XF200mmF2 Lens Rumors

[deva]

 When we're dealing with long lenses there's no escaping the fact that the best IQ comes from the biggest lenses.

 

 

And if that matters to you that is fine... from my perspective, the difference is so tiny that I consider it of no practical consequence. And my guess is that 99.9% of potential viewers will not care in the slightest. Subject, perspective, composition and lighting so overwhelmingly define value/appreciation. 

[9.V.III]

And if that matters to you that is fine... from my perspective, the difference is so tiny that I consider it of no practical consequence. And my guess is that 99.9% of potential viewers will not care in the slightest. Subject, perspective, composition and lighting so overwhelmingly define value/appreciation.

If people didn't care then they wouldn't be talking about how wonderful 200f2.0 lenses are.

My guess is 99.9% of viewers are still confused about Depth of Field and Light Gathering performance on crop systems.

 

When Olympus talks about their high end zoom lens they make a broad statement about focal length:

It is equivalent to 70-200mm on a 35mm camera

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/404517-REG/Olympus_261012_35_100mm_f_2_0_ED_Zuiko.html

But don't tell you that you're getting f4 equivalent DOF and light gathering.

 

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/183198-USA/canon_2578a002_ef_70_200mm_f_4l_usm.html

The equivalent lens on Full Frame costs four times less and weighs half as much.

 

When it comes to fast aperture lenses people need to be acutely aware of the implications of using a crop sensor or else they're basically getting ripped off.

Edited May 20, 2016 by 9.V.III

[jonmacapodi]

...and with a subject at 10 feet, a 135mm F/2 lens on crop and a 200mm F/2.8 lens on full-frame have about a 1.5 inch deep depth of field. Getting pissed about DOF equivalents (particularly on the telephoto end) is pretty idiotic when used in real actual shooting conditions.

[9.V.III]

...and with a subject at 10 feet, a 135mm F/2 lens on crop and a 200mm F/2.8 lens on full-frame have about a 1.5 inch deep depth of field. Getting pissed about DOF equivalents (particularly on the telephoto end) is pretty idiotic when used in real actual shooting conditions.

Being excited for high quality leightweight lenses is all fine and dandy but as long as we're posting in a thread about a large lens and people are making comparisons with big glass then pointing out the advantages of large lenses is the only correct thing to do.

Edited May 21, 2016 by 9.V.III

[deva]

If people didn't care then they wouldn't be talking about how wonderful 200f2.0 lenses are.

My guess is 99.9% of viewers are still confused about Depth of Field and Light Gathering performance on crop systems.

 

 

 

 

If you want to shoot full frame, go for it... but saying that basically everyone who prefers smaller systems is confused (because their priorities are not yours) is... well...

[9.V.III]

If you want to shoot full frame, go for it... but saying that basically everyone who prefers smaller systems is confused (because their priorities are not yours) is... well...

I've already clarified the issue twice in the same thread, and the slice of the user base represented here is some of the most enthusiastic of enthusiasts.

It's virtually guaranteed that the average person is confused, and it has nothing to do with personal priorities.

 

The existance of a 7lb sports and wildlife lens doesn't instantly turn your Fuji into a giant brick, but it does make Fuji the first mirrorless option for some of the biggest commercial photography jobs on Earth. Canon bases the release of their 1D bodies around the Summer Olympics, where Big Whites abound, if Fuji wants representation in these events they need the hardware.

Hoping that Fuji breaks into new markets shouldn't be taken as an insult.

[deva]

Canon bases the release of their 1D bodies around the Summer Olympics, where Big Whites abound, if Fuji wants representation in these events they need the hardware.

Hoping that Fuji breaks into new markets shouldn't be taken as an insult.

 

 

Nothing in the Fuji lineup... cameras, lenses, other gear would lead me to believe they are interested in that market. 

 

If I were shooting sports at the Olympics, I would not even consider using Fuji. 

[9.V.III]

Nothing in the Fuji lineup... cameras, lenses, other gear would lead me to believe they are interested in that market.

Because Fuji actually has different priorities than you do.

 

If I were shooting sports at the Olympics, I would not even consider using Fuji.

Precisely.

We need a 200f2.0 and 300f2.0 on the X-T2, then people will want to shoot the Olympics with Fuji.

[mdm]

We need a 200f2.0 and 300f2.0 on the X-T2, then people will want to shoot the Olympics with Fuji.

 

I think there is no equal sign between people and paid pro in this context.

[frod]

pros will use what they get given. I suspect Fuji is more interested in targeting the wayward/straying Nikon high end enthusiasts than any pros.

Edited May 22, 2016 by frod

[deva]

Precisely.

We need a 200f2.0 and 300f2.0 on the X-T2, then people will want to shoot the Olympics with Fuji.

 

 

Pro's wont... because the Fuji AF is significantly slower when tracking than the Canon and Nikon Pro bodies. The save buffers in the Fuji cameras are not big enough... The frame rates are too slow. Fuji has no facility to deal with flickering stadium lights. Etc. Etc.

 

There is no aspect of the Fuji system that can compete in that area. 

[9.V.III]

I think there is no equal sign between people and paid pro in this context.

Fuji can pay people to use their equipment, Canon brings millions of dollars worth of lenses to the Olympics for people to borrow, but if the lenses for this application don't exist then it's physically impossible to represent your brand on the sidelines of these venues.

 

pros will use what they get given. I suspect Fuji is more interested in targeting the wayward/straying Nikon high end enthusiasts than any pros.

Bingo.

That's pretty much me in a nutshell.

I had a 5DMkII and I still use the 400f5.6, but I use it with a Rebel because the compact form factor is way more convenient, both in every day use and when hiking with a large lens strapped to your body.

I love that camera in that application, but the SLR design doesn't do manual focus very well and the low end body doesn't have a lot of manual control.

Fuji is moving in exactly the right direction to suit people moving away from an enthusiast SLR design to a high end compact system.

 

But it's clear to me now that this is really the wrong direction, Fuji would have to be stupid to even try and compete with existing SLR systems, they're never going to have AF that's good enough and people who like compact bodies are never going to want large lenses.

Actually, I just realised that I was absolutely crazy for looking at Fuji to fill both applications at the same time, the very concept of using the same convenient, compact body for street, portrait, sports and wildlife is utter nonsense.

Man what a crazy trip that was, sheesh, I'm glad I've come out of that phase.

[deva]

But it's clear to me now that this is really the wrong direction, Fuji would have to be stupid to even try and compete with existing SLR systems, they're never going to have AF that's good enough and people who like compact bodies are never going to want large lenses.

Actually, I just realised that I was absolutely crazy for looking at Fuji to fill both applications at the same time, the very concept of using the same convenient, compact body for street, portrait, sports and wildlife is utter nonsense.

Man what a crazy trip that was, sheesh, I'm glad I've come out of that phase.

 

 

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. 

[Rblnr]

Is the 200mm prime dead? Looks like it's off the roadmap. This is a bummer -- there's a real hole in the lens lineup.

[quincy]

It never was on the official roadmap. Just rumors, like the 33/1.

[Rblnr]

Ahh, didn't know. Prob is choices are the very decent but not great 55-200 or the massive 100-400. I feel like we have plenty of primes in the wide-normal range but nothing above that. Was hoping to use 2x converter with a 200 for good quality, relatively light reach when needed.

[quincy]

The 200/2 would weigh about 2.2-2.5 kg*. That would sum up to 2.4-2.7 kg with the XF2X TC WR for a 400/4 (only one stop faster than the 100-400 on the long end, and that's 1.3 kg).

 

So, for better image quality, yes, I'm with you. And I'd also like to have a few tele primes, e.g. the cancelled 120 macro or this 200/2. But it wouldn't be light.

 

*Canon's 200/2 is 2.54 kg, Nikon's is 2.93 kg.

[Rblnr]

The 200/2 would weigh about 2.2-2.5 kg*. That would sum up to 2.4-2.7 kg with the XF2X TC WR for a 400/4 (only one stop faster than the 100-400 on the long end, and that's 1.3 kg).So, for better image quality, yes, I'm with you. And I'd also like to have a few tele primes, e.g. the cancelled 120 macro or this 200/2. But it wouldn't be light.*Canon's 200/2 is 2.54 kg, Nikon's is 2.93 kg.

You're more on top of this than me so correct me if I'm wrong: the Canon and Nikon (of which I,m also an owner btw) are full frame, so weight equivalency won't be quite accurate.

 

And as an aside really, I'd be fine w/2.8 or even 4 (300mm) to keep size/weight down. In any case, X is weak on the long end which is frustrating for me anyway and is the main missing link to a complete solution.

[quincy]

Being an APS-C lens (or mirrorless) won't help much with that focal lenght and maximum aperture. I think that has been discussed somewhere on the forum already, but I'm in the mood for it now, so everyone who does not want to read it again forgive me (or quit now):

A very big chunk of the weight of fast primes are the lenses' front elements. A 200/2 lens always needs a front element with at least 100 mm (+ a bit) diameter, no matter what the format of the sensor/film in the camera is. If you look at the AF-S Nikkor 200 MM 1:2G ED VRII, for example, you can see that behind the thin, flat protective glass element in the front, there are 3 giant, thick lens elements (2x ED convex,1x normal concave), which can't be reduced in size. Those three lens elements alone are probably responsible for 1/3 of the nikkor's weight. (They should be about 10, 20 & 15 mm thick and have a diameter of about 100 mm, roughly estimated)

They have to remain their size because of the way light travels through the lens. There's a nice image on wikipedia that I'd like to borrow for this explanation. I know it's a microscope and not the nikkor's structure, but nearly every (photographic) lens works the same way, and due to the microscopic nature, the object plane is close to the front element which helps a lot with visualising the explanation:

(source: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/e/e0/Microscope-optical_path.svg/2000px-Microscope-optical_path.svg.png )

 

Take a look at the lower marginal ray (green). This describes the path of the light from the lowest outermost point in a real scene the camera can "see". You can see that every point (in the real scene) reflects light in every direction. All the light that is reflected towards the front element of the lens, up to a certain point where the incident angle becomes too flat, is now collected by the front element, thrown somehow through the whole lens and focused back to one single point on the sensor.

This means, if you reduce the size of the front elements, you gather less light for each single pixel instead of cropping the frame, which makes the lens slower, no matter how big the aperture is.

You can, however, reduce the size of some lens elements deeper in the lens. The thing is, they are a lot (!) smaller already, so you don't save much weight by that. (again, the picture does not represent the 200/2s structure)

I don't remember if the Canikon 200/2 are real telephoto designs, but if they are not Fujifilm could spare some weight by building their's as one and reduce the lenght of the lens body (and compensate for their shorter flange distance, which would have required the lens to be longer than the Canikons). But again, not much to be saved there, and it would probably demands more glass, which compensates for the lighter lens body.

 

With all that said, I think Fujifilm could make their APS-C 200/2 a bit lighter than the FF 200/2s, but I don't think they can shave off more than those 300 - 400 g I mentioned earlier. (well, of course I hope I'm wrong).

Fuji's own 100-400 is an example of this: 1.37 kg vs 1,5 kg for the FF counterparts.

 

The often praised APS-C size advantage comes into play when you compare an APS-C system with a FF system that gives you the same angle of view. (200 mm vs 300 mm, and so on). But most people, although realizing and acknowledging the DOF difference between a 200/2.8 on APS-C and a 300/2.8 on FF, don't take into account that the ISO rating already compensates the loss of light every pixel has in the APS-C system vs. the FF system. That's good, because this way, ISO, shutter speed and aperture can be used globally and interchangeable, and that is also important for flash photography. But the size and weight saving of an APS-C system is bought by higher shot noise (worse signal-noise-ratio). This can be partly compensated by faster lenses, like Fujifilm did in the past (and only up to the limit of the full well capacity, limiting dynamic range). But then, your APS-C lenses are just shorter and fatter than your FF lenses. Knowing that sensor developement marches on with great steps, I still think Fujifilm did the right thing with chosing APS-C. But one can't just ignore the fact that a FF sensor of the same generation will always offer better noise performance and a larger full well capacity.

Uuh.. well, I think I started to blabber in the last paragraph. Please pardon me, it's late where I live.

[Rblnr]

Really appreciate the comprehensive info. Will have to study the graphical stuff mote thoroughly when I'm not half asleep.

 

i think a model for me would be the Olympus 300/4 at 1.4kg. I don't need f/2 in a telephoto of that reach; it's an outdoor lens in most use cases and modern ISO performance gets you the stop or two back easily. DOF at 4 w/say a 200mm APS-C is shallow enough for most use cases as well.

 

Understood that m4/3 is not APS-C, but I think Oly straddled utility and the smaller lighter ethos of crop sensors very well and in a way that points a valid direction for Fuji to go with a telephoto prime.

[quincy]

Please believe me, I don't want to annoy you...

 

Olympus' 300/4 weighs 1.27 kg for a µ43 image circle. Nikons' Full Frame compatible AF-S Nikkor 300 MM 1:4E PF ED VR weighs 755 g.

Both achieve a minimum focus distance of 1.4 m, both have VR, both use ED elements, and still the nikkor is much smaller (148 mm vs 227 mm in length) than the olympus and weighs half as much.

That's probably the worst example of FF vs crop lens at the moment. If we want to compare equivalent lenses, the closest thing (since there's no 600/8 i'm aware of) would probably be canon's 400/5.6 on an APS-C body. It weighs about the same as the olympus and is approximately the same size, but then again it's a 23 year old design, and probably bigger and heavier than it needs to be with the technology we have today.

If Fuji needs inspiration, they should have a look at nikons' 300/4.

 

Don't get me wrong, I was drooling over the olympus 300/4 when it came out and was close to buying it several times while waiting for fuji's 100-400. You can use smaller cameras with the oly than with canikon lenses, and that's a big plus for me. And It's a really sharp lens.

 

Anyway, I think we both agree Fujifilm should develop 'something' in the long telephoto prime range.

[Rblnr]

Please believe me, I don't want to annoy you...

 

Olympus' 300/4 weighs 1.27 kg for a µ43 image circle. Nikons' Full Frame compatible AF-S Nikkor 300 MM 1:4E PF ED VR weighs 755 g.

Both achieve a minimum focus distance of 1.4 m, both have VR, both use ED elements, and still the nikkor is much smaller (148 mm vs 227 mm in length) than the olympus and weighs half as much.

That's probably the worst example of FF vs crop lens at the moment. If we want to compare equivalent lenses, the closest thing (since there's no 600/8 i'm aware of) would probably be canon's 400/5.6 on an APS-C body. It weighs about the same as the olympus and is approximately the same size, but then again it's a 23 year old design, and probably bigger and heavier than it needs to be with the technology we have today.

If Fuji needs inspiration, they should have a look at nikons' 300/4.

 

Don't get me wrong, I was drooling over the olympus 300/4 when it came out and was close to buying it several times while waiting for fuji's 100-400. You can use smaller cameras with the oly than with canikon lenses, and that's a big plus for me. And It's a really sharp lens.

 

Anyway, I think we both agree Fujifilm should develop 'something' in the long telephoto prime range.

Please believe me, don't want to annoy you either! -- but don't entirely agree w/a couple of your premises.

 

BUT yeah -- we want the same thing and before some upcoming trips I will likely buy the 100-400. My hope was to pair a 2x converter w/a 200mm in lieu of the big zoom but that is not to be for time being anyway. For an increasingly comprehensive system it's the obvious hole in their lineup, but having been thru m4/3, am committed to Fuji as my compact ILC at this point so the waiting is on. Perhaps a third party will come to the rescue but not holding my breath.

[frod]

very nice write up Quincy. Post of the month, if not year.

 

we only really see benefits in wide lenses being smaller, and I'm sure that's as much glass<->sensor distance as sensor size.

 

I suspect wanting TC options doesn't help either, given how they protrude into the barrel, implying a rear element that is quite far from the sensor.

Edited July 9, 2016 by frod

[quincy]

Please believe me, don't want to annoy you either! -- but don't entirely agree w/a couple of your premises.

 

BUT yeah -- we want the same thing and before some upcoming trips I will likely buy the 100-400. My hope was to pair a 2x converter w/a 200mm in lieu of the big zoom but that is not to be for time being anyway. For an increasingly comprehensive system it's the obvious hole in their lineup, but having been thru m4/3, am committed to Fuji as my compact ILC at this point so the waiting is on. Perhaps a third party will come to the rescue but not holding my breath.

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.

 

 

very nice write up Quincy. Post of the month, if not year.

 

we only really see benefits in wide lenses being smaller, and I'm sure that's as much glass<->sensor distance as sensor size.

 

I suspect wanting TC options doesn't help either, given how they protrude into the barrel, implying a rear element that is quite far from the sensor.

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.

[9.V.III]

The short flange distance should still be beneficial beyond (shorter than) 18mm, even though you're still building a traditional retrofocusing lens at that ploint.

The offset between the flange and focal distance on a 13mm Fuji lens would be about the same as building a 35mm lens on an SLR, and 35mm lenses tend to be pretty solid as far as IQ goes, where nearly all of the 24mm lenses compromise corner IQ and have complex distortions.

 

Which is still not to say that a 13mm lens is the same as a 35mm lens, but on the larger mounts you can see that good IQ becomes harder to accomplish (especially at wide apertures) the farther you deviate from the flange distance.