Your X Lens wishlist

[A.R.]

I would like to see something like a XF12-18mm f2.8-4 WR to complete the fuji kit: 18-55-200 focal range. I find the 10-24 to big, heavy and expensive for not being f2.8 or WR it´s a lens in no man´s land.

 

 

My whislist would be that 12-18 + 18-55 for general use. Maybe in the future I would end buying some primes XF23mm, XF35mm, XF56mm, XF120 macro...

[Snzkgb]

If we are talking about existing lenses, than I'd call

Zeiss 12 and 32; Fujinon 14, 16, 23, 35, 56 and 90.

As for what I'd like to see from Fuji (or Zeiss):

35/1.2 or faster, 90/1.4 or faster, 140/2 or faster.

[Tom]

I would love to get a 40mm pancake. 2.0-2.8 would be fine. The XF27 and the X-Pro1 are a great combination on the street. But sometimes I wish to be a little bit closer.

[cug]

I'd like to see 16 f/2, 23 f/2, 35 f/2 - all WR, fast AF, small size with non-petal-shaped lens hoods. As much as I love the fast lenses, they are just too big (or not WR). 

[quincy]

I've put a lot of thought into what would be the perfect lens collection for me. Below you can see an optical representation of the results of my thought process, followed by an explanation:

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

The base setup I already have is the XF 18-55 together with the XF 55-200. Those two light, compact lenses cover a huge focal length range from medium wide angle to telephoto with an acceptable aperture range from f/2.8 to f/4.8 and great optical quality as well as optical stabilization. They are somewhat the middle way between the bigger fixed aperture zooms and the cheaper but slower XC zooms and the WR travel zoom.

I’ve recently added the Samyang 12mm 2.0 to my collection to expand a bit into wide angle territory. It’s light, has a fast aperture and fits well with the other two lenses, complementing their strengths. This was actually a race between the Samyang 12 2.0, the XF 16 1.4 and the XF 23 1.4. I bought the Samyang first because it gives me the widest view, is not only good for landscapes but also for astro photography, and thus adds most to my setup. But the other two will follow eventually. I’d like to have a WR version of the 23 1.4 and might wait until Fuji releases one. The other wide angle lenses are mostly not for me. The other Samyang wide angle primes are huge because they need to work with (FF) DSLRs too. The Zeiss 12 2.8 is expensive, the XF 14 2.8 is too close to the Samyang 12 2.0. The XF 18 2.0 is optically not quite what I want, and too close to the XF 18-55. The upcoming Samyang 21 1.4 is nice, but too close to the XF 23 1.4. And the XF 10-24 is too slow for astrophotography, and I think that I would not use a wide angle zoom in the right way.

On the other side of the focal length spectrum, regarding prime lenses, the upcoming XF 120 Macro will be my choice. After seeing what Fuji did with the XF 90, I don’t think anything can go wrong with the 120.

One must have will be the XF 100-400 as soon as it is available. The XF 55-200 is really great, but for what I do, I often wish I had more reach to be able to take pictures of shy wildlife. Now, I often don’t take those pictures, because I don’t want to disturb them.

The 1.4x teleconverter might be interesting too, but I haven’t made up my mind on that one so far. I guess I’ll buy it after I got the XF 100-400 and realize that it is too short as well.

I’d like to have the XF 27mm F2.8 for its compactness, but right now I can’t justify to buy a lens only for this reason.

My absolute dream lens, and the lens I’d choose if I only could have one lens, would be the XF 56mm F1.2 R APD. But as I know I would not use it much, I just can’t justify buying it, very similar to the 27.

What I’m not sure about is if I will sell the 18-55 and the 55-200 when I have the other lenses. They are somewhat redundant, but to be able to fall back to this super compact and versatile kit for those days when I just want to grab a camera and go out not really knowing what to expect is very tempting.

[CRAusmus]

I've put a lot of thought into what would be the perfect lens collection for me. Below you can see an optical representation of the results of my thought process, followed by an explanation:

 

X-Mount_2015_10_03_me.png

 

The base setup I already have is the XF 18-55 together with the XF 55-200. Those two light, compact lenses cover a huge focal length range from medium wide angle to telephoto with an acceptable aperture range from f/2.8 to f/4.8 and great optical quality as well as optical stabilization. They are somewhat the middle way between the bigger fixed aperture zooms and the cheaper but slower XC zooms and the WR travel zoom.

 

I’ve recently added the Samyang 12mm 2.0 to my collection to expand a bit into wide angle territory. It’s light, has a fast aperture and fits well with the other two lenses, complementing their strengths. This was actually a race between the Samyang 12 2.0, the XF 16 1.4 and the XF 23 1.4. I bought the Samyang first because it gives me the widest view, is not only good for landscapes but also for astro photography, and thus adds most to my setup. But the other two will follow eventually. I’d like to have a WR version of the 23 1.4 and might wait until Fuji releases one. The other wide angle lenses are mostly not for me. The other Samyang wide angle primes are huge because they need to work with (FF) DSLRs too. The Zeiss 12 2.8 is expensive, the XF 14 2.8 is too close to the Samyang 12 2.0. The XF 18 2.0 is optically not quite what I want, and too close to the XF 18-55. The upcoming Samyang 21 1.4 is nice, but too close to the XF 23 1.4. And the XF 10-24 is too slow for astrophotography, and I think that I would not use a wide angle zoom in the right way.

 

On the other side of the focal length spectrum, regarding prime lenses, the upcoming XF 120 Macro will be my choice. After seeing what Fuji did with the XF 90, I don’t think anything can go wrong with the 120.

 

One must have will be the XF 100-400 as soon as it is available. The XF 55-200 is really great, but for what I do, I often wish I had more reach to be able to take pictures of shy wildlife. Now, I often don’t take those pictures, because I don’t want to disturb them.

 

The 1.4x teleconverter might be interesting too, but I haven’t made up my mind on that one so far. I guess I’ll buy it after I got the XF 100-400 and realize that it is too short as well.

 

I’d like to have the XF 27mm F2.8 for its compactness, but right now I can’t justify to buy a lens only for this reason.

 

My absolute dream lens, and the lens I’d choose if I only could have one lens, would be the XF 56mm F1.2 R APD. But as I know I would not use it much, I just can’t justify buying it, very similar to the 27.

 

What I’m not sure about is if I will sell the 18-55 and the 55-200 when I have the other lenses. They are somewhat redundant, but to be able to fall back to this super compact and versatile kit for those days when I just want to grab a camera and go out not really knowing what to expect is very tempting.

 

You might consider, instead of the 56 ƒ1.2, the 60mm ƒ2.4.  Macro lenses usually make wonderful portrait lenses.  I've more recently realized that I can probably slide the 60mm in to my lineup and nix the 56 for now.  Saving enough money to probably tack on another lens as the 60 is almost half the price of the 56, and more than half of the APD.  If I make this decision I could probably add two lenses this christmas, or the 60 and an X100s (which is what I really want to take up my 35mm slot in my kit).  The 16, is positively wonderful though and it is a lens I desperately want in my kit for sure.  Very zippy and incredibly sharp.

 

Any who...

 

Just a thought.  I can see you have clearly put a lot of effort into your research, but you might not have considered the 60, and if you wanted it portraiture, the speed of the 60 is plenty fast.  It's my thought process anyway.

 

[frod]

I'm pretty happy with my set of 8mm FE 12mm 18mm 27mm primes and the f/2.8 zooms. I guess the 100-400 and TC are the obvious choices. Does the upcoming macro have OIS?

 

edit: looks like it does, plus a focus distance limit switch. So that's a significant possibility as well.

[Tikcus]

I'm probably going to buy either the 60mm F2.4 or the 56mm F2.4 (if I can get a good deal)

 

Ideally i'd love

 

100-400

 

However if the 100-400 is much more than £1000 I'd never be able to justify it

[gonenorth]

A tilt/shift 14mm and a tilt/shift 30mm would be great. 

[quincy]

You might consider, instead of the 56 ƒ1.2, the 60mm ƒ2.4.

I'm sure the 60 is a great lens, especially for portraiture. And I think it might be even a bit better at focusing, considering the Fuji bodies are not capable of phase detection autofocus with the 56 APD. But as I said, it would not get much use, and thus I could not justify buying the 60 either. It's just that i want the 56 APD because it's so unique and interesting.

[nibbler]

Would really like a series of small primes like the summarits. The 35 f2 is a good start. Now make a 75 f3.5 and a 20 f4

[Sluw]

Would really like a series of small primes like the summarits. The 35 f2 is a good start. Now make a 75 f3.5 and a 20 f4

Except the 35mm f/2.0 doesn't look smaller on the released pictures, only in diameter in the front.

 

But I agree with you, smaller f/2.0 primes. Like 23mm and 50mm (or 56)

[X-Pert]

On my list:

 

56mm f1,2 R

and a fast ultra-wide zoom like the tokina 11-16mm f2.8 that i had on my EOS 7D

[Tom H.]

I'm sure the 60 is a great lens, especially for portraiture. And I think it might be even a bit better at focusing, considering the Fuji bodies are not capable of phase detection autofocus with the 56 APD. But as I said, it would not get much use, and thus I could not justify buying the 60 either. It's just that i want the 56 APD because it's so unique and interesting.

 

I have the APD. It's brilliant. Focus is alright on the X-T1, I mainly use single autofocus for slow subjects or street. The bokeh is to die for

[quincy]

I know, I've seen your photos. They are partly responsible for my irrational wish to own this lens.
Oh, and thank you for your offer! Although I doubt that we will meet anytime soon, I'll gladly accept if I should be near Belgium.

[BJRyu]

Hi

 

I am new to x forum...this is my first comment:)

 

I have

23mm f1.4

10-24,

18-55

and used to have 35 f1.4, which I sold several months ago to replace it with Touit 32mm. I was originally thinking of selling 23.4 due to its size, but I said bye to 35.4, for 23.4 is more versatile.

In my new wish list are Touit 32mm-I haven't got one yet, though- (or 35 f2), 56 f1.2.

[MrThePlague]

Definitely an ultra-wide prime for me (maybe a 10mm), and also a wide angle tilt-shift (something akin to the Canon 17mm TS).

[haroldp]

If Fuji engineers or marketing are listening, a 16-80mm F4 (or 2.8 - 4 ) OIS as a 'tourist' lens would fit my bill perfectly.

Currently have:

 

X-pro1, X-t10, X-e1 with x-pro2 pre ordered.

 

18-55 f2.8-4

55-200 f3.5 - 4.8

35mm f1.4

14 f2.8

10-24 f4

90 f2 (this is the sharpest lens I have ever used, and I have  a full collection of Leica Summicron and Summilux)

56 f1.2

[Woodworth]

I'd like to see a 23mm f2 and a 10mm 2.8 plus a Fuji body that has IBIS for us prime users who love low light work!

[DLS]

Im in the process of divesting in all my Canon gear. 

 

Purchasing the following within the next few weeks.

 

10-24 f4

 

16-55 f2.8

 

50-15 f2.8

 

and the 100 - 400 in a few months.

 

I already have the following:

 

18 f2

 

18-55 f2.8-4

 

23 f1.4

 

35 f1.4

 

56 f1.2

 

Im shooting with the XT-1 and XT-10..

[Warwick]

I'm actually really happy with what I have:

 

16mm f1.4

35mm f2 (just sold the 1.4)

56mm f1.2

 

And an X100T

 

 

 

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[Antonius]

120 mm macro please and maybe 200 f1.2

[danwells]

A simple request would be the 18-55 in a WR version... It's small, decent speed, decent range and excellent image quality. Great backpacking lens on a weathersealed X body!

 

More complex - Fuji has been hinting at a few new lenses, and they'd show different directions.

 

The 33mm (or is it 32mm - doesn't really matter) f1.0 is an obvious lens for Fuji's "rangefinder ethos". It's the legendary Noctilux in an APS-C version. It's almost certainly of interest primarily on X-Pro bodies. Two big questions about it - how much does it cost, and how much of the viewfinder does it block? The Noctilux is actually a tricky lens to compose with on any M body  , because it blocks a good-sized piece of the finder. It is also so expensive that Leica sells VERY few of them (of course, many fewer M bodies are sold annually than X-Pro bodies). By the end of 2016, there will be somewhere in the neighborhood of a couple hundred thousand X-Pro 1 and X-Pro 2    bodies out there. What price can the "Fujilux" sell for if Fuji wants to sell a thousand lenses? Ten thousand lenses (which would be unprecedentedly high for this type of lens)? I think it's likely to be a ~$2000 lens - much more expensive than the Chinese superspeed lenses like the IBELUX, which seem to settle in around $800 despite initial attempts to price them higher, yet 1/5 the price of the Noctilux...

 

I think an 8mm fisheye may be a mistake? There is already a Rokinon in X-mount, and I'm not sure what the critical difference in a Fujinon would be? A fisheye doesn't really need autofocus (depth of field from 3.5 feet to infinity at f8). Yes, the Fujinon would probably be sharper, but the Rokinon is not bad...Would Fuji get many takers at twice the price or more? If they can get it under $500, maybe - but closer to $1000 against a $250 Rokinon, for a lens many people would consider a novelty? I wonder how many lenses Fuji needs to sell to break even on a design (this question applies to the "Fujilux" as well)?  With their largely hand assembly, it may not be that many, since you can have a technician assemble one type of lens one day, then something else the next, unlike a robot.. If the break-even point is low, a fisheye may be worth doing since it's a relatively simple design, and it adds to the completeness of the range.

 

What I'd rather see than a fisheye, unless a fisheye is easy to do, and worth it because "why not", is an 8mm rectilinear lens. A few lenses with that field of view exist (Sigma has an APS-C 8-16 and a full-frame 12-24, and Canon has a full-frame 11-24). Since we have the 10-24, this could easily be a prime at 8 or even 7mm, with a 120 degree or greater field of view.

 

The last lens that gets bandied around is a 200mm. The most "mirrorless" approach is a modestly-sized 200 f2.8, a lens that used to be common until 70-200 zooms became as common, and as good as they are. Now there is no reason for a 200mm f2.8 in most systems - just use the long end of the zoom. Unless it is a REALLY modestly sized lens (probably a Fresnel or diffractive lens), a 200mm f2.8 is not that interesting even in the Fuji system where it has no equivalent. Go half a stop faster, and things start to get interesting, especially with the converters - a 200mm f2.4 is also a 280mm f3.5 and a 400mm f4.8 - all three of which are substantially faster than the 100-400 at the same focal length.

 

If the 200mm were a f2.0 lens, it would be big, heavy and expensive. It would also be a direct challenge to the DSLR duopoly where they live... It's the APS-C equivalent of the famous 300mm f2.8, except that it lets you use a shutter speed one stop faster or an ISO one stop lower for the same field of view and subject isolation. With the converters, it becomes a 280mm f2.8 and a 400mm f4. These are respectable "exotic telephoto" specifications - excellent from a light collection viewpoint, and respectable even for subject isolation, where the 1.5x focal length advantage is balanced by a ~1 stop disadvantage in isolation.

 

No mirrorless manufacturer has dared to build such a lens - one that would try to sell mirrorless as an alternative even for sports and wildlife. As a matter of fact, nobody other than Canon, Nikon or Sigma has designed a new exotic telephoto in years (although Sony and Pentax both sell a few using older designs). I'd love to see Fuji give it a try - I suspect their system performance with the new sensor and processor is up to the challenge.

[Mike K]

Dan,

Some interesting thoughts.
I have some comments, these relate to the Noctilux and 200mm -  300mm f2.8 lens.

Be careful what you wish for   in terms of a "Fuji Noctilux". I’ve owned a Leica Noctilux f0.95 which I used for all of 8 months on my M9 and then sold it.  

Personally I think it's a highly over-rated lens, albeit well built. There was a time where there was an 8 to 12 month waiting list for this lens. Plenty of Leica hype, IMO probably more to do with the challenge of designing and building such a lens rather than its optical quality. Obviously images are soft wide open, subject to vignetting, a great amount of flaring and CA and it's quite bulky on an M body.  

 

For my taste, the bokeh wide open is excessive, resulting in rather artificial / surreal-like images. When stopping down it does sharpen up, but at that point I prefer using the Leica 50mm f1.4 Summilux ASPH.

I'm being rather harsh, but don't take my word for it, have a look at the Noctilux verdict here on the last page of the review; optical quality is given all of 2.5 stars: http://www.photozone.de/leicam/860-noctilux50asph?start=2

Having said that, I've just purchased the Fuji 56mm f1.2 which size-wise, ergonomically is not too different to the Leica Noctilux.
The Fuji 56mm is a really fine lens. I don't think I've seen a sharper lens at f1.2; and at f1.4 IMO it's also superior to my Leica 50mm f1.4 Summilux ASPH.

On the telephoto side, I’m fortunate to own 3 of what are probably among the best tele lenses made in their respective focal lengths:
Carl Zeiss APO 300mm f2.8  -this lens is heavy & rather large.
Leica R APO 280mm f4
Leica R Vario-Elmar 105-280mm f4.2
Have a look here, mounted on my Sony A7r (please excuse the lousy old iPhone pics): http://www.fuji-x-forum.com/topic/1991-does-anyone-use-any-of-the-following-lenses/
There’s very little difference in image quality between these 3 lenses, with the Zeiss being ever slightly better. The 2 Leicas are very close.
 

What we’ve been seeing is that the image quality of good zooms lenses is getting closer to the fixed focal length tele lenses. These zoom lenses are improving all the time, especially with the “new generation” of lenses designed specifically for digital sensors. The new Fuji 100-400mm being one.

I’m new to Fuji, having moved from Leica Ms. As my eyesight has deteriorated rangefinder focusing has become trickier. I’ve still got all of my Leica kit and enjoy using some of these lenses on the X-Pro1. Based on the impressive results which I’m seeing with my Fuji lenses, I can’t wait to try out the new 100-400mm. Not sure I can justify buying one given what I’ve already got in the arsenal......

 

Overall I think Fuji’s lens rollout is impressive compared to how Sony for example have handled things with their E-Mount lenses.
Fuji already seem to be covering the most practical/useful focal lengths.

[Warwick]

Like a lot of people here, I have a 'mixed' opinion on Ken Rockwell. But one really interesting thing on his site is his 'utility curve' of lens focal lengths mapped against cost, size, weight and usefulness.

 

http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/images/utility-curve/utility-curve-1200.gif

 

If I were Fujifilm, I'd put my efforts mostly into the most useful focal lengths, and do more things like the 35mm F2

 

 

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk