How about an excellent 16-85 and an 85-200

[Advent1sam]

f4 constant pair?

Would really love that, combined with the 10-24 and 100-400 would be a very flexible quartet

 

[dv312]

The 10-24 is being too large

Would love to see a smallish 12-24 f4, or even 12-18 f4

And a 50-140 F4

The current constant f2.8 zooms are just not desirable in my book due to cost and weight
Cheers,

 

[Lettermanian]

f4 constant pair?

Would really love that, combined with the 10-24 and 100-400 would be a very flexible quartet

Two very useful focal lengths. Make them WR, and take my money.

 

[Peter Jonas]

• Advent1sam wrote:

f4 constant pair?

I second that. The tele could start at 70mm to provide some overlap.

It shouldn't be difficult to do as others have done it for APS-C.

--
Cheers,
Peter Jonas

 

[Thermidor]

• Advent1sam wrote:

f4 constant pair?

I second that. The tele could start at 70mm to provide some overlap.

It shouldn't be difficult to do as others have done it for APS-C.

 

[Rod McD]

Hi,

I'd certainly consider a 16-85/4 as long as the IQ was high grade. It would be a great travel lens. I'd also look at it if it was a 16-85/f3.5-4.5 - in fact I'd probably prefer it because it would be smaller. (I've never understood the fixation on constant aperture unless one uses a lot of manual studio flash.)

I have the 55-200/3.5-4.8 and I can't see any point in giving up the 55mm end to go for 85mm just to get f4 at the long end...... Really, what's the difference between f4 and f4.8 for all practical purposes?

I would look seriously at an f4 version of the 50-140 complete with top IQ, OIS, sealing and the tripod collar. It worked exceptionally well for Canon and Nikon. My main gripe about the 55-200 is that although it's fine hand-held, it's very front heavy when mounted on the camera's tripod socket and zoomed out to 200mm. It results in it being a bit unsteady on tripods that should otherwise support the weight of the lens and deplorable on a tripod when used with extension tubes. There have also been a few reports of damage to the camera base plate when the lens has been knocked.

Regards, Rod

 

[Craig268]

f4 constant pair?

Would really love that, combined with the 10-24 and 100-400 would be a very flexible quartet

Two very useful focal lengths. Make them WR, and take my money.

 

[Thermidor]

I have the 55-200/3.5-4.8 and I can't see any point in giving up the 55mm end to go for 85mm just to get f4 at the long end...... Really, what's the difference between f4 and f4.8 for all practical purposes?

I know half a stop isn't all that much in a lens with 3 effective stops of stabilization, but I primarily use my telephoto for stage performances, that can be fairly dimly lit. and still needs a reasonable shutter speed like 1/100 despite the OIS. I know I should be looking at the 50-140 f2.8 instead, but it's a much too expensive lens for me. If I could afford that, I'm better off replacing my Nikon 80-200 f2.8 AF-D with the 70-200 f2.8 VR II instead.

 

[Rod McD]

I have the 55-200/3.5-4.8 and I can't see any point in giving up the 55mm end to go for 85mm just to get f4 at the long end...... Really, what's the difference between f4 and f4.8 for all practical purposes?

I know half a stop isn't all that much in a lens with 3 effective stops of stabilization, but I primarily use my telephoto for stage performances, that can be fairly dimly lit. and still needs a reasonable shutter speed like 1/100 despite the OIS. I know I should be looking at the 50-140 f2.8 instead, but it's a much too expensive lens for me. If I could afford that, I'm better off replacing my Nikon 80-200 f2.8 AF-D with the 70-200 f2.8 VR II instead.

Thought 1) If you have Nikon 80-200/2.8 (any version) and it works for you, why switch to the Fuji 50-140 anyway? As you've observed, it's a very expensive lens - beyond my reach too. And far bigger than I prefer.

Thought 2) Have you considered a very fast, high grade, adapted prime at the FL that you use most frequently? I'm thinking 100/2, 105/1.8, 135/2, 180/2.5, etc. You could also add a TC or speed-booster to vary the FL in suitable situations. Eg, with a 100/2, that would give you a 70/1.4 - 100/2 - 140/2.8. Just an idea.

Cheers, Rod

 

[Travelshooter]

f4 constant pair?

Would really love that, combined with the 10-24 and 100-400 would be a very flexible quartet

F3.5 to 5.6 might be better. Canon has a lovely 15-85 for APS-C but it's big and heavy.

 

[Travelshooter]

• Advent1sam wrote:

f4 constant pair?

I second that. The tele could start at 70mm to provide some overlap.

It shouldn't be difficult to do as others have done it for APS-C.

 

[Thermidor]

I know half a stop isn't all that much in a lens with 3 effective stops of stabilization, but I primarily use my telephoto for stage performances, that can be fairly dimly lit. and still needs a reasonable shutter speed like 1/100 despite the OIS. I know I should be looking at the 50-140 f2.8 instead, but it's a much too expensive lens for me. If I could afford that, I'm better off replacing my Nikon 80-200 f2.8 AF-D with the 70-200 f2.8 VR II instead.

Thought 1) If you have Nikon 80-200/2.8 (any version) and it works for you, why switch to the Fuji 50-140 anyway? As you've observed, it's a very expensive lens - beyond my reach too. And far bigger than I prefer.

Thought 2) Have you considered a very fast, high grade, adapted prime at the FL that you use most frequently? I'm thinking 100/2, 105/1.8, 135/2, 180/2.5, etc. You could also add a TC or speed-booster to vary the FL in suitable situations. Eg, with a 100/2, that would give you a 70/1.4 - 100/2 - 140/2.8. Just an idea.

Cheers, Rod

Hi Rod, the Nikon is my primary work lens on my D750, which is my workhorse for my stage photography. I got an X-Pro 1 last year as an everyday camera, and ended up supplementing with a used X-T1, which I recently traded for X-Pro 2 as a second professional body for the less demanding shoots.

I already adapt the Nikon 50mm f1.2, 75-150 f.3 and 85mm f1.8 over for telephoto usage. I enjoy the experience, and it's workable for my slower shoots, like when I'm shooting an acoustic music performance or stand-up comedy. But I also reckon I'd eventually need a fast telephoto for rock shows and dances, where manual focusing isn't viable enough. The most natural choice would be the 50-140 due to the one stop faster aperture and weather sealing (I occasionally shoot outdoor festivals), but it's also big, heavy and pricey, and I would prefer a constant f4 lens.

I have neck and back problems, so eventually I'd have to sell off the 80-200 and get a 70-200 f4 VR instead to reduce the strain, but I reckon I've still got a few more years to make the best out of it first. The X-Pro 2 would likely be my main workhorse then.

 

[Thermidor]

f4 constant pair?

Would really love that, combined with the 10-24 and 100-400 would be a very flexible quartet

F3.5 to 5.6 might be better. Canon has a lovely 15-85 for APS-C but it's big and heavy.

 

[Lettermanian]

f4 constant pair?

Would really love that, combined with the 10-24 and 100-400 would be a very flexible quartet

Two very useful focal lengths. Make them WR, and take my money.