Is there still demand for fast primes?

[ChrisH37]

Fuji jumped into the market with fast primes and those alone pretty much dragged them through the early years, pulling in an unusually high number of working pros. They've recently struck gold with slower more compact primes for the mass market, but looking at the roadmap the brakes have now been firmly applied (presumably due to G mount development) in pretty much all areas.

I can't help but feel a tinge of disappointment that for now at least, we're deprived of a real example of what the Fuji engineers can do if let off the leash.

50mm equivalent is the bread and butter of established systems and all have an optimum lens around that area that really shows off what they can do. Fuji have the excellent 35mm 1.4 but it's a day-one standard lens devoid of the latest Linear Motors. Firmware updates have improved it, but they're limited by the fundamental design.

Olympus have the 25mm f1.2, Canon have the legendary 50L, Nikon have the 58mm 1.4, Sony the 55mm 1.8 Sonnar, even Sigma came out with an amazing 50mm 1.4 Art. These are all system sellers and find their way into the bag of many pros.

I know it was only ever a rumour, but the fabled 33mm f1.0 was hugely anticipated by myself and I know many other working Fuji pros who felt the same. Sure, it will be expensive, it will be niche, it will be heavy...but halo products are greater than the sum of those parts and I really thought that was going to be it.

Anyone else feel the same way? I know everyone wants different things and the system is at a point already where those things are becoming increasingly niche, but for me, along with a tele prime (which is coming) it's the glaring hole, even if we already have two lenses around that focal length.

 

[XEddieX]

Perhaps Fuji was ready to start making the rumored 33mm f1, but people voted with their wallets and when Fuji saw the huge success the 35mm f2 version was, they changed direction. And I'm OK with this. Fuji is here to sell and make money to continue to support their camera division. I'd personally would love to have a 30'ish mm hyperprime with all the bells and whistles too. But seeing as we don't know when this is going, if ever, I went with getting the Mitakon 35mm f.95. This is as close as I'll get to the Fuji 33mm f1, for now.

 

[yardcoyote]

What is the actual, day to day use argument of a super fast prime? I know they are great for bragging rights and to show off lens technology, but are their widest apertures actually useful in the field or in the studio? Do they justify the added size and weight of the lens?

I am a dedicated prime lens shooter and what I really need/want day to day is sharpness at the "workhorse" wide apertures-f/2.8, f/2, f/1.8. Anything much wider than that gives me depths of field that are too narrow to be useful in many cases. Will your super fast prime give me enough improvement in that area to justify the size and cost?

I agree 100% that an updated version of the existing 35 mm/1.4 would be more than welcome.

 

[Truman Prevatt]

Fuji jumped into the market with fast primes and those alone pretty much dragged them through the early years, pulling in an unusually high number of working pros. They've recently struck gold with slower more compact primes for the mass market, but looking at the roadmap the brakes have now been firmly applied (presumably due to G mount development) in pretty much all areas.

I can't help but feel a tinge of disappointment that for now at least, we're deprived of a real example of what the Fuji engineers can do if let off the leash.

50mm equivalent is the bread and butter of established systems and all have an optimum lens around that area that really shows off what they can do. Fuji have the excellent 35mm 1.4 but it's a day-one standard lens devoid of the latest Linear Motors. Firmware updates have improved it, but they're limited by the fundamental design.

Olympus have the 25mm f1.2, Canon have the legendary 50L, Nikon have the 58mm 1.4, Sony the 55mm 1.8 Sonnar, even Sigma came out with an amazing 50mm 1.4 Art. These are all system sellers and find their way into the bag of many pros.

I know it was only ever a rumour, but the fabled 33mm f1.0 was hugely anticipated by myself and I know many other working Fuji pros who felt the same. Sure, it will be expensive, it will be niche, it will be heavy...but halo products are greater than the sum of those parts and I really thought that was going to be it.

Anyone else feel the same way? I know everyone wants different things and the system is at a point already where those things are becoming increasingly niche, but for me, along with a tele prime (which is coming) it's the glaring hole, even if we already have two lenses around that focal length.

The holy grail for lenses during the 60's and 70's was fast lenses. The development by Leica of the Summilux was a crowning achievement since it was done by theory, an optical bench and a slide rule - not a computer with sophisticated optical design S/W that we have today. For you folks that have never seen a slide rule.

Loading…

en.wikipedia.org

When I started there were very few fast lenses - f2.8 was considered "fast." However, the difference in those days of f2.8 and f1.4 meant you could take a shot or that you could not since the fastest film was the equivalent to ISO 400. Sure you could push it maybe to 800 in development but only for B&W and that exploited the grain.

The control of DOF also helped. Today we seem to have come full circle where f2.8 is fast enough (an f2 APS-C lens is basically the same as a FF f2.8 since they have about the same aperture for equivalent FOV). I think the reason is today's cameras can produce descent images at ISO 1600 and usable up to ISO 3200. Slow lenses, and I conserve f2 in an APS-C to be slow, are easier to design, less expensive to produce. I expect that is why you see them. There seems to be a trend in digital away from fast primes today - with a few exceptions and those exceptions are Sigma (who doesn't make lenses for X mount) and Nikon.

I have two f2 X lenses, the 90 f2 which I consider a specialized lens and if it were f1.4 it would be fairly hefty. I also have the 50 f2. Nice lens it would be specular if f1.4. However, the pain is easier a bit since I have the 56 f1.2 and when I need the extra stop - have it. If the 33 f1 were made - I would be first in line to buy it.

 

[ChrisH37]

What is the actual, day to day use argument of a super fast prime? I know they are great for bragging rights and to show off lens technology, but are their widest apertures actually useful in the field or in the studio? Do they justify the added size and weight of the lens?

I am a dedicated prime lens shooter and what I really need/want day to day is sharpness at the "workhorse" wide apertures-f/2.8, f/2, f/1.8. Anything much wider than that gives me depths of field that are too narrow to be useful in many cases. Will your super fast prime give me enough improvement in that area to justify the size and cost?

Personally speaking for weddings in the UK, I'll take every bit of light absorption I can get. Sunshine is rarer than a well-lit venue here and flash frequently simply isn't an option. Certainly not bragging rights, just a honest-to-goodness workhorse. Without going down the equivalence nonsense, an f1 on APS-C isn't overly extreme compared to what's out there for full-frame cameras, and I'd expect Fuji to make it very much usable at the widest aperture.

I'm a 23mm f1.4 / 56mm f1.2 shooter for weddings but I'd love an in-between, neither of the existing 35s really cut it for me.

An update of the existing 35mm 1.4 would be fine, but I'd also more than welcome a full-on halo model.

 

[drewmey123]

Olympus have the 25mm f1.2, Canon have the legendary 50L, Nikon have the 58mm 1.4, Sony the 55mm 1.8 Sonnar, even Sigma came out with an amazing 50mm 1.4 Art. These are all system sellers and find their way into the bag of many pros.

Note that the Olympus 25mm f1.2 is micro four thirds. Fuji already has the 35mm f1.4...this IS the equivalent. If you want a larger aperture than this, honestly, you probably need to head towards full frame.

No offense here but you are complaining about Fuji's lack of fast primes when they currently have the best fast primes for apsc bodies. Yes, with nikon/canon/sony you can grab their FF lenses and throw them on a crop. But they are pretty large and heavy...in the end with equivalence they are usually no different.

Fuji is already ahead of every other APSC manufacturer (and I would argue micro 4/3 in terms of equivalence)....

16mm 1.4, 23mm 1.4, 35mm 1.4, 56mm 1.2

If those aren't doing it for you, you probably want head towards FF.

 

[yardcoyote]

Fair enough. I've never done a wedding so have no idea how depth of field works at the distances required for that kind of work.

 

[Matsu]

Demand is relative. Step outside the wonderful DPR forums and you could make the case that the greatest demand is for kit lenses and ultrazoom lenses. Some time ago I posted in the Nikon forum the relative sales figures of pro zooms and primes, which are utterly dwarfed by the kits lens and superzoom sales.

I think Fuji was unique in crafting a photographers lens set as opposed to a soccer-mom set, and it's one of the things that makes the brand interesting to me, but purely from a sales perspective a 24-300 equivalent may be a better bet. It's something easy to sell to mom's and vacationers at the local big-box, and not without merit, a smallish 16-200mm f/3.5-5.6 could be an attractive "do-it-all" option for people who might otherwise buy a superzoom compact or APSC-DSLR bundle kit...

Fuji jumped into the market with fast primes and those alone pretty much dragged them through the early years, pulling in an unusually high number of working pros. They've recently struck gold with slower more compact primes for the mass market, but looking at the roadmap the brakes have now been firmly applied (presumably due to G mount development) in pretty much all areas.

I can't help but feel a tinge of disappointment that for now at least, we're deprived of a real example of what the Fuji engineers can do if let off the leash.

50mm equivalent is the bread and butter of established systems and all have an optimum lens around that area that really shows off what they can do. Fuji have the excellent 35mm 1.4 but it's a day-one standard lens devoid of the latest Linear Motors. Firmware updates have improved it, but they're limited by the fundamental design.

Olympus have the 25mm f1.2, Canon have the legendary 50L, Nikon have the 58mm 1.4, Sony the 55mm 1.8 Sonnar, even Sigma came out with an amazing 50mm 1.4 Art. These are all system sellers and find their way into the bag of many pros.

I know it was only ever a rumour, but the fabled 33mm f1.0 was hugely anticipated by myself and I know many other working Fuji pros who felt the same. Sure, it will be expensive, it will be niche, it will be heavy...but halo products are greater than the sum of those parts and I really thought that was going to be it.

Anyone else feel the same way? I know everyone wants different things and the system is at a point already where those things are becoming increasingly niche, but for me, along with a tele prime (which is coming) it's the glaring hole, even if we already have two lenses around that focal length.

 

[uMad]

but people voted with their wallets and when Fuji saw the huge success the 35mm f2 version was, they changed direction.

the f/2.0 lenses sold very good, so yes, this might be one of the reasons (5 GFX lenses a year might be one more)

 

[Advent1sam]

Fuji jumped into the market with fast primes and those alone pretty much dragged them through the early years, pulling in an unusually high number of working pros. They've recently struck gold with slower more compact primes for the mass market, but looking at the roadmap the brakes have now been firmly applied (presumably due to G mount development) in pretty much all areas.

I can't help but feel a tinge of disappointment that for now at least, we're deprived of a real example of what the Fuji engineers can do if let off the leash.

50mm equivalent is the bread and butter of established systems and all have an optimum lens around that area that really shows off what they can do. Fuji have the excellent 35mm 1.4 but it's a day-one standard lens devoid of the latest Linear Motors. Firmware updates have improved it, but they're limited by the fundamental design.

Olympus have the 25mm f1.2, Canon have the legendary 50L, Nikon have the 58mm 1.4, Sony the 55mm 1.8 Sonnar, even Sigma came out with an amazing 50mm 1.4 Art. These are all system sellers and find their way into the bag of many pros.

I know it was only ever a rumour, but the fabled 33mm f1.0 was hugely anticipated by myself and I know many other working Fuji pros who felt the same. Sure, it will be expensive, it will be niche, it will be heavy...but halo products are greater than the sum of those parts and I really thought that was going to be it.

Anyone else feel the same way? I know everyone wants different things and the system is at a point already where those things are becoming increasingly niche, but for me, along with a tele prime (which is coming) it's the glaring hole, even if we already have two lenses around that focal length.

Fuji have gone to ground on the aps-c lens front, it feels like the enthusiasm has dried up for aps-c and they are now totally smitten by MF ! They have to keep up the enthusiasm or people will look elsewhere, the lens option is good but there are lots of gaps, like you say the 35mm is tired, the 35mm f2 too slow for many, personally all of new primes should have been 1.8 minimum or even 1.7!

 

[drewmey123]

Fuji have gone to ground on the aps-c lens front, it feels like the enthusiasm has dried up for aps-c and they are now totally smitten by MF !

Are you serious? In the last 20 months they have released a 35mm f2, 23mm f2 and 50mm f2? Not to mention the 100-400mm. What lens company are you thinking about that is releasing lenses faster?

Welcome to a well developed lens lineup...you don't need a new lens every 4 months. Yes there are still some gaps, but look at Canon and Nikon for reference. They don't waste R&D, etc designing and putting out new lenses constantly.

 

[uMad]

like you say the 35mm is tired, the 35mm f2 too slow for many, personally all of new primes should have been 1.8 minimum or even 1.7!

f/1.7 is only 1/2 stop slower than f/1.4, so those lenses would have stolen sales from the f/1.4 lenses, while also being bigger, heavier and more expansive than the f/2.0 lenses, I don't think that would have been a good plan.

And at the moment the f/2.0 lenses sell very good, and even the older f/1.4 lenses are gaining a bit (due to strong sales of X-T2(0)). So I guess Fuji did everything right.

 

[ChrisH37]

drewmey123 wrote

Note that the Olympus 25mm f1.2 is micro four thirds. Fuji already has the 35mm f1.4...this IS the equivalent. If you want a larger aperture than this, honestly, you probably need to head towards full frame.

No offense here but you are complaining about Fuji's lack of fast primes when they currently have the best fast primes for apsc bodies.

16mm 1.4, 23mm 1.4, 35mm 1.4, 56mm 1.2

If those aren't doing it for you, you probably want head towards FF.

1) As I said I wasn't bring equivalence into this, Olympus have released a premium fast standard Prime that they've thrown the kitchen sink it despite the system having options already. Aperture (and especially equivalent Aperture) is irrelevant.

2) I'm not complaining, merely expressing a desire for a lens and asking if anyone else feels the same way. I'm very happy with the Fuji system, doesn't mean I don't hope for more from it.

 

[Advent1sam]

Fuji have gone to ground on the aps-c lens front, it feels like the enthusiasm has dried up for aps-c and they are now totally smitten by MF !

Are you serious? In the last 20 months they have released a 35mm f2, 23mm f2 and 50mm f2? Not to mention the 100-400mm. What lens company are you thinking about that is releasing lenses faster?

Sony, Oly, Pana all released far far more than a trio of actually quite slow primes!

Welcome to a well developed lens lineup...you don't need a new lens every 4 months. Yes there are still some gaps, but look at Canon and Nikon for reference. They don't waste R&D, etc designing and putting out new lenses constantly.

 

[Advent1sam]

like you say the 35mm is tired, the 35mm f2 too slow for many, personally all of new primes should have been 1.8 minimum or even 1.7!

f/1.7 is only 1/2 stop slower than f/1.4, so those lenses would have stolen sales from the f/1.4 lenses,

The 35 1.4 is tired and needs a replacement, that leaves 1 lens, 23mm or am I missing something?

while also being bigger, heavier and more expansive than the f/2.0 lenses, I don't think that would have been a good plan.

It would

And at the moment the f/2.0 lenses sell very good, and even the older f/1.4 lenses are gaining a bit (due to strong sales of X-T2(0)). So I guess Fuji did everything right.

Hmm

 

[uMad]

like you say the 35mm is tired, the 35mm f2 too slow for many, personally all of new primes should have been 1.8 minimum or even 1.7!

f/1.7 is only 1/2 stop slower than f/1.4, so those lenses would have stolen sales from the f/1.4 lenses,

The 35 1.4 is tired and needs a replacement, that leaves 1 lens, 23mm or am I missing something?

The 35mm is still one of my favorite lenses and from what I can tell, I am not the only one. It's far from needing a replacement.

There might be something down the road, but at the moment Fuji has other priorities.

 

[Optimus Prime Lens]

like you say the 35mm is tired, the 35mm f2 too slow for many, personally all of new primes should have been 1.8 minimum or even 1.7!

f/1.7 is only 1/2 stop slower than f/1.4, so those lenses would have stolen sales from the f/1.4 lenses, while also being bigger, heavier and more expansive than the f/2.0 lenses, I don't think that would have been a good plan.

I think I have to agree with you here. Whilst 'I' think the best thing Fuji could have done was release a WR, LM version of the 1.4 primes I can see from your post why Fuji may not have seen it as I do. To be fair I'd not thought about this until you posted. I think that I, like others, want something so badly that we can't see past it.

I desperately want the above, however I don't think it's likely to happen. That being the case I'm likely to buy the 1.4 versions and just be extra careful if it rains, and acept I may miss the odd shot if the focus isn't fast enough. To be fair if I want better AF I'm probably better upgrading my camera body. As it stands I'm focussing, see what I did there , on the lenses before I do that.

When ever I think I 'need' something not currently produced I try to think of Don McCullin. The mages he, and others, produced without the technology we have today. Simply amazing. AMAZING!!!!

 

[MFiftysomething]

I think size/weight would become too big below F1.4, but I would love to see 18mm MK2 and 35mm F1.4 MK2 lenses.

Also a 16-70mm F3.5 zoom lens with OIS

 

[Truman Prevatt]

I think size/weight would become too big below F1.4, but I would love to see 18mm MK2 and 35mm F1.4 MK2 lenses.

Also a 16-70mm F3.5 zoom lens with OIS

The 35 f1.4 is .6 ozs heavier (that's about 14 paper clips) than the f2. It is less than 1/4 of an inch longer - about the size of two quarters. The diameter at the base is the same of the two lenses are equal. The only thing smaller is the diameter on the filter end (and the filter thread).

We are not talking about any perceivable difference except the optical illusion with the f2 lenses because it tapers from the mount to the front and the f1.4 does not taper.

 

[ChrisH37]

...and the 56mm 1.2 is hardly excessive.