XF23mm F2 rumors

[Jürgen Heger]

@Tikcus

I share your pain. GAS is the only desease where I do not want to be healed of.☺

[ShutterNot]

I don't understand the size thing. Folks say the 23mm isn't going to be smaller.

 

How did FUJI manage to get the 27mm as small as it is. Isn't it possible to get close to that size ?

 

Any lens engineers out there know the answer ?

[mdm]

Leica Summicron-T 23mm f/2
weight - 153 g
filter thread - 52 mm
Dimension in length 37 mm

 

Fujifilm XF 23mm F1.4 R
weight - 300 g
filter thread - 62 mm
Dimension in length 63 mm

[ShutterNot]

Leica Summicron-T 23mm f/2

weight - 153 g

filter thread - 52 mm

Dimension in length 37 mm

 

Fujifilm XF 23mm F1.4 R

weight - 300 g

filter thread - 62 mm

Dimension in length 63 mm

 

 

 

That's what I'm talking about. Same or better quality - except a slightly reduced price - like $500 tops.

Leica's $1800 price tag upsets my stomach too much.

Edited May 27, 2016 by ShutterNot

[d750guy]

Leica Summicron-T 23mm f/2

weight - 153 g

filter thread - 52 mm

Dimension in length 37 mm

 

Fujifilm XF 23mm F1.4 R

weight - 300 g

filter thread - 62 mm

Dimension in length 63 mm

 

 

That's a really silly comparison.  You chose a lens that suits your "small lens" argument.  I can do the same with the Sigma 24mm 1.4.. 

 

Sigma 24mm f/1.4 DG HSM

 

Filter Thread     Front:77 mm

Dimensions (DxL)     Approx. 3.35 x 3.55" (85 x 90.2 mm)

Weight     1.46 lb (665 g)

 

See what I did there?

 

The only real size comparison we can make with the Fuji 35 F1.4 and the 35 F2, same manufacture, same focal length, not much difference in size.    The 23/f2 will be the same as the 23/1.4 with a smaller diameter front element.  You heard it from me first.

Edited May 27, 2016 by d750guy

[mdm]

That's a really silly comparison.  You chose a lens that suits your "small lens" argument.  I can do the same with the Sigma 24mm 1.4.. 

 

Why should I compare coming f2 with f1.4? What's logic in that? Reducing in aperture value might reduce bulkness as well I suppose, anyway we will see.

 

silly... my girlfriend told me so...

[xtrans]

That's a really silly comparison.  You chose a lens that suits your "small lens" argument.  I can do the same with the Sigma 24mm 1.4.. 

 

Sigma 24mm f/1.4 DG HSM

 

Filter Thread     Front:77 mm

Dimensions (DxL)     Approx. 3.35 x 3.55" (85 x 90.2 mm)

Weight     1.46 lb (665 g)

 

See what I did there?

 

The only real size comparison we can make with the Fuji 35 F1.4 and the 35 F2, same manufacture, same focal length, not much difference in size.    The 23/f2 will be the same as the 23/1.4 with a smaller diameter front element.  You heard it from me first.

 

Check out the size of the X100t lens. Optically it is possible to make a lens that small in 23mm with f.2 aperture for the x sensor.

[oscillik]

Check out the size of the X100t lens. Optically it is possible to make a lens that small in 23mm with f.2 aperture for the x sensor.

You do realise that the lens in the X100 cameras recedes into the body of the camera, so it's not actually a pancake lens, right?

[johant]

True, but even then it's considerably smaller than the 1.4/23mm I think.

 

Sent from my SM-G920F using Tapatalk

[oscillik]

True, but even then it's considerably smaller than the 1.4/23mm I think.

 

Sent from my SM-G920F using Tapatalk

It's smaller, yes. But I wouldn't say considerably so.

 

Also, the lens in the X100 series suffers from some serious distortion (compared to the XF23mmF1.4 and the XF35mmF2) and softness wide open.

Edited May 28, 2016 by oscillik

[xtrans]

You do realise that the lens in the X100 cameras recedes into the body of the camera, so it's not actually a pancake lens, right?

 

Well then check the size of the current 18mm f/2 and 27mm f/2.8. They are still much lighter (18mm = 116g , 27mm=78g) than the 23mm f/1.4. Both combined almost half the weight of the current 23mm, not to mention the size, yes they are considerably smaller and lighter.

[johant]

 

 

Also, the lens in the X100 series suffers from some serious distortion (compared to the XF23mmF1.4 and the XF35mmF2) and softness wide open.

That's true. Not sure if I want to pay the distortion price.

 

Sent from my SM-G920F using Tapatalk

[umad?]

That's a really silly comparison. 

No, it isn't.

 

The only real size comparison we can make with the Fuji 35 F1.4 and the 35 F2, same manufacture, same focal length, not much difference in size.    The 23/f2 will be the same as the 23/1.4 with a smaller diameter front element.  You heard it from me first.

The f/2.0 has internal focussing (which makes it bigger), the f/1.4 not

The f/2.0 has weather sealing, the f/1.4 not. 

The f/2.0 has a new AF motor

 

All those things make a lens bigger. But then again: it wasn't the ideal to build the lens as short as possible, but to not interfere with the optical viewfinder of the X-Pro2. 

 

 

 

Also, the lens in the X100 series suffers from some serious distortion (compared to the XF23mmF1.4 and the XF35mmF2) and softness wide open.

That's true. Not sure if I want to pay the distortion price.

 

Don't know where you are getting the distortion idea from, but the X100 lens is optically corrected for distortion. It's somewhere around 0.5%. 

 

And the XF23 f/2.0 will have distortion (though electronically corrected) 

[oscillik]

 

Don't know where you are getting the distortion idea from, but the X100 lens is optically corrected for distortion. It's somewhere around 0.5%. 

 

And the XF23 f/2.0 will have distortion (though electronically corrected) 

I'm getting it from my own images. 

[umad?]

I'm getting it from my own images. 

 

And you got more than 0.5% distortion? 

 

Because that it's probably out of spec. The X100 is optically corrected for distortion and that's as good as it gets for such a compact camera. The XF23 /2.0 will have more and be electronically corrected. 

[TRAVAIL MANUEL]

You do realise that the lens in the X100 cameras recedes into the body of the camera, so it's not actually a pancake lens, right?

 

if they put this X100's lens outside,  it would be same length than the 18mmF2

and optically , they have to change the flange focal distance - in X100 lens is very close to the sensor

[johant]

if they put this X100's lens outside, it would be same length than the 18mmF2

and optically , they have to change the flange focal distance - in X100 lens is very close to the sensor

I would be very happy with a lens the size of the 18mm.

 

Sent from my SM-G920F using Tapatalk

[oscillik]

if they put this X100's lens outside,  it would be same length than the 18mmF2

and optically , they have to change the flange focal distance - in X100 lens is very close to the sensor

You've contradicted yourself there. Since the lens is so very close to the sensor, and the focal plane is right near the very back of the camera as seen here:

 

 

then that means the lens would be considerably larger than the XF18mm 

[xtrans]

You've contradicted yourself there. Since the lens is so very close to the sensor, and the focal plane is right near the very back of the camera as seen here:

 

 

then that means the lens would be considerably larger than the XF18mm

Incorrect. It should be about the same size with 18 if not slightly smaller.

http://192.163.218.51/~jamesmf7/jamesmaherphotography/wp-content/uploads/2016/03/fuji_x100_take_apart-26.jpg

Edited June 1, 2016 by xtrans

[TRAVAIL MANUEL]

yes , in X100 the 2 rear lens was calculate to be very close to sensor , perhaps 3mm

they have to change those rear lens ( optical formula ) for accept the flange focal distance of FX 17.7 mm

 

but lens group still same  so............

 

you can make a little calculation on your  picture  - you arrive approximately to 40mm

 

for example , leica T 23mm f2  : 38mm

[xtrans]

yes , in X100 the 2 rear lens was calculate to be very close to sensor , perhaps 3mm

they have to change those rear lens ( optical formula ) for accept the flange focal distance of FX 17.7 mm

 

but lens group still same  so............

 

you can make a little calculation on your  picture  - you arrive approximately to 40mm

 

for example , leica T 23mm f2  : 38mm

Correct.

18mm f2 length = 40.6mm

[umad?]

yes , in X100 the 2 rear lens was calculate to be very close to sensor , perhaps 3mm

 

it's 5.6mm

 

But your main point is valid: the X100 is small, because the lens is inside the camera. 

Of course the whole lens construction (and optical design) of the X100 lens is different to a lens for an ILC. Aperture, ND filter, flange distance, mount diameter, focus motor. 

In the end it comes down to this:

1. you can build a lens, that (together with the camera) is the size of the X100. But it will suck

2. you can build a lens with the quality of the X100 lens (probably even better) and it will be bigger. How much? a bit. 

[Warwick]

That seems fair enough. For me, the 18mm and the 35f2 are the perfect size to go with my XPro2. If the new 23mm is anywhere in that range, I'd buy it.

 

 

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[mdm]

If the first image of 23F2 is real and it's that long I'd go and buy 27F2.8.... pity....

Edited July 7, 2016 by mdm

[oscillik]

So, I called it.