Clicky

Jump to content


Photo

XF120mmF2.8 Canceled! :: XF80mm Macro Coming!


  • Please log in to reply
37 replies to this topic

#1 Patrick FR

Patrick FR

    Advanced Member

  • Administrators
  • 792 posts
  • LocationTOP SECRET

Posted 20 April 2016 - 01:59 PM

Advertisement (Gone after free registration)
XF120mmF2.8 :: Fuji goes for a shorter focal length (below 100mm)! more details on FujiRumors: http://www.fujirumor...gth-below-100mm

#2 Warwick

Warwick

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 243 posts

Posted 20 April 2016 - 02:23 PM

I think it's the X Pro 2. The rangefinder style goes really well with compact primes - I've resurrected my 18mm lens, bought the 35 f2 and I sold my 23 f1.4 in anticipation of the new 23f2. It makes for a system you're more likely to carry with you more often, and so take more pictures.

You can have one lens on the camera and one or two other lenses in your jacket pockets without the need for a camera bag


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Edited by Warwick, 20 April 2016 - 02:29 PM.


#3 erwiurewurwehu

erwiurewurwehu

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 154 posts

Posted 20 April 2016 - 02:26 PM

I don't understand this decision. They already have the 90 as a prime. Why put the macro into the same focal range?



#4 darknj

darknj

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 765 posts
  • LocationBelgium

Posted 20 April 2016 - 05:20 PM

I don't understand this decision. They already have the 90 as a prime. Why put the macro into the same focal range?

 

Maybe they want the 70mm (105mm equiv) 1:1 macro lens ? It would make sense to me.


  • EyesUnclouded and FXF like this

#5 quincy

quincy

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 260 posts

Posted 20 April 2016 - 05:31 PM

Pretty bad if true, because I'd then have to buy the Sigma 180 mm Macro and a matching FF Canikon, and if I do so I might as well go all the way and get a Sigma 150-600 as a replacement for the Fuji 100-400 and benefit from better AF.

Well, we'll see.



#6 mdm

mdm

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 343 posts

Posted 20 April 2016 - 06:43 PM

Life is strange. When it looks like a private drama for quincy it is a ray of light for me... however it was clear from the very begining that you couldn't cheat mother nature and if you need FULL power go canikon...



#7 EyesUnclouded

EyesUnclouded

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 84 posts

Posted 20 April 2016 - 06:46 PM

Maybe they want the 70mm (105mm equiv) 1:1 macro lens ? It would make sense to me.

 

Personally I'd welcome such a decision. A ultra sharp, f/2.5-2.8 macro at this equiv. focal length, would be great for close up portraits too.


  • FXF and tordremme like this

#8 quincy

quincy

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 260 posts

Posted 20 April 2016 - 07:28 PM

Life is strange. When it looks like a private drama for quincy it is a ray of light for me... however it was clear from the very begining that you couldn't cheat mother nature and if you need FULL power go canikon...

 

??

No drama. I have no "feelings" for gear. It's just that so far, Fujifilm produced all lenses that were on the roadmap, and I somehow relied on that.

 

Anyway, about that "full power" part: A 120 mm f/2.8 APS-C 1:1 Macro lens would have some advantages over a 180 mm f/2.8 FF 1:1 Macro lens while offering the same angle of view. The maximum aperture is not important for macro, so It would be lighter and smaller without any drawbacks, and while you can produce the same image a 180+FF (that's stopped down approximately one stop more) would produce at the same subject distance, with the 120 you could go even closer and because of the APS-C crop you'd get an image that is even "bigger". I know I would really have liked that lens, and the fact that it was on the roadmap was a reason for me to choose the X-T1.


Edited by quincy, 20 April 2016 - 07:30 PM.


#9 mdm

mdm

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 343 posts

Posted 20 April 2016 - 08:16 PM

??

No drama. I have no "feelings" for gear.

 

I definitely have. That's why I'm with Fuji. ;)


  • elmacus likes this

#10 erwiurewurwehu

erwiurewurwehu

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 154 posts

Posted 20 April 2016 - 10:18 PM

Maybe they want the 70mm (105mm equiv) 1:1 macro lens ? It would make sense to me.

 

Then it would be more like a 60mm Mark 2. It doesn't make sense to have 60 and a 70mm macro.



#11 deva

deva

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 276 posts

Posted 20 April 2016 - 10:21 PM

a 75-85 Micro that is 1:1 will be fine with me. I likely would prefer that to the 120 anyway... I just hope it is not too far away

 

The other lenses I would like are a 70 1.4 and a 16-80 f4 OIS



#12 Tikcus

Tikcus

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 277 posts

Posted 20 April 2016 - 10:54 PM

it wont happen, but if Fuji released a 60mm MKii with 1:1 macro @ F/1.4 or 2 that was compatible with the rumoured 2X tele-converter, that would also give you a 120mm F/2.8 or F/4 Macro lens.

 

n/b i don't know how a T/C affects the magnification (I have read it increases the magnification, there for a 2x tele would make a 1:1 into a 2:1, but not exactly a 100% reliable source)

 

edit

 

if the above is correct a mkii with 0.5 magnification (as current 60 mm) with 2x tele would be 1:1?


Edited by Tikcus, 20 April 2016 - 11:07 PM.

"Share what you have learnt"

 

My Flickr


#13 quincy

quincy

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 260 posts

Posted 20 April 2016 - 11:00 PM

it wont happen, but if Fuji released a 60mm MKii with 1:1 macro @ F/1.4 or 2 that was compatible with the rumoured 2X tele-converter, that would also give you a 120mm F/2.8 or F/4 Macro lens.
 
n/b i don't know how a T/C affects the magnification


But then the resolution would decrease. And 24 MP on an APS-C sensor already demands a lot from lenses.

A teleconverter maintains the close focus distance of the lens, and thus increases the maximum magnification by the ratio it multiplies the focal lenght.

#14 JaapD

JaapD

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 50 posts

Posted 22 April 2016 - 06:35 AM

I understand Fuji’s decision as far as ‘macro’ goes. A 120mm macro (180mm FF) is a bit too much tele. On the other hand I think it is a real pity that we’re not getting a 180mm f/2.8 tele lens. I think such lens would perfectly fit in Fuji’s lens roadmap.

 

There is room for 200mm f/2.8 (300mm FF) and 270mm f/2.8  (400mm FF) lenses and I hope Fuji also sees that there are gaps to fill.


  • meloaku and Mike G like this

#15 Tikcus

Tikcus

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 277 posts

Posted 22 April 2016 - 02:54 PM

I understand Fuji’s decision as far as ‘macro’ goes. A 120mm macro (180mm FF) is a bit too much tele. On the other hand I think it is a real pity that we’re not getting a 180mm f/2.8 tele lens. I think such lens would perfectly fit in Fuji’s lens roadmap.

 

There is room for 200mm f/2.8 (300mm FF) and 270mm f/2.8  (400mm FF) lenses and I hope Fuji also sees that there are gaps to fill.

 

the 180mm (FF) F/2.8 non macro is covered by the XF50-140 F/2.8.

 

I would not be surprised if we do not see many if any Fuji Primes longer than 200mm, as you move into a very specialist market, and the lenses would be expensive to make, would not sell in large numbers, and have a very high selling price


Edited by Tikcus, 08 May 2016 - 11:39 PM.

"Share what you have learnt"

 

My Flickr


#16 projetremplace

projetremplace

    Newbie

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 1 posts

Posted 08 May 2016 - 10:12 PM

I understand Fuji’s decision as far as ‘macro’ goes. A 120mm macro (180mm FF) is a bit too much tele. On the other hand I think it is a real pity that we’re not getting a 180mm f/2.8 tele lens. I think such lens would perfectly fit in Fuji’s lens roadmap.

 

There is room for 200mm f/2.8 (300mm FF) and 270mm f/2.8  (400mm FF) lenses and I hope Fuji also sees that there are gaps to fill.

 

Almost any prime lens lies within the range covered by a zoom. Nevertheless people may buy the primes as well.

Although I own the 100-400: I would still consider to buy a 120mm and a 200mm prime lens. Even if the 200mm had a max aperture of 4.0.



#17 Patrick FR

Patrick FR

    Advanced Member

  • Administrators
  • 792 posts
  • LocationTOP SECRET

Posted 09 May 2016 - 12:09 PM

Fujinon XF80mm Macro Coming instead of XF120mm! – Trusted Source

 

more here: http://www.fujirumor...trusted-source/



#18 darknj

darknj

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 765 posts
  • LocationBelgium

Posted 09 May 2016 - 02:11 PM

Dare I to assume it will be a 1:1 macro lens ? 120mm equiv is a bit weird for a macro lens, maybe I am just used to the 105mm format...



#19 Maurice

Maurice

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 230 posts
  • LocationSputnik Planum

Posted 09 May 2016 - 06:30 PM

I don't see why it would be weird. Because it doesn't exactly match a number used previously by another brand?

 

And 1:1 of course is the what this whole thing is about.



#20 Red G8R

Red G8R

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 18 posts
  • LocationOntario, Canada

Posted 09 May 2016 - 07:35 PM

For me the 120 mm would have been too long (focal length) and big in size.  I already bought the Zeiss 50 mm for it's 1:1 macro. I think the 80 mm will be a good balance in terms of focal length. Looking forward to it.


Edited by Red G8R, 09 May 2016 - 07:35 PM.

Peter


 
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