EXCLUSIVE: Hands-on with upcoming Fujifilm XF and GF lenses

@Duncan M Wrong! Exposure is per unit area. A aps-c lens at 70mm at F/4 lets the same light per unit area through as a 70mm FF lanes at f/4. Light meters do not have an input for sensor size beause exposure is determined by light per unit area!
So, while the FF lens does allow more light though, that is irrelevant!

Yes and no.

A 35mm f1.4 will let less light through to the sensor than a 50mm f1.4. The iris of the 35mm will be smaller than that of the 50mm lens.

At 35mm the diameter of the iris will be 25mm the diameter of the iris of a 50mm at f1.4 is 35.7mm.

Focal distance plays a role in the size of the aperture and therefore in the light throughput.

Otherwise you are saying that you have changed the laws of physics.
But that's completely fine with me Einstein.

Fact is that a 70mm placed on a APS-C size camera will result in a FOV of 105mm. A 70mm placed on a FF sensor camera will act as a 70mm FOV. But to have the same FOV as the APS-C camera you WILL need to use a 105mm lens.

So what you get is a 105mm FOV and the DOF of a 70mm.
The result is different than using a 105mm lens on a Full Frame camera which would allow for the same field of view, but at the same aperture setting would result in a shallower DOF, due to the fact that iris opening will be wider on a 105mm compared to a 70mm.

You tell them Kreis

They’ve been doing this for years to keep gearheads happy. The fact is, in the realm of optics, aperture signifies the brightness of a lens: f/2.8 is f/2.8 regardless of focal length. Depth-of-field is affected by several factors, with the only single measurement equating to depth-of-field being “magnification at the image plane”. For decades photographers moved between 35mm, medium format, and large format, without this “equivalence” nonsense.

@kreislauf

Equivalent aperture is very important because it tells you what you can expect to get in terms of subject/background separation.

I typically use an Olympus EM10 III with a 25mm f/1.2 lens. The equivalent focal length is 50mm and the equivalent aperture is 2.4.

It is therefore NOT surprising that I can get better subject/background separation using a Sony a7R3 with a 55mm f/1.8 lens.

f/1.8 aperture is larger than f/2.4 aperture.

An aperture is what it is, but its effect with different sensor sizes is vastly different.

I don´t get it. Why is everyone talking about light-gathering when looking at the aperture?
The modern bodys can be used in a fairly high iso range. So this ist not the most important point when talking about aperture equivalent.
The equivalent deep of field on the other hand is a very important point when you plan your photo. This is what you see in the picture, not how much light the lens was gathering.
To compare dof you need a starting point. It´s fullframe. And you know why? Because it existed so long as a constant format.
When APS-C came, there where many, many pictures on the market to compare, mFT came even later.
You could have used medium or large format, but when those ruled the market the point was more about light gathering than artistic elements.

@ Kreislauf
"why does an equivalent aperture matter to you?". That´s a funny question.
The answer is, because it counts.
When you hold the picture in your hands, what do you see? You see the deep of field, the focal length (which both can be compare with equivalence) and sometimes the time.
That is what counts, everything else is just about defending their systems.

Me too! I need a lens that has more reach than the 18-55 but that retains a small size.

That's not bad compared to 15 cm on 16mm F1.4.

@phatgreatwall: 16-80 may be preferred by users who need:
1) extra reach (like me);
2) extra field of view; and/or
3) weather sealing.

The 18-55 is the oldest zoom in the line and has reduced AF performance on the later bodies. Both it and the 55-200 are in need of an update due to AF performance limitations (the 60/2.4 also really needs an update) and the 16-80 would make an excellent replacement for the 18-55 in the lineup as the premium kit/prosumer zoom, fitting between the 15-45 and the 16-55 in the line.

16-80 range is hugely popular...see canon 24-105, sigma 24-105, nikon 24-120...canon 15-85, nikon 16-80 etc.

Because they know MF is superior yet they can't afford it so there's nothing else to do but be sour over it.

and I thought the APS-C snobs were bad...these MF are really MF'ers

Rob890 yes MF is hardcore, were not just playing at it...

The Canon 40mm is not a very good lens though.

Don Sata,
The Canon 40mm F2.8 STM has a pretty good DXO score on the EOS 5DS R ( 51MP like the Fujifilm MF bodies ) :
https://www.dxomark.com/Lenses/Canon/Canon-EF-40mm-F28-STM-mounted-on-Canon-EOS-5DS-R__1009

I owned the Canon 40f2.8STM on my 6D and the result was really nice even wide open. After a few month I changed it for the 35f2IS , most for the FOV that I prefered. When I was comparing the images made with both lenses the 40mm was not in shamed at all, even the 35mm was effectively better.

The Canon 40mm pancake is a very good lens. Maybe not as sharp as the EF35F2IS, but it is definitely sharp enough. And it doesn't produce such "stretchy" nervous corner bokeh like the 35mm does. Plus, it is much smaller and much cheaper. And you can actually adapt it to GFX cameras.

Hi racin06,

Interresting... Which Canon and Fujifilm lenses did you owned, use and compare to come to a so precise affirmation?

I agree with DGP - I dearly liked my Rokinon 12 mm f/2 for my Sony E-mount. Excellent lens and amazing for astro.

Its really simople to MF a 12mm lens at f2.

Just break the focusing range into three parts, close, medium, and infinity, and just approximate based on the distance of your subject. Easy peasy and the subject will be in focus.

Compensating for something?

Kharan, Fuji lenses have many of those issues as well but Fuji bodies correct issues even in RAW.

Fuji bodies produce issues even in RAW :)

I would rather a compact lens not have to compromise on its compact size. Its strange because Fuji already has bigger brighter versions of their "small" 16/23/35/50 lenses that dont compromise on IQ. If you want better IQ, then just go with one of those.

Also Im not sure that the actual reason they are longer is because they are better optically, the 23/2 for example ironically takes soft photos when shooting anything close.

Fuji tried the pancake idea with the 27/2.8, while a great lens, it really hasn't been too popular.

The f2's however have been much more successful, and are a good combination of size and speed.

And keeping the aperture ring allows the Fuji bodies to be both small and reasonably glove-friendly (gloves and aperture rings/shutter speed dials work well, mirrorless-sized buttons not so much with gloves).

^ Probably because the 27/2.8 is too slow. A 23/2 pancake would be much more popular.

Not sure what an aperture ring has to do with making the lens so much longer. Its just a fly by wire ring. All the pancakes mentioned already have fly by wire rings (for MF).

I guess Fuji lens engineers should learn a trick or two from Canon and Samsung. They had it right with the old Fuji 18/2, but either they gave up or just didnt want to damage x100 sales so they intentionally made it longer.

The 18mm f/2 is pretty disappointing wide open, and is hardly a good example of compact lens design. If they go that small, they either have to sacrifice maximum aperture or correction.

They should have gone FF instead. Unfortunately, they keep trying to make a point by "breaking the laws of physics" and proving that APS-C system is just as good, while "smaller", which is false and simply not possible. So, they fail every time (obviously and predictably) and all we get is not as good as FF (or Bayer for that matter), same size, plus unreasonably expensive optics. I'm sure that it's good enough for many people, but "good enough" doesn't cut it, when there's better for the same price or even cheaper. I think that I would prefer the XF23F2($449) over the F2.8 pancake for the same price (same goes for 16mm), but then I can (and I do) have an F1.8 equivalent FF pancake (the EF40F2.8STM) and it's 3 TIMES cheaper. How does it make any logical sense to anyone? Why not just save your money, get a GFX body and adapt some cheaper FF lenses to it. Sounds like a much better deal to me.

No need to sacrifice performance. Just make it the pancake size of the Canon 22/2. The Fuji 23/3 is longer and already suffers from softness when shooting close. Its currently a lose/lose with no benefits. If you're so set on bigger size, get the 23/1.4. No point of the 23/2 when its thinner but just as long and with poorer IQ and aperture.

@Kharan - You're wrong.

Education isn’t a criteria, none of the editors have degrees in imaging or optics.
But I’ve been on my fair share of lavish press trips in a different field and they’re no fun; you’re cooped up with a bunch of hyper competitive other writers, supercilious, smug PR people, and anxious, anxious manufacturer staff. And they feed you gross, over-thought restaurant food.

Above all they have an EVF. Also better build quality, more controls - all these give you the "full" Fuji experience.

I agree. I'm mostly a landscapes/hiking shooter, too, and I rarely shoot even F/4. I use aperture priority mode and default to F/5.6, where lenses have the best resolution across most of the frame. When I really want subject isolation I switch to an F/1.8 prime.

Only if you give it a hideously complicated name like the '50mm F50 Falconlux ET L WX'.

They might come,..... but they will not publish abword about it.
So your investments will be spent for nothing.

@Rensol, no, DPR is nice people :)
But I fear as @GRUBERND said, DPR may not accept that fish trawler transit option I had in mind ;)

Of course. Many "commentators" here jump in m43 news and start talking about equivalence like there is no tomorrow. I wanted to understand how it feels :)

The reason for big rear lens is that you want the lens to be telecentric for digital cameras. So - if the lens not is in particular fast, then you can put the optical waist near to the front lens. And, then they will look like this lens. It is kind of optimal in this case.

Just get a reversing ring. Sorted. ;-)