Should Fuji Make an f1.0 Wide Angle Lens?

[9.V.III]

With the recent rumors of a 33f1.0, I've been thinking about how great it would be to have an f1.0 wide angle Prime, something that really matches the 24mm Full Frame standard.

 

Or at least 27mm equivalent, if it would be any benefit to stay within the limitations of the 18mm flange distance.

[Sluw]

Of course all fast primes are cool, telephoto, wide angle, "normal" focal lengths. Although i'm not that interested, they would be niche products, heavy and really expensive. I prefer high quality light primes as fast as possible within their limitations.

[darknj]

Err... Can you even imagine what a 16mm F1 lens in size would look like ? Even if made for an APS-C sensor, that lens will be humongous and cost at least 3 times the prices of the X-Pro2

 

 The Nikkor 24mm F1.4 is already heavier than the X-T1 and cost the same price, and you want something that is 2 stops brighter than that ?

 

You might want to consider getting that Nikon lens along a focal reducer and manual focus with it, it will be F1.2 (more or less) and keep the depth of view of a 24mm.

[Warwick]

The 16mm 1.4 does the job pretty well, in my opinion. I don't think you'd get much extra benefit for the massive extra size, weight and cost.

 

 

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[EddieX]

33mm f1 will be crazy, and I want it! (even a 1.2 would be cool, make it WR).  But a WA f1, nope!  It will dwarf any body, even with a battery grip.  I'd still be in disbelief if the rumors of the 200mm f2 would come true.

[Tikcus]

Of course all fast primes are cool, telephoto, wide angle, "normal" focal lengths. Although i'm not that interested, they would be niche products, heavy and really expensive. I prefer high quality light primes as fast as possible within their limitations.

 

This ^

 

From a DOF point of view, I love large apertures for portrait length lens

for long lenses large apertures allow a faster shutter speed without bumping ISO to levels where noise is visible,

for wide lenses, where I would normally want the entire frame sharp, it would be stopped down anyway, i don't see the need for myself to by an F/1.x lens if i'm shooting at F/8 or F/11 anyway

 

High quality glass is more important to me than fast glass, just for the sake of having it

[frod]

Seems utterly pointless. Have you even used a wide prime?

 

wow I'm a mean drunk

[9.V.III]

Err... Can you even imagine what a 16mm F1 lens in size would look like ? Even if made for an APS-C sensor, that lens will be humongous and cost at least 3 times the prices of the X-Pro2

 

The Nikkor 24mm F1.4 is already heavier than the X-T1 and cost the same price, and you want something that is 2 stops brighter than that ?

 

F1.0 is one stop faster than f1.4, and wide angle SLR lenses are humungous because of the flange distance, thus Fuji makes an 18mm F2.0 Pancake.

So, two stops brighter than the Pancake.

The big question is if the lack of retrofocusing elements actually helps. Apparently the Sigma 50mm Art is actually a retrofocusing design even though it's longer than the flange distance, so sticking to 18mm may or may not be of benefit. For all we know the 16mm f1.4 might just the best wide angle f1.4 formula Fuji could come up with.

At least we know an 18f1.0 would be popular with the Astro crowd if the Coma is well controlled.

[darknj]

F1.0 is one stop faster than f1.4, and wide angle SLR lenses are humungous because of the flange distance, thus Fuji makes an 18mm F2.0 Pancake.

[...]

 

 

Whoops ! My apologies thanks for correcting that, for some reasons I always count 1.2 as an extra stop of light.

 

Agreed with your pancake comment but lets have a look at the 16mm F1.4, that is no small lens by any means. If we keep the ratio in mind and extrapole a bit on from another lens, let's say any of the FF 85mm F1.8 and the same lens but 1.2, the the faster version of the lens pretty much tripled in volume.

 

So by guesstimate it will be at least between 1.5 or 2 times the size of the current XF 16 lens, we are looking at something that is going to be as long as the 16-55 F2.8 but much more wider, like the others above, it will be rather unwieldy.

[Marc G.]

F1.0 is one stop faster than f1.4, and wide angle SLR lenses are humungous because of the flange distance, thus Fuji makes an 18mm F2.0 Pancake.

So, two stops brighter than the Pancake.

The big question is if the lack of retrofocusing elements actually helps. Apparently the Sigma 50mm Art is actually a retrofocusing design even though it's longer than the flange distance, so sticking to 18mm may or may not be of benefit. For all we know the 16mm f1.4 might just the best wide angle f1.4 formula Fuji could come up with.

At least we know an 18f1.0 would be popular with the Astro crowd if the Coma is well controlled.

No aberration would be well controlled with an f/1 wide angle. It would probably cost close to 4000$ and would not be as good as the 16 1.4, which would defeat the purpose of having the 1.0 aperture.

 

Requests such as this have no connection with reality. Wishful thinking at best. Mass-producing such a lens at an o.k. price with o.k. weight and o.k. dimensions is an unfulfillable task.

[frod]

for astrophotography a motorised mount is probably a much better/cheaper idea.

[ccoolliinn]

Making a lens faster shifts the best aperture to the wide open end no good if you want large DOF for landscapes. I use two lenses, a 10-24 mainly  used at f8 to f13 and a 90 used wide open. Unlike most members who like 23-35-56 they just don't do it for me any more. I expect using a Olympus OM10 with a 50mm for 15 years done me in.