Fuji really has plans for a Super Fast XF 33mmF1.0 (SRP)! POLL: Should Fuji go ahead and make it?

[Patrick FR]

A source, who was right in the past (SRP), just gave me an update about the previously rumored super fast F1.0 lens.

 

The source said that it is true: Fujifilm is considering to make a super fast lens (at the moment planed as XF 33mmF1.0). The bad part of this rumor: it’s not a final decision of Fujifilm… plans for such a lens could still be dropped.

 

http://www.fujirumors.com/fuji-really-has-plans-for-a-super-fast-xf-33mmf1-0-srp-poll-should-fuji-go-ahead-and-make-it/

 

 

[Goran]

0.95 would be better :-)

[Casa]

If I could only keep one Fuji lens it'd be the 35 1.4, it does everything I need in almost any situation and has a really great quality. I don't need another stop of light and really think Fuji should better add some more affordable glass to the pool, rather than adding more and more luxury lenses for the few freaks who have that kind of money. 

[milandro]

I am really puzzled by the scope of these continuous “ improvements” with the introduction of so many duplicates and especially of the real “ kaizen” of all this which starts looking distinctly like a “ follow the fashion of the moment” kind of thing.

 

So, any time soon a wannabe Fuji photographer would have 3 lenses in this focal range to chose from? The 35mm F 1.4, the 35mm F 2 and the 33 f 1.0?

 

It was already bad enough to see the 56mm being differentiated into an APD version and its  f-utility ( I love a good pun!   ), then they announce this shiny and eye candy 35mm 2 ( ok, that might be a sealed lens) and now another “ bokeh” lens...( I hope they don’t bother putting an aperture at all since the customer for this lens will never bother selecting any other aperture than f 1.0 , so this lens will be the most silent Fuji lens lens possible!  ).

 

What’s the point? The market is what it is. I seriously doubt that someone will switch to the Fuji system because of a lens or two to lure them in. All they do is to compete with themselves and waste productive energy which could be otherwise employed).

[olli]

Absolutely agree with Casa and Milandro. If this is true then it's hard to see the point. Realistically how many people are going to pay the undoubtedly high price of a lens like this for the sake of one stop? As well as the existing and forthcoming Fuji lenses around this focal length there is also the Zeiss lens. How about giving us some compact versions of some other lengths first like a 16/2.8 or a 50/1.8?

[milandro]

Rest assured that there will be enough people to do that or otherwise they wouldn’t do it. 

 

But not many of those would be new Fuji clients. They will be people ditching the 1.4 and buying the 1.0.

 

How many people do you think, were NEW 56 APD buyers? Many were 56 owners who sold one and got the other.

 

Of course this generates some sales and that’s what they naturally want but I think that these energy would be better spent in a different way.

 

This is like I said another time, like multiplying the fish poles in a pond to the point that there are more poles than fish.

 

I am doubtless about the possibility that there will be people out there who would own two 35mm but the majority would go for one or the other.

 

So the owner of a new 35 will place his old one for sale and the lens would be bought by someone who would have bought a 35 anyway.

 

There is only so much fish in the pond.

[citral]

So many better things to do... They should really leave that to third parties.

 

Small and WR 18 and 23 f/2 I'd begin with after that 35 to come.

 

WR RF body.

 

WR 16-35 f/2.8 OIS

 

WR 12-18 f/2.8 OIS

[Aswald]

I'd say bring it on! What's life without a bit of fantasy and dream.....   :rolleyes:  

[aceflibble]

It's something to brag about. It's something to compare to the Leica 50mm f/0.95. It's a showpiece just to say you have it. I don't see any reason why they wouldn't make it. Not practical? Irrelevant. Expensive? Irrelevant. Nobody needs a 6.0-litre, 510BHP DB9, either, but that's not going to stop Aston Martin from making them.

[milandro]

different ball park

[citral]

Well according to the poll 80% of the people find it a great idea.

 

Oh, the humanity...

[benjaminthomson]

I think its a great idea on a 24+mp body. That way you've got the option to crop in to an 85mmish focal length and still have a sufficiently low equivalent aperture.

[milandro]

A lot of people would find it a great idea on paper but, given the probable cost, in the end not too many would buy it.

[hrk]

I suppose it also depends on if they are going to change the sensor size on future cameras (X-pro2 being 1.3 rumors etc?)

[Tom]

Zhongyi Mitakon is on the market with a 35mm F0.95 for X-Mount. Guess Fuji will monitor their sales numbers.

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

[milandro]

yes, it is but again, aside for the aperture, what makes this lens similar to a AF and dialoguing to the camera lens as the Fuji would be?

[1BlinkGone]

I see nothing wrong with a 1.0 but yes, why not just go all-out and produce a f/0.95?  Those who dismiss the mighty Noctilux f/0.95 usually do so for the simple reason that they will NEVER be able to afford one, so they slam the lens to make themselves feel better. 

 

Yes, there have been fantastic images captured with many other lenses, but truly the Noctilux is in a class by itself and in schooled hands renders superb results.

 

I'd love to see what Fuji can cook up in an answer to the Leica Noctilux. My guess is they would bring something to the table that is sterling. IMO and all that.

[9.V.III]

A 35f1.0 makes sense to me.

This is the 50mm equivalent focal length. They already have their long (56f1.2) supreme portraits and now it's time for the ultimate classic "standard" portrait lens. The shorter focal length means they need more aperture for the same bokeh. I know that f1.0 generally doesn't provide more light (too steep an angle for the silicon to catch), but Bokeh is the same on digital and that huge aperture should make the lens perform amazingly well at f1.4, and ideally we would have an image free of vignetting at f2.

If they make it both incredibly sharp and with the best bokeh ever I'm up for getting one. 

[milandro]

Oh yes, of course, what was I thinking!

 

The bokeh.........the bokeh!

 

The “ Open Sesame! “ word of these confused times in need of blurring, a which also translates as “ mental confusion” in Japanese ( uncanny isn’t it?).

 

Sure! Give them the bokeh and they will come to you!

 

The Gospel of Fuji, lecture 35 f1.....

[citral]

Oh yes, of course, what was I thinking!

 

The bokeh.........the bokeh!

 

The “ Open Sesame! “ word of these confused times in need of blurring, a which also translates as “ mental confusion” in Japanese ( uncanny isn’t it?).

 

Sure! Give them the bokeh and they will come to you!

 

The Gospel of Fuji, lecture 35 f1.....

 

Bokeh : From Japanese 暈け (boke, “blur”), the nominalized form of the verb 暈ける (bokeru, “to blur (intransitive)”).

 

Term used by photography enthousiasts to describe the effect of turning poorly chosen backgrounds ionto gold with big dollars.

 

Also see : so creamyyyyy omg, getting creative with photography, my bokeh is creamier than urs

[milandro]

My Japanese is not what it ever was and I rely on wikipedia.....

 

 

“ The term comes from the Japanese word boke (暈け or ボケ), which means "blur" or "haze", or boke-aji (ボケ味), the "blur quality". The Japanese term boke is also used in the sense of a mental haze or senility.^[8] The term bokashi (暈かし) is related, meaning intentional blurring or gradation "

[xherion]

Like what everybody else is saying...

I would rather they expand the line for slower but smaller lenses like 35/2, for example 23/2, 56/1.8, etc.

Not that i would buy them personally, but i am sure many others would. 

 

Or even a 35/1.4 Mark II with improved focusing mechanism would be welcome.

[Watcher24]

...

I would rather they expand the line for slower but smaller lenses like 35/2, for example 23/2, 56/1.8, etc.

Not that i would buy them personally, but i am sure many others would. 

 

Or even a 35/1.4 Mark II with improved focusing mechanism would be welcome.

 

"We know" already that a 35/2 will come. don't we?

And the XF23/2 was the first available Fuji-X lens. However, don't expect to get it uncoupled from X100/s/t.

And when it comes to a smaller short tele, there is still the XF60/2.4

[Phil]

Looks like I'm the odd one out here, but I totally disagree.

 

It seems to me like they're planning on replacing the 35 1.4. And I think this would be a great idea. The 35 1.4 is a great lens, but it's a bit of a jack of all trades. The AF is a little dodgy for street or event shooting, but it has great IQ. And everyone loves the idea of the 35 f2 WR. 

 

I think they're better off replacing the 35 1.4 with two lenses. If they axed the 1.4 and just kept the f2 WR, portrait and low light event people would be out of luck. 35mm is too tight for me for an everyday lens, so I use it for portraits and low light event work, like concerts. I'd kill for the f1.0 for the times when even 1.4 is a little dark, and I'm assuming 1.0 will mean even better image quality at 1.4 and 2.0. Changing the 35 1.4 into two different specialized lenses meets more customers' needs, and I think making a crazy flagship lens just because they can adds some character to the company that many are lacking. Look at how well the Otus lenses are doing - they might fit a smaller niche than a 50mm 1.8, but those who like them like them a lot, and that can still mean the lens will sell.

 

If the 33 1.0 is crazy expensive like the 56 APD, I definitely won't be able to buy it anytime soon, but if they can get it around the $1000 like the regular 56, I'd gladly sell my 35 1.4 for it.

[CRAusmus]

Aren't they making it because it is exactly 50?  If that's the case then I completely see the attraction.  50 is a great focal length, and hugely popular with a lot of photographers.  It's all I shot in film for a very long time, and it's the only lens I own on my AE.

 

I always forget the crop factor, (1.5x is it, or 1.3x?), but isn't this also the case with the 56?  Isn't it exactly 85?

 

If I'm wrong in this then please forgive me but I am sure I read this somewhere because folks were all like "56? Really?  That's odd.."