2.0 Teleconverter Rumor

[Patrick FR]

RUMOR :: Fujifilm will launch a 2.0 Teleconverter this year, too (Source Right in the Past)

 

http://www.fujirumors.com/rumor-fujifilm-will-launch-a-2-0-teleconverter-this-year-too-source-right-in-the-past/

 

[Tikcus]

Nice to have, but really specialist, especially if like the 1.4, it is only compatible with 3 lenses

[frod]

I think it's truer to say that the number of lenses where it would be appropriate is still quite small. 

 

The only one I can think of where it would maybe be a nice to have would be the 55-200mm. Nothing else has the requisite length + OIS + low f/stop combination for it to make much sense, and it's pushing it on the f/stop front in the case of the 55-200mm. It feels tailor made for the 50-140mm though.

[danwells]

How about with a 200mm f2 or f2.4? No, I don't know anything, but it would make a LOT of sense with the X-T2 200 f2 and two converters gets you 200 f2, 280 f2.8, 400 f4. Full frame equivalents are 300 f2, 420 f2.8, 600 f4! Yes, I know that from a DOF/ bokeh perspective, those equivalents are off, but a lot of sports and wildlife photography relies on light (where they're correct) for high shutter speeds at least as much as it does on bokeh. Even if you take the worst case, and they're a full stop off, 300 at f2.8 is as good as any system gets (Nikon had a manual focus 300 f2, but VERY few were ever made - it was a "hey Canon, look what we can do" lens). 400 at f4 is well within the high-end professional range (it's what Nikon's $7000 big zoom and Canon's $10,000 big zoom do, as well as Canon's expensive DO lens). 400 f2.8 lenses exist, but they're huge! Only at 600mm is it arguably a stop slow from a bokeh perspective, and many, many pros reach 600 with a 300 and a doubler, which is f5.6. The 600 f4 is a very rare, huge lens!

[frod]

Nope, not going to happen. Nikon's full frame f/2 already requires a drop-in filter and weighs a smidge under 3 kilograms. So you'd probably be looking at around 2kg for a Fuji X equivalent, which is twice the weight of the already heavy 50-140mm f/2.8.

 

Also consider, the roadmapped 120mm is 'only' f/2.8, and already pretty long (not sure if we know the weight yet).

 

 

It seems like there is little overly significant size or weight advantage for mirrorless aps-c in long lenses, all the gains come on the wide end: http://camerasize.com/compact/#469.484,520.422,ha,t

[umad?]

400*2*1,5=1200mm FOV equivalent. And that on a 24MP sensor. Crop to 16MP gets us to nearly 1500mm equivalent :-D

[danwells]

Interesting... I was proposing a fast 200 (so it gets to 400 by USING the converter - very few converters stack), but you're right that throwing a 2x on the 100-400 gives a manual-focus 1200 equivalent (it's f11). The even more interesting behavior of the 100-400 is with the 1.4x - almost 900mm equivalent, with AF on newer bodies. Fuji could build a fast 400 prime, but I think it's less likely than a 200 range prime that can fill the three classic big lens slots (bare, and with the two converters).

 

Yes, a fast 200 is a heavy lens - I'd be surprised if it's much lighter than the aforementioned Nikkor. APS-C's weight advantage DOES tend to be in wider lenses. First of all, it might be a diffractive/Fresnel lens, which are much lighter (although they don't violate the laws of physics - Mr. Newton says you can't build a 200mm f2 without a 100mm or greater front element). Secondly, Fuji has now built all the obvious "mirroerless" lenses, and is moving into the additional lenses they'll want to be an alternative to a pro DSLR. They want to have everything from a 35mm f2 for the discerning street shooter (and they have a great one) up to big glass for sports and wildlife, and the latter will never be light. I suspect they've left it for last because it's tricky...

[rpkphoto]

I can see the advantage of a 2X teleconverter with longer lenses, but my interest would be to add a little throw to something like the 18-55 zoom. I'll be the first to admit that I don't know whether or not such a teleconverter would be compatible with a zoom of this length. I still like the range of the 28 - 112 (equivalent) on my X20 and wish Fuji would upsize that lens for interchangeable X bodies.

[frod]

It isn't. It only works on the 50-140, 100-400 and 120mm macro.

[danwells]

Even if the converters were universal, they have an effect on maximum aperture - the 1.4x takes one stop, and the 2x costs 2 stops. Because of this, the only short zoom that could be interesting with the converters is the 16-55 f2.8 (and then only with the 1.4x). That combination would create a 24-83mm f4, similar to one of the more frequently requested lenses (a 16-70 or 16-80 f4). It wouldn't be stabilized, which is a significant drawback. Even the fast 16-55 would drop to f5.6 with the 2x converter (at that point, why not just use the 18-135 or, better yet, the 50-140 (most converter owners will also own the 50-140, and this would be so even if the converter worked with the 16-55 - you'd buy it for a long lens and use it with a shorter one as a bonus).

[mpw1950]

I can see me using a 1.4x and 2x converter as part of my regular news kit.

Currently I use 10-24, 16-55 and 50-140. Add both converters and that gives me a pretty light, everyday kit that covers 15-420mm (135 equiv). I flex that kit, I often drop the 10-24, especially outdoors, and perhaps add the 35mm f1.4 and/or the 56mm f1.2 depending on what I am expecting to do.

 

I have to add in a laptop as well if I am away from a vehicle.  Currently use with an X-T1, I will go with two X-T2 when (if) they are announced this summer, (I am without a backup body, just sold my X -E1, but I may trade a Canon lens for an X-E2 to tide me over)

 

Could never have carried the Canon equivalent, not for long anyway.

 

Martin

[Jack Todd]

I would like to see a 1.4x that works with 56 F1.2 - very useful for portraiture in studio with very little loss of aperture. Yes we have the 90 F2 but rather 75 F1.8 or 1.4.

[Guest Ridgeback]

If it works with more than just a measly 2 or 3 out of their 21 or 22 lenses like the 1.4 x ... why not?

[9.V.III]

I would like to see a 1.4x that works with 56 F1.2 - very useful for portraiture in studio with very little loss of aperture. Yes we have the 90 F2 but rather 75 F1.8 or 1.4.

Fuji really just needs to make a premium 85f1.4 (which would effectively be 127mm f2).

 

If the 56mm had been f1.0 then I might see the TC being a reasonable companion, but as is a 2xTC takes the 56f1.2 to f2.4, which sounds kind of slow for a high end portrait lens when you can get 200f2.8 lenses for not a lot of money.