Fuji X mount lens announcements (June 2012)

[Terry]

The roadmap looks really good to me. The zooms aren't super fast but fast enough to probably keep their size down with a really nice thought out set of primes (except perhaps the 84/90 overlap - just because I might have bought the 84 first/instead )

Fujifilm confirms XF14mm F2.8 and XF18-55mm F2.8-4 with X-mount roadmap: Digital Photography Review

[monza]

Nice! These guys are serious.

[pophoto]

It's good to see Fuji offering more fast primes. With the exception of dslrs (f2.8) and perhaps older 4/3 from Olympus, offering zooms with f/2.0, I think it an expense decision to stop Fuji going that road, which is shame but understandable.

[ashwinrao1]

sweeeeeetttt!
Now, we just need an 85 mm f/2, to give us a 35/85/135 set...otherwise, we are really set...equiv 85 mm f/1.4, fast 35, and nice wide, as well as zoom options... A nice, clean, and robust lens set...Now, just get that AF a bit snappier, please LOL

[GrahamWelland]

Hubba hubba - there's a space in my camera bag right now for that 14mm.

Actually I don't think that this is necessarily much of a surprise as my Fuji rep pretty much showed this slide a couple of months ago at a dealer Fuji event ... But nice to know that it's "official" and public.

Now the question is can I justify a second X-Pro1 with that pancake lens on it?

[Rich M]

Originally Posted by GrahamWelland

Hubba hubba - there's a space in my camera bag right now for that 14mm.

Now the question is can I justify a second X-Pro1 with that pancake lens on it?

Graham.....we can help you justify just about anything

R

[biglouis]

I'm disappointed to see the 23/1.4 put off until 2013. It puts me off considering this system as I really don't want to spend money on a 18/2 just to get wide angle and the 14/2.8 may be too wide.

LouisB

[retow]

Originally Posted by biglouis

I'm disappointed to see the 23/1.4 put off until 2013. It puts me off considering this system as I really don't want to spend money on a 18/2 just to get wide angle and the 14/2.8 may be too wide.

LouisB

How many years does mft exist and what do they offer in terms of 35mm equivalent and f1,4, again?

[GrahamWelland]

Originally Posted by biglouis

I'm disappointed to see the 23/1.4 put off until 2013. It puts me off considering this system as I really don't want to spend money on a 18/2 just to get wide angle and the 14/2.8 may be too wide.

LouisB

You know that the marketing folks are probably planning this to protect X100 sales ...

[monza]

This is a pretty aggressive development schedule, especially compared to Sony...

[Terry]

I think the 5 lens lineup they've come out with in year one is pretty darn good.

21, 28, 52, 91, 18-55







.

[Shashin]

I really don't understand the gripes? Look at the new 23mm. It is simply not the X100 lens, it is a stop faster. They have added optical image stabilization to the zooms. It is a really good thought out lens release. By the end of the first year, Fuji will have eight lenses out.

When Leica came up with a new camera system like the S2, how long did it take to have eight lenses available. How many M lenses come out every year?

[GrahamWelland]

I suspect that the Nikon V1/J1 folks are gnashing their teeth in envy of the lens line up and forthcoming availability too.

[Terry]

Originally Posted by Shashin

I really don't understand the gripes? Look at the new 23mm. It is simply not the X100 lens, it is a stop faster. They have added optical image stabilization to the zooms. It is a really good thought out lens release. By the end of the first year, Fuji will have eight lenses out.

When Leica came up with a new camera system like the S2, how long did it take to have eight lenses available. How many M lenses come out every year?

Well said.

[dhsimmonds]

Originally Posted by GrahamWelland

You know that the marketing folks are probably planning this to protect X100 sales ...

Well worth the wait IMHO. A 23/1.4 at XP1 resolution versus 23/2.0 at X100 resolution (the X100 is no slouch either) is a no contest for me, but then I already have an X100.

Much to my own surprise, I am really enjoying using the 18./2.0 on the XP1, it's AF is the fastest of all the lenses but none of them are slower than most experienced rangefinder user's can MF! The FOV is surprisingly useful for so many subjects too. So much so that my X100 is sulking unused since I acquired the XF18.

[Shashin]

Originally Posted by GrahamWelland

You know that the marketing folks are probably planning this to protect X100 sales ...

Fuji may even keep the X100 or similar fixed-lens camera going to give a choice for those that cannot afford an X-Pro1. I don't see it as an either/or situation. The Japanese have a history of offering high-end fixed lens cameras and doing very well with them, especially with companies the size of Fuji.

[Terry]

Originally Posted by Shashin

Fuji may even keep the X100 or similar fixed-lens camera going to give a choice for those that cannot afford an X-Pro1. I don't see it as an either/or situation. The Japanese have a history of offering high-end fixed lens cameras and doing very well with them, especially with companies the size of Fuji.

If Fuji made a fixed lens 50mm f1.4 (equiv) version of the of the X100 I would probably own it in addition to the X-pro1. There are aspects of the X100 that are quite nice. With the leaf shutter you can go silent, the built in ND filter is extremely useful, the size is really perfect......

......just 35mm is not my favorite focal length. (which is my problem not Fuji's)

[douglasf13]

Originally Posted by Shashin

Fuji may even keep the X100 or similar fixed-lens camera going to give a choice for those that cannot afford an X-Pro1. I don't see it as an either/or situation. The Japanese have a history of offering high-end fixed lens cameras and doing very well with them, especially with companies the size of Fuji.

Fuji had better keep the X100 line going. It is smaller, has a leaf shutter, has a built-in ND, and the sensor doesn't have issues with watercoloring because of the X-P1's unusual CFA. I love my X100, but, for those reasons, I currently am not interested in the X-P1.

I think we'll be in for a surprise when we see actual photos of the 23/1.4's size. The f2 23mm lens in the X100 isn't exactly tiny, but, because it is a fixed lens camera, Fuji is able to put most of the lens elements in the camera body itself. Actual size of the X100's 23/2 lens:

[jonoslack]

Originally Posted by Terry

If Fuji made a fixed lens 50mm f1.4 (equiv) version of the of the X100 I would probably own it in addition to the X-pro1. There are aspects of the X100 that are quite nice. With the leaf shutter you can go silent, the built in ND filter is extremely useful, the size is really perfect......

......just 35mm is not my favorite focal length. (which is my problem not Fuji's)

HI Terry
My sentiments exactly - I'm not really interested in the X1-pro - although I do think this lens roadmap looks excellent (as long as they keep close to it). The primes look fab (the zooms a bit blah, but I guess it depends on the IS). My M9 does decent service for primes generally.

but a 50mm equivalent X105 with good close focus would be hard to resist (at least, after the price had halved, as it has now for the X100 in the UK).

[douglasf13]

Originally Posted by jonoslack

HI Terry
My sentiments exactly - I'm not really interested in the X1-pro - although I do think this lens roadmap looks excellent (as long as they keep close to it). The primes look fab (the zooms a bit blah, but I guess it depends on the IS). My M9 does decent service for primes generally.

but a 50mm equivalent X105 with good close focus would be hard to resist (at least, after the price had halved, as it has now for the X100 in the UK).

I've always been a 50mm-ish shooter, too, but I finally broke down and bought an X100. I'm starting to get used to 35mm equiv., and it's been fun to have such a different vision. I'd love an X105 like you mention, though.

[jonoslack]

Originally Posted by douglasf13

I've always been a 50mm-ish shooter, too, but I finally broke down and bought an X100. I'm starting to get used to 35mm equiv., and it's been fun to have such a different vision. I'd love an X105 like you mention, though.

I just can't do 35 . . . I've been using an X2 for a few months, and I can't get to grips with that . . . and I keep nearly selling my 35 FLE summilux as well (because I just don't use it). I really don't know what the problem is, I love 28mm and 50 . . . and 24 . . and 75 . . . I just don't get on with 35mm

[GrahamWelland]

Originally Posted by jonoslack

I just can't do 35 . . . I've been using an X2 for a few months, and I can't get to grips with that . . . and I keep nearly selling my 35 FLE summilux as well (because I just don't use it). I really don't know what the problem is, I love 28mm and 50 . . . and 24 . . and 75 . . . I just don't get on with 35mm

It's always interesting reading these discussions - I'm a 35mm person and just never quite get on with a 50mm! For me it's 21, 35, and 75/90. With the X-Pro1 I'm using the 18mm a lot but long for something wider ... ditto with the X100. (I bought a X10 just for the wider travel use!).

Different strokes for different folks!

[biglouis]

Originally Posted by retow

How many years does mft exist and what do they offer in terms of 35mm equivalent and f1,4, again?

I completely agree.

However, the 20/1.7 is close, sort-of as it could be argued is the 18/2 (in the other direction).

I keep banging on about how Leica should complete the trio with a 17/2.

I was not trolling. The Fuji line up looks superb. I am a great admirer of Fuji lens quality.

LouisB

[Shashin]

Originally Posted by retow

How many years does mft exist and what do they offer in terms of 35mm equivalent and f1,4, again?

But they do have an f/0.95 equivalent. And who has a 35mm equivalent at f/0.95?

[Landshark]

Really looking forward to the 14mm, once all of these show up< i might be selling some of y OM-D stuff

[Paratom]

Originally Posted by Shashin

But they do have an f/0.95 equivalent. And who has a 35mm equivalent at f/0.95?

A 35 equivalent with t0.95 for m4/3 is like a 24mm/1.4 for dx (offered by Nex for example) or like a 35mm/2.0 -offered by always each brand.

[Terry]

Originally Posted by Paratom

A 35 equivalent with t0.95 for m4/3 is like a 24mm/1.4 for dx (offered by Nex for example) or like a 35mm/2.0 -offered by always each brand.

This has been mashed around over and over again on DPReview over the past few weeks on the micro 4/3 forum. There are a couple of ways to look at it...from a DOF perspective or just the ability to use faster shutter speeds to actually capture a shot that you might not get with a slower lens.

[douglasf13]

Originally Posted by Terry

...or just the ability to use faster shutter speeds to actually capture a shot that you might not get with a slower lens.

Howdy, Terry. It actually accounts for that, as well, because, with a larger sensor, you can raise the ISO to get the higher shutter speeds, and, since the sensor is larger, it is cleaner at higher ISO. Of course, this assumes pretty similar sensor technology, so it may not hold true with a old 5D vs. a new OM-D, but it's a pretty good guide, in general.

In other words, a 30mm f2 lens at ISO 200 and 1/500 on DX would perform similarly in terms of depth of field and noise to a 46mm f3.1 lens at ISO 500-ish and 1/500 on FX.

A larger sensor always gives more flexibility, if you need it, but I don't spend a lot of time at the extremes on my full frame cameras, so I've found crop sensors to do a good job for me much of the time.

[Terry]

Originally Posted by douglasf13

Howdy, Terry. It actually accounts for that, as well, because, with a larger sensor, you can raise the ISO to get the higher shutter speeds, and, since the sensor is larger, it is cleaner at higher ISO. Of course, this assumes pretty similar sensor technology, so it may not hold true with a old 5D vs. a new OM-D, but it's a pretty good guide, in general.

In other words, a 30mm f2 lens at ISO 200 and 1/500 on DX would perform similarly in terms of depth of field and noise to a 46mm f3.1 lens at ISO 500-ish and 1/500.

A larger sensor always gives more flexibility, if you need it, but I don't spend a lot of time at the extremes on my full frame cameras, so I've found crop sensors to do a good job for me much of the time.

I get all of that...and yes it assumes you do have similar sensors. Not clear as you say if you actually get those two stops of difference.

However, I guess the reason it gets old is because people have bought into m4/3, NEX, etc because they want smaller and lighter and they are well aware of the tradeoff and there just getting faster lenses is important.

[Paratom]

Originally Posted by Terry

I get all of that...and yes it assumes you do have similar sensors. Not clear as you say if you actually get those two stops of difference.

However, I guess the reason it gets old is because people have bought into m4/3, NEX, etc because they want smaller and lighter and they are well aware of the tradeoff and there just getting faster lenses is important.

Hi Terry,
I only meant to respond to the question "And who has a 35mm equivalent at f/0.95?" where I think most systems offer lenses which can do the same (even if the numbers are different due to different sensor formats)
Nothing against m4/3 and I do like the mod myself and there are fine lenses for the system.

[Shashin]

Originally Posted by Paratom

A 35 equivalent with t0.95 for m4/3 is like a 24mm/1.4 for dx (offered by Nex for example) or like a 35mm/2.0 -offered by always each brand.

If DoF was what I was talking about. In terms of exposure, an f/1.4 is not an f0.95.

[douglasf13]

Originally Posted by Shashin

If DoF was what I was talking about. In terms of exposure, an f/1.4 is not an f0.95.

Yeah, but therein lies the confusion. Which has a noisier image, a m4/3 sized sensor at f.95, 1/100 and ISO 100, or a 35mm sized sensor at f1.9, 1/100 and ISO 400?

Assuming similar sensor technology, they would be about equal, so there is no IQ advantage to using a f.95 lens on m4/3 over a f1.9 lens on 35mm. That's all that Paratom was getting at.

In terms of actual usage, an f.95 lens on m4/3 behaves like an f1.9 lens on 35mm in both DOF and image noise (assuming similar sensor tech.) Focal length is focal length, and aperture is aperture, but we're talking about usable equivalents, here.

I use crop sensors, too, but the above needs to be clear.

[Shashin]

Originally Posted by douglasf13

but we're talking about usable equivalents, here.

No, we are not. A lens basically is broken down to focal length (angle of view) and aperture (exposure). Period. When I chose a format, I work in that format. I don't chose an 8x10 and then make all kinds of conversions to get it to work like my 35mm Nikon F.

Equivalency models are basically flawed. First, it assumes equal sensor response. Since when has that ever happened? Second, it really is not equivalent because it can never be--hence exposure is always different and focal length can only work at one object distance. Or in other words, the folks making the equivalency model are simply setting the biases based on a perceived process of interdependent variables whose relationships are fixed as somehow objective rather than realizing that variables are actually independent and can be combined in a large combinations of ways (and in ways that don't fit their model) determined by a photographer.

[jonoslack]

Originally Posted by douglasf13

I use crop sensors, too, but the above needs to be clear.

Hi Douglas . . . I understand all of this stuff, but it seems so remote when one is lining up a stag at 6.30 am at 1600 ISO . . . . Actually, it seems pretty remote for me whenever I take pictures. It may be a fact, but I'm not sure that it needs to be clear.

[jonoslack]

Originally Posted by Shashin

Or in other words, the folks making the equivalency model are simply setting the biases based on a perceived process of interdependent variables whose relationships are fixed as somehow objective rather than realizing that variables are actually independent and can be combined in a large combinations of ways (and in ways that don't fit their model) determined by a photographer.

I tried pressing the like button twice - but it wouldn't, so I've had to say it again here!

[Paratom]

Originally Posted by Shashin

No, we are not. A lens basically is broken down to focal length (angle of view) and aperture (exposure). Period. When I chose a format, I work in that format. I don't chose an 8x10 and then make all kinds of conversions to get it to work like my 35mm Nikon F.

Equivalency models are basically flawed. First, it assumes equal sensor response. Since when has that ever happened? Second, it really is not equivalent because it can never be--hence exposure is always different and focal length can only work at one object distance. Or in other words, the folks making the equivalency model are simply setting the biases based on a perceived process of interdependent variables whose relationships are fixed as somehow objective rather than realizing that variables are actually independent and can be combined in a large combinations of ways (and in ways that don't fit their model) determined by a photographer.

When I take images for me FOV, DOF and noise behavior do count and not numbers written on a lens. But in the end I think the discussion doesn't lead us anywhere - everybody is free to choose the equipment based on the needs and own taste.

[Shashin]

Originally Posted by Paratom

When I take images for me FOV, DOF and noise behavior do count and not numbers written on a lens.

But the numbers on the lens are related to DOF/FOV, but not noise, which is not a product of the optics. The point which I think you missed was it is rather pointless to buy a format in the hopes that it works like a different format. Not only is it impossible, but it would take to much effect to do all the equivalency calculations. For example, if you need the fastest shutter speed from the system, then I would open the lens to the maximum aperture. If DoF is important, stop down. When you want to balance those two thing, find out the smallest aperture that will give you the shutter speed you need. All that can be done without reference to a different format and every photographer that I know does this.

[douglasf13]

Noise is a product of the sensor size, though. Shashin, you were the one who said, "But they do have an f/0.95 equivalent. And who has a 35mm equivalent at f/0.95?"

Maybe I'm wrong, but your statement implied that m4/3 having a f.95 lens is some kind of advantage over a larger format that doesn't have such a lens. The simple point that we're trying to make is that there isn't usable advantage to the .95 lens on a m4/3 camera over an f1.9 lens on a 35mm camera if the end result is the same.

I don't compare everything to 35mm. I use several formats, and, I'd imagine, like most photographers, I plan things in terms of field of view, DOF and the ability to enlarge (i.e. noise,) both of which are sliding scales amongst different formats, and both of which have general equivalents as the sensor sizes change.

A 6mm lens is still a 6mm lens on an iPhone and a 6x6 camera, and an f1.2 lens is still an f1.2 lens on an aps-c camera and a 35mm camera, but the results vary depending on the format, and it makes sense to understand that sliding scale as you move from format to format. It doesn't really matter to me what the lens says, as Paratom mentioned, but, rather, the final output. I think that's all we're trying to get at.

[Terry]

Voigtlander

Voigtlander M43 17mm f/0.95

[douglasf13]

Yeah, that's a sweet lens, Terry. I believe that Sashin was saying OTHER mounts don't have such a lens, which is true, as far as focal length and aperture numbers go.

[Shashin]

Originally Posted by douglasf13

Noise is a product of the sensor size, though.

In what way?

Shashin, you were the one who said, "But they do have an f/0.95 equivalent. And who has a 35mm equivalent at f/0.95?"

You are reading either more into what I said or not getting what I said. Very simple statement: for an equivalent 35mm FoV, m4/3 has an f/0.95 speed lens. That is it.

Maybe I'm wrong, but your statement implied that m4/3 having a f.95 lens is some kind of advantage over a larger format that doesn't have such a lens. The simple point that we're trying to make is that there isn't usable advantage to the .95 lens on a m4/3 camera over an f1.9 lens on a 35mm camera if the end result is the same.

Not comparing formats. Just saying that for a certain FoV, this is the fastest lens out there. And there is one big benefit, it is two stops faster, which, if you really care about noise, lets you use ISOs two stops slower for a particular shutter speed under a particular luminance level.

I don't compare everything to 35mm. I use several formats, and, I'd imagine, like most photographers, I plan things in terms of field of view, DOF and the ability to enlarge (i.e. noise,) both of which are sliding scales amongst different formats, and both of which have general equivalents as the sensor sizes change.

Really? That sounds very complicated. I usually just take my best camera and control it to get the results I need.

A 6mm lens is still a 6mm lens on an iPhone and a 6x6 camera, and an f1.2 lens is still an f1.2 lens on an aps-c camera and a 35mm camera, but the results vary depending on the format, and it makes sense to understand that sliding scale as you move from format to format. It doesn't really matter to me what the lens says, as Paratom mentioned, but, rather, the final output. I think that's all we're trying to get at.

Right, so your choose the right format for what you need and you forget about equivalency when you use it. Actually, I find the focal length is important because it lets me know my FoV and the aperture lets me know how fast I can shoot. Most photographers I know feel the same way.

For my pretty innocuous post, it certainly has become very a complicated conversation.

[retow]

Originally Posted by Shashin

In what way?

Not comparing formats. Just saying that for a certain FoV, this is the fastest lens out there. And there is one big benefit, it is two stops faster, which, if you really care about noise, lets you use ISOs two stops slower for a particular shutter speed under a particular luminance level.

F 0.95 tells only part of the story. It's a specialty lens. Heavy, bulky and with an optical performance which is not among the best of breed. F 1.4 is the sweet spot where lenses can still be reasonably compact and have good peformance fully open.

[Paratom]

Originally Posted by Shashin

But the numbers on the lens are related to DOF/FOV, but not noise, which is not a product of the optics. The point which I think you missed was it is rather pointless to buy a format in the hopes that it works like a different format. Not only is it impossible, but it would take to much effect to do all the equivalency calculations. For example, if you need the fastest shutter speed from the system, then I would open the lens to the maximum aperture. If DoF is important, stop down. When you want to balance those two thing, find out the smallest aperture that will give you the shutter speed you need. All that can be done without reference to a different format and every photographer that I know does this.

Sashin,
I dont see I missed anything. It might be pointless for you but for me it is usefull to compare to 35mm/ff because that is what I know best. Specially because I have shot a lot of primes I understand what to expect. I dont like to buy something and the find out what would be the best I can get. I first like to have an understanding of what I need and then buy the equipment. There enough other factors which can not be judged upfront (specially regarding user interface). I dont calculate all the time when I shoot, but it helps me to get a better undertsanding what to expect. Thats also the reason why I do like to us primes very often, or when I use zooms I often first select the focal length and then zoom with my feet (when possible). After some time I usually get a good understanding for each lens. I know that f2.8-4.0 works good for shallow DOF portrait on my S2, and I also know that I like using the 45/1.8 near wide open when I want to seperate a portrait from the background with the OMD. I know I can generate some shallow DOG with the kit lens of the Nex, but I cant generate shallow DOF when I use the kit lens of the OMD. So I know which system can achieve which results for me and based on that I select.
By the way if you like shooting that 17/.95 wide open a lot I recommend buying a ND filter for bright days-thats at least my experience when I use the 50/.95.

[douglasf13]

Originally Posted by Shashin

In what way?
Not comparing formats. Just saying that for a certain FoV, this is the fastest lens out there. And there is one big benefit, it is two stops faster, which, if you really care about noise, lets you use ISOs two stops slower for a particular shutter speed under a particular luminance level.

Paratom pretty much answered all of this more eloquently than I could, but I wanted to highlight the above quote, since it is the crux of the whole thing. Yes, if you have a lens that is two stops faster, you can use an ISO two stops lower...however, the point is, the larger sensor's ISO is about 2 stops cleaner, so there is still no advantage.

Of course, this depends on sensor technology, but assuming that you're using relatively recent cameras in the comparison, it more or less holds true. Sometimes the smaller sensor is a little cleaner, sometimes the larger one is, depending on the cameras being compared, but it largely holds true these days.