Jump to content

XF200mmF2 Lens Rumors


Patrick FR

Recommended Posts

I know this is going to sound like a completely noob question but...

 

With this being a mirrorless system in anyway could Fuji actually build a smaller 200mm f/2 lens in comparison to what the ones are from Nikon and Canon?

 

Or is that physically impossible?

 

Like I have spoken to my other Nikon and Canon sport shooter friends. If Fuji decides to make a jump into the sports world and introduce the most used lenses for sports (200mm f/2, 300mm f/2.8, 400mm f/2.8, 200-400mm f/4) then they are probably not far away from doing it.

 

If that is the case then I think there will be a lot of shooters making a jump as long as not only is the glass good, but the camera bodies have to follow in ability and knock off the flagships from the big two.

 

I'm waiting anxiously as I am totally wanting to dump my Nikon stuff and switch over to all Fuji gear...

Link to post
Share on other sites

I know this is going to sound like a completely noob question but...

 

With this being a mirrorless system in anyway could Fuji actually build a smaller 200mm f/2 lens in comparison to what the ones are from Nikon and Canon?

 

Or is that physically impossible?

 

I have yet to read anything that says it's possible to make a telephoto lens smaller for a crop body.

 

Mirrorless systems have an advantage with lenses shorter than 40mm because they don't require extra lens elements to compensate for having a flange distance longer than the focal length, but that doesn't help telephoto lenses.

Telephoto lenses can be made smaller, but not in a way that would benefit a Mirrorless system.

Canon is actually leading the pack in compact supertelephoto lenses with their recent Diffractive Optics models, last year they showed a prototype 600mm DO lens that's about 40% smaller than the current model. Unfortunately it's taken them over ten years to release a DO lens with IQ similar to non-DO lenses so I wouldn't count on too many companies adopting that tech too quickly.

 

I've been trying to think about ways that a crop lens would have an advantage, but there really isn't any way around it. If you want the same light gathering for a given field of view, you're facing pretty much exactly the same challenges whether it's crop or full frame. People can say that a 300f2.8 on crop is like having a 450f2.8, but as far as your exposure is concerned, you're still working with a stop less light than f2.8 on Full Frame. You can compensate for this by making a 300f2.0 to equalize the exposure, but then your lens is almost exactly the same size as the 400f2.8.

I guess by nature of it being a 300mm lens and not 400mm, you've cut a few inches off the length, but it'll be practically the same in every other regard.

The only thing you really gain on crop is cheaper sensors, everything else is a balance of give and take.

 

(And I should add that I am specifically attracted to Fuji because they seem to take that balance seriously, there's no pretending that a severely cropped 25f1.4 is as good as a 50f1.4, if these rumors of a 33f1.0 and 200f2.0 are true, and especially if they're working on a 300f2.0, then Fuji is actually aiming to play ball on the highest level instead of pretending that you're giving people something for nothing.)

Link to post
Share on other sites

I have retained my Nikon FF system only for the 500mm lens for which Fujifilm X has no equivalent as yet.

 

Now if Fuji should bring a 300mm f/2.8 prime to market, eBay would see my present Nikon system in a flash. However, one of the critical considerations would have to be the EVF's ability to keep up with the high frame rate. This could be the weak spot at present.

 

A 300mm f/2.8 with the 1.4x TC should be a very capable combo. To hell with the price! I would be prepared to give certain parts of my anatomy for such a lens. It would suit my needs very nicely.

Link to post
Share on other sites

This lens would be a major mistake for many reasons. The X system as a whole is not ready to jump into the ultra limited, super expensive super tele market when the largest prime offered at this point is the 90 f2. As any number of posters have already stated, a lens of this size and speed would retail for $6000-$10,000. That would put it far out of the range or need of 99.9% of the X system market. This lens would be no smaller than the Canon or Nikon offerings of the same FL and speed.

 

The lens that Fuji needs to make as their entry into the prime super tele market (300mm comparable FL) would be a 200 f2.8 WR stabilized lens that is compatible with the 1.4x TC. A 200 f2.8 would be no bigger than the very hand holdable version of this lens that Canon has made for years. If would have the light gathering ability of an f2.8 and DOF of a 300 f4. F4 is more than enough to offer great background separation for the bokeh freaks providing they understand subject to background distance. The lens would probably cost in the $1000 range. When paired with the 1.4x TC you'd have a 280 f4 that would be comparable DOF wise to a 420 f5.6. This combo would once again be very light in comparison to a 200 f2, be much smaller and hand holdable and would be 1/6th - 1/10th the price. Fuji would undoubtedly sell 100's to 1000's of this lens for every one lens they sold of a 200 f2. And while Fuji is world renowned for its high end and very expensive video optics I don't believe that the current X system is the place to introduce that type optic for a still camera at the present moment. Scott

Link to post
Share on other sites

For me the problem with any longer primes is that the 50-140mm is so damn good. The quality of the OIS, the detail that can be extracted from underexposing raw files and now the teleconverter(s?) is making me think I might never need to look at alternative glass; I'm going to be able to work with this thing for a long, long time.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The lens that Fuji needs to make as their entry into the prime super tele market (300mm comparable FL) would be a 200 f2.8 WR stabilized lens that is compatible with the 1.4x TC. A 200 f2.8 would be no bigger than the very hand holdable version of this lens that Canon has made for years. If would have the light gathering ability of an f2.8 and DOF of a 300 f4.

I think the term "light gathering" needs to be corrected here.

While an f2.8 aperture is the same whether you're on crop or full frame, the crop sensor has half as much surface area, so light gathering is a stop less (actually it's 1.23 stops less https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image_sensor_format).

f2.8 on crop is effectively the same as f4 in full frame terms, both in light gathering and DOF.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the term "light gathering" needs to be corrected here.

While an f2.8 aperture is the same whether you're on crop or full frame, the crop sensor has half as much surface area, so light gathering is a stop less (actually it's 1.23 stops less https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image_sensor_format).

f2.8 on crop is effectively the same as f4 in full frame terms, both in light gathering and DOF.

Actually, no it isn't. Exposure is exposure no matter what size format you are using. My Sekonic light meter has no setting on it to adjust based on whether I'm shooting 1/250 f4 @ ISO 400 on APS-C, FF 35, 6x6 MF or 8x10 large format. It takes one exposure which is correct (not including compensation for bellows factor) on any format or film size. Light is light. To make it even simpler we can do this without a light meter and use the Sunny 16 rule. 1/ISO @f16 on a sunny day. Still works on every format size. No compensation required to the laws of physics. Edited by ScottD1964
Link to post
Share on other sites

Actually, no it isn't. Exposure is exposure no matter what size format you are using. My Sekonic light meter has no setting on it to adjust based on whether I'm shooting 1/250 f4 @ ISO 400 on APS-C, FF 35, 6x6 MF or 8x10 large format. It takes one exposure which is correct (not including compensation for bellows factor) on any format or film size. Light is light. To make it even simpler we can do this without a light meter and use the Sunny 16 rule. 1/ISO @f16 on a sunny day. Still works on every format size. No compensation required to the laws of physics.

APS-C sensors have twice as much noise at a given ISO.

Link to post
Share on other sites

APS-C sensors have twice as much noise at a given ISO.

Noise is related to the physical size of the light gathering unit in the sensor, so your statement is only correct for two sensors with the same number of pixels. If the APS-C sensor has half the number of pixels as the full-frame sensor, then the noise is likely to be very similar. In other words, it's the size of the pixel which matters, not the size of the sensor as a whole.

 

Ian.

 

 

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Link to post
Share on other sites

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/News/News-Post.aspx?News=15315

 

After getting over the striking resolution difference between the 7D II and 5Ds, it is apparent that these two bodies have very similar amounts of noise at the pixel level with the 5Ds having a slight advantage at the highest settings. Downsize the 5Ds results to 7D II dimensions and the 5Ds has at least 1 stop of advantage.

 

Same pixels, more area, one stop advantage.

 

TDP has some amazing tools and thankfully the laws of physics don't change between systems.

 

Inversely, here's a test chart comparing the 1DX and 5DS at the same image size.

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Camera-Noise.aspx?Camera=779&Test=2&ISO=12800&CameraComp=980&TestComp=1&ISOComp=12800

 

At the same image size the 5DS is slightly noisier than the 1DX.

Which maybe should be expected given that the 1DX is one of the best low light camera bodies ever produced, but it also sounds totally bizarre given the common assumptions people make about "low light" focused and "landscape" oriented sensors.

 

And here's the 7D2 and 5DS at ISO 12800... Yikes.

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Camera-Noise.aspx?Camera=963&Test=0&ISO=12800&CameraComp=980&TestComp=1&ISOComp=12800

Link to post
Share on other sites

Canon is actually leading the pack in compact supertelephoto lenses with their recent Diffractive Optics models, last year they showed a prototype 600mm DO lens that's about 40% smaller than the current model. Unfortunately it's taken them over ten years to release a DO lens with IQ similar to non-DO lenses so I wouldn't count on too many companies adopting that tech too quickly.e rumors of a 33f1.0 and 200f2.0 are true, and especially if they're working on a 300f2.0, then Fuji is actually aiming to play ball on the highest level instead of pretending that you're giving people something for nothing.)

 

I'd hate to see the price of a 600mm DO lens.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Doesn't matter. Exposure is exposure. You will have more visible grain using 100 ISO 35mm film than you will using the same speed film in a 2 1/4 medium format size. It doesn't mean your exposure has changed.

That's all fine and dandy, but statements like this:

 

A 200 f2.8 would be no bigger than the very hand holdable version of this lens that Canon has made for years. If would have the light gathering ability of an f2.8 and DOF of a 300 f4. F4 is more than enough to offer great background separation for the bokeh freaks providing they understand subject to background distance.

Make it sound like you expect 300mm f2.8 Full Frame image quality out of a cropped 200mm f2.8 lens.

I'm not saying that's what you were thinking, but a lot of other people will be thinking that.

 

In the mirrorless market it is common for manufacturers and consumers to talk about exposure in terms of image noise, low light being one of the most common applications of fast aperture lenses, thus I wanted to clarify that the "light gathering" you were talking about is different from the common application of the term in regard to total image noise.

Edited by 9.V.III
Link to post
Share on other sites

That's all fine and dandy, but statements like this:

 

Make it sound like you expect 300mm f2.8 Full Frame image quality out of a cropped 200mm f2.8 lens.

I'm not saying that's what you were thinking, but a lot of other people will be thinking that.

 

I expect an image quality from a cropped 200 f2.8 that is good enough that I will be entirely satisfied... and whatever lens Fuji comes up with, I'm confident it will live up to that expectation (for me). So I'm not thinking there is no difference, but the difference is of no significance to me. The image quality of even cheap cameras today is really quite good.

 

Hell, I've had multiple images published that were shot on point and shoot cameras and of the various comments people made, none were about the technical image quality.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

The great thing about all of this talk about a 200mm f/2 is the fact that Fuji wants to "play ball" with the two big boys. If they add this lens and they also introduce the 33mm f/1.0 then they are completely ready to do battle and I think a lot more people will follow and help them achieve this.

 

I have shot pro Lacrosse and Hockey with both Canon and Nikon and when I first put the X-T1 in my hands about 3 or so years ago I hoped that some day soon we would be talking about exotic fast lenses and flagship cameras that could use those lenses perfectly.

 

Well that day is getting closer. Fuji is doing what the other two big boys aren't doing...listening to it's customers and putting out products for the most part of what we want. We are asking, they are giving.

 

It's not the other way around...

 

Two very large groups thought were left out of the picture up to this point. The birding, and sports photographers. When the X-T1 was introduced and released it had pretty good focus but not to the levels of the Pro DSLR's by Canikon. When firmware update 4.0 came out it made the X-T1 an even better camera. With is 8fps speed it also gave us more value because it was a sub $2000 camera and not many other cameras we're out there that could do a lot of the same capabilities (definately not in Nikon's world).

 

Heck Nikon just finally introduced the D750 to replace its ancient 8 year old model D700.

 

Now with the release of the X-Pro2. One of it's many nice features, the small joystick on the back allows us to move the focus points around as quick as the high priced DSLR's which has improved the capabilities of a camera that not only did the two left out groups of photographers want, but everyone will benefit from.

 

So now we are getting whiffs of rumors about the longer glass and I am glad that they are talking about it because it's a need that will really bring Fuji up to the table with the big boys.

 

Canon and Nikon don't want Fuji at that table because they have always been the only ones sitting there.

 

When they introduced and released the 50-140 Fuji fans were happy. When they introduced and released the 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6 Fuji fans got even happier. "When" not if Fuji releases the 200mm f/2 lens I will be there waiting to swipe my CC with no hesitation.

 

What that also means is they will release a 300mm f/2.8, and then the 400mm f/2.8 and again you will probably see me swiping my CC for the 400mm f/2.8 because it probably by that time will have the X-T3 or X-Pro3 camera body to be attached to the back end of it.

 

At that point you will also see me at the X in Minneapolis shooting for the NHL so come tap me on the shoulder and ask me questions about if I like the setup!

 

:D

 

Ross

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...

Patrick while the game over for 120mm is now confirmed... Are there any such news for 200mm? Hoping not...

Me neither. I personally don't care for long lenses. But it would allow Fujifilm to get a larger share of the market, which is good for the long term perspectives for the X-series system.

 

Sent from my SM-G920F using Tapatalk

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 4 weeks later...

I would love to see a 135mm f1.8 OIS! 

 

Funny enough I was thinking just that myself the other day.

 

I think it might be either a 135mm f/2.0 OIS, or f/1.8 non-OIS to avoid blowouts in size. My preference is for the f/1.8. The reason this would be a great lens is that it is like the Canon or Nikon 200mm f/2.0, but a portrait or wedding photographer would be able to actually carry it around on location without an assistant. These fast 200mm f/2.0 full frame primes are wonderful, but they are way too heavy to get much practical use out of other than for studio based work on a tripod. An XF 135mm f/1.8 wouldn't really be the first choice as a sports photography lens, but given that this is a classic focal length for portraiture, it fits in more with the sort of photography that works well with the X-series in general. As such a 135mm f/1.8 would probably have more general appeal to X photographers than a 200mm f/2.0 prime lens, at least until X series cameras become better at shooting action.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Funny enough I was thinking just that myself the other day.

 

I think it might be either a 135mm f/2.0 OIS, or f/1.8 non-OIS to avoid blowouts in size. My preference is for the f/1.8. The reason this would be a great lens is that it is like the Canon or Nikon 200mm f/2.0, but a portrait or wedding photographer would be able to actually carry it around on location without an assistant. These fast 200mm f/2.0 full frame primes are wonderful, but they are way too heavy to get much practical use out of other than for studio based work on a tripod. An XF 135mm f/1.8 wouldn't really be the first choice as a sports photography lens, but given that this is a classic focal length for portraiture, it fits in more with the sort of photography that works well with the X-series in general. As such a 135mm f/1.8 would probably have more general appeal to X photographers than a 200mm f/2.0 prime lens, at least until X series cameras become better at shooting action.

Canon and Nikon 200f2.0 lenses are wonderful, and there's nothing you can do to make 135f2.0 come close to matching them.

Canon and Nikon also make very good 200f2.8 lenses, which a Fuji 135f2.0 would be roughly equivalent to in terms of depth of field and light gathering.

When comparing full frame specs to a crop system you need to adjust depth of field and light gathering too. When we're dealing with long lenses there's no escaping the fact that the best IQ comes from the biggest lenses.

Edited by 9.V.III
Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Similar Content

  • Posts

    • Looking more like the next Fuji camera we see will be an X-T50 but it is still a rumor and no specs have been published.
    • Hey guys, The shutter on/off button switch may be loose on mine. After turning camera on and pressing the shutter/holding close to the area, the camera will turn off and say 'sensor cleaning'. This doesn't happen if I'm shooting via touch screen at all. Everything else is functional. Anyone else experience this before? Would love a much cheaper fix since Fuji Canada just quoted me $700 CAD to fix it, and considering everything else is functional except that part I'm not even sure why MPMB Main Board parts is being replaced😕 I got no explanation from them either.
    • As far as I know the firmware is not country specific. Are you sure that the filename has not been changed ( I am told this can happen with mac os). That's the only thing I can think of.
    • My x-t5 does not exhibit the focusing switch behaviour as you report it, so that is very strange and indicative of a fault. It does not matter whether the flash is attached or not. Once you set the camera for your studio flash, say 1/250th at f5.6, the camera, which is showing you what you will get at that exposure without the flash, will show a black screen unless the ambient light is brighter than what you would typically get indoors. That is why, as Jerry says, you have to set preview exp/wb to off. I have set a button for this.
    • I connected to FRAME.IO a while back and it works fine, but the camera wouldn't connect to the internet all of a sudden today and would get stuck on the reset screen, including initializing and even switching USB Connection mode. Is anyone else experiencing the same thing?
×
×
  • Create New...