HOT: First Short review with SAMPLES (!!!) of the XF35mm f2 and 1.4x teleconverter!

[Patrick FR]

HOT: First Short review with SAMPLES (!!!) of the XF35mm f2 and 1.4x teleconverter!

 

More here: http://www.fujirumors.com/hot-first-short-review-with-samples-of-the-xf35mm-f2-and-1-4x-teleconverter/

[quincy]

Crazy, thank you!

I'm waiting for the 1.4x TC too, might use it with the upcoming macro lens.

But the guy who wrote the review seems not to know much about lenses, since he's asking fujifilm to defy the laws of physics:

 

So to our fuji peeps… If you’re reading this, either do something about the aperture reduction to it or give us a more significant zoom…. something like 2.5x would be nice…

 

/edit: I actually like the pictures! And I think that the article does not deserve all the negativity. I just wanted to point out that losing one stop of light with a 1.4x teleconverter is inherent to the design of teleconverters that go between camera and lens.

[wildcart]

Did someone save the samples? The site is not available anymore  

[Patrick FR]

I can still access the site. I guess it was just a temporary black-out due to some extra traffic

[milandro]

I can see the site and the pics too ( I guess) if you mean those of the concert.

 

Nice but hardly pictures where you can form an idea of the quality if this lens.

 

and yes, the writer doesn’t seem to understand that the aperture value is the ratio between focal length and diameter ( to put it simply) of the aperture pupil.

 

If you increase the focal length and leave the size of the pupil the same, the amount of light passed will be exactly reduced as the focal lens is increased.

[sir_c]

And as mentioned in the comments under the article, the pictures themselves show nothing useful at all. The whole frame itself is too dark, the subject in focus is too tiny to judge anything besides that the lens is capable to focus on just something.

 

Zero examples of rendering, sharpness falloff, colour reproduction. None. Of. It.

[John005]

Pictures were usefull to form an opinion of low light capability. I don't expect every user to understand "physics". Many artist and photogs don't like physics at all. I get it. If one does the proper online research, they will find all the technical specs and charts. The pics were taken in monochrome. So that pretty much negates the " color reproduction" comment.  Its an in camera setting.  I know that.  Gig shots, I've seen thousands in magazines and elsewear, aren't always technical in nature. It's music. Take it as is. Performing arts. Um cool wit it.   Keepin it real.  Fuji is quite capable and holds its own in the hands of those that love photography. And not always physics

[milandro]

the pictures can be what they are, that’s alright, we are not discussing their intrinsic qualities but their purpose in an article which aims at describing the quality of this new lens.

 

I couldn’t assess it from those pictures, comparisons are impossible.

 

As for not understanding the laws of physics there is no problem if one doesn’t but then one shouldn’t make comments of technical nature either. But it’s OK.  Yesterday I had someone explaining me economy while it was obvious that he had never studied any. Opinions are like obscure body parts. We all have them. But they aren’t facts.

[Tikcus]

Just joined the fuji world (previously using the Sony nex system). The 35mm lens is of no interest to me as already have the 35 1.4, however the teleconverter is interesting on the lens tested moving from f2.8 at 140mm to f4 at 196mm is not bad at all it is only 1 stop, just slow the shutter speed by a stop or raise iso by a stop.

 

I would be more interested to see the comparison with the 50-140 f2.8 with converter and the normal XF50-200 without the converter.

 

And also what actually happens if the converter is used with a non supported lens

[Tikcus]

As far as releasing cheaper primes, I would be interested in something like a 56MM F1.8 r, if it came in at around half the price of the 56mm F1.2r

[quincy]

Pictures were usefull to form an opinion of low light capability. I don't expect every user to understand "physics". Many artist and photogs don't like physics at all. I get it. If one does the proper online research, they will find all the technical specs and charts. The pics were taken in monochrome. So that pretty much negates the " color reproduction" comment.  Its an in camera setting.  I know that.  Gig shots, I've seen thousands in magazines and elsewear, aren't always technical in nature. It's music. Take it as is. Performing arts. Um cool wit it.   Keepin it real.  Fuji is quite capable and holds its own in the hands of those that love photography. And not always physics

 

There is no need to have a master degree in physics to understand camera gear enough to use it, and it is not about specs. But as a painter needs to understand the difference between oil paint and acrylic paint related to the handling, a photographer should have a basic understanding how focal lenght, aperture and shutter speed affect the picture (which I think the author of the review does, of course). But going a step further, when reviewing gear, you should know about gear. And the fact that a 1.4x TC eats one stop of light, and a 2x TC eats two stops of light is widely known and not hard to understand. You can either explain it like milandro did, or you think about it this way:

The lens is in front of all the other gear when you take a picture.

A certain amount of light (a certain number of photons) enters the lens from the front through a segment of space that is shaped like a pyramid, with the tip inside the lens.

The angle of the pyramid depends on the focal lenght of the lens and the sensor size.

This amount of light gets thrown on the sensor.

When adding a teleconverter, you change nothing in the way of the light from the front part of the lens to the rear part, but you "cut out" the center part of this pyramid, magnify it and throw that on your sensor. So the number of photons that had to light only the center part of the sensor now need to light all the sensor, they get spread out. This makes everything darker.

 

I'm not telling this to you, John, because I have a feeling that you already know it. I just wanted to note it here for everyone to read, and to understand why demanding a TC that either absorbs less light or offers more magnification is absurd.

 

 

I would be more interested to see the comparison with the 50-140 f2.8 with converter and the normal XF50-200 without the converter.

 

And also what actually happens if the converter is used with a non supported lens

I'd like to see the comparison between 50-140+1.4TC @ 140 and 55-200 @ 200, too. The 50-140 without TC is better at 140 than the 55-200, and considering it being a F/2.8 lens, there's no competition. But cutting out the center of the image and throwing it on the sensor plane magnified by 1.4 might reduce the image quality just so much that the 55-200 is on par, while 4.0 vs 4.8 is just a slight advantage. And to be honest, the 55-200 is an excellent lens which is significantly lighter than the 50-140+1.4TC combination.

As far as I know, the teleconverter protrudes into the lens body. And the only three lenses that have a cavity big enough for that are the 50-140 and the upcoming 120 and 100-400.

[flysurfer]

 

But cutting out the center of the image and throwing it on the sensor plane magnified by 1.4 might reduce the image quality just so much that the 55-200 is on par, while 4.0 vs 4.8 is just a slight advantage.

 

 It's more than good enough for me. The 55-200mm has basically been retired. 

[El Lawrence]

This guy obviously has never used a teleconverter before this review.  It would be nice if Fujifilm could engineer a No-Light-Loss teleconverter, I'd by 2 and give one to the Smithsonian.

[Dagobert]

It's more than good enough for me. The 55-200mm has basically been retired.

 

So if i understand you right, you already have the TC and maybe the 35mm 2?

 

I know the 35mm will be good, but give us a hint on how good. ;D

[Trenton Talbot]

I know the 35mm will be good, but give us a hint on how good. ;D

 

Hint:  start saving 

[Snzkgb]

So if i understand you right, you already have the TC and maybe the 35mm 2?

 

I know the 35mm will be good, but give us a hint on how good. ;D

If you haven't got 35/1.4 - start saving. If you do - do not bother.

[Dis]

What physics?! The man was hooked with the "focus" length. The 35mm mark on the lens was no hint to him. What do you expect him to know about lenses at all?