Clicky

Jump to content


Photo

XF200mmF2 Lens Rumors


  • Please log in to reply
90 replies to this topic

#41 EddieX

EddieX

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 79 posts

Posted 22 February 2016 - 05:05 PM

Advertisement (Gone after free registration)

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.


2x X-T2/VPB | X-T1 | 16 ƒ1.4 | 35 ƒ1.4 | 90 ƒ2 | 18-55 ƒ2.8-4 | XF 16-55mm ƒ2.8 | XF 50-140 ƒ2.8 Mitakon 35mm ƒ0.95 | RRS |

want:  56mm ƒ1.2


#42 erwiurewurwehu

erwiurewurwehu

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 158 posts

Posted 22 February 2016 - 08:30 PM

My theory is still that there was a misunderstanding and that they are doing a X200 camera with an 2 F2 lens. Not a 200mm/f2

#43 ScottD1964

ScottD1964

    Newbie

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 5 posts

Posted 23 February 2016 - 11:34 PM

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


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.

#44 9.V.III

9.V.III

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 63 posts

Posted 24 February 2016 - 12:55 AM

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, 24 February 2016 - 12:58 AM.


#45 deva

deva

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 277 posts

Posted 24 February 2016 - 11:04 AM

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.



#46 czechappleguy

czechappleguy

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 17 posts

Posted 06 March 2016 - 09:36 PM

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
  • GilBarib likes this

#47 zvonec

zvonec

    Newbie

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 2 posts

Posted 20 April 2016 - 04:02 PM

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



#48 johant

johant

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 734 posts

Posted 21 April 2016 - 05:11 AM

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

#49 Sator-Photography

Sator-Photography

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 97 posts

Posted 15 May 2016 - 03:50 AM

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.



#50 9.V.III

9.V.III

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 63 posts

Posted 20 May 2016 - 12:19 PM

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, 20 May 2016 - 12:21 PM.


#51 deva

deva

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 277 posts

Posted 20 May 2016 - 03:59 PM

 When we're dealing with long lenses there's no escaping the fact that the best IQ comes from the biggest lenses.

 

 

And if that matters to you that is fine... from my perspective, the difference is so tiny that I consider it of no practical consequence. And my guess is that 99.9% of potential viewers will not care in the slightest. Subject, perspective, composition and lighting so overwhelmingly define value/appreciation. 



#52 9.V.III

9.V.III

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 63 posts

Posted 21 May 2016 - 12:24 AM

And if that matters to you that is fine... from my perspective, the difference is so tiny that I consider it of no practical consequence. And my guess is that 99.9% of potential viewers will not care in the slightest. Subject, perspective, composition and lighting so overwhelmingly define value/appreciation.

If people didn't care then they wouldn't be talking about how wonderful 200f2.0 lenses are.
My guess is 99.9% of viewers are still confused about Depth of Field and Light Gathering performance on crop systems.

When Olympus talks about their high end zoom lens they make a broad statement about focal length:

It is equivalent to 70-200mm on a 35mm camera

http://www.bhphotovi...0_ED_Zuiko.html
But don't tell you that you're getting f4 equivalent DOF and light gathering.

http://www.bhphotovi...m_f_4l_usm.html
The equivalent lens on Full Frame costs four times less and weighs half as much.

When it comes to fast aperture lenses people need to be acutely aware of the implications of using a crop sensor or else they're basically getting ripped off.

Edited by 9.V.III, 21 May 2016 - 12:25 AM.


#53 jonmacapodi

jonmacapodi

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 32 posts
  • LocationNew York, NY

Posted 21 May 2016 - 01:05 AM

...and with a subject at 10 feet, a 135mm F/2 lens on crop and a 200mm F/2.8 lens on full-frame have about a 1.5 inch deep depth of field. Getting pissed about DOF equivalents (particularly on the telephoto end) is pretty idiotic when used in real actual shooting conditions.


Photographer in New York, NY.

Instagram

www.jmacapodi.com


#54 9.V.III

9.V.III

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 63 posts

Posted 21 May 2016 - 02:45 AM

...and with a subject at 10 feet, a 135mm F/2 lens on crop and a 200mm F/2.8 lens on full-frame have about a 1.5 inch deep depth of field. Getting pissed about DOF equivalents (particularly on the telephoto end) is pretty idiotic when used in real actual shooting conditions.


Being excited for high quality leightweight lenses is all fine and dandy but as long as we're posting in a thread about a large lens and people are making comparisons with big glass then pointing out the advantages of large lenses is the only correct thing to do.

Edited by 9.V.III, 21 May 2016 - 02:46 AM.


#55 deva

deva

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 277 posts

Posted 21 May 2016 - 06:30 PM

If people didn't care then they wouldn't be talking about how wonderful 200f2.0 lenses are.
My guess is 99.9% of viewers are still confused about Depth of Field and Light Gathering performance on crop systems.
 

 

 

 

If you want to shoot full frame, go for it... but saying that basically everyone who prefers smaller systems is confused (because their priorities are not yours) is... well...



#56 9.V.III

9.V.III

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 63 posts

Posted 22 May 2016 - 10:26 AM

If you want to shoot full frame, go for it... but saying that basically everyone who prefers smaller systems is confused (because their priorities are not yours) is... well...


I've already clarified the issue twice in the same thread, and the slice of the user base represented here is some of the most enthusiastic of enthusiasts.
It's virtually guaranteed that the average person is confused, and it has nothing to do with personal priorities.

The existance of a 7lb sports and wildlife lens doesn't instantly turn your Fuji into a giant brick, but it does make Fuji the first mirrorless option for some of the biggest commercial photography jobs on Earth. Canon bases the release of their 1D bodies around the Summer Olympics, where Big Whites abound, if Fuji wants representation in these events they need the hardware.
Hoping that Fuji breaks into new markets shouldn't be taken as an insult.

#57 deva

deva

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 277 posts

Posted 22 May 2016 - 11:11 AM

Canon bases the release of their 1D bodies around the Summer Olympics, where Big Whites abound, if Fuji wants representation in these events they need the hardware.
Hoping that Fuji breaks into new markets shouldn't be taken as an insult.

 

 

Nothing in the Fuji lineup... cameras, lenses, other gear would lead me to believe they are interested in that market. 

 

If I were shooting sports at the Olympics, I would not even consider using Fuji. 



#58 9.V.III

9.V.III

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 63 posts

Posted 22 May 2016 - 08:01 PM

Nothing in the Fuji lineup... cameras, lenses, other gear would lead me to believe they are interested in that market.


Because Fuji actually has different priorities than you do.

If I were shooting sports at the Olympics, I would not even consider using Fuji.


Precisely.
We need a 200f2.0 and 300f2.0 on the X-T2, then people will want to shoot the Olympics with Fuji.

#59 mdm

mdm

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 420 posts

Posted 22 May 2016 - 08:43 PM

We need a 200f2.0 and 300f2.0 on the X-T2, then people will want to shoot the Olympics with Fuji.

 

I think there is no equal sign between people and paid pro in this context.



#60 frod

frod

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 309 posts

Posted 22 May 2016 - 09:06 PM

pros will use what they get given. I suspect Fuji is more interested in targeting the wayward/straying Nikon high end enthusiasts than any pros.

Edited by frod, 22 May 2016 - 09:09 PM.

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



 
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