst

i know dude .. and this is one of the main reason why am not adopting sony .. LENSES!!! nex is getting better though

the big reason behind adopting new standards is they are trying to find their stronghold and doing their every effort to win its grounds .. not like Canikon who already got stablished client base and getting lazy everyday, bragging on their existing lense catalog!!

I like innovation and new ideas and for those reasons, respect Sony and Fuji! Even though I am going to keep my m43 gear and probably will get into nikon fullframe as second bigger body one day!!

Yes, why? Native ISO for a sensor is what it is, and the quality is best just there. Why do you need just 100 ISO for your landscape shots, why not 25 ISO like oled KodaChrome?

sorry mate, don't wanna judge you here .. but I don't think you know what you want here .. lower ISO ? for what!!

I'm sure it is just an electronic control ring (same as on the other Fuji lenses, including the primes that are marked. I'm just baffled as to why they don't add the marks on the zooms, and particularly on this lens with a constant aperture. It's nice to be able to set the aperture before bringing the camera up to your eye or even turning it on.

That said, I'm still planning on buying this lens. It looks very nice.

The lenses are significantly smaller and lighter than equivalent DSLR lenses in most cases. As an example, find me a DSLR 14mm 2.8 or 35mm 1.4 that comes close to the size/weight of these.

SMC Pentax-DA 12-24mm F4 ED AL
Weight: 430 g
Diam x Length: 83.5 x 87.5 mm
Filter size: 77 mm

So - I don´t really see a difference.

Nikon makes a 16-35 f/4 as well as Canon's 17-40 f/4. Both full frame.

Still, I can't disagree that Fuji is kicking butt for mirrorless fans!

@vratnik - Spoken like a true fan.

The 11-22mm is an excellent lens, but this would want to be for 2.5x the price!

well, EF-M11-22 got smaller apertures and not as wide, but otherwise a lot better image quality than Sony E10-18, so that I think EF-M11-22 can be used as a standard for "good wide angle zoom."

though the MTFs are not directly comparable XF10-24 does't look too promising (would really appreciate everyone use 15 and 45 lp/mm for APS-C).

@ Higuel: do you realize you are talking about the 10-22 EF-S (for DLSR), and not about the 11-22 for EF-M (for mirrorless)? Very different lenses! The 11-22 EF-M seems to be an excellent lens for the money, difficult to beat for the competition.

If this is overpriced, then what is the Panasonic 7-14mm F4 ?

If the only metric left by which customers choose their products is price, expect lots of plastic crap to hit the shelves, and by and by, deteriorating quality.

I welcome a Fuji that could focus on a market they want to capture and tweak until they have it. This do all and be all to everyone strategy will only dilute their brand. Focus on the mid-high end of the mirror less market and get rid of the toenail and puppy dog shooters.

What is the point in a heavier f/2.8 lens that needs to go to 5.6-8 for sharpness, when you can have a lighter and cheaper f/4 and up the ISO? We are no longer in the early days when ISO 3200 was a noisefest in digicams.

The only reason for f2.8 would be low light indoor shots where you can't use a tripod (churches, museums etc.) But the OIS will cover some of that.

It is a very interesting lens, but I have the XF 14mm and Samyang 8mm Fisheye, so no 10-24mm for me ;)

@DVT....
man, learn a thing or two before writing here! merry christmas to you and get a better mod and attitude! :)

Never taken a blurred photo with a wide angle? In low-light?

For use in any situation where you might want to use shutter speeds slower than you can comfortably hand-hold. With wideangles, this might include:

1) Shooting interiors of buildings

2) Shooting landscapes in fading light

3) Using slow shutter speeds to add motion blur, e.g. to water

Of course it's useful if you shoot video hand-held.

The first certainly is.

The first is what, the very reasons tripods even exist? Anyone who *plans* on shooting interiors without a tripod isn't being very professional, as you would want to use at least F11 anyway, so it's gotta be one awesome crib if there's enough light to do that handheld at base iso, even with OIS. Of course, you can't plan everything and you don't have to be professional if you don't want to.

I often shoot interiors without a tripod. For one, some buildings (museums, churches) have rules barring tripods. Second, even when tripods are allowed they're difficult to use in crowded environments. Third, if I'm traveling all day on foot, carrying a tripod is a difficult choice. It means carrying a backpack versus perhaps just carrying a small camera with single lens slung over a shoulder.

All mainstream companies make good lenses and bad lenses. And they're all full of compromises whether that is built to a price point or with certain design objectives (e.g. small size).
And some lens design is outsourced or uses well known optical formulae that have existed for many years.
So your sweeping statement that Fuji makes better lenses is simply not true. In this case the Fuji lens may have been designed to be higher quality (at a higher cost and possibly larger size) than the Sony lens but all camera manufacturer's could probably produce or outsource an equivalent if they wanted to.
I think Sigma have shown that there are no magic ingredients.

Not true are you kidding? You can blame or thank who-ever you want, for all i care it was Tamron who designed them (it was not). The fact is that there is only one questionable performer in the XF lens line-up so far out of 10, or 11 if this one turns out to deliver, or 13 including Zeiss Touit. They had exactly 0 only two years ago!! Obviously they ARE designed that way, and no surprise that comes at a cost. Comparing this with probably the worst superwide zoom ever make no sense whatsoever.

And one more, the 56/1.2 is on the roadmap for next month.

Sony 10-18/4.0 OSS... or am I missing something?

Well done caver3d, you must be very proud ;)

Having owned an X camera myself, I found the 18-55mm already too front heavy with no grip, is this going to be any better?

@caver3d,

The X system is smaller than current digital SLR cameras, but is the same size as older SLRs, which weren't often used with zooms. Solid, compact primes were typical. This lens is both longer and heavier than it needs to be.

I have no problem with grip less cameras. In fact, I prefer them to gripped cameras, but when one-handing a camera, a grip is sturdier with a heavy lens.

The is an external Grip available for Fuji http://static.bhphoto.com/images/images500x500/849431.jpg