XC 35 f/2

JNR wrote:

GossCTP wrote:

Oh I have nothing against good budget options in the xc lineup. It was more an observation about downgrading an existing lens and slashing the price. It sends a message that the original version wasn't of the optical grade that it was originally marketed as.

Rubbish. A lighter weight version of the lens means that you have a choice between a more standardized build quality and a premium grade build quality. You pays your money and you get what you pay for.

Also, while the f/1.4 primes could use a reboot, I think many like the size and weight of the f/2 primes and wouldn't want to lose aperture rings going forward.

Agreed, except I really don't care one way or the other about the aperture ring on these smaller lenses. In fact, I find the infinitely spinning aperture ring with no markings on the 18-55 essentially a world-class photography connivance

Yep me too. Bloody annoying when you expect something better than a standard lens.

- and would be much happier if I could assign a body wheel to the aperture for that lens. I'm fine with the primes that have a marked ring, and agree that it is essential for the larger, heavier lenses (none of which I have in the Fuji system).

Now, putting the excellent 50mm into a cheap plastic casing would be a monumentally poor marketing decision IMO.

Why?  Again thats just sounding like elitism. Whats wrong with having a lower spec ( build quality ) whilst maintaining the standard of optics. I for one cant afford/justify a 50 mm lens at approx $800.00 NZD.

For that sort of money I could buy a new Canon DSLR with kit lens and get the 50 mm 1.8 STM lens as well.

Therefore for me and a good many others who would like a nice fast 50 mm Fuji lens, having the option of a XC version would get my vote every time. Why should those whose budgets cant stretch to a premium build lens miss out?