XF200mmF2 Lens Rumors

[Rblnr]

I guess that's fine. If there's anything you want to rectify, just do it. I'm neither stubborn nor offended by objection and arguments.But what I can tell you is, the 100-400 is a fine lens. I use it like a prime lens most of the time (at 400 mm) and it didn't let me down. It's very sharp focused close, and gets sharp at infinity when stopped down to f/8. When shooting static subjects, I've started to use it at ~330 mm and f/5.6 to f/8. That seems to be the sweet spot of the lens. Thanks a lot, really. I'm always nervous when bringing up the whole equivalency stuff.About the wide angles: Yep, and it only works down to about 18 mm, as you can see with the 16/1.4, 14/2.8 or the 12/2.8. Lenses with shorter focal lenghts than the flange distance need to be built retrofocal (the opposite of the tele design), which adds lenght and glass. Well, you could put them inside the camera's mount cavity alternatively, thanks to the missing mirror, but that would make them incredibly slow.

Have had a chance now to digest the diagram and as per the other poster. Great and educational post on your part.

 

For me equivalency comparisons means angle of view. So 200/300 - APS-C/FF etc. With high ISO performance continually improving, crop sensor too, I'm a little less concerned with having the fastest speed, particularly at telephoto lengths where DOF is shallow in any case. So I'd choose a lighter f/4 tele over a heavier f/2 -- this is why I have a crop sensor system. Normal/wide is where DOF and perhaps choosing FF for a particular task comes into play. As an aside, love the 56/1.2.

 

Anyway and again, good info on optical design and why it's not as clear cut as I'd like it to be to get what I want. And appreciate the endorsement and detail on the 100-400 as well. It will likely be in my kit by end of next month.

[Hermelin]

Delete

Edited July 24, 2016 by Hermelin

[Styp]

As it is getting a little quiet here...

 

http://bestlenses.net/2016/06/the-latest-patents-of-fuji-16mm-f1-8-and-150mm-f2-lens.html/

 

150mm f2.0 ?

[wildcart]

Hopefully it will come in 2018 and not any later like the macro 80mm getting delayed all the time 

http://www.fujifilm.com/products/digital_cameras/xf_lens/roadmap/

[Arthur]

 

7kg :-).

TBNT

[milandro]

...rapidly progressing towards the largest camera/lens arrangement out there to the point that the advantage of having a small sensor is absolutely nullified.

 

 chutzpah 

[9.V.III]

It is unrealistic... There is a reason Pro DSLR's are big. They have bigger motors, more/faster processing, bigger batteries, more heat dissipation, more robust mechanicals etc. They can be rapid fired all day long and handle it.

 

A camera the size of the X-T1 just cannot match that nor is it meant to. That doesn't mean that someone cannot shoot some wildlife or sports with an X-T1, but it is nowhere near the level of performance of a Pro DSLR.

Hey would you look at that! Sony made a professional Mirrorless camera that shoots faster than anything else on the market! And it's the same size as the X-T2!

What a bunch of miracle workers they must have over there at Sony.

Fuji should probably just give up and stop making cameras since Sony now has the ability to defy physics and is the only company with the technology to make such high performance mirrorless cameras so small.

http://www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/sony-a9/sony-a9A.HTM

http://www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/fuji-x-t2/fuji-x-t2A.HTM

[mdm]

Hey would you look at that! Sony made a professional Mirrorless camera that shoots faster than anything else on the market! ....

Fuji should probably just give up and stop making cameras since Sony now has ....

 

how cute

[9.V.III]

how cute

I know right?

 

Around here any mention of Fuji getting into sports photography is met with about as much positivity as someone selling ice cubes at the North Pole.

"Some people" keep saying it's impossible, and here Sony is just doing it anyway.

Everyone on the Internet is extremely positive about the A9, but apparently it's some sort of crime against photography to suggest that Fuji could do just as well.

[mdm]

We all want Fuji could do better and better but they hardly will if they give up and stop their camera business.Personaly, I've already lost my temper awaiting for XE3 and started shooting film.

Edited July 3, 2017 by mdm

[9.V.III]

We all want Fuji could do better and better but they hardly will if they give up and stop their camera business.Personaly, I've already lost my temper awaiting for XE3 and started shooting film.

That specific comment (saying that Fuji should give up), was sarcasm.

 

Look at the conversation on this thread, I'm one of the few people who wants large professional lenses on the Fuji ecosystem and half the other comments are honestly telling Fuji not to even try to get into different markets because of the mirrorless body (which Sony has obviously proven is wrong).

 

The biggest thing holding Fuji back is their fans.

Edited July 5, 2017 by 9.V.III

[flysurfer]

It's always good to expand the user base beyond the current niche.

[Tikcus]

My thoughts aint changed a lot in last 18 months, it is an interesting lens assuming it works with the 2X T/C

 

I can't see me ever needing a 200 F/2 lens (or a 400 F/4), i'm please they are making it as choice is always good.

 

But thinking about the practicalities if you are photographing a target 10 meters away at F/2 your DOF is only 21cm, stopping it down to F/4 gives you 41cm still not a lot to work with at that range but better.

 

It is too short for (most) Bird photography, most would opt for the 100-400 with the 2X T/C instead too long for portraiture, guess it could be used for sports?

 

I'd be interested to know the people that intend to buy it, what are they planning on using it for?

[Tom G Scotland]

I would NOT be interested in a 200mm lens and I don't think many would just my thoughts and opinion

 

but as I have the Fuji X-T2  and also I have my Nikon d7200 I find the Tamron 70-300 lens excellent for the price of £320 and is much better than the Nikon equivalent lens

 

I wish Fuji would bring out  a 70-300  I think there would be more interest if it was sold at a modest price say £499,

I just find the Fuji 100-400 a little to expensive for me,

 again my thoughts

 

what do others think?

 

Tom G  Scotland

[Guest mikEm13]

I have no interest in the 200 because I believe it will big and heavy. As far as a 70-300 I might have a look but it won't be below 1000 US.

Edited July 30, 2017 by mikEm13

[sonic]

I hope it will be a 300mm F2.8 or better. Otherwise, I will have to seriously think about buying a Nikon 300mmF2.8 +20TCIII or a Sigma 500mm F4. I would be quite annoyed to do that. Luckily I kept my Nikon body. But I was expecting to move completely from Nikon to Fuji as I hate the mirror noise...

[flashpixx]

all you non believers, it's on the roadmap:

 

http://www.fujifilm.com/news/n170907_03.html

[Guest Him]

Hey would you look at that! Sony made a professional Mirrorless camera that shoots faster than anything else on the market! And it's the same size as the X-T2!

What a bunch of miracle workers they must have over there at Sony.

Fuji should probably just give up and stop making cameras since Sony now has the ability to defy physics and is the only company with the technology to make such high performance mirrorless cameras so small.

http://www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/sony-a9/sony-a9A.HTM

http://www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/fuji-x-t2/fuji-x-t2A.HTM

 

Love your sense of humour! Indeed Sony also make cameras, I sincerely hope Fuji carry on as they are. The look and feel of Fuji along with film simulation produces images that I really do love and appreciate.

[Guest Him]

I would NOT be interested in a 200mm lens and I don't think many would just my thoughts and opinion

 

but as I have the Fuji X-T2  and also I have my Nikon d7200 I find the Tamron 70-300 lens excellent for the price of £320 and is much better than the Nikon equivalent lens

 

I wish Fuji would bring out  a 70-300  I think there would be more interest if it was sold at a modest price say £499,

I just find the Fuji 100-400 a little to expensive for me,

 again my thoughts

 

what do others think?

 

Tom G  Scotland

Weight wise, I find the 90mm Fuji F2, is my acceptable limit.

 

However, there are lots of stronger, younger folk who need longer than 90mm (135mm) and I believe they are already well catered for by Fuji with zooms in particular the forthcoming 200mm will plug the prime telephoto gap.

[Guest Him]

That specific comment (saying that Fuji should give up), was sarcasm.

 

Look at the conversation on this thread, I'm one of the few people who wants large professional lenses on the Fuji ecosystem and half the other comments are honestly telling Fuji not to even try to get into different markets because of the mirrorless body (which Sony has obviously proven is wrong).

 

The biggest thing holding Fuji back is their fans.

Perhaps you have a valid point.

[9.V.III]

My thoughts aint changed a lot in last 18 months, it is an interesting lens assuming it works with the 2X T/C

 

I can't see me ever needing a 200 F/2 lens (or a 400 F/4), i'm please they are making it as choice is always good.

 

But thinking about the practicalities if you are photographing a target 10 meters away at F/2 your DOF is only 21cm, stopping it down to F/4 gives you 41cm still not a lot to work with at that range but better.

 

It is too short for (most) Bird photography, most would opt for the 100-400 with the 2X T/C instead too long for portraiture, guess it could be used for sports?

 

I'd be interested to know the people that intend to buy it, what are they planning on using it for?

300f2.8 is probably the most popular of the “Big” lenses on other systems, 200f2.0 replicates the same FOV and effective light gathering with APS-C (accounting for the inherently worse high ISO performance on crop sensors).

For wildlife one of the examples I seem to hear about is shooting exotic birds in the jungle, you don’t need excessive reach but due to the foliage blocking out most of the sunlight the lighting conditions are dim.

It’s ideal for indoor sports or where the arena is smaller (e.g. Basketball or Tennis), or on a larger field if you only have one position to cover.

And then music and stage events that normally allow reasonably close proximity to the subject.

 

People like to shoot portrats with 200f2.0 on Full Frame but Fuji would need to make a 135mmf1.4 for that. This is probably not going to be used for portraits very often (not that it can’t be, you just get a lot of compression, good for someone with a long nose).

 

400f2.8 is the most common “Large Field Sports” lens, Fuji would need to make a 300f2.0 to cover that position (yes, it’s a 150mm front element, that’s the largest element Canon and Nikon are willing to produce).

Edited October 31, 2017 by 9.V.III

[Steve Lew]

Rumor has it that Sigma is will be designing Fuji lenses and marketing and selling under Sigma name.

[EddieX]

I'm kind of sort of interested in the 200mm, but I'm not sure I'll be able to swallow the price of such a lens.  Especially since I'll be getting the 8-16mm for sure.

[Arthur]

Thinking of weght... I'd be interested in XF300 f/4.

[bergat]

Rumor has it that Sigma is will be designing Fuji lenses and marketing and selling under Sigma name.

We hope: Sigma is welcome if their lens are a valide alternative.