frod

Del

Well iirc light gathering stops at f/1.1
So you're really just buying insane shallow dof at enormous quality cost. The tradeoff of bad performance just never seems worth it for me.

Mostly all I would change (assuming the usual internal upgrades to match the sensor etc. to whatever the current standard is) would be to add some kind of thumb rest that didn't mean I had to take up the hotshoe.

Yeah, if you only shoot Fuji or mostly Fuji, I'd forget about equivalence and just use the numbers in front of you. Just imagine every supposed stop you 'lose' in terms of kilograms saved :-)

An L-bracket grip caters to heavy lens users better than the battery grip.  
I also think you'd probably find more mad enthusiasts than actual pros using those heavy lenses anyway.
 
X-Pro2 needs to be WR, get a bigger buffer and faster processing.

@Jürgen Heger: You know... the thing is:
Nosegunner came here, boldly stating things that were clearly wrong. That the XF 23mm F/1.4 R was optically bad and slow focusing (which he revoked already), and that a lens like the 23 F/1.4 could be built smaller without compromising image quality, which is just wrong. Making it smaller or lighter will increase vignetting, distortion, abberations or astigmatism. Or the maximum aperture needs to be decreased.
The first answers he received were informative and friendly (not mine), informing him about the lens in question and his misinformation. But as he got more and more agressive and stubborn about the lens being too big and fujifilm needing to make a smaller one no matter what, so were the answers from the community.
 
And then came you, attacking everyone on a personal level by writing stuff like "Never criticise in a Fuji forum anything that Fuji does", implying that everyone here is unobjective and just wants to silence critique. Just look around the forum, it's full of critique and suggestions for improvement! And here you are again, calling this a "bashing of Fuji critics". It's not what this is about. Had the OP started a thread themed "Who wants a little 23/2 to accompany the 35/2", the response would have certainly been different.
 
 
On a side note:
 

I guess we can agree that there is use for higher resolution sensors in different kinds of photography ("street" may not be one of them), like huge prints of product shots or my favorite: cropping. And if I'd buy a camera with higher resolution, I'd want my images to be sharp at pixel level (and thus have to adapt my shooting style), because if I would not, I'd not need the extra resolution...

That's the part that makes me smile. Doesn't like the 27 or 18 but wants a 23 the same size with better quality.

Don't get me wrong, I'm all for options; smaller versions of every focal length would be nice to have... but you're vilifying a great lens here based on stuff you read in some blogs because it doesn't match requirements you've specified that it was never designed to address.

Yeah, if you only shoot Fuji or mostly Fuji, I'd forget about equivalence and just use the numbers in front of you. Just imagine every supposed stop you 'lose' in terms of kilograms saved :-)

That lens cap lens is on sale in Japan and available on eBay. It's called the XM-FL.

I expect that fuji aren't rushing to make longer focal lengths simply because they don't yet have the AF performance that is implicitly required for these lenses.
 
Above all Fujis priority has been on the whole system and not just ticking boxes and I think that's why they've got a lot of goodwill from experienced enthusiasts.
 
I can envision the day a few years from now where they finally have the processing power to create a good 'birder' camera that also has a very large buffer and ridiculously high fps rate. On that day I imagine we'd also see at least a couple of long, fast lenses release as well.

but when someone's nose and ears are out of focus because you've focused on the eyes it just looks awful.

Yes 23mm with a priority on small size would be an instant impulse purchase for me. I just wonder if their reticence is deliberate so as not to cut into x100 sales.

I just put my x-e2 on manual focus and just press the AF-L button to focus.

~40mm equiv. is the actual 'normal'.
 
http://theonlinephotographer.typepad.com/the_online_photographer/why-40mm.html

I guess it would be nice if they did a WR version of everything, but I'd imagine getting the imminent new flagship rangefinder x-pro2 a normal prime at launch is a higher priority for obvious reasons.

For me the 56mm and 90mm replaced it in the 'great' category. I'm not denying it's a great macro lens, but if you already have the 27mm then you have a much cheaper option in the extenders.

Mine was a bit of a and b, I don't treat my 50-140 any differently to my other lenses but I've always stored longer lenses vertically.

Nissin i40?