The new 35mm f2 lens is not small, ugly and not that cheap

[DarnGoodPhotos]

If this is sealed by having the internal elements move on focus then it would be need to be deeper to accommodate that.

 

[win39]

All the breast beating about esthetics of a lens makes me think there are not many serious photographers here, just purchasers of neck jewelry. To me it looks rather like the Summicrons designed by Leitz for the early M series cameras, all machined metal and function. Is that a hint that this is going be Fuji's super sharp line too?

It is curious and interesting how the lens immediately swells larger than the mount and then tapers. I suspect that Fuji still has not settled on an autofocus design and this is the latest experiment. They have tried several and this seems to be a bulky one.

The other aspect is that lenses for sensors require a retrofocus design just like an SLR design. Both applications require parallel rays coming out of the rear element. They cannot be made small like an old Leica or Nikon rangefinder lens without compromising the edges and corners. Film could accept exposure at very wide angles even from lenses with a rear element pushed right into the camera body.

 

[uMad]

The other aspect is that lenses for sensors require a retrofocus design just like an SLR design.

Why would it need to be a retrofocal design?

The 35mm f/1.4 isn't retrofocal either?!

 

[Robert Garcia NYC]

I want a 23mm f2 now.

Fuji makes a very good 23mm f/2 lens but you'll have to buy an X100 series camera to get one.

Nah, I would like a lens instead so I can use it on my Xt10 and Xpro2

 

[HS50Tox]

Reminds me of my old voigtlander ultron 35 1.7 in screw mount. I liked that lens a lot; hopefully this new one will perform well.

Hi,

I thought I saw my Minolta, when I looked at the pic of the lens. It has a similar shape.





It is larger




MD 1.8/35 - X E-1

And it has a very narrow DOF



[ATTACH alt="X E-1, MD 1.8/35 @ 1.8 Focus was set at the letter "G". The distance "G"--> "acer" writing (on the black screen frame) is about 10cm or a bit less (netbook keyboard)."]1082363[/ATTACH]
X E-1, MD 1.8/35 @ 1.8 Focus was set at the letter "G". The distance "G"--> "acer" writing (on the black screen frame) is about 10cm or a bit less (netbook keyboard).

I think I'll save my money...



Cheers

Tox

 

[Rod McD]

Hi,

Yes that would make sense too. Let's see how it performs.

Cheers, Rod

 

[Les Lammers]

Hi,

The mount diameter is more or less fixed for all X lenses by the specs of the mount itself - there's nothing Fuji can do about that. The length isn't a pancake, but it also needs a certain amount of room to offer an aperture ring. The filter size is 46mm - smaller than average.

I don't know about its IQ, but the design with a concave front element is unusual, which suggests that Fuji have gone out of their way to offer a design that has something extra. All the (very few) concave front element lenses I can think of have great reputations. The shots posted in the review - as far as images of that size go - show it to have very agreeable bokeh for an f2 lens.

Ugly? Eye of the beholder. It looks fine to me. Cheap? Who wanted cheap? Not me. I'm happy to be able to choose slower lenses to achieve smaller size, less weight, more even corner performance, less flare etc, etc, but I certainly don't want cheap. I really can't see why it should be much cheaper than the existing f1.4 version if there are other improvements over that lens. It's perfectly possible that it could be worth more.

The irony is that it isn't the 35/1.4 that is considered a bit big by the lovers of small lenses - it's the 16, 23 and 56mm lenses. So I don't know why Fuji offered this FL other than to offer better AF and sealing to match the XT1 and future bodies. I predict that they'll offer a sealed f1.4 version with better AF once they've sold off the stocks of the old one.

Yes everyone wants a 23mm f2, but forget the concept of an interchangeable lens that is only as big as the one on the X100 series. Part of that lens is inside the X100 camera body and it's built onto the body where an interchangeable one would have to offer a physical bayonet mount. If they ever offer one, it will be bigger than the apparent external size of the X100 lens. I'm still really hoping that they do.

Cheers, Rod

I imagine a 23 f2.0 will appear down the road and I'll use the 27 until it does. The 35 f2.0 is not large..the XT-10 is small. The images look very good to me.