Fuji should develop some manual focus lens for X-Pro series

[mlifijuf.13]

@Patrick, if you find my thoughts to be interesting, please share this on the Fuji rumor so that there is a bigger chance to read by Fuji. Thanks.

 

I just have some thoughts on the Fuji lens road map:

 

Since X-pro2 will equip with a electrical rangefinder, Fuji should really develop some manual focus lens for it. Personally I like the X-pro and X100 series than X-t series, one of the reasons is that I like the design and feel of Leica M and I cannot afford one. If Fuji develop some manual focus lens just look similar to Leica 35 lux, 35 cron, 50 lux, and 50 cron, I am sure a lot of people who buy X-pro will buy these lens. 

 

Following is my suggestion for fuji on the manual focus lens map:

 

Fuji XF 23mm F1.4 MF (MF = Manual Focus)

Fuji XF 23mm F2 MF

Fuji XF 35mm F1.4 MF

Fuji XF 35mm F2 MF

 

or even XF 35mm F1 MF

 

Since the APS-C lens will be small that Full Frame, I'm sure the Fuji Manual Focus lens will be SMALLER than the equivalent Leica counterparts. With the powerful X-Pro2 electrical rangerfinder, Manual Focus will be excellent on the X-pro series and I'm sure THAT IS CALLED THE LEICA KILLER.

 

By the way, note for Fuji, don't forget to equip the focus tab on the focus ring just like Leica lens (it's ok that the minimum focus distance is 0.7 meter), That's a quick way to focus manually. 

 

[Snzkgb]

Well, who need MF lenses now?

Even Leica made new T and SL cameras, both use AF lenses. 

[mlifijuf.13]

Well, who need MF lenses now?

Even Leica made new T and SL cameras, both use AF lenses. 

 

Well, I think some people may still prefer MF lenses. The Zeiss Loxia for Sony FE mount is somewhat popular. That's pure MF lenses. Also I prefer small lenses, being MF means the lens can be quite smaller than the current Fuji auto focus lenses. Imagine you have native Fuji 23mm 1.4 lens and Fuji 35mm 1.4 mm, both manual focus, and the size of Leica 35 cron, wouldn't it be awesome?!

 

Also MF lenses that made for rangefinders, especially those that has the minimum focus distance 0.7m to infinity is quite fast to focus, especially for street photography. If you know what position of the focus tab correspond to what focus distance, at F8-F11, it'll be stunning fast to focus, or zone focus. 

 

I don't know that much about other people, but if Fuji can make two MF lenses, 23mm 1.4 and 35mm 1.4, good IQ, as small as Leica 35 cron, having focus tab, 0.7m-infinity focus distance, around 800 USD, I WILL DEFINITELY BUY 'EM.

[Snzkgb]

Well, I think some people may still prefer MF lenses. The Zeiss Loxia for Sony FE mount is somewhat popular. That's pure MF lenses. Also I prefer small lenses, being MF means the lens can be quite smaller than the current Fuji auto focus lenses. Imagine you have native Fuji 23mm 1.4 lens and Fuji 35mm 1.4 mm, both manual focus, and the size of Leica 35 cron, wouldn't it be awesome?!

 

Also MF lenses that made for rangefinders, especially those that has the minimum focus distance 0.7m to infinity is quite fast to focus, especially for street photography. If you know what position of the focus tab correspond to what focus distance, at F8-F11, it'll be stunning fast to focus, or zone focus. 

 

I don't know that much about other people, but if Fuji can make two MF lenses, 23mm 1.4 and 35mm 1.4, good IQ, as small as Leica 35 cron, having focus tab, 0.7m-infinity focus distance, around 800 USD, I WILL DEFINITELY BUY 'EM.

Fuji lenses (I mean primes) are tiny compared to DSLR primes with the same F stops. I won't say for everyone else, but when I actually saw the Fujinon 35 mil F/1.4 with my own eyes I was shocked about how small it was. For three month I took my X-Pro1 with all three native primes with me wherever I went. And this little bag was three times smaller and like four times lighter than my photo-backpack with 5Dm2 and 28/1.8+50/1.4+85/1.8.

So the size of X lenses is great for me, I don't need them to be smaller.

ZEISS and Leica MF lenses are great, but the size of the ZEISS Otus 55mm/1.4 is extreme, and the cost of it and any Leica lens is just from another world. Can Fuji make MF lenses as good as Leica? I think they can. But will these lenses sell well? I think they will not.

[CRAusmus]

@Patrick, if you find my thoughts to be interesting, please share this on the Fuji rumor so that there is a bigger chance to read by Fuji. Thanks.

 

I just have some thoughts on the Fuji lens road map:

 

Since X-pro2 will equip with a electrical rangefinder, Fuji should really develop some manual focus lens for it. Personally I like the X-pro and X100 series than X-t series, one of the reasons is that I like the design and feel of Leica M and I cannot afford one. If Fuji develop some manual focus lens just look similar to Leica 35 lux, 35 cron, 50 lux, and 50 cron, I am sure a lot of people who buy X-pro will buy these lens. 

 

Following is my suggestion for fuji on the manual focus lens map:

 

Fuji XF 23mm F1.4 MF (MF = Manual Focus)

Fuji XF 23mm F2 MF

Fuji XF 35mm F1.4 MF

Fuji XF 35mm F2 MF

 

or even XF 35mm F1 MF

 

Since the APS-C lens will be small that Full Frame, I'm sure the Fuji Manual Focus lens will be SMALLER than the equivalent Leica counterparts. With the powerful X-Pro2 electrical rangerfinder, Manual Focus will be excellent on the X-pro series and I'm sure THAT IS CALLED THE LEICA KILLER.

 

By the way, note for Fuji, don't forget to equip the focus tab on the focus ring just like Leica lens (it's ok that the minimum focus distance is 0.7 meter), That's a quick way to focus manually. 

You know you can switch your lens to manual focus.  You don't need them to create a whole new lens that's manual.  Other than the 23mm ƒ2, all the others are manual focus already.

[johnortt]

I actually think it's a great idea as long as it doesn't remove the focus from the current af range. The only reason I would expect they haven't done so yet is because they may be leaving that market to the likes of Rokinon and Carl Zeiss (even though the current Zeiss lenses are AF).

[milandro]

I really don’t understand the point of developing something that you can do either with any AF fuji lens, if you wish to do, so or with any other lens by third party.

 

If you want to save money buy a Samyang or something like that or adapt a manual focus lens to Fuji and you are in business.

 

Why would Fuji invest into doing something of such a minority interest anyway? 

[cug]

The point is that every Fuji lens that doesn't have the manual focus clutch completely sucks when using in manual focus. The new XF35 f/2 feels like it takes about 37 full turns to get from near to far and some other lenses are similar. 

 

There is no lens motor today that gives the precise feeling for mechanical movement when focusing. 

 

And Samyang/Rokinon lenses aren't really a good comparison for Fuji glass. 

[milandro]

Such a minority group of of users simply form a market niche not large enough to absorb the cost of a dedicated production line.

 

My guess is that is never going to happen. 

[Black Pearl]

There are so many outstanding MF lenses on the used market that I can't see the need for Fuji to invest in making new ones that would have a limited appeal. Adapters are so low in cost you can spend many happy hours trawling used sites, old style photo stores who still deal in used equipment and even charity shops and car boot sales for interesting old glass then fit it to the front of your X for a few £$.

 

I've only had my X-T1 a few days but when the Nikon F and Pentax K adapters turn up I know I'm going to enjoy breathing new life into the old lenses that have lay around gathering dust just as much as I am with the new AF Fuji's. 

[Jürgen Heger]

Hm, my Fuji 18-55mm needs about 360 degrees from infinite to short distance, while my Nikon AF 85mm only needs 90 degrees. But I remember that many people complained that the AF versions of the Nikon lenses have a too short way compared to the manual focus lenses. 

 

The Fuji behaves a bit slow at both the near and the far end where it takes some turning until the distance indicator in the EVF starts moving. I also find it a bit confusing that the distance indicator always moves in small jumps regardless how slowly I turn the focus ring. But I could never observe that the sharpness jumps so I think it is only the distance indicator in the EVF.

 

What I really miss is that there are no stops at either end and sometimes I am missing distance labels on the lens tube and a mark on the focus ring. And if they are already at it they could add labeled stops for the aperture ring also on zooms.

 

So I do not need a new type of lens but just that they make properly what they already claim to do: lenses that can be used in an all automatic mode and in a traditional way.

 

First edit 2015-12-01

With the Fuji 56/1.2 I could see that the sharpness also jumps when I carefully turn the focus ring. This also matches with the sound from the autofocus motor and the vibrations that I feel. Obviously due to the bigger depth of field caused by the open aperture of 4 I did not notice it on 18-55.

So, no smooth manual focus with Fuji lenses.

[cug]

Such a minority group of of users simply form a market niche not large enough to absorb the cost of a dedicated production line.

 

My guess is that is never going to happen. 

 

I don't disagree with that. I was just giving my opinion that all Fuji lenses, except the ones with the focus clutch, are NOT really usable for manual focus. They are okay for back button focus and manual correction possibly, but not for manual focus. Just not workable. And I tried ...

 

The only thing the MF setting is good for is to set to MF, use back button to set a zone focus distance and leave it alone from there.

 

I wish there was more consistency in the whole Fuji range - lenses as well as bodies. Random lenses have WR, other have focus clutch, some have really whacky manual focus (way too much throw to be useful), others work different again. And don't get me started on the bodies. It shouldn't be so damn hard to get them to be more consistent in buttons, features and behavior. 

[Black Pearl]

Find me a brand that has a consistent lens range.........

[milandro]

This is something that has surprised me a lot ever since I joined the ranks of the Fuji system.

 

One would have thought that for a camera system with no previous history,  practically starting anew, there would be the chance to start with one philosophy behind a range of lenses and that the range would express this in a way that the lenses have some sort of united look, feel, features... but they are really all very different to the point of being of some lenses being odd and incongruent. 

 

The weirdest ( to me, if you like the lens hood... good for you ) has to be the 60mm macro which has this enormously long and totally unnecessary ( the way it is) lens hood, simply because of the way the lens works and the front mount is.

 

Requires a very strange work around too to bypass what has to be a design flaw (in my opinion, again I love the lens but find it odd) implying using a filter as spacer because otherwise the majority of screw in lens hoods would interfere with the autofocus operations sending the lens and camera to an error ( being there done that).

 

Another thing that has puzzled me is the fact that all the footage shot at the lens plants, they show incredibly sterile conditions but there have been many reports (I had one too) of lenses new in the box ( and you know that it is almost impossible to open a fuji box without leaving some sort of trace that someone had been there) showing traces of particles inside the lens.

 

How does it get there and when?

[Black Pearl]

The lens hood on the Fuji 60mm macro works exactly the same as the one on my Nikon 60mm f2.8 D Micro. The reason it is deep is the lens isn't an internal focus design so needs to be this deep to be effective when cranked out to 1:2. The only way to get round this would be to make it an internal focus design but even then if you look at other brands the hoods tend to be very deep on all macro lenses.

[milandro]

actually the way that I have found is very simple and bypasses any problem by simply applying a filter in the filter screw mount ( which if it was more protruding by only a couple of threads would have created no problem at all!) and then screwing on this a moderately dimensioned lens hood which allows me to leave on and use the lens hood at all times.

 

To me the lens hood of the 60mm is a textbook example of a lens designed by someone who has never used the lens and doesn’t realize how annoying and counterintuitive and conceptually wrong would be to have a compact lens to be used with a lens hood as big as the lens itself.

 

 

 

 

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!

[Black Pearl]

With a pair of extension tubes on to give you 1:1 what is the minimum focus distance - I'm waiting for my cash-back to buy some so can't check yet.

I ask as with the OEM hood the working distance (front of the hood to the subject) will stay the same - with your solution the working distance will get shorter meaning you could run into lighting issues.

[milandro]

????

 

What are you talking about?

 

My lens works perfectly from far to close! That is the whole point of using the filter in between as a spacer for the lens hood. You need sthe spacer exactly because otherwise the lens wouldn’t focus at infinite and that’s why , if you only put the lens hood with no spacer the camera goes into “ error”.

 

I’ve obviously tried that. With the filter there is no issue.

 

There is a filter than there is an thread adapter and then there is the lens hood.

 

Several people used the same solution and I am certainly not the only person who came to this conclusion.

 

Obviously the filter is not in the way otherwise one wouldn’t be able to use this lens with filters and what would be the purpose to have a filter thread otherwise?

[Black Pearl]

????

 

What are you talking about?

 

A little blunt - but let me try and explain my question:

 

There are two generally two quoted measurement for how close the camera/lens needs to be to the subject you are shooting before it (the 60mm macro in this case) will achieve maximum magnification - 1:2 or with tubes 1:1 and greater.

 

The first is the film/sensor plane to the subject. This never changes as both are fixed so it won't matter where the hood is mounted.

 

The second is from the front of the lens to the subject. Here there will be a difference between the OEM hood method of mounting and yours as the 60mm isn't an internal focus design. As you have mounted the hood to the part of the lens that extends the hood will move with it and get physically closer to the subject. By default (1:2) that is a very usable 26 or so millimetres, with tubes it gets down to around 10mm. At these distances the OEM hood will have the advantage as it will stay back (for want of a better description) whereas your method will see it getting ever closer to the subject and possible encroaching upon light hitting it.

 

As I said I don't have my extension tubes yet so can't test it in the real world but I have experience with other camera systems where the hood can become a limiting factor.

[milandro]

Your interpretation of what I am writing is erroneous.

 

I don’t change anything in the focal plane to lens distance nor do I change anything in the lens itself.

 

I simply use the filter mount to attach a lens hood instead of the lens hood bayonet, as all lenses have ben used for eons! 

 

Now, if I do this straight up, the lens cannot focus at infinity because the outer (outside of the filter ring) edge of the lend hits the lens hood, that’s why you need a spacer, a filter, with the same size as the filter thread, this moves the hood 3 mm further.

 

I am rather experienced myself and as you can see from the picture of my lens with the lens hood “ in situ” the method is used for real and is not a theoretical one.

[Black Pearl]

We're at crossed interpretations.

 

The front of the 60mm extends out from the main body of the lens as it focuses closer - around 2cm by the look of it. With your method of mounting the hood it too will move 2cm closer to the subject you are shooting. At very close distances (when you have extension tubes on) the shooting distance is only around 10cm so your hood will be 2cm closer to the subject than if it were mounted to the main body. In this shooting situation the OEM method would be advantageous as you would have more room between the from=nt of the hood and the subject to allow for lighting.

[Shotage]

I haven't read the whole thread, but if your reason for a manual focus lens line is to make the lenses smaller and maybe give a more tactile MF focus operation then I think it's a perfectly valid idea.
The X-Pro2 will most likely have a HVF which as we all know benefits from smaller lenses that don't get in the way, I'm pretty sure that is why the new 35mm f/2 lens exists, in part. Could a manual focus lens be the same size with a wider aperture  perhaps? It may be too niche for now, but who knows.
Andy
 

[flysurfer]

I doubt that Fujifilm management are crazy/stupid enough to start a line of XF manual focus lenses. It would imply a serious death wish among these managers.

 

I wouldn't screw anything heavy on the 60mm macro lens. The AF motor is already working hard w/o moving an additional mass. Not to mention that a screw-on mount isn't much of a protection if it bumps into an obstacle, as the impact force is directly forwarded to the fragile inner tube.

[milandro]

the lens hood that I have and the filter are very light. Certainly not more that one or more Raynox lenses ( which others use) would weigh.

 

In any case I have had it for a year, used it often, and no adverse effect has yet to show.

 

I believe that the best protection against bumping your lens is being careful ( in 40 years it has never happened to me ...while I did once drop a camera, a Pentax 6 x7, from a studio tripod causing it to get a ding in the corner... but nothing else broke).

 

The best way to evaluate the merits of something is doing it. I did it and I am happy to tell the the tale ( which is what a forum is about) and walk the walk.

[jevidon]

Fuji doesn't make manual lenses for the X mount Fuji's and they never will.

 

With the vast selection of new and used Leica M mount lenses made by  too many companies to enumerate, why should Fuji  make a manual lens? They already make an M mount adapter which tells you something. Namely, that they are not going to re-invent the wheel. Buy the M adapter and you will have a choice of new or used Leica, Canon, Zeiss, Voightlander and too many others to mention for very reasonable prices and of a quality that even Fuji cannot match. I have two M mount Leicas cameras and several excellent manual lenses that I can and do use on my Fuji XPro-1 on occasion. Why you feel the need to switch to manual lenses is beyond me, but if you really feel the need, a simple switch on your camera and your Fuji lens is manual. Otherwise, buy the M adapter and knock yourself out.