Am I the only one wanting an XF 24-200 WR lens?

Started 3 months ago | Discussions
Yannis1976
Yannis1976 Veteran Member • Posts: 4,984
Am I the only one wanting an XF 24-200 WR lens?

I know it’s possible to design and build such a lens with good overall sharpness when I see Nikon and Olympus having already done it for FF and m43. Why not Fuji?

 Yannis1976's gear list:Yannis1976's gear list
Olympus TG-5 Canon G5 X II Fujifilm XF 35mm F1.4 R Fujifilm XF 16-80mm F4
webfrasse Veteran Member • Posts: 3,978
Re: Am I the only one wanting an XF 24-200 WR lens?
2

I rather carry two bodies with prime lenses...and I usually do.

-- hide signature --

Mikael

Morris0
Morris0 Forum Pro • Posts: 21,321
Re: Am I the only one wanting an XF 24-200 WR lens?
3

I'd love 18-200

Morris

 Morris0's gear list:Morris0's gear list
Fujifilm X-T3 Fujifilm XF 18-135mm F3.5-5.6 R LM OIS WR Sigma 150-600mm F5-6.3 | C XF 90mm Fujifilm 50mm F2 R WR +12 more
Craig268
Craig268 Senior Member • Posts: 1,596
Re: Am I the only one wanting an XF 24-200 WR lens?
1

Yannis1976 wrote:

I know it’s possible to design and build such a lens with good overall sharpness when I see Nikon and Olympus having already done it for FF and m43. Why not Fuji?

I'm a big fan of zooms but for that range, I typically carry two rigs.  However the range i shoot most often is about 16 to 200 and so  24-200 would be close.

A nearly perfect lens for me would be 16-250 though I understand the design issues with "super" zooms.

 Craig268's gear list:Craig268's gear list
Fujifilm X-T1 Fujifilm X-T10 Fujifilm X-T4 Fujifilm XC 16-50mm F3.5-5.6 OIS Fujifilm 50-230mm +8 more
Yannis1976
OP Yannis1976 Veteran Member • Posts: 4,984
Re: Am I the only one wanting an XF 24-200 WR lens?

Craig268 wrote:

Yannis1976 wrote:

I know it’s possible to design and build such a lens with good overall sharpness when I see Nikon and Olympus having already done it for FF and m43. Why not Fuji?

I'm a big fan of zooms but for that range, I typically carry two rigs. However the range i shoot most often is about 16 to 200 and so 24-200 would be close.

A nearly perfect lens for me would be 16-250 though I understand the design issues with "super" zooms.

I mentioned the 24-200 or 16-135 in our Fuji case because its already done from Olympus (12-100/f4) and Nikon (Z 24-200). The 16-200 or 24-300 would be much harder to design and produce with adequate sharpness.

 Yannis1976's gear list:Yannis1976's gear list
Olympus TG-5 Canon G5 X II Fujifilm XF 35mm F1.4 R Fujifilm XF 16-80mm F4
Craig268
Craig268 Senior Member • Posts: 1,596
Re: Am I the only one wanting an XF 24-200 WR lens?
1

I think Sigma has an 18-300 and Tamron might have something similar.  For an urgent situation, I suppose those would work but yes, I agree IQ on those type lenses aren't currently all that great.

 Craig268's gear list:Craig268's gear list
Fujifilm X-T1 Fujifilm X-T10 Fujifilm X-T4 Fujifilm XC 16-50mm F3.5-5.6 OIS Fujifilm 50-230mm +8 more
biza43 Forum Pro • Posts: 13,844
Re: Am I the only one wanting an XF 24-200 WR lens?
2

There is already a 18-135, sure 16-135 could be useful to some.

-- hide signature --

www.paulobizarro.com
http://blog.paulobizarro.com/

 biza43's gear list:biza43's gear list
Fujifilm X-T3 Fujifilm X-Pro3 Carl Zeiss C Sonnar T* 1,5/50 ZM Fujifilm XF 35mm F1.4 R Fujifilm XF 14mm F2.8 R +1 more
Eulan13 Regular Member • Posts: 118
Re: Am I the only one wanting an XF 24-200 WR lens?
2

As far as I know, no one ever succeeded in designing good quality lenses over 4x range. The M43 system is based on a smaller sensor, and this makes the standard maximum resolution inferior if compared to an APS-C or FF sensor.

IMOO I would not chose anything over a 3X excursion.

It very mach depends on your personal needs, of course.

 Eulan13's gear list:Eulan13's gear list
Fujifilm X-H1 Fujifilm X-T3 Fujifilm XF 23mm F2 R WR Fujifilm XF 55-200mm F3.5-4.8 R LM OIS Samyang 12mm F2.0 NCS CS +2 more
Yannis1976
OP Yannis1976 Veteran Member • Posts: 4,984
Re: Am I the only one wanting an XF 24-200 WR lens?
1

Eulan13 wrote:

As far as I know, no one ever succeeded in designing good quality lenses over 4x range. The M43 system is based on a smaller sensor, and this makes the standard maximum resolution inferior if compared to an APS-C or FF sensor.

IMOO I would not chose anything over a 3X excursion.

It very mach depends on your personal needs, of course.

well the Nikon Z 24-200 gets great reviews in the Z forum. Similarly the RF 24-240 seems good for an all around lens. They are both for larger sensors than our Fuji and I think we do need an update on the aging 18-135..

 Yannis1976's gear list:Yannis1976's gear list
Olympus TG-5 Canon G5 X II Fujifilm XF 35mm F1.4 R Fujifilm XF 16-80mm F4
dual12 Senior Member • Posts: 1,233
Re: Am I the only one wanting an XF 24-200 WR lens?
1

The performance would be compromised and it wouldn't sell well. So that's probably why.

 dual12's gear list:dual12's gear list
Fujifilm X-E1 Fujifilm X-E3 Fujifilm X-H1 Fujifilm X-T3 Fujifilm GFX 50R +10 more
liggy
liggy Contributing Member • Posts: 698
Re: Am I the only one wanting an XF 24-200 WR lens?

I really like the 18-135.  Old or not it is a nice WR superzoom.  It also is an excellent lens for infrared.   In the Sony FF world Tamron makes a 28-200 that is surprisingly good.

28-200 would be a little weird for apsc though.  I’d rather have an XF 12-100.

 liggy's gear list:liggy's gear list
Fujifilm X-Pro2 Sony a9 II Fujifilm GFX 100S Sony a1 Fujifilm XF 35mm F1.4 R +24 more
Yannis1976
OP Yannis1976 Veteran Member • Posts: 4,984
Re: Am I the only one wanting an XF 24-200 WR lens?
1

liggy wrote:

28-200 would be a little weird for apsc though. I’d rather have an XF 12-100.

Exactly! I want an Olympus 12-100/f4 Pro for our Fuji system. Yes it will be heavier than the 18-135 and 16-55, but it should be relatively sharp, wr, relatively fast (f4) for a super zoom and start from 16mm instead of 18mm.

 Yannis1976's gear list:Yannis1976's gear list
Olympus TG-5 Canon G5 X II Fujifilm XF 35mm F1.4 R Fujifilm XF 16-80mm F4
liggy
liggy Contributing Member • Posts: 698
That would be nifty…

Yannis1976 wrote:

liggy wrote:

28-200 would be a little weird for apsc though. I’d rather have an XF 12-100.

Exactly! I want an Olympus 12-100/f4 Pro for our Fuji system. Yes it will be heavier than the 18-135 and 16-55, but it should be relatively sharp, wr, relatively fast (f4) for a super zoom and start from 16mm instead of 18mm.

Sure - an F4 12-100 for the XF would be handy as an all in one.  I’ve never shot mft but that lens seems to universally loved.  
Essentially an XF Red Badge ff equivalent 18-150?  Nice.

 liggy's gear list:liggy's gear list
Fujifilm X-Pro2 Sony a9 II Fujifilm GFX 100S Sony a1 Fujifilm XF 35mm F1.4 R +24 more
Lettermanian
Lettermanian Senior Member • Posts: 1,901
Re: Am I the only one wanting an XF 24-200 WR lens?
6

Yannis1976 wrote:

I know it’s possible to design and build such a lens with good overall sharpness when I see Nikon and Olympus having already done it for FF and m43. Why not Fuji?

Last fall I moved from several years with Fuji to Nikon Z, precisely because of the 24-200 announcement and because of the affordability of the Z5. Fast-forward almost a year later and I am back with Fuji after selling off my Nikon gear. I am planning on writing a more detailed post of my experience at some point, but suffice it to say, the 24-200 was an excellent zoom. Great range, good sharpness, compact... really it is probably the best all-in-one lens on the market (although I've read the Oly 12-100 is also very good, but ff vs m43 and all that 😑).

I had an X-T4 with 16-80 very briefly and took some comparison shots with the 24-200 (not a serious test, just quick shots in my back yard),  and for sharpness across the frame the clear winner was the Nikon at 24 and 120. Both had very good close-focus performance too. I was surprised though at the amount of ooc CA in the Nikon even with in-camera corrections on (a known property of the 24-200 in certain lighting).  The Fuji 16-80 had less CA ooc, but to my eyes was noticeably less sharp in the corners, as per its reputation.

I would indeed want a similar quality all-in-one zoom by Fuji, but I doubt we'll ever see it, unless they make a mark ii version of the 18-135. I don't want to re-hash the 16-80 woes, but in my mind that lens was a miss. It could have been great, and I know for a fact it could have been improved (a local photographer was testing it in 2018 and sent his criticisms back to Fuji, but I guess they didn't address them). I'm back now with Fuji: my X-H1 2.0, 16-55 2.0, Zeiss 12mm (Jerry-Astro's influence) and 70-300 (now that's a great lens!). My ff affair is done, though if I could afford two systems I wouldn't hesitate to go back to Nikon Z. 🙂

-- hide signature --

"Be yourself. No one can say you're doing it wrong." -Charles M. Schulz
"I love mankind... it's PEOPLE I can't stand!!" - Linus

 Lettermanian's gear list:Lettermanian's gear list
Fujifilm X-H1 Carl Zeiss Touit 2.8/12 Fujifilm 16-55mm F2.8R LM WR Fujifilm XF 70-300 F4-5.6 R LM OIS WR
Doug MacMillan Veteran Member • Posts: 3,432
You are thinking too small

How about something like the Canon 50-1000?  It's only $70k and the darling of wildlife cinematographers.

Seriously, to build something with enough IQ and a fast enough aperture to suit me would end up being very large, very heavy and very expensive.

I also agree that any zoom beyond 3x calls for too many compromises.  Personally, I don't regard super zooms as being what Fuji is about.  If I wanted something like that, I would have gone with a different system.

 Doug MacMillan's gear list:Doug MacMillan's gear list
Canon EOS 5D Mark II Fujifilm X-E2 Fujifilm X-E3 Fujifilm X-H1 Canon EF 85mm F1.8 USM +9 more
Yannis1976
OP Yannis1976 Veteran Member • Posts: 4,984
Re: You are thinking too small

Doug MacMillan wrote:

How about something like the Canon 50-1000? It's only $70k and the darling of wildlife cinematographers.

Seriously, to build something with enough IQ and a fast enough aperture to suit me would end up being very large, very heavy and very expensive.

I also agree that any zoom beyond 3x calls for too many compromises. Personally, I don't regard super zooms as being what Fuji is about. If I wanted something like that, I would have gone with a different system.

Well every company needs to expand its markets if they want to survive. Fuji has done great in primes but so so in zooms with the 70-300 being a step to the correct direction. I respect your opinion about primes and zooms but there also people liking “super” zooms and willing to sacrifice IQ for convenience (as I do with the 16-80). I don’t understand why Fuji needs to stick only with primes or short zooms.

In the end they can also release the mount to sigma and tamron and let the zoom market to these companies if they feel like not spending the resources.

 Yannis1976's gear list:Yannis1976's gear list
Olympus TG-5 Canon G5 X II Fujifilm XF 35mm F1.4 R Fujifilm XF 16-80mm F4
astonehouse
astonehouse Regular Member • Posts: 334
Re: Am I the only one wanting an XF 24-200 WR lens?

Yannis1976 wrote:

Eulan13 wrote:

As far as I know, no one ever succeeded in designing good quality lenses over 4x range. The M43 system is based on a smaller sensor, and this makes the standard maximum resolution inferior if compared to an APS-C or FF sensor.

IMOO I would not chose anything over a 3X excursion.

It very mach depends on your personal needs, of course.

well the Nikon Z 24-200 gets great reviews in the Z forum. Similarly the RF 24-240 seems good for an all around lens. They are both for larger sensors than our Fuji and I think we do need an update on the aging 18-135..

You are likely better served by buying a z5 and 24-200 kit rather than waiting for one from Fuji. I’ve been thinking the same thing and reaching that conclusion. A FF system for zooms and a Fuji for small primes sounds like a really flexible set up.

-- hide signature --

Anthony.
instagram.com/thewanderlust_net/

 astonehouse's gear list:astonehouse's gear list
Fujifilm X-T4 Fujifilm XF 23mm F1.4 R Fujifilm XF 56mm F1.2 R Fujifilm XF 35mm F2 R WR Fujifilm 50mm F2 R WR +3 more
Yannis1976
OP Yannis1976 Veteran Member • Posts: 4,984
Re: Am I the only one wanting an XF 24-200 WR lens?
1

astonehouse wrote:

Yannis1976 wrote:

Eulan13 wrote:

As far as I know, no one ever succeeded in designing good quality lenses over 4x range. The M43 system is based on a smaller sensor, and this makes the standard maximum resolution inferior if compared to an APS-C or FF sensor.

IMOO I would not chose anything over a 3X excursion.

It very mach depends on your personal needs, of course.

well the Nikon Z 24-200 gets great reviews in the Z forum. Similarly the RF 24-240 seems good for an all around lens. They are both for larger sensors than our Fuji and I think we do need an update on the aging 18-135..

You are likely better served by buying a z5 and 24-200 kit rather than waiting for one from Fuji. I’ve been thinking the same thing and reaching that conclusion. A FF system for zooms and a Fuji for small primes sounds like a really flexible set up.

I wouldn’t go to FF… apart from that zoom lens and maybe some thinner DOF, I don’t see any other benefit in FF for my amateur needs. Too big and heavy for me. On the contrary if I was to have two systems one for zooms and one for primes, I would look into smaller sensor like m43 and 1” which have great zoom options. I am now testing an RX10 IV which has an unbelievably sharp lens and the best CAF I have ever seen. Unfortunately it lacks the Fuji user experience…

 Yannis1976's gear list:Yannis1976's gear list
Olympus TG-5 Canon G5 X II Fujifilm XF 35mm F1.4 R Fujifilm XF 16-80mm F4
Coldpaw Regular Member • Posts: 448
I wouldn't buy one.

I wouldn't buy one, I am not a fan of those "cover everything" superzooms at all. Don't get me wrong I understand the appeal of just using a single lens without needing to switch it for something else, but those super-zooms come with a number of compromises which I wouldn't be willing to take. Being a Micro Four Thirds user myself, I am thinking about the Olympus 12-200mm f3.5-6.3, a lens which isn't really high regarded in the MFT community. People usually rather stick to the much cheaper 14-150mm f4-5.6, which is much cheaper, quite a bit more compact, lighter and is said to offer superior IQ throughout the whole range.

I mean Fujifilm already offers a weather resistent 18-135mm f3.5-5.6, which also features OIS. Now I don't know if this lens is well regarded within the Fuji-X community, but I think it already covers quite a usable range and would offer a better IQ throughout this range than let's say a 24-200mm lens.

However I rarely use zooms anymore, so I guess my opinion doesn't really count. At least on my MFT kit, I still rather use a two lens kit consisting of a good quality standard zoom like the 12-45 Pro, completet by an actual telezoom like the 70-300, instead of even thinking about getting the 12-200.

GreatOceanSoftware
GreatOceanSoftware Regular Member • Posts: 437
Re: Am I the only one wanting an XF 24-200 WR lens?
1

Yannis1976 wrote:

I know it’s possible to design and build such a lens with good overall sharpness when I see Nikon and Olympus having already done it for FF and m43. Why not Fuji?

The 18-135 has been my mainstay for years. Yes, I wish it was 16-135, but I usually keep a wide zoom with me.

I recently bought the 16-80, and now I find myself using it more often. Mostly because I’m willing to trade the extra reach for the size and weight difference.

I’d love it if Fujifilm could make an all-in-one as small and light as the Canon EM 18-150.

-- hide signature --

Randy

 GreatOceanSoftware's gear list:GreatOceanSoftware's gear list
Fujifilm X-T3 Fujifilm X-E4 Fujifilm XF 18-55mm F2.8-4 R LM OIS Fujifilm XF 18-135mm F3.5-5.6 R LM OIS WR Fujifilm XF 100-400mm F4.5-5.6 OIS WR +5 more
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum MMy threads