XC 35 f/2

Truman Prevatt wrote:

Wezre wrote:

Critical Thinker wrote:

mw02veg wrote:

norjens wrote:

Wezre wrote:

Would’ve been nice if they changed the focal length up a bit to attract a wider customer base.

Agreed, it would be nice if they gave us another option in the 50 to 55mm range instead

Is the 50-55 range more popular?

No. 50mm equiv is the most popular. Followed by 35mm equiv. 85mm equiv short telephoto is an odd choice for a standard beginner cheap prime. Theres a reason why nifty fifties were cheap and plentiful. A 35/2 is the right choice as the first XC prime.

From that perspective it makes sense. I guess I'm just a little disappointed they put resources into designing a lens at the same focal length as two existing lenses. At least they changed the "upcoming" f/1.0 lens to be a 50mm instead of 33mm. That would've been a complete cluster of lenses all at nearly the same focal length. Maybe they also had this lens in mind when they made that change.

Oh come on. This lens was a "give me" or if you prefer a sports metaphor a "lay up" for Fuji. It's the same lens as the 35 f2 in a cheaper plastic package with a cheaper mount. This had virtually no design cost and the only NRE was in the packaging of the elements.

They will recover whatever NRE they expending in short order - much shorter than average.

Truman, it looks like they use a cheaper coating. This might be the reason j. Rask mentioned that it is a little bit less sharp as his xf version.

I wonder if this saves any money at all, using 2 different production lines for the glass, and it is a decision by the product management/marketing departments for product differentiation.

The 35/2 isn't the best optics anyway, relaying a lot on in camera correction. Using an inferior coating on top doesn't make it any better.

Fuji is under a lot of pressure of a growing number of third party manufacturers with excellent products. But Fuji should not sacrifice the excellent reputation they earned over the years.