This was not meant to start a war. If you remove fisheye and wide angle lenses from your list, how many ultra wide rectilinear lenses remain ? And in Fuji's lineup ?
-
Welcome to the new forums! Please read this first. For known issues we are working to resolve, click here.
New lens set please Fuji - smaller, lighter, but still top quality!
- Thread starter Phil1
- Start date
tedolf
Forum Pro
Didn't know there was one.
??????
OK, I understand the "remove fisheye" part, but why would I remove the "wide angle" lenses from the list.
Do you mean that 12mm (24mm FF equivalent FOV) is not "ultra" wide angle?
If so, where are you starting "ultra wide angle", 16mm full frame equivalent FOV and rectilinear?
Well, I am not sure b/c I don't know where you think "ultra wide angle" begins. I always thought from the days of film that anything 24mm (12mm in the land of m4/3) or less was "ultra wide angle" but I stand ready to be corrected.
One more point. I have been surprised by how good some of the de-fishing software makes the Rokinon 7.5mm images look. There are quite a few threads on that over in the m4/3 forum.
Fuji is not a m4/3 format; it has a 1.5x crop factor.
M4/3 has a 2.0x crop factor.
Tedolph
I could have added at least 10 more, but it is pointless. The smallest in the arena is the 85/2 Ai for Nikon, which, volume-wise is about the same size as the Fujifilm 35/1.4. No, it does not have AF.
Beat Traveller
Leading Member
- Messages
- 745
- Reaction score
- 415
Huh? It's pretty evident from this thread that there's demand for small light lenses on APSC. The fast options are already available and will be complete later this year with the 16mm and 90mm. No-one is compelled to buy from a slower line of lenses but a lot of people would prefer the option. Some FLs are already available but there are 'gaps'. The debate is about which focal lengths (and whether Fuji will ever offer them).
A 1" sensor? The one and only reason I could possibly see myself using a Nikon 1 would be to take bird images with their 70-300 ED VR lens and 2.7X crop factor. But that's a $1500 lens.....
Cheers, Rod
A 1" sensor? The one and only reason I could possibly see myself using a Nikon 1 would be to take bird images with their 70-300 ED VR lens and 2.7X crop factor. But that's a $1500 lens.....
Cheers, Rod
georgehudetz
Veteran Member
Agreed.
Right. Later this year, there will be four "no-compromise" prime X lenses, which emphasize IQ & speed over weight - 16, 23, 56, and 90.
On the other hand, there currently five lenses that make some kind of compromise to keep the size small - 14, 18, 27, 35, and 60. So, really, the "small and light" crowd is (marginally) over-served, relative to the "size be dammed" crowd.
It's fine for people to say "I wish there were more light & small lenses." Fine, we all have our preferences and stating them is what this forum is for. But to suggest that Fuji has played favorites to those who prefer larger, faster lenses is disingenuous.
Same is true for zooms, IMO.
But keep in mind that those that need a narrow dof have it. And more are on their way. For those of us that don't need or want razor thin dof we have the 18 and 27. That's it. A small 23 and 35 would be more than welcome here. The 23 would be a great FL and a great walkabout lens. The 35 would potentially be a faster focusing lens as well as smaller. Both would be great street lenses where shooting at f4, for me, is about as fast as I'd want.
I use an X100T for my walkabout 23. While the AF for the 35 is better with the new bodies, a smaller package would be lovely. Plus it would offer xp1 and xe1 shooters a half way decent focusing lens (speed and ability to lock).
georgehudetz
Veteran Member
Beat Traveller
Leading Member
- Messages
- 745
- Reaction score
- 415
I was asking about how many companies offer small 135mm equivalents among today's manufacturers. We're talking about the possibility of Fuji designing a small 135mm equivalent, and it would obviously have to have AF, otherwise no one would buy it. That's why lenses that don't have AF are irrelevant to this particular discussion.
Yes, so let's try and keep that can of worms firmly closed.
That's a controversial opinion, but generally speaking I agree that there isn't a major difference between individual lens sizes across these two formats.
Talk about making sweeping generalisations. If you want tiny cameras, they have them. If you want normal sized compacts with massive zoom ranges, they have them. If you want normal sized compacts with bigger sensors and faster glass, they have them. If you want bigger compacts for the purpose of having more controls, they have them. If you want smaller lenses where the job of correcting optical faults is handled by software rather than optical design, they have them (we're mostly talking m4/3 here, although the 18mm from Fuji counts as well). Miniaturisation has definitely affected the camera world, although it is still bound by certain constraints of physics.
And this is not something I ever claimed, so... thanks?
georgehudetz
Veteran Member
Kind of hard to skip it when we are talking about a 90mm lens that we conflate to equate a 135mm. Obviously, we are talking about a different format.
Bros forever.
Absolutely our cameras are larger than ever they were. There are no miniature FF cameras as their used to be. The only way to get smaller today is to make the sensor smaller. There is NO low water line apart from sensor size, which is something that wasn't a huge problem in the film days. There were smaller film sizes, but the basic fulcrums were around 35mm, then larger film sizes. Because we have no fulcrums, we base everything on dimensions and weight, not on the final output image (sans ISO equivalence, but based purely on COC) based on FOV and DOF.
It is a sweeping statement, but it is true.
Again, bros forever.
Completely disagree with your point. Is it very reasonable to create two lines of lenses with same FL but difference in size, fastest aperture, weight and price, for two grups of users. You do not see it, that's ok, but this action has been exicting for many years and used by almost all FF camera makers, but you sound like this wish of users is taken from space. It's quite simple, and not strange at all as you want it to look. We have now one set with fast f/1.2-1.4 primes that are bigger (and more expensive), and there is a place - and a need - for smaller primes, best with f2. It seems Fuji has made decission to go this direction because we see rumors about 35/2R now.... next step is R 23/2, 55/2, 85/2.8 and yes - 16/2. It's resonable and right direction, also to make "small mirrorless" a true advantage.
Last edited:
Yeah, just look at Nikon: their 35, 50, 85 and 70-200 exist in faster/slower versions. Then there's the 24 1.4 and the old 24 2.8, same with the 20 and 28 in 1.8 and the older 2.8. Fuji would be smart to do the same, but of course creating a line-up like that takes time.
But again, top of my wishlist is an XC 8-16 or 10-20, preferably 3.5-4.5/5.6 to keep it small and relatively fast. Would make a great kit combined with my other XC-lenses and X-A1, and perfect for landscape photography while hiking.
But again, top of my wishlist is an XC 8-16 or 10-20, preferably 3.5-4.5/5.6 to keep it small and relatively fast. Would make a great kit combined with my other XC-lenses and X-A1, and perfect for landscape photography while hiking.
For every lens is a bit extreme. However, the lens line should be directed towards the user base, photographers. Overlap is irrelevant. Some want small and light as their photography requires discreet or all day carries. In my case I have an X100T instead the XF23. I would love a compact 23 without the need to go to another body.
Overlapping FL's bear no meaning to a camera manufacturer's market. My observations is Fuji has a user base interested in quality but ranges from studio work to street shooting. That's what Fuji should focus on, not some math exercise.
georgehudetz
Veteran Member
That's really my main point.
Yes, so would I. I'd say the 23/35/56 trio make the most sense for overlapping FLs.
Judging by everyone's reaction, I took the analogy a bit far. Fine. I tend to think about what else they could be doing with their resources, and I'd rather see them do other things than come up with a fully redundant lens lineup. Fuji does seem to listen to us, which is why I speak up. If I'm in the minority I'm sure Fuji will ignore me.
Anyway, it's great to see a compact 35/2 that is weather sealed (that last bit according to rumor still). That will be an awesome street lens, and I'm happy it's not too slow.
Hi,
I see maximum aperture as an issue of design and purpose, not quality. They are independent. It's perfectly possible to have a very fast lens that delivers crappy IQ and a very slow lens that delivers outstanding IQ. There are many examples of this, and of course it may be the other way around.
Whether one wants lens speed depends on one's intentions. For me, for example, fast apertures are of no interest since I shoot mostly landscapes, city-scapes, my travels and so on. I'm not into subject isolation from WA lenses and I'm not into bokeh. If Fuji offered a 23/2.4 that was tiny, sealed and offered impeccable IQ, I'd pay more for it than the current 23mm f1.4 model that I haven't chosen to buy. It just comes down to what you like.
Cheers, Rod
I see maximum aperture as an issue of design and purpose, not quality. They are independent. It's perfectly possible to have a very fast lens that delivers crappy IQ and a very slow lens that delivers outstanding IQ. There are many examples of this, and of course it may be the other way around.
Whether one wants lens speed depends on one's intentions. For me, for example, fast apertures are of no interest since I shoot mostly landscapes, city-scapes, my travels and so on. I'm not into subject isolation from WA lenses and I'm not into bokeh. If Fuji offered a 23/2.4 that was tiny, sealed and offered impeccable IQ, I'd pay more for it than the current 23mm f1.4 model that I haven't chosen to buy. It just comes down to what you like.
Cheers, Rod
I'm very much in the same boat. Heck, I'd love to see a small 12mm F/8 lens with stellar IQ, just for hiking and general travels.
Well said but I believe you responded to the wrong person.
Similar threads
Keyboard shortcuts
- f
- Forum