The projection at 600 (900) equivalent on aps-c is much narrower than 600 FF!
-
Welcome to the new forums! Please read this first. For known issues we are working to resolve, click here.
New Fuji long tele rumour is 150-600 5.6-8 :(
- Thread starter alphaZ
- Start date
The size of the image sensor behind the lens is completely irrelevant. A 600mm f/8.0 lens needs a front element that is at least 75mm in diameter. Any smaller than 75mm and it is no longer f/8.0. It does not matter if we are talking about a smartphone sensor or a medium format sensor, the front element would still be at least 75mm.
Morris0
Forum Pro
Neither aperture or focal length have anything to do with focal length. Focal length equivalent is irrelevant to aperture size.
Morris
Nikon 300/4 (old model, not PF): 90mm diameter, 77mm filters
Olympus 300/4 designed for m43 sensor: 92mm diameter, 77mm filters
Sony 100-400: 77mm filters
Fuji 100-400: 77mm filters
- Dennis
--
Gallery at http://kingofthebeasts.smugmug.com
For me the price is related to optical performance. The white color, means in a marketing point of vue, pro lens, with pro grade performances. This lens will be more expansive than the 100-400 . The question is : will it worth it ?
Precisely, the image shows a larger diameter than the 100-400, possibly 5mm or more, which implies 82mm or more filter. Overall diameter looks more than 100mm at its max so it implies could bebetter than f8. Its probably not enough for 5.6 but I'm still holding on for better than f8, its an enormous lens by the looks of it so hopefully it is and tge rumor mill is wrong.
The image is a mockup and is NOT the real lens. The image of the lens was created by some rando on the internet to match a roadmap silhouette and is NOT coming from Fuji. It is pointless to argue about the lens possibly being 5mm wider when this is not the real lens.
Regardless, a 600mm f/8 would need a front element 3.5mm larger than a 400mm f/5.6. A 600mm f/5.6 would need a larger front element than the 200mm f/2.0. This lens is clearly nowhere near that large.
Hi,
I'm not worried about f8. Small aperture lenses seem to work better on MILCs than DSLRs because EVF gain determines viewing brightness. And in these days of great AF and great high ISO, f8 is not a problem for focus and exposure (in any decent light).
Yes, it will reduce subject background separation, but honestly, as useful as shallow DOF is at shorter FLs, my experience is that with very long lenses, there is precious little DOF and the struggle is to get deep enough DOF. I want the bird's eye and plumage in focus please, not one or the other..... I often stop my lens down to f8 or f11 to get it.
F8 will be easier on the wallet. And hiking with the full kit plus lens and tripod will be a little easier on the back.
The real test for the lens will be IQ at the long end.
Cheers, Rod
I'm not worried about f8. Small aperture lenses seem to work better on MILCs than DSLRs because EVF gain determines viewing brightness. And in these days of great AF and great high ISO, f8 is not a problem for focus and exposure (in any decent light).
Yes, it will reduce subject background separation, but honestly, as useful as shallow DOF is at shorter FLs, my experience is that with very long lenses, there is precious little DOF and the struggle is to get deep enough DOF. I want the bird's eye and plumage in focus please, not one or the other..... I often stop my lens down to f8 or f11 to get it.
F8 will be easier on the wallet. And hiking with the full kit plus lens and tripod will be a little easier on the back.
The real test for the lens will be IQ at the long end.
Cheers, Rod
casey1823
Senior Member
I love my 200, combined with 1.4x it’s liked mostly for being able to focus very fast. It works well for larger wildlife and sports. It’s still no 600mm.I also know one of Polish acclaimed wildlife/bird photographers who moved from FF to X-system and uses mainly XF200/2 + TC and XF50-140. He also have XF100-400 but claims that it's too slow
BTW, now I could buy brand new XF200/2 for $3.4k (with no TC), but I'm not interested at all - not for wildlife.
Cheers,
Artur
Casey
My Blog
It's MY Time Photography
It's MY Time Photography Blog. Retirement adventures of Mark Casebeer. I am a retired Michigan-based photographer, and I shoot with Fujifilm.
itsmytimephotography.com
Unfortunately shrinking the image circle doesn't have much benefit on Supertelephoto lenses.
As discussed, you cannot shrink the front element, however you can shrink all the elements behind the front element and cast a smaller image circle (thus many lenses do not cover the a 35mm sensor) which is highly beneficial to weight savings on Wide Angle lenses... But on a Supertelephoto lens there is practically nothing behind the front elements to begin with so there is very little to be gained by shrinking the image circle.
Especially on a Prime Telephoto.
This being a more complex zoom lens means there will be "slightly" more weight reduction from the zoom elements, but the main benefit here is just a matter of the cost required for a given level of image sharpness, it's will always be easier to make a lens sharp across a 24mm sensor than it is a 35mm sensor, so if Fuji can make a sharp 600mm f8 zoom lens more easily than anyone else would make a 900mm f11 zoom lens then it's a win.
Last edited:
Let's use the profile Fuji has published as a reference.
We know the X-mount flange diameter is 17.7mm. The outside diameter of my 18-55mm f/2.8-4 at the flange is roughly 58mm. The 150-600 would need to be about the same size to be compatible with X-series bodies. If we compare the diameter of the front of the 150-600 profile with the rear, it's about 1.6-1.7 times the diameter. Bear in mind, this diameter includes the thickness of the lens barrel.
So, if we multiply 58mm x 1.65, we get an outside barrel diameter of 96mm. If we estimate 10mm fir a barrel diameter, we need to subtract 2x10 or 20mm from the outside diameter to get a diameter for the front lens element. That works out to 76mm. 600 divided by 76 equals 7.9.
Just by doing a rough, back-of-the envelope calculation, the profile Fuji has published suggests a maximum of f/8 at 600mm. The length of the profile suggests to me that the lens will be internal zoom.
Personally, I've no interest in an f/8 optic for wildlife, birds, or fast action. I'm not giving up a stop of light from my 200-500mm f/5.6. I chose that lens because I didn't want to give up 1/3-stop of light in comparison with the Tamron & Sigma 150-600mm f/5-6.3 zooms.
That said, Fuji knows their customers and knows a large heavy optic runs contrary to their brand as a manufacturer of quality, compact photographic equipment. At f/8, the upcoming Fuji 150-600 should be significantly smaller and lighter than the 3rd party options. The lens elements will be smaller & lighter and the optical design could be less complex. While f/8 and decidedly slow, it should be very sharp. If it's crisp wide open at 600mm, that could compensate a bit for the 2/3-stop light-gathering the Tamron and Sigma optics enjoy.
Hopefully, Fuji understands that, with all the excellent (and significantly faster) third party long telephotos out there in the $1,300 to $2,000 price range, they won't be able to get away with pricing this optic north of...roughly $1,750. If it comes in at $1,500, they could have a hit on their hands. Priced north of $2,000, I honestly don't see how a slow 600mm zoom sells in any respectable numbers.
In any event, it will be interesting to see this new Fuji telephoto out in the wild and how it performs in the real world.
--
Bill Ferris Photography
Flagstaff, AZ
andrei1989
Forum Enthusiast
- Messages
- 255
- Solutions
- 1
- Reaction score
- 295
Exactly, they should aim to compete with adapted alternatives in terms of price. A sigma with a fringer adapter are somewhere around the 1500 mark, so for the same price the compromise of 2/3 light gathering ability, less weight, no adapter and first party autofocus could be argued for
They've made a mistake, as big as the Sony 200-600 is its manageable, internal zoom too it was the reference Fuji had to aim for in such a lens, you can pick them up for 1500 UK pounds and they are excellent. Such a lens on 26mp apsc with the upcoming X-H2 will hopefully be a great new wildlife combination. As it is we are going backwards if this is any darker than 6.3!
Morris0
Forum Pro
Please explain what "first party AF" gets you over the Fringer adapters when one can get images like this:
And even in very low light
Morris
Morris, there's no doubt that the last 7-8 years have seen a renaissance in wildlife, bird and sports photograhy driven by affordable, very good quality OEM and third party long telephoto zooms. And while I think it's still fair to say most photographers would prefer not to adapt the lenses they use, it's certainly become more common...and for good reason. Photographers do make excellent photos using adapted glass.Please explain what "first party AF" gets you over the Fringer adapters when one can get images like this:
And even in very low light
Morris
Let's step back for a moment and consider the question of why Fuji is developing the 150-600. I'l suggest they've seen the popularity and success of the Tamron and Sigma versions. They've also seen the success of the Nikon, Sony and Canon long, consumer zooms. Fuji's seen that their own customers and photographers shooting other brands like to use APS-C and even smaller format bodies for these genres of photograhy.
I'll even suggest someone like you, Morris, could be the poster boy for the new 150-600. You came to Fuji from Nikon, in part, because you wanted a lighter more portable kit. You used the Fuji 100-400 for awhile then moved to an adapted third party zoom. I've got to believe Fuji is developing their own 150-600 to bring you and others like you back home to a native X-mount long telephoto zoom for bird and wildlife photograhy.
The question I would have for you and others who currently pair Fuji bodies with third party glass for wildlife and bird photograhy is, what specs and price range would entice you to give the new lens a serious look? What size & weight savings would be needed for you to consider moving from f/6.3 to f/8? Would you be willing to pay $1,500, $1,750, more? Presumably, you wouldn't be willing to accept a reduction in autofocus performance from this new Fuji lens, but would it need to be better than you're currently getting? Would you expect an improvement in IQ or would an f/8 zoom that keeps pace with the IQ you're currently getting be enough?
Fuji doesn't need to attract every bird and wildlife customer over from a third party optic to this new zoom but I have to believe there's a significant percentage of those customers they'd like to bring home. So, what would it take for this lens to seriously tempt you?
--
Bill Ferris Photography
Flagstaff, AZ
Excellent question and very well putMorris, there's no doubt that the last 7-8 years have seen a renaissance in wildlife, bird and sports photograhy driven by affordable, very good quality OEM and third party long telephoto zooms. And while I think it's still fair to say most photographers would prefer not to adapt the lenses they use, it's certainly become more common...and for good reason. Photographers do make excellent photos using adapted glass.Please explain what "first party AF" gets you over the Fringer adapters when one can get images like this:
And even in very low light
Morris
Let's step back for a moment and consider the question of why Fuji is developing the 150-600. I'l suggest they've seen the popularity and success of the Tamron and Sigma versions. They've also seen the success of the Nikon, Sony and Canon long, consumer zooms. Fuji's seen that their own customers and photographers shooting other brands like to use APS-C and even smaller format bodies for these genres of photograhy.
I'll even suggest someone like you, Morris, could be the poster boy for the new 150-600. You came to Fuji from Nikon, in part, because you wanted a lighter more portable kit. You used the Fuji 100-400 for awhile then moved to an adapted third party zoom. I've got to believe Fuji is developing their own 150-600 to bring you and others like you back home to a native X-mount long telephoto zoom for bird and wildlife photograhy.
The question I would have for you and others who currently pair Fuji bodies with third party glass for wildlife and bird photograhy is, what specs and price range would entice you to give the new lens a serious look? What size & weight savings would be needed for you to consider moving from f/6.3 to f/8? Would you be willing to pay $1,500, $1,750, more? Presumably, you wouldn't be willing to accept a reduction in autofocus performance from this new Fuji lens, but would it need to be better than you're currently getting? Would you expect an improvement in IQ or would an f/8 zoom that keeps pace with the IQ you're currently getting be enough?
Fuji doesn't need to attract every bird and wildlife customer over from a third party optic to this new zoom but I have to believe there's a significant percentage of those customers they'd like to bring home. So, what would it take for this lens to seriously tempt you?
In my own case Id have to see how far from 5.6 @400mm it is but currently it wouldn't matter if it was £1000 or less, presumably we are looking at 1500-2000 though, but 5.6 @ 150 ie f8 FF is already dark and it just gets darker and darker, it wouldn't surprise me if its 6.7@400 which would make it pointless, I'll be sticking with existing options and adapting if I need 600mm tele.
Life is a trade off. The minimum diameter of the front lens at 600mm for f5.6 is 107mm. That is aperture diameter and the lens will need to be significantly larger. We are talking about a 5 inch saucer here. Compare that to say the 200 f2 now - the diameter is 122 mm. So a simple extrapolation gives the same front element diameter and design at 600 would be close to 5.6. How much does the 200 f2 cost? About 6 big ones. This lens is basically the 100 to 400 with a 1.4 TC with having the issues associated with the additional glass from a TC. Interesting enough at 600 f8 would result on the min diameter of the front element of about 80 mm and the 100-400 has a diameter of 95. So I expect this camera will be more or less an updated version of the 100-400 with more range and better optics. By going 5.6 this lens might end up costing the close the 200. By giving up a stop they might be able to bring it in at 1500 to 2000 instead of 6 bills.Excellent question and very well putMorris, there's no doubt that the last 7-8 years have seen a renaissance in wildlife, bird and sports photograhy driven by affordable, very good quality OEM and third party long telephoto zooms. And while I think it's still fair to say most photographers would prefer not to adapt the lenses they use, it's certainly become more common...and for good reason. Photographers do make excellent photos using adapted glass.Please explain what "first party AF" gets you over the Fringer adapters when one can get images like this:
And even in very low light
Morris
Let's step back for a moment and consider the question of why Fuji is developing the 150-600. I'l suggest they've seen the popularity and success of the Tamron and Sigma versions. They've also seen the success of the Nikon, Sony and Canon long, consumer zooms. Fuji's seen that their own customers and photographers shooting other brands like to use APS-C and even smaller format bodies for these genres of photograhy.
I'll even suggest someone like you, Morris, could be the poster boy for the new 150-600. You came to Fuji from Nikon, in part, because you wanted a lighter more portable kit. You used the Fuji 100-400 for awhile then moved to an adapted third party zoom. I've got to believe Fuji is developing their own 150-600 to bring you and others like you back home to a native X-mount long telephoto zoom for bird and wildlife photograhy.
The question I would have for you and others who currently pair Fuji bodies with third party glass for wildlife and bird photograhy is, what specs and price range would entice you to give the new lens a serious look? What size & weight savings would be needed for you to consider moving from f/6.3 to f/8? Would you be willing to pay $1,500, $1,750, more? Presumably, you wouldn't be willing to accept a reduction in autofocus performance from this new Fuji lens, but would it need to be better than you're currently getting? Would you expect an improvement in IQ or would an f/8 zoom that keeps pace with the IQ you're currently getting be enough?
Fuji doesn't need to attract every bird and wildlife customer over from a third party optic to this new zoom but I have to believe there's a significant percentage of those customers they'd like to bring home. So, what would it take for this lens to seriously tempt you?
In my own case Id have to see how far from 5.6 @400mm it is but currently it wouldn't matter if it was £1000 or less, presumably we are looking at 1500-2000 though, but 5.6 @ 150 ie f8 FF is already dark and it just gets darker and darker, it wouldn't surprise me if its 6.7@400 which would make it pointless, I'll be sticking with existing options and adapting if I need 600mm tele.
We'll know soon.
--
"The winds of heaven is that which blows between a horse's ears," Bedouin Proverb
__
Truman
www.pbase.com/tprevatt
Indeed, what I don't get is the focal range, 150-500/600 is a FF lens range, the next step is 800 FF actually, its where a dedicated aps-c lens needs to be imo. If Fuji had stepped back and only thought about it properly, they don't need a slow 600 in the line-up! A 200-500 4-5.6 or probably 5-6.3 was what was really needed imo, ie a flexible zoom stretching upto 800 ish that can take a tc, a new 1.25* either built in or stand alone would have been the icing on the cake and usable on other lenses too. The proposed lens is unlikely to be popular, a bit like the 200 f2 which needed to be a more compact 200 or 300 2.8Life is a trade off. The minimum diameter of the front lens at 600mm for f5.6 is 107mm. That is aperture diameter and the lens will need to be significantly larger. We are talking about a 5 inch saucer here. Compare that to say the 200 f2 now - the diameter is 122 mm. So a simple extrapolation gives the same front element diameter and design at 600 would be close to 5.6. How much does the 200 f2 cost? About 6 big ones. This lens is basically the 100 to 400 with a 1.4 TC with having the issues associated with the additional glass from a TC. Interesting enough at 600 f8 would result on the min diameter of the front element of about 80 mm and the 100-400 has a diameter of 95. So I expect this camera will be more or less an updated version of the 100-400 with more range and better optics. By going 5.6 this lens might end up costing the close the 200. By giving up a stop they might be able to bring it in at 1500 to 2000 instead of 6 bills.Excellent question and very well putMorris, there's no doubt that the last 7-8 years have seen a renaissance in wildlife, bird and sports photograhy driven by affordable, very good quality OEM and third party long telephoto zooms. And while I think it's still fair to say most photographers would prefer not to adapt the lenses they use, it's certainly become more common...and for good reason. Photographers do make excellent photos using adapted glass.Please explain what "first party AF" gets you over the Fringer adapters when one can get images like this:
And even in very low light
Morris
Let's step back for a moment and consider the question of why Fuji is developing the 150-600. I'l suggest they've seen the popularity and success of the Tamron and Sigma versions. They've also seen the success of the Nikon, Sony and Canon long, consumer zooms. Fuji's seen that their own customers and photographers shooting other brands like to use APS-C and even smaller format bodies for these genres of photograhy.
I'll even suggest someone like you, Morris, could be the poster boy for the new 150-600. You came to Fuji from Nikon, in part, because you wanted a lighter more portable kit. You used the Fuji 100-400 for awhile then moved to an adapted third party zoom. I've got to believe Fuji is developing their own 150-600 to bring you and others like you back home to a native X-mount long telephoto zoom for bird and wildlife photograhy.
The question I would have for you and others who currently pair Fuji bodies with third party glass for wildlife and bird photograhy is, what specs and price range would entice you to give the new lens a serious look? What size & weight savings would be needed for you to consider moving from f/6.3 to f/8? Would you be willing to pay $1,500, $1,750, more? Presumably, you wouldn't be willing to accept a reduction in autofocus performance from this new Fuji lens, but would it need to be better than you're currently getting? Would you expect an improvement in IQ or would an f/8 zoom that keeps pace with the IQ you're currently getting be enough?
Fuji doesn't need to attract every bird and wildlife customer over from a third party optic to this new zoom but I have to believe there's a significant percentage of those customers they'd like to bring home. So, what would it take for this lens to seriously tempt you?
In my own case Id have to see how far from 5.6 @400mm it is but currently it wouldn't matter if it was £1000 or less, presumably we are looking at 1500-2000 though, but 5.6 @ 150 ie f8 FF is already dark and it just gets darker and darker, it wouldn't surprise me if its 6.7@400 which would make it pointless, I'll be sticking with existing options and adapting if I need 600mm tele.
We'll know soon.
Last edited:
yayatosorus
Senior Member
I'll have to correct you on that one. The mock-up is based on a sketch Fuji published during their previous X-summit livestream. It's not based on the roadmap silhouette. However I agree that it is pointless to argue about specific dimensions until we see pictures of the real thing.
Alan Hewitt Photo
Senior Member
What I want is a 50-600mm f/2.8 with internal zoom, small and lightweight for cabin baggage when flying and using handheld. Of course I also expect it to be tack sharp throughout the full focal range with no compromise. Oh, and I want it to work with a 1.4x too and I ain’t paying over £500 for it.
Of course I am being silly here but everybody has different wishes for gear.
I recently had a discussion about the Nikon 500mm PF f/5.6 with an excellent photographer who I respect immensely. The issue was they wouldn’t touch the PF with a barge pole because it isn’t f/4 like their own 500mm. They’ve never tried to pack a range of camera gear and luggage on small internal flights in Africa or around the Arctic Circle then! It’s no fun lugging all of this gear around.
Compromises need to be made and where they are made is the great debate. Size and weight is increasingly an important factor, price has always been. With higher performing sensors for ISO, better software for noise reduction too, mirrorless AF systems performing at f/11 etc etc…. I think the result is that compromises to bring down the size and weight of the lens are important.
However, it may not actually be correct anyway
.
Of course I am being silly here but everybody has different wishes for gear.
I recently had a discussion about the Nikon 500mm PF f/5.6 with an excellent photographer who I respect immensely. The issue was they wouldn’t touch the PF with a barge pole because it isn’t f/4 like their own 500mm. They’ve never tried to pack a range of camera gear and luggage on small internal flights in Africa or around the Arctic Circle then! It’s no fun lugging all of this gear around.
Compromises need to be made and where they are made is the great debate. Size and weight is increasingly an important factor, price has always been. With higher performing sensors for ISO, better software for noise reduction too, mirrorless AF systems performing at f/11 etc etc…. I think the result is that compromises to bring down the size and weight of the lens are important.
However, it may not actually be correct anyway
.Similar threads
- Locked
- Question
Keyboard shortcuts
- f
- Forum