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

Started 5 months ago | Discussions
Jerry-astro
MOD Jerry-astro Forum Pro • Posts: 17,737
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.

So, just to be clear, you would therefore also include Fuji’s 100-400 in that class as well, right?  Now, I admit to being a pretty big fan of that lens and it’s arguably the one I use the most, but I honestly haven’t encountered much in the way of compromises in IQ at either end of the FL range… or certainly not enough to discourage its use.  I have encountered issues with other lenses that are consistent with your view here, but I suspect you might be “painting this with a bit too wide a brush” IMHO.  I think there are a number of 4x long zooms out there that are more than worthy with very few compromises.  Their popularity with professional wildlife photographers might also support that view.

-- hide signature --

Jerry-Astro
Fuji Forum co-Mod

 Jerry-astro's gear list:Jerry-astro's gear list
Fujifilm X-H1 Carl Zeiss Touit 2.8/12 Fujifilm XF 100-400mm F4.5-5.6 OIS WR Fujifilm 16-55mm F2.8R LM WR Fujifilm XF 8-16mm F2.8 +1 more
New Day Rising
New Day Rising Senior Member • Posts: 6,282
Re: Am I the only one wanting an XF 24-200 WR lens?

Assuming you are talking about 24-200 FF equivalent angle of view (16-135 actual focal length) - absolutely yes!!

I am going to be upgrading in a few months and deciding what to get is driving me crazy. I really want a good lens in this range for my constant walks in the bush and urban areas. One thing I have learned for sure is that 28mm equivalent is not wide enough - with the 18-55 I am constantly looking for that little bit extra and bought a 16-50 XC just for that. The Fujifilm 18-135 would not cut it. I also have an Olympus OM-D E-M10ii and got a cheap Panasonic 14-140 (28-280) to test out the superzoom concept. It's pretty good and could almost give me what I need, except for some limitations with the m4/3 sensor and the lack of that bit extra at the wide end.

The lack of this in Fujifilm has had me eyeing off the Nikon Z system and their very well regarded and compact 24-200. The fact that all the Z lenses seem to be excellent, including the 14-30mm f/4 which covers the other focal range I really want (and seems better than the Fujifilm 10-24) adds to the temptation.

As of now I am really stuck in my decision. If Fujifilm had a good 16-135mm I would be much less stuck.

-- hide signature --

All lies and jests; Still a man hears what he wants to hear; And disregards the rest

 New Day Rising's gear list:New Day Rising's gear list
Sony RX100 Nikon D50 Olympus OM-D E-M10 II Nikon D7200 Fujifilm X-M1 +12 more
Yannis1976
OP Yannis1976 Veteran Member • Posts: 5,116
Re: Am I the only one wanting an XF 24-200 WR lens?
1

New Day Rising wrote:

Assuming you are talking about 24-200 FF equivalent angle of view (16-135 actual focal length) - absolutely yes!!

Yes!!

I am going to be upgrading in a few months and deciding what to get is driving me crazy. I really want a good lens in this range for my constant walks in the bush and urban areas. One thing I have learned for sure is that 28mm equivalent is not wide enough - with the 18-55 I am constantly looking for that little bit extra and bought a 16-50 XC just for that. The Fujifilm 18-135 would not cut it. I also have an Olympus OM-D E-M10ii and got a cheap Panasonic 14-140 (28-280) to test out the superzoom concept. It's pretty good and could almost give me what I need, except for some limitations with the m4/3 sensor and the lack of that bit extra at the wide end.

The lack of this in Fujifilm has had me eyeing off the Nikon Z system and their very well regarded and compact 24-200. The fact that all the Z lenses seem to be excellent, including the 14-30mm f/4 which covers the other focal range I really want (and seems better than the Fujifilm 10-24) adds to the temptation.

There is a used Z6 in my country within warranty for 1300€ (Nikon Z6, 24-70 F4, XQD 64Gb, 60000 clicks)

As of now I am really stuck in my decision. If Fujifilm had a good 16-135mm I would be much less stuck.

The 16-80 is still a good option, but I also understand your love for a bigger zoom. Good options starting at 24mm are limited: either the Olympus 12-100 or the Z 24-200. Be aware all FF cameras can be become big, heavy and expensive quite easily..

 Yannis1976's gear list:Yannis1976's gear list
Olympus TG-5 Canon G5 X II Fujifilm XF 16-80mm F4 Fujifilm XF 35mm F1.4 R
webfrasse Veteran Member • Posts: 3,978
Re: Am I the only one wanting an XF 24-200 WR lens?
1
robert1955 Veteran Member • Posts: 6,190
Re: Am I the only one wanting an XF 24-200 WR lens?

webfrasse wrote:

Tamron just announced this https://www.imaging-resource.com/news/2021/07/21/tamron-announces-its-first-lens-for-fujifilm-x-mount-the-18-300mm-f-3.5-6.3

Interesting. They already have a lens for Canon that looks similar.

Note it is a development announcement for now

 robert1955's gear list:robert1955's gear list
Fujifilm X-E3 Fujifilm 16-55mm F2.8R LM WR Fujifilm XF 70-300 F4-5.6 R LM OIS WR
webfrasse Veteran Member • Posts: 3,978
Re: Am I the only one wanting an XF 24-200 WR lens?

robert1955 wrote:

webfrasse wrote:

Tamron just announced this https://www.imaging-resource.com/news/2021/07/21/tamron-announces-its-first-lens-for-fujifilm-x-mount-the-18-300mm-f-3.5-6.3

Interesting. They already have a lens for Canon that looks similar.

Note it is a development announcement for now

It's already up on B&H website for pre-order so maybe not that far away, https://bhpho.to/3rsbq1V

-- hide signature --

Mikael

pictograph Regular Member • Posts: 327
Re: Am I the only one wanting an XF 24-200 WR lens?

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?

Just another Thread about:

“ I‘d like to have a car fast as a formula-1 racing car, consuming near to nothing gasoline, with inner space like in a big Truck - but which shrinks automatically to 3 m length if I want to get a parking place ... why the hell does General motors not offer one for about 1000 USD all inclusive ??! “

there are optical laws in Physics...

 pictograph's gear list:pictograph's gear list
Fujifilm X100F Canon EOS 5D Mark III Fujifilm X-E3 Fujifilm X-T4 Fujifilm X-E1 +10 more
Heavens Light Regular Member • Posts: 358
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.

The Panasonic 14-140ii for M43 is a pretty good lens. Light and stays pretty sharp right out to maximum zoom.

 Heavens Light's gear list:Heavens Light's gear list
Sony RX100 VI Fujifilm X-S10 Fujifilm X-Pro3 Fujifilm 16-50mm F3.5-5.6 II Fujifilm XF 35mm F1.4 R +4 more
New Day Rising
New Day Rising Senior Member • Posts: 6,282
Re: Am I the only one wanting an XF 24-200 WR lens?
1

pictograph 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?

Just another Thread about:

“ I‘d like to have a car fast as a formula-1 racing car, consuming near to nothing gasoline, with inner space like in a big Truck - but which shrinks automatically to 3 m length if I want to get a parking place ... why the hell does General motors not offer one for about 1000 USD all inclusive ??! “

there are optical laws in Physics...

Sure, except that we are not talking about fantasy world here. As the post you replied to noted) both Nikon and Olympus produce very good versions of exactly what this thread is about, so it is perfectly reasonable to think Fujifilm might also.

-- hide signature --

All lies and jests; Still a man hears what he wants to hear; And disregards the rest

 New Day Rising's gear list:New Day Rising's gear list
Sony RX100 Nikon D50 Olympus OM-D E-M10 II Nikon D7200 Fujifilm X-M1 +12 more
New Day Rising
New Day Rising Senior Member • Posts: 6,282
Re: Am I the only one wanting an XF 24-200 WR lens?

Heavens Light 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.

The Panasonic 14-140ii for M43 is a pretty good lens. Light and stays pretty sharp right out to maximum zoom.

I have one of those, which I was able to buy very cheaply and have been using it an Olympus OM-D E-M10ii, specifically to test its viability as my one lens compact walk around. It is very good and would suit my wants more than adequately if it only had that little extra width - 12-140 (or 12-100 or thereabouts) would be perfect.

-- hide signature --

All lies and jests; Still a man hears what he wants to hear; And disregards the rest

 New Day Rising's gear list:New Day Rising's gear list
Sony RX100 Nikon D50 Olympus OM-D E-M10 II Nikon D7200 Fujifilm X-M1 +12 more
jjz2 Veteran Member • Posts: 3,627
Re: I wouldn't buy one.

Coldpaw wrote:

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.

No, it doesn't.

 jjz2's gear list:jjz2's gear list
Nikon Z6 Nikon Z5 Nikon Z 24-70mm F4 Nikon Z 50mm F1.8 Nikon Z 40mm F2 +2 more
thxbb12 Senior Member • Posts: 2,185
No you're not

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?

You are not alone to want a 16-133 (equiv to 24-200 FF).

I used to own the Oly 12-100 f4. I sold most of my MFT gear and now only use my Fuji system and although I finally purchased the 16-80 f4, I'm not very happy with it. It's probably good enough, but I can't help but think it could have been better, especially when I compare its results I got with the Oly. The Olympus was much better (but bigger).

Personally I'd be very happy with a 16-80 f4 mk II redesigned from scratch to be much better optically even at a much higher price.

Also, I'd love Fuji to release a 14-50 lens, that would be the perfect range for me.

-- hide signature --
 thxbb12's gear list:thxbb12's gear list
Panasonic Lumix DMC-GM5 Fujifilm X-T20 Fujifilm X-S10 Fujifilm XF 14mm F2.8 R Fujifilm XF 56mm F1.2 R +6 more
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum MMy threads