Lenses: Did they get it right??

Started Jun 9, 2013 | Discussions thread
jyhfeei Forum Member • Posts: 88
Re: Lenses: Did they get it right??

CraigArnold wrote:

deednets wrote:

For my personal taste the lens selection available for the Fuji's is just plainly wrong! There is the 18/2.0 (since this is a wide angle the difference versus the zoom not compelling enough for me). The 35/1.4, there seems to be a lot of people here who like that lens? The equivalent of 52.5mm on FF, close enough to 50mm. I find this lens is neither here nor there, neither close enough to be a portrait lens nor wide enough for landscapes. Close enough to the "normal" viewing angle, the way we allegedly perceive the world. Beats me what is so great about 50mm?

The traditional prime set for most photographers was either 28+50+90 or 35+85. Fuji decided to go with the 3-lens prime set at launch.That was a wise choice covering the classical wide angle, normal and short-telephoto set. And of course there was the X100 which already covered 35.

When releasing their first zoom they went for the standard zoom range of 28-80. That was certainly a wise choice. What possible other choice could there have been for a standard zoom?

But then it gets better: Fuji releases the fantastic (IMO) 14mm lens - and Zeiss releases a 12mm lens. I understand that those 2 mm are in fact quite big, but again: compelling enough or more a matter of this one or the other rather than both? Is this wise policy? Is it? Really?

Zeiss are not a Fuji partner, they have simply licensed the mount. Therefore you should expect them to create lenses in direct competition with Fuji, not as a complementary set.

So yes it is a wise policy by Zeiss to release a lens which is in direct competition with a Fuji lens where they feel they might have an advantage. Fuji have no policy addressing this question, their only policy was to allow Zeiss to license the mount.

The 32mm Zeiss (48mm versus 52.5) spot the difference?? Get both? Sure, but again: really??

Yes another excellent choice by Zeiss; they have a tradition and the skills to produce some truly extraordinary short telephoto Planar design Macro lenses. This lens should be very competitive with the Fuji offering.

Regarding the bigger zoom the 55-200, why not make a 50-150/4.0? I personally don't care about the extra 50mm (not that huge anyway) on a mirrorless system, 300mm on the wobbly EVF. Would Zeiss, not really known for their expertise re zooms fit the bill here?? I doubt it, they might make a 59/1.3 ... for some reason the lenses have to be so close to the originals, but why not a 75/1.8 by Zeiss?? Or a 90/2.0? It just had to be a 32/1.8 ...

Well done, right??

Yes another good choice. The most popular telephoto zooms have always been in the 75-300 (equivalent range) with a variable aperture. This range complements the standard zoom range very nicely and rounds out the two-zoom set that many photographers will prefer to prime lenses. Faster lenses with fixed aperture are more expensive to make and much heavier, so will be of less interest to the target market for the mirrorless segment.

Am I alone here thinking that there was a great opportunity here starting from scratch so it doesn't take rocket science, as a taxi driver/hairdresser equivalent of a photographer anywhere in the world and they might have given them some ideas. Hard to believe they would have come up with a statement like: We want a 35mm lens - and a 32mm, we would in fact buy both! Simply because some people just "need" the extra 4.5mm ...

Well lens connoisseurs will certainly like having both to choose from and ruminate at length over the subtle rendering differences.

But of course you must be joking here because obviously most people will be choosing one or the other. Zeiss are aiming to make themselves a viable choice for consumers over the Fuji lens options. Fuji presumably licensed the mount because they believe (correctly in my view) that they will be capturing extra customers by having a larger "ecosystem" available.

Why not release a 38mm lens? 2.0?? And then a 41?? You think I am exaggerating?? Well they did the 32/35 ... some people here might think this is great, I think it is wasted engineering and could have been spent differently ...

Can you really be serious? Zeiss and Fuji are different companies. Once again I feel you must be joking.

Just frustrating to see how opportunities are being wasted, but maybe they have got it right and I am just a dino with no concept as to what people really need or want these days??

No, I'm sure you are just having fun seeing what responses your post can provoke. This whole thread is just another example of Poe's law.

Anyway, it's all good fun.

Nice summary.

I do think that Fuji is missing a telephoto prime.  In the old days, by far the most popular telephoto lens was 135 f/2.8 (FF).  A useful portrait lens for speed, size and low cost due to the relatively simple optical design. The 55-200 zoom's speed (~f/6 FF) in this range may not provide the bokeh many are looking for.  The 56 f/1.2 (85 FF) will be there for portraits, but it will not have much reach and I suspect may be pricey.  A 90 f/2 would have been a complimentary lens to add to Fuji's list, especially for those who already bought the 60 f/2.4 macro.

Perhaps this omission is not such a bad thing as it allows me to dust off my old Zuiko tele lenses and use them for this purpose.  I can't wait for the phase peaking to make it to the XE1s/XPro1s.

 jyhfeei's gear list:jyhfeei's gear list
Fujifilm X-E1 Fujifilm XF 14mm F2.8 R Fujifilm XF 18-55mm F2.8-4 R LM OIS Fujifilm XF 50-140mm F2.8
Post (hide subjects) Posted by
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow