Clicky

Jump to content


Photo

XF200mmF2 Lens Rumors


  • Please log in to reply
77 replies to this topic

#21 danwells

danwells

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 146 posts

Posted 09 February 2016 - 06:29 AM

Advertisement (Gone after free registration)

The Nikkor 300mm f2.0 referenced above was the only one ever made for still photography (they still turn up in Hollywood with cine mounts bolted to them, and it would not surprise me if there are dedicated cine lenses of similar specifications from Arri, Zeiss, Panavision or the like). It's a 17 lb monster, although a modern version might very well be half the weight, since it is a similar design to a 400mm f2.8, which are currently in the 8-9 lb range! It would certainly be at least $10,000, since Canon and Nikon 400mm f2.8s are in that range, and this would be more exotic and built in smaller quantities. Only a few hundred of the Nikkors were ever made (I wonder how many 400mm f2.8 lenses are sold annually?). If Fuji ever built such a beast, they might well end up receiving cine conversions to replace aging 1980s Nikkors.



#22 erwiurewurwehu

erwiurewurwehu

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 150 posts

Posted 09 February 2016 - 06:41 AM

The Nikkor 300mm f2.0 referenced above was the only one ever made for still photography (they still turn up in Hollywood with cine mounts bolted to them, and it would not surprise me if there are dedicated cine lenses of similar specifications from Arri, Zeiss, Panavision or the like). It's a 17 lb monster, although a modern version might very well be half the weight, since it is a similar design to a 400mm f2.8, which are currently in the 8-9 lb range! It would certainly be at least $10,000, since Canon and Nikon 400mm f2.8s are in that range, and this would be more exotic and built in smaller quantities. Only a few hundred of the Nikkors were ever made (I wonder how many 400mm f2.8 lenses are sold annually?). If Fuji ever built such a beast, they might well end up receiving cine conversions to replace aging 1980s Nikkors.

It would be hard to understand if Fuji made something like this. But it's fun thinking about especially if they brought the price down to 2000 :-).



#23 wildcart

wildcart

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 42 posts
  • LocationNetherlands

Posted 09 February 2016 - 01:19 PM

I would love to see a 135mm f1.8 OIS! But the 200mm f2 will also be fine  :lol:


  • Sator-Photography likes this

#24 creativewhatever

creativewhatever

    Newbie

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 1 posts

Posted 09 February 2016 - 05:04 PM

As a dual system shooter I could move totally from my Nikon D4/D810 /D750 with the addition of the fast 200mm.  I use a Nikon 300 2.8 at least three times a week.  The lens is big and heavy but others competing for the concerts I shoot for a living all use similar gear.  It might not be smaller but the files would sure require less pp.  Fuji, Put me down for one.

 

 



#25 danwells

danwells

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 146 posts

Posted 09 February 2016 - 05:51 PM

Any 200mm f2 will certainly have OIS, and almost certainly very high-end OIS (that kind of lens was the first to get stabilization, and they've always been at the forefront of stabilization technology).



#26 Jürgen Heger

Jürgen Heger

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 121 posts
  • LocationGermany

Posted 09 February 2016 - 07:05 PM

The Nikkor 200mm f/2.0 G ED VR II is $5,696.95 at B&H. The Canon is the same. So it can be made below $6k. Of course we do not know if Fuji consider this as their market price.

#27 Kalle

Kalle

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 10 posts

Posted 10 February 2016 - 03:56 AM

In New Fujifilm X Magazine mr Ueno talks about f/2.0 300 mm, not 200 mm.



#28 umad?

umad?

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 99 posts

Posted 10 February 2016 - 11:14 AM

In New Fujifilm X Magazine mr Ueno talks about f/2.0 300 mm, not 200 mm.

Fuji often uses focal length instead of field of view. (physically not correct but better for comparison) 



#29 Jürgen Heger

Jürgen Heger

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 121 posts
  • LocationGermany

Posted 10 February 2016 - 12:33 PM

Yep, it slipt my attention that the $10,000 price tag is refering to a true 300mmf/2.0, not 300mm equivalent field of view.

#30 danwells

danwells

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 146 posts

Posted 10 February 2016 - 07:51 PM

And a 4-5 lb 200mm f2.0 is a much more reasonable proposition than a 300 that is at least twice as heavy...



#31 czechappleguy

czechappleguy

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 17 posts

Posted 11 February 2016 - 02:50 AM

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...

#32 9.V.III

9.V.III

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 60 posts

Posted 12 February 2016 - 02:54 AM

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.)

#33 Felix

Felix

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 19 posts
  • LocationAustralia

Posted 12 February 2016 - 09:36 PM

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.



#34 ScottD1964

ScottD1964

    Newbie

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 5 posts

Posted 18 February 2016 - 02:33 AM

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
  • Sator-Photography likes this

#35 frod

frod

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 302 posts

Posted 18 February 2016 - 09:31 AM

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.


The aperture ring is for composing in the third dimension, not removing it!


#36 9.V.III

9.V.III

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 60 posts

Posted 19 February 2016 - 07:27 AM

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

#37 ScottD1964

ScottD1964

    Newbie

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 5 posts

Posted 20 February 2016 - 06:31 PM

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.wikiped...e_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, 20 February 2016 - 06:35 PM.

  • Sator-Photography likes this

#38 9.V.III

9.V.III

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 60 posts

Posted 20 February 2016 - 08:18 PM

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.

#39 idwilson

idwilson

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 11 posts
  • LocationCambridge, UK

Posted 20 February 2016 - 09:27 PM

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
  • Sator-Photography likes this

Ian Wilson

Cambridge, UK


#40 9.V.III

9.V.III

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 60 posts

Posted 20 February 2016 - 10:20 PM

http://www.the-digit...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-digit...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-digit...1&ISOComp=12800




 
x

Registration is free

Not registered? Really?

Discover the full potential of the Fuji X Forum... register now!
Registration is free and done in a few minutes!

As registered member you can discuss, post your questions and present your images.
And get in contact with Fuji X photographers worldwide!

We are looking forward to you!

The Fuji X Forum Team

Register Close