Your X Lens wishlist

[KwyjiboVanDeKamp]

I'd like to see smaller lenses! Size and weight was one of the main reasons to switch to Fuji.

 

Totally agree with you!!!! Plus the huge IQ!

 

I would love to see an interchangeable version of X100's 23 mil.

Referring to Voigtländer lenses Fuji maybe should think about some ultra compact only MF lenses for small money.

 

I also want to purchase the 16mm F1.4. Seems to be a great lens.

[citral]

Yeah, obviously fuji don't want to hurt the X100 line otherwise they'd have released a small 23mm instead of 2 wides, 2 macros etc. It's quite annoying but I understand their strategy. OTOH one can have now an X100S for the price of the 23 f/1.4, it's silent, compact and unobtrusive and makes an excellent backup so it's not all that bad.

[Antoine B]

I could kill for the the 10-24 in f/2.8 version. 

 

 

 

Hell yes! with WR and marked aperture ring, that would be a fabulous lens.

 

Other than that, I think I could live happily ever after with the 35mm f1.4, 56mm and maybe the 18-135 for when I need a swiss knife.

[Tankerman]

I've pre-ordered the 90 mm f2, first time I've pre-ordered anything, my dream lens is now an updated 56 f1.2 with a linear motor and weather sealing to go with it.

[Maurice]

Totally agree with you!!!! Plus the huge IQ!

 

I would love to see an interchangeable version of X100's 23 mil.

Referring to Voigtländer lenses Fuji maybe should think about some ultra compact only MF lenses for small money.

 

I also want to purchase the 16mm F1.4. Seems to be a great lens.

 

Amazing, are these all the contradictions you could fit in one post?

[franco62]

My wishlist:

16 1.4 wr (don't like 67 mm. thread )

120 macro (i like 62 mm. Thread)

100-400 ( and so i will say goodbye to my 80-400 nikon)

[BenT]

100-400

[KwyjiboVanDeKamp]

Amazing, are these all the contradictions you could fit in one post?

 

No contradictions! I would call it no other choice! I know that the 16mm isn't compact (even bigger than the 23mm). But there is no smaller alternative. I like to shoot wide and in low light (concerts). If there was a more compact (e.g. only MF w/o WR) alternative I would pick it!!!

[matmcdermott]

Above everything else I'd like a 23/2.0 built to the same size as the planned 35/2.0 WR. A 16/2.8 or /3.4 appropriately scaled down in size from the 16/1.4 would be great too. The /1.4 lenses are great optically but I'd very very happily trade a bit of light gathering ability for smaller lenses. Especially with the size reduction in the X-T10 the proportion of lens to body in the X series is getting out of balance IMO. 

[citral]

Above everything else I'd like a 23/2.0 built to the same size as the planned 35/2.0 WR. A 16/2.8 or /3.4 appropriately scaled down in size from the 16/1.4 would be great too. The /1.4 lenses are great optically but I'd very very happily trade a bit of light gathering ability for smaller lenses. Especially with the size reduction in the X-T10 the proportion of lens to body in the X series is getting out of balance IMO. 

 

This, and also because it's not a problem on this bodies to push a bit the iso to make up for it. Can even be desirable, for street photography, the grain at 1600 is really nice.

[Maurice]

No contradictions! I would call it no other choice! I know that the 16mm isn't compact (even bigger than the 23mm). But there is no smaller alternative. I like to shoot wide and in low light (concerts). If there was a more compact (e.g. only MF w/o WR) alternative I would pick it!!!

 

I agree with you man, but you want it all and you want it 'for small money'. It doesn't work like that. Most of the voigtlanders are terrible on digital, not nearly the 'huge IQ' that Fujinons are known for, they will need to be bigger, optically corrected. Then by 'removing' the AF motor it won't be ANY less expensive, in fact it's probably the opposite. A modern damped and smooth manual focus system is probably more expensive than a common focus motor, and everything would of course be in much smaller quantities than the 'regular' Fujinons, also adding costs. Believe me i wish they would like Zeiss did with the LOXIA line, but we have to stay realistic and prepare for some big money instead, and no 'ultra compact' either. Don't want to say it's not going to happen, although it probably isn't, it's just a matter of enough people asking for it really.

[KwyjiboVanDeKamp]

O.K. Maurice, many interesting thoughts you shared. But Fuji has shown/will show that it's possible to make compact lenses. I love the 27mm and the 18mm (and they are not expensive compared to other Fuji lenses). The 35mm F2.0 seems to be compact too. I know that many people don't like the 27mm and the 18mm. But if there were two lines of lenses (one "big" fast and one compact less fast lens) people can choose by their own.

[waggles]

"Real lens": 100-400 assuming the autofocus evolves to be competitive with Canon 7d for sports and wildlife.

" Hypothetical lens": 16-70 f4, WR, OIS similar weight and equal image quality to the 18-55 f2.8-4 OIS

[Maurice]

I know that many people don't like the 27mm and the 18mm.

 

Who doesn't like the 27mm ? It is an awesome little thing.

 

And sure, some day in the distant future i could see a compact 16/2.8 happening. But probably wouldn't be much or any smaller than the 14/2.8.

Wide angles on digital are problematic, and the 27 or 35mm are not wide, they are 'normal' lenses.

[Curiojo]

Excellent IQ on a smaller and lighter equipment was the reason to switch to X Series (+ shooting handling, simplicity and good looking RF shape) but when it refers to lenses… 

 

I share the same enthusiasm of Fuji users, I'm very pleased with mine because I can carry it everywhere and go unnoticed even when I snap to family and kids.

 

I'd like lenses be delivered in 2 differentiated lines… bulky-shaped fast lenses (for those who needs/wants them) - existing already and planned to come… and the following of the original XF lens series (small, light and well suited to RF shaped cameras), just like:

 

- 14 or 16 f/4 (lansdscape or interior are intended to use tripod and have some time for preparing the shot)

- 21 or 23 f/2 (ideally 23 but there is X100 line  )

- 27 f/2 (current pancake is superb, but a faster lil'_bit brother would be nicer)

- 33 f/2 (we're using APS-C, and I'd like to be close to 50 equiv. than 53)

- 55 or 60 f/2 (no macro no shallow DOF… in this length there always be bokeh)

- 90 f/2.5 or 2.8 (newly introduced f/2 is really bulky)

- Something between 130 - 180 f/2 to 3.5 (no bulkier than current 90 f/2 is)

- 200 f/4

 

Great IQ on lenses is part of Fuji brand quality. Today we have 2 lines of camera shape, then why not have respective approach to lenses size for each line.

 

Just a thought.- 

[Danny]

I would love the 100-400 for when I take my kids to the playground. 

I'm eagerly awaiting the new 35 f2 in hopes that the 35 1.4 will go down in price so i can one day pick it up used for a real bargain  . 

I'm perfectly happy with the size of all of the current Fuji lenses and personally hope that future lenses stay as large as necessary (I don't mean make them big for no reason) so there is no compromise at all on performance/aperture. I feel like a lot of the decisions Fuji has made on their current lens lineup has to do with absolutely no compromise as far as quality goes even if it means people are upset with the size/weight. I think they chose wisely as there are tons of smaller and inferior products on the market and I have no desire to switch systems right now with the results I'm getting. 

 

As far as the camera itself goes, the XT1 is a pleasure to use and I'm hoping that June's firmware upgrade will really take it up to that next level. I hope future cameras fix the problems with video and I wouldn't mind some class leading in body stabilization so that I could finally toss out my old camcorder.  

 

I'm still waiting for the XF12-600mm F1.2 R WR but i'm guessing that will be on the 2017 lineup? 

[Maurice]

Indeed indeed.

 

But Danny dude, why on earth would a 35/2 make the 35/1.4 price go DOWN?

[Loulitch]

16mm f1.4

 

56mm f1.2

 

90mm f2

[Danny]

Maurice, Why on earth would people that have the 35 F1.4 want the 35 F2? I wouldn't, you sound like a reasonable enough dude that you wouldn't.. but people do... If the new lens is smaller (people go nuts over smaller) and if the AF is faster.. I think it will cause at least some people to sell their clunkier and chunkier 35 1.4.. Once there are more on the used market, price should go down at least a little (Insert supply/demand formula here).... Of course, I could be wrong..  and if i'm wrong that's okay too because the Fuji lenses I have are so good, I can live without another lens for a long long long time 

[citral]

Maurice, Why on earth would people that have the 35 F1.4 want the 35 F2?

 

Because one that wants to work only or mostly with a 35, could like to keep that 1.4 for interiors, good weather but low light, or generally because that lens has a special character that is somewhat unique, and still want the F2 for when he goes to the beach, in the rain, a festival where beer might get thrown at it, you name it?

[Danny]

Show of hands, how many people out there have already or are planning on investing in 2 equal focal length primes for the same system even if they are not identical in features?

[stefkaz]

Above everything else I'd like a 23/2.0 built to the same size as the planned 35/2.0 WR. A 16/2.8 or /3.4 appropriately scaled down in size from the 16/1.4 would be great too. The /1.4 lenses are great optically but I'd very very happily trade a bit of light gathering ability for smaller lenses. Especially with the size reduction in the X-T10 the proportion of lens to body in the X series is getting out of balance IMO. 

 

This, and also because it's not a problem on this bodies to push a bit the iso to make up for it. Can even be desirable, for street photography, the grain at 1600 is really nice.

That comes quite close to my idea !

The 35/F2 WR looks promising (I´ll end up having two 35s as I alraedy own the XF35/1,4- a Leica way of getting happier)

and if I could wish for somethingit would be

 

 - a XF70mmF2 (in a nice and clean shape with super IQ) along the lines of my Nikkor 2,5/105 AI that I still traesure

 

Come on, make it happen !

[citral]

Show of hands, how many people out there have already or are planning on investing in 2 equal focal length primes for the same system even if they are not identical in features?

 

I'm not saying many will want. I'm saying some will want. Like somebody could imagine keeping forever their X-E1 + 35mm f/1.4 (not so long ago people kept their Leica 30 years you know) because it's a stunning combo image-quality wise with character and great ooc jpegs, but would also like a weather-sealed X-E + 35mm f/2 wr to get dirty. Same focale, not the same use.

 

People are so narrow-minded these days, it seems like their priority is to cover everything from 10 to 400mm, and then what else will they need to make good pictures?

[flysurfer]

I'll happily use the 35mmF2. 

[Danny]

I'm sure the 35 f2 will be a fantastic lens. I don't believe that there are enough differences between the two lenses to justify both. If you need WR then get the one that has WR. F1.4 vs F2 is not an argument. Both should be perfectly usable in low light interior situations.

 

For those of you who like to hang on to every piece of gear for decades, no one is stopping you. Nothing wrong with collecting if it's your thing... I'm sure its tons of fun. It's not my thing, I like to trade up whenever possible if necessary.

 

I do believe that if you can capture fantastic photos with a camera today, as long as its functional in 30 years, it'll also be great but if it makes sense for whatever reason to trade up, then do so. 

 

I don't find it narrow minded to shoot with a wide selection of focal lengths... (narrow/wide... c'mon, the words are even opposites) you can have your favorite if you want, that's fine. You can shoot with only one if you want, that's fine... I'm not judging you... do your thing and make beautiful photos.