Clicky

Jump to content


Photo

FUJIFILM will develop an XF 8-16mmF2.8 WR lens


  • Please log in to reply
56 replies to this topic

#21 Franko

Franko

    Newbie

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 6 posts

Posted 12 June 2016 - 04:43 AM

Advertisement (Gone after free registration)
I'm not a big fan of the ultra wide angle lens, they just don't do it for me. Although I do have the the 16mm 1.4 which is about equivalent to a 24mm in full frame and I find this does just about everything in the wide angle department for me. I changed to Fuji to cut down on a bag full of lenses so for me this is enough. It's easy to get carried away with I need this I need that but do we really need it ? How many times have we photographers lusted after the must have lens only to find it sits in the bag most of the time! We are a fickle bunch!

#22 milandro

milandro

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 3,079 posts

Posted 12 June 2016 - 06:11 AM

Despite 16mm being a very useful wide focal length, there is a world of difference in going much wider than that 

 

 

Whether one likes it or not is again another thing but that there is a substantial difference between a picture shot at 10mm  (let alone 8) and one shot at 16 is a fact. Perhaps not quite so evident in a simple landscape shot but it is in many other situation.

 

If this weren’t the case, the folks who buy a 10-24 (I had one for more than a year) would not notice any difference between 10mm and 16mm (both on this zoom) and I tell you, they do!


the popular expression wishful thinking is an oxymoron!


#23 MSW

MSW

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 93 posts

Posted 13 June 2016 - 04:33 AM

Their premium zoom trinity is about to be complete!

8-16 f/2.8
16-55 f/2.8
50-140 f/2.8

 They could sell all three as a special edition set with matching serial numbers.  Pack them in a custom leather covered, silk lined Pelican case.  Let's see Leica beat that!


  • mokba likes this

#24 milandro

milandro

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 3,079 posts

Posted 13 June 2016 - 07:02 AM

Leica owners are not known for their proclivity for zooms.


the popular expression wishful thinking is an oxymoron!


#25 Sator-Photography

Sator-Photography

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 94 posts

Posted 14 June 2016 - 01:08 PM

I think that this lens is an extremely important proof of concept design. An 8-16mm Fuji XF lens would help demonstrate that the Fuji X mount is a highly capable mount that can convincingly support a f/2.8 zoom trinity going from 8-16mm, 16-55mm up to 50-140mm. 

 

This Fuji wide angle zoom lens will be the full frame equivalent of a 12-24mm full frame lens, which would compete against the likes of the Canon 11-24mm f/4.0 lens and the Nikon 14-24mm f/2.8 lens. If it performs well, the Fuji wide-angle f/2.8 zoom would constitute a resounding assertion of the ability of the X mount to cater to a full range of focal lengths required for full professional usage. Most importantly, Fuji would be throwing down the gauntlet to Sony, challenging them to come up with a comparable f/2.8 wide angle zoom for their full frame mirrorless FE mount. 

 

The trouble is that Sony would likely be unable to fire back with a full frame mirrorless wide angle fast zoom. The reason can be found in this diagram:

 

flange-focal-distance-and-angle-of-incid

 

Fuji themselves have stated that:

 

...the angle of light that film and imaging sensors can receive differ from each other. Film can receive light at the slanted angle of up to 45 degrees without any problem, but in case of the digital camera, the light needs to be as perpendicular to the sensor as possible. Slanted angle light causes mixed colors and therefore the real colors sometimes cannot be reproduced. In order to receive the light perpendicular to the sensor, it is important to make the rear glass element on each lens as big as possible to put the light beams parallel from the outlet of the light to the sensor.

 

https://fujifilm-blo...ull-frame-dslr/

 

The problem with the Sony E mount is that it was originally intended to be an APS-C mount, and it has an 18mm flange distance largely identical to that of the Fuji X mount (17.8mm), and Canon EF-M mount (18mm). What Sony did was to take an APS-C mount and use it as the basis of a full frame mount. That is the reason why the angle of incidence of light in the corners become unusually steep, as shown in the above diagram. This will likely limit the ability of engineers to develop quality lenses wider than about 18mm especially since the angle of incidence increases with ultra wide angle lenses. Here is how the mathematics of it work out:

 
Where X2 = Rear element distance from sensor. Y2 = 1/2 distance of diagonal measure of sensor.  We then derive the Tangent of A°2:
 
Tan A°2 = Y2 / X2
Tan A°2 = ~21.63mm / 18mm flange distance = ~1.202 = ~50.2°
 
Therefore maximum FOV @ 18mm flange optic distance = 2 x 50.2° or ~100.4°, or, roughly, the FOV of an 18mm lens.
 

The reason why maximum apertures for the E mount primes are commonly limited to around f/1.8 may also be to avoid exposing acutance problems in the corners. When the maximum aperture is increased to f/1.4, the engineers need to make the lens larger to overcome the corner problems. This causes a blowout in the lens size on ultra wide aperture models without necessarily resulting in better performance compared to their DSLR peers (the 85mm f/1.4 GM lens has MTF plots similar to the Nikon 85mm f/1.4 lens, and thus by extrapolation a performance similar to the now discontinued Sigma 85mm f/1.4 EX DG HSM lens despite its greater size). 

 

As it stands already, the Sony Vario-Tessar T* FE 16-35mm F4 ZA OSS has severe corner problems at the 16mm end. To achieve the 16mm focal length on the FE 16-35mm f/4, Zeiss were forced to deploy a double concave lens element on the sensor-side to adequately project the image so as to cover the full surface of the sensor. If the maximum aperture were increased to f/2.8, the corner problems would become even worse. That means we may never see a decently performing 16-35mm f/2.8 E mount zoom lens, and a 12-24mm f/2.8 zoom is even less likely. Even an acceptably high performance full frame 14-24mm f/2.8 lens like the Nikon version is probably impossible to execute acceptably on the E mount. 

 

Sony fanboys will gurgle and froth at the mouth on reading this, but these are mathematical limits dictated entirely by the physics of the mount. It is a functional limit everyone has to accept when you have a full frame mirrorless system based on an APS-C dimension mount. It matters little how upset Sony fanboys get with me for pointing these inconvenient facts out. They can say what they please, but the only way these theoretical limits can be decisively disproven is by Sony producing a high-performance full frame 12-24mm f/2.8 zoom, a 14-24mm f/2.8 zoom, or at the very least, a 16-35mm f/2.8 GM zoom. Sony are welcome to go ahead and prove me wrong. I will be only to pleased if they could overcome this critical hurdle, and since I also shoot on the Sony E mount I will consider buying such a lens. But as you can see I have very good cause to be immensely sceptical.

 

So the Fuji 8-16mm f/2.8 will be an extremely important lens that will showcase what the X-mount is capable of. It will put immense pressure on Sony to show that their rival full frame E mount is a similarly professional grade lens mount. After all what kind of a lens mount would it be if it cannot support the full f/2.8 zoom trinity? It matters not in the slightest if some do not shoot at ultra wide angles. The more critical factor is the proof of concept that a mount is capable of supporting a full range of focal lens for a wide variety of applications. Although the proof is in the eating, the physics of it predicts that it is a challenge the X mount will probably pass, just as the E mount will equally likely fail—and fail dismally.

 


  • darknj, Der Hexar and webpublius like this

#26 Der Hexar

Der Hexar

    Newbie

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 1 posts

Posted 14 June 2016 - 05:32 PM

I think that this lens is an extremely important proof of concept design. An 8-16mm Fuji XF lens would help demonstrate that the Fuji X mount is a highly capable mount that can convincingly support a f/2.8 zoom trinity going from 8-16mm, 16-55mm up to 50-140mm. 

 

This Fuji wide angle zoom lens will be the full frame equivalent of a 12-24mm full frame lens, which would compete against the likes of the Canon 11-24mm f/4.0 lens and the Nikon 14-24mm f/2.8 lens. If it performs well, the Fuji wide-angle f/2.8 zoom would constitute a resounding assertion of the ability of the X mount to cater to a full range of focal lengths required for full professional usage. Most importantly, Fuji would be throwing down the gauntlet to Sony, challenging them to come up with a comparable f/2.8 wide angle zoom for their full frame mirrorless FE mount. 

 

The trouble is that Sony would likely be unable to fire back with a full frame mirrorless wide angle fast zoom. The reason can be found in this diagram:

 

flange-focal-distance-and-angle-of-incid

 

Fuji themselves have stated that:

 

 

https://fujifilm-blo...ull-frame-dslr/

 

The problem with the Sony E mount is that it was originally intended to be an APS-C mount, and it has an 18mm flange distance largely identical to that of the Fuji X mount (17.8mm), and Canon EF-M mount (18mm). What Sony did was to take an APS-C mount and use it as the basis of a full frame mount. That is the reason why the angle of incidence of light in the corners become unusually steep, as shown in the above diagram. This will likely limit the ability of engineers to develop quality lenses wider than about 18mm especially since the angle of incidence increases with ultra wide angle lenses. Here is how the mathematics of it work out:

 
Where X2 = Rear element distance from sensor. Y2 = 1/2 distance of diagonal measure of sensor.  We then derive the Tangent of A°2:
 
Tan A°2 = Y2 / X2
Tan A°2 = ~21.63mm / 18mm flange distance = ~1.202 = ~50.2°
 
Therefore maximum FOV @ 18mm flange optic distance = 2 x 50.2° or ~100.4°, or, roughly, the FOV of an 18mm lens.
 

The reason why maximum apertures for the E mount primes are commonly limited to around f/1.8 may also be to avoid exposing acutance problems in the corners. When the maximum aperture is increased to f/1.4, the engineers need to make the lens larger to overcome the corner problems. This causes a blowout in the lens size on ultra wide aperture models without necessarily resulting in better performance compared to their DSLR peers (the 85mm f/1.4 GM lens has MTF plots similar to the Nikon 85mm f/1.4 lens, and thus by extrapolation a performance similar to the now discontinued Sigma 85mm f/1.4 EX DG HSM lens despite its greater size). 

 

As it stands already, the Sony Vario-Tessar T* FE 16-35mm F4 ZA OSS has severe corner problems at the 16mm end. To achieve the 16mm focal length on the FE 16-35mm f/4, Zeiss were forced to deploy a double concave lens element on the sensor-side to adequately project the image so as to cover the full surface of the sensor. If the maximum aperture were increased to f/2.8, the corner problems would become even worse. That means we may never see a decently performing 16-35mm f/2.8 E mount zoom lens, and a 12-24mm f/2.8 zoom is even less likely. Even an acceptably high performance full frame 14-24mm f/2.8 lens like the Nikon version is probably impossible to execute acceptably on the E mount. 

 

Sony fanboys will gurgle and froth at the mouth on reading this, but these are mathematical limits dictated entirely by the physics of the mount. It is a functional limit everyone has to accept when you have a full frame mirrorless system based on an APS-C dimension mount. It matters little how upset Sony fanboys get with me for pointing these inconvenient facts out. They can say what they please, but the only way these theoretical limits can be decisively disproven is by Sony producing a high-performance full frame 12-24mm f/2.8 zoom, a 14-24mm f/2.8 zoom, or at the very least, a 16-35mm f/2.8 GM zoom. Sony are welcome to go ahead and prove me wrong. I will be only to pleased if they could overcome this critical hurdle, and since I also shoot on the Sony E mount I will consider buying such a lens. But as you can see I have very good cause to be immensely sceptical.

 

So the Fuji 8-16mm f/2.8 will be an extremely important lens that will showcase what the X-mount is capable of. It will put immense pressure on Sony to show that their rival full frame E mount is a similarly professional grade lens mount. After all what kind of a lens mount would it be if it cannot support the full f/2.8 zoom trinity? It matters not in the slightest if some do not shoot at ultra wide angles. The more critical factor is the proof of concept that a mount is capable of supporting a full range of focal lens for a wide variety of applications. Although the proof is in the eating, the physics of it predicts that it is a challenge the X mount will probably pass, just as the E mount will equally likely fail—and fail dismally.

Or You have to build "telecentric" lenses like Leica does with the new SL system.



#27 webpublius

webpublius

    Newbie

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 4 posts

Posted 14 June 2016 - 06:25 PM

I know the passion for which lens to put out next is often quite high due to the limited number for the Fuji mount, so it follows that this sort of lens could divide everyone into camps.  

 

I would love it but I come from a background in newspaper PJ that was arguably the birth place of both the prime and zoom "holy trinities".***   Most "normal" people also don't carry 2-3 bodies either - one over each shoulder and maybe one around the neck.  Much of that stems from never knowing what your day would bring in the way assignments - so you had to always be carrying wide, normal and tele around.

 

I agree that the wide is not useful for many folks but It is a foundational to the photojournalists tool kit for shooting environmental portraits, action in tight spaces, crowds and for remote camera setups.   Since documentary photojournalism often avoids flash photography when shooting stories - especially the ones that involve intimate access to the subject to tell the story - a fast wide is needed

 

 

The only 2 reasons I have held onto any Canon gear are I still have my EF 20-35 2.8 which even 20 years on - is one of my sharpest lenses. (The other reason is wireless TTL HSS setups.  Fuji needs to get its act together on the strobes.  It isn't event the "fancy" stuff like HSS - AF assist is something I hear folks wanting improved on the forums.)

 

 

*** There are even a couple of variations for sub-genres like sports.  35mm sports work was mostly the 16-35 wide zoom for remote cameras, to get the team huddle or "hail Mary" in the scrum, the 70/80-200 and a  300/400/600.   But the fast ultra-wide always stayed on one of your 3 bodies.


Edited by webpublius, 14 June 2016 - 06:26 PM.

  • meloaku likes this

#28 Sator-Photography

Sator-Photography

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 94 posts

Posted 05 August 2016 - 02:17 AM

Well...well...it is now rumoured that Sony might release a 16-35mm f/2.8 zoom lens for the E mount after all. It will be interesting to see how it performs. Moreover, where is Fuji? What has happened to the 8-16mm f/2.8 zoom? I hope Fuji manage to complete their f/2.8 zoom trilogy soon.



#29 mdm

mdm

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 321 posts

Posted 05 August 2016 - 08:32 AM

Moreover, where is Fuji?

 

Fuji's hiding under the snag.



#30 Sator-Photography

Sator-Photography

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 94 posts

Posted 19 August 2016 - 03:46 PM

Rumour has it that Sony are soon going to release their 16-35mm f/2.8 thus completing their f/2.8 zoom trinity to complement their f/4 zoom trinity.

 

BUT where have Fuji gone? They are nowhere to be seen. It looks like they are going to be caught napping as Sony completes the zoom trinity before they do. 

 

Time to wake up and do something about it...quick pronto.



#31 johant

johant

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 566 posts

Posted 19 August 2016 - 04:03 PM



BUT where have Fuji gone? They are nowhere to be seen. It looks like they are going to be caught napping as Sony completes the zoom trinity before they do.

Time to wake up and do something about it...quick pronto.


Would there be enough interest to justify the development cost?

#32 erwiurewurwehu

erwiurewurwehu

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 154 posts

Posted 19 August 2016 - 04:25 PM

Would there be enough interest to justify the development cost?

I wouldn't mind something like the Tokina 11-16 2.8.



#33 darknj

darknj

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 764 posts
  • LocationBelgium

Posted 23 August 2016 - 08:47 AM

[...]

BUT where have Fuji gone? They are nowhere to be seen. It looks like they are going to be caught napping as Sony completes the zoom trinity before they do. 

 

Time to wake up and do something about it...quick pronto.

 

First of all, it's a rumor. By definition that means it is really not certain that they are going to release anything or if they are even working on it.

 

Second point, lens development takes a long time, the rumors of that 23mm F2 have been around for almost a year now, and we very recently got some glimpse of it.

 

That lens rumor start in June, that's not even a quarterly yet. There is no way they would have a finished product yet, at best, they might have a prototype and could be moving into field testing within the next quarterly or maybe early Q1 next year.

 

Long story short, take some patience and wait for it. Fuji has to release a fully fleshed out triumvirate of F2.8 "pro" lenses and they are aware of it. There are no need to rush for it as alternatives exist, even native from Fuji.


  • johant likes this

#34 lauriebrett

lauriebrett

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 20 posts
  • LocationEast Lothian, Scotland, UK

Posted 10 September 2016 - 01:59 PM

Would rather see a "budget" UWA lens to go with the 18-55 f/2.8-f/4  :)
Maybe something like 10-18 f/4

Amen to that. Or a nice compact ultra wide non-fish eye, 8 to 10mm. To go with my lovely XF14mm.

#35 Sator-Photography

Sator-Photography

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 94 posts

Posted 11 September 2016 - 02:49 PM

It is important that Fuji demonstrate that the X system is even capable of supporting a full f/2.8 zoom "trinity". What sort of a mount would it be if it couldn't support the full focal range for every application? 

 

The trouble is that it is known that mirrorless ultra wides are difficult to design, and it is terra incognito for optical engineers. SLR ultra wides are derivatives of old designs, but engineers are breaking new ground with mirrorless ultra wides. That means it will take longer, but it is simply logical that Fuji need to fill out its lens range by offering the full fast zoom trinity. In that sense it is hardly mere rumour and speculation that at some point Fuji will manage to come up with a satisfactory optical formula for an ultra wide fast zoom. 



#36 MSW

MSW

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 93 posts

Posted 17 September 2016 - 05:39 AM

Their premium zoom trinity is about to be complete!

8-16 f/2.8
16-55 f/2.8
50-140 f/2.8

But add OIS to the 16-55



#37 deva

deva

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 268 posts

Posted 19 September 2016 - 05:29 PM

and also add OIS to the 8-16

 

for video!


  • Jan Safranek likes this

#38 MSW

MSW

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 93 posts

Posted 25 September 2016 - 05:20 AM

As long as 8mm is rectilinear, I'm all for it.  Ultra wide is an acquired taste any it takes time to figure out what subject matter it works best with.  Also, it the max focal length were 18mm that might be a little nicer since that i one use a lot. (selfish me!)



#39 lauriebrett

lauriebrett

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 20 posts
  • LocationEast Lothian, Scotland, UK

Posted 27 September 2016 - 06:39 PM

I'd prefer a fixed 8 or 10mm with proper depth of field scale, since I have (and love) the 14mm. I suspect the two would weigh less than the 8-16mm f2.8 if it has OIS.

#40 afidmo

afidmo

    Newbie

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 2 posts

Posted 10 November 2016 - 06:36 PM

Please please please make it 8-16mm f/2.8 WR and most importantly compact. Not like as compact as 35mm f/2.0 WR because that's pretty impossible but just compact enough so we can walkaround with it.

 

Just imagine all the possibilities with a 8-16mm lens :) :)


  • herby likes this


 
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