XC 35 f/2

GossCTP wrote:

I would hope this isn't the road they are going down. Pentax tried something similar with their takumar bayonet line, which was a set of mostly identical lenses to their regular lineup but with lower build quality, inferior coatings and offshore manufacturing. Granted, those last two have improved greatly in the intervening years, but it was a stain on the Pentax name that remained long after the short production run.

I don't disagree with the point, but it isn't as though the Nikon "E" line, Minolta Celtic line (a bit of ethnic stereotyping thrown in to boot), Canon STM and for that matter even the vast majority of non-L lenses - all are lower line lens offerings - some with good reputations and others not so much. So, how the plan is executed is the real issue.

But I do agree, Takumar (the AF era variant) was a disaster, but the Celtic line did no favors for Minolta either. In defense of Pentax, the more recent plastic mount lenses are pretty much all very well made and optically good. The XC line might be the best of all the "economy" OEM lines out there, though. Not only good optically, but fairly well made and durable (yes, good plastic can be durable).

It wouldn't surprise me one bit if the 35/1.4 gets updated with a quality motor and WR, allowing the XF35/2 to be dropped. Other than the 18mm, optically the 35/2 ranks pretty low among the Fuji primes (still good but not as stellar as most of the others).