Max_Elmar

True what you say. By keeping the feedback OVF completely mechanical and away from the main and PDAF processors, spinneyhorse don't have to go through the staggered and lagging feedback of the currently available evf tech when he shoots while zooming.
 
I'm eagerly waiting for the day when Fujifilm plonks in a 2nd processor just to take care of focusing and AF chores.
 
X-Pro3, Dual X-Processor Pro Engines! 8k video with 120hz slo mo ability! Even from a marketing point of view, it rocks.

Actually, there is a TON of data processing going on in a DSLR, but much of the data is coming from a (comparatively) huge, dedicated PDAF sensor array (not a few masked pixels on an imaging sensor). This combination is exceptionally good at reading and even anticipating subject movement but not quite as good as "mirrorless" CD systems focus accuracy and repeatability. The two systems will eventually converge (some convergence has already happened) but I suspect the camera with a dedicated PDAF sensor will always have the upper hand for random movement. That's provided that all the mechanical systems that are in a DSLR are in perfect alignment - but of course they rarely are! (Well, less often than one might think!)

As a someone who owns (and uses) a lot of old lenses, I see his points. I agree with the the author for certain types of photography, but sports/action, landscape, and architectural photographers have different priorities than what's presented here. Given the small, highly-compressed jpeg examples, I couldn't really see what he was talking about. There is some obvious cherry picking going on in selecting the examples - it's obvious the author isn't really moved to make or find a good photo with the modern lenses - they're just quick "example" snapshots.
 
Again - I think I agree with the author - but I don't find the article very convincing. "You simply cannot cheat the diagram." Ha. I guess that would be true if the diagram was based on numbers. But the diagrams are just impressive-looking stand-ins for actual data. The diagrams are a symptom of the inability to express the idea using words and photographs.
 
If the author reads this, please don't take my comments as disrespect. A good bit of work went into this and I respect that.

Still happy with the three original lenses: 18/2, 35/1.4, and 60/2.4 - even though I have expanded my lens set, I use these the most. They fit in my smallest bag with a body! They are all still excellent lenses, even the 18/2 which some people seem to think is "not as good as the zoom" - I strongly disagree - esp. @ f2.8.
 
That being said - I often use my 18-55 zoom for the OIS and convenience when traveling. When I do that I take a Rokinon 12/2 and an ancient (1968) Nikkor-H 85/1.8 w/adapter which fit in the bag (by themselves). Both of these lenses excel in the way that I use them.
 
I certainly could see myself using a 14/2.8, 23/1.4, and 56/1.2 combo, but that will have to wait.
 
If sports and/or action, BIF photography are on the schedule, the Fuji bag gets left home for my Nikons. Sorry about that, but I still believe high-performance DSLRs (and the exotic primes that I can rent as needed) are better tools for those jobs.

Honestly - I would prefer an aperture ring - but if it really were as small as the 27 - I could certainly learn to live without it. Either way - still a strong "buy."

We can debate all day long about that point, but I do get your need for an aperture ring. I personally prefer something as low profile as possible as it is easier to fit in a coat pocket or the side pocket of a bag.

Perhaps not quite as small as the 27/2.8 -- but 18/2 size would be just fine for me. (I really want an aperture ring!)

Yes! If it had the same relationship to the "big" 23 as the 35/2 has to the 35/1.4 - that would be a fantastic development. I would most likely buy one. The 23/1.4 is outstanding - but a "little brother" - smaller, slower, less expensive, more even performance, but less peak performance - that would be a very welcome development indeed. A lot of folks have told me it would never happen "because it would cannibalize the X100 series" - but hopefully Fuji has realized the differentiator for the X100 is the viewfinder, not the lens.

There is also the very good Super Takumar Macro 50mm F4, also nicknamed 'lil wonder. A lot more pricier but still below anything on the XF lineup

I will "third" that excellent advice. Forget about "equivalence." It's an illusion.
 
Use the format. Learn the format.
 
I laugh when people call 24x36 "full frame." I learned on Medium Format and I never really accepted 135 as the quality choice. Newspapers? Sure - convenience and portability win in that environment. But for quality film work - even MF is a compromise. "Full frame" is 8 inches by 10 inches. 300mm is a "normal lens." 

I will "third" that excellent advice. Forget about "equivalence." It's an illusion.
 
Use the format. Learn the format.
 
I laugh when people call 24x36 "full frame." I learned on Medium Format and I never really accepted 135 as the quality choice. Newspapers? Sure - convenience and portability win in that environment. But for quality film work - even MF is a compromise. "Full frame" is 8 inches by 10 inches. 300mm is a "normal lens." 

A new camera from Fuji, eh? 
 
Who said it's a mirrorless? TLR? Dashcam! Webcam?… Light field camera? Panoramic camera! Monorail? Uh… A stereo camera? ???

The OP would be much better served by thinking more about what kind of photography they want to do rather than what bit of gear "upgrade" they should buy next. 

Just a silhouette. X-T1, XF56mm, Velvia simulation.

Night Shot at Shuttleworth
 
 

View from Hotel Glymur in Saurbaer, Iceland

 

Here is one of my recent favs. X-T1 + Rokinon 12mm f/2
 

and it is not even very expensive! That kit is a Kenko 39mm Max PL Kit and costs a very reasonable $29, which, seen the dandy effect of it all, is as cheap as inexpensive fried potatoes!

Review with actual measurements at Lenstip is out: http://www.lenstip.com/456.1-Lens_review-Fujifilm_Fujinon_XF_35_mm_f_2_R_WR_Introduction.html
 
VERY impressive on the edges @ 2.0 - best @ 2.0, as a matter of fact! Very "Summicron" like to the 35/1.4 "Summilux" - as I had hoped. Shoot the 2.0 for resolution and clinical accuracy and shoot the 1.4 for "character" - well done, Fuji!

Hopefully, the new 35/2 will relate to the 35/1.4 like the Summicron is to the Summilux. More even performance across the frame and a slightly higher resolution in the center. Quieter, faster AF would help. At a slightly lower price it will sell very well even next to the 35/1.4 - some folks will opt for the speed, some for the small size and resolution. But I probably wouldn't sell my 35/1.4 to get the new lens. I don't think the WR is that big of a deal. Without an IPX rating, it's just marketing. It's good to have, but for goodness sakes don't rely on it.

Everyone is all excited about the WR of this and other Fuji lens.  Quite frankly, I don't know if it is that critical.  I've used my 18-55 in rain and sleet; I've had it out in the elements since I purchased in back in February 2013.   I just returned from a 10 day trip where I was in Rain, sun, thunder, saltwater and sand. I used the 18-55, 55-200, and the Zeiss12mm.  My second most used lens was the 16 1.4 but that is WR.  The 18-55 was responsible for over 3,000 images alone and it survived.  The "ONLY" thing the WR designation would have done for me is to make me feel more at ease.  That's it.  
You know, back "in the day" we didn't have WR lenses.  We used our gear to make images, not to be coddled or displayed on  a shelf at  home or to post gear selfies online.  I lived in Alaska for four years and shot in rain, sleet and snow with all my Minolta gear.  Never had a problem.   If the lens did not survive so be it;  I would not go back to that brand again. Period.  My 18-55 was used to shoot for fun a water pistol fight.  My grandson literally pointed this water canon at me and sprayed me and the lens with a full load of water.  The 18-55 still works.  just fine.  Though I did see where water seeped in between the lens and the bod flange.  I had to physically dry it with a towel.  That's all that happened.  And I'm talking a water canon that held probably more water than you will see short of a monsoon.
That's my story and I'm sticking to it.  
In a couple of days I'm headed out to shoot up on the Maine coast.  Wet, cold, drizzly weather.  I'm looking forward to it.  

Hopefully, it will the perfect lens for a WR body we haven't seen yet. The narrower front would be perfect (well, better) for a hybrid OVF/EVF. But I don't see me selling off the 35/1.4 to get one for my X-E2.

X-Pro2 needs a third OVF magnification ratio! Currently X-Pro1 has x.3 for wides, x.6 for normals - Fuji - please give us a 1:1 option for the 60 and 90, like the great Japanese RFs of yore! (Nikon S2, S3, S4, SP, and Canon P all have 1:1 finders!) That would be amazing.

It's broken. Send it back. A good 18 only looks "bad" compared to the 14 or the 23.

I work in an environment where this can be a real problem. My form has always been to use plain language on first mention, then go to the acronym on subsequent mentions. Unless it really is a very common acronym. Clarity and brevity are both important.