Jump to content

FUJIFILM will develop an XF 8-16mmF2.8 WR lens


Patrick FR
 Share

Recommended Posts

I think that this lens is an extremely important proof of concept design. An 8-16mm Fuji XF lens would help demonstrate that the Fuji X mount is a highly capable mount that can convincingly support a f/2.8 zoom trinity going from 8-16mm, 16-55mm up to 50-140mm. 

 

This Fuji wide angle zoom lens will be the full frame equivalent of a 12-24mm full frame lens, which would compete against the likes of the Canon 11-24mm f/4.0 lens and the Nikon 14-24mm f/2.8 lens. If it performs well, the Fuji wide-angle f/2.8 zoom would constitute a resounding assertion of the ability of the X mount to cater to a full range of focal lengths required for full professional usage. Most importantly, Fuji would be throwing down the gauntlet to Sony, challenging them to come up with a comparable f/2.8 wide angle zoom for their full frame mirrorless FE mount. 

 

The trouble is that Sony would likely be unable to fire back with a full frame mirrorless wide angle fast zoom. The reason can be found in this diagram:

 

flange-focal-distance-and-angle-of-incid

 

Fuji themselves have stated that:

 

 

https://fujifilm-blog.com/2015/06/30/interview-with-mr-takashi-ueno-from-fujifilm-tokyo-why-dont-fujifilm-make-full-frame-dslr/

 

The problem with the Sony E mount is that it was originally intended to be an APS-C mount, and it has an 18mm flange distance largely identical to that of the Fuji X mount (17.8mm), and Canon EF-M mount (18mm). What Sony did was to take an APS-C mount and use it as the basis of a full frame mount. That is the reason why the angle of incidence of light in the corners become unusually steep, as shown in the above diagram. This will likely limit the ability of engineers to develop quality lenses wider than about 18mm especially since the angle of incidence increases with ultra wide angle lenses. Here is how the mathematics of it work out:

 
Where X2 = Rear element distance from sensor. Y2 = 1/2 distance of diagonal measure of sensor.  We then derive the Tangent of A°2:
 
Tan A°2 = Y2 / X2
Tan A°2 = ~21.63mm / 18mm flange distance = ~1.202 = ~50.2°
 
Therefore maximum FOV @ 18mm flange optic distance = 2 x 50.2° or ~100.4°, or, roughly, the FOV of an 18mm lens.
 

The reason why maximum apertures for the E mount primes are commonly limited to around f/1.8 may also be to avoid exposing acutance problems in the corners. When the maximum aperture is increased to f/1.4, the engineers need to make the lens larger to overcome the corner problems. This causes a blowout in the lens size on ultra wide aperture models without necessarily resulting in better performance compared to their DSLR peers (the 85mm f/1.4 GM lens has MTF plots similar to the Nikon 85mm f/1.4 lens, and thus by extrapolation a performance similar to the now discontinued Sigma 85mm f/1.4 EX DG HSM lens despite its greater size). 

 

As it stands already, the Sony Vario-Tessar T* FE 16-35mm F4 ZA OSS has severe corner problems at the 16mm end. To achieve the 16mm focal length on the FE 16-35mm f/4, Zeiss were forced to deploy a double concave lens element on the sensor-side to adequately project the image so as to cover the full surface of the sensor. If the maximum aperture were increased to f/2.8, the corner problems would become even worse. That means we may never see a decently performing 16-35mm f/2.8 E mount zoom lens, and a 12-24mm f/2.8 zoom is even less likely. Even an acceptably high performance full frame 14-24mm f/2.8 lens like the Nikon version is probably impossible to execute acceptably on the E mount. 

 

Sony fanboys will gurgle and froth at the mouth on reading this, but these are mathematical limits dictated entirely by the physics of the mount. It is a functional limit everyone has to accept when you have a full frame mirrorless system based on an APS-C dimension mount. It matters little how upset Sony fanboys get with me for pointing these inconvenient facts out. They can say what they please, but the only way these theoretical limits can be decisively disproven is by Sony producing a high-performance full frame 12-24mm f/2.8 zoom, a 14-24mm f/2.8 zoom, or at the very least, a 16-35mm f/2.8 GM zoom. Sony are welcome to go ahead and prove me wrong. I will be only to pleased if they could overcome this critical hurdle, and since I also shoot on the Sony E mount I will consider buying such a lens. But as you can see I have very good cause to be immensely sceptical.

 

So the Fuji 8-16mm f/2.8 will be an extremely important lens that will showcase what the X-mount is capable of. It will put immense pressure on Sony to show that their rival full frame E mount is a similarly professional grade lens mount. After all what kind of a lens mount would it be if it cannot support the full f/2.8 zoom trinity? It matters not in the slightest if some do not shoot at ultra wide angles. The more critical factor is the proof of concept that a mount is capable of supporting a full range of focal lens for a wide variety of applications. Although the proof is in the eating, the physics of it predicts that it is a challenge the X mount will probably pass, just as the E mount will equally likely fail—and fail dismally.

Or You have to build "telecentric" lenses like Leica does with the new SL system.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I know the passion for which lens to put out next is often quite high due to the limited number for the Fuji mount, so it follows that this sort of lens could divide everyone into camps.  

 

I would love it but I come from a background in newspaper PJ that was arguably the birth place of both the prime and zoom "holy trinities".***   Most "normal" people also don't carry 2-3 bodies either - one over each shoulder and maybe one around the neck.  Much of that stems from never knowing what your day would bring in the way assignments - so you had to always be carrying wide, normal and tele around.

 

I agree that the wide is not useful for many folks but It is a foundational to the photojournalists tool kit for shooting environmental portraits, action in tight spaces, crowds and for remote camera setups.   Since documentary photojournalism often avoids flash photography when shooting stories - especially the ones that involve intimate access to the subject to tell the story - a fast wide is needed

 

 

The only 2 reasons I have held onto any Canon gear are I still have my EF 20-35 2.8 which even 20 years on - is one of my sharpest lenses. (The other reason is wireless TTL HSS setups.  Fuji needs to get its act together on the strobes.  It isn't event the "fancy" stuff like HSS - AF assist is something I hear folks wanting improved on the forums.)

 

 

*** There are even a couple of variations for sub-genres like sports.  35mm sports work was mostly the 16-35 wide zoom for remote cameras, to get the team huddle or "hail Mary" in the scrum, the 70/80-200 and a  300/400/600.   But the fast ultra-wide always stayed on one of your 3 bodies.

Edited by webpublius
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...
  • 2 weeks later...

Rumour has it that Sony are soon going to release their 16-35mm f/2.8 thus completing their f/2.8 zoom trinity to complement their f/4 zoom trinity.

 

BUT where have Fuji gone? They are nowhere to be seen. It looks like they are going to be caught napping as Sony completes the zoom trinity before they do. 

 

Time to wake up and do something about it...quick pronto.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

BUT where have Fuji gone? They are nowhere to be seen. It looks like they are going to be caught napping as Sony completes the zoom trinity before they do.

 

Time to wake up and do something about it...quick pronto.

Would there be enough interest to justify the development cost?

Link to post
Share on other sites

[...]

BUT where have Fuji gone? They are nowhere to be seen. It looks like they are going to be caught napping as Sony completes the zoom trinity before they do. 

 

Time to wake up and do something about it...quick pronto.

 

First of all, it's a rumor. By definition that means it is really not certain that they are going to release anything or if they are even working on it.

 

Second point, lens development takes a long time, the rumors of that 23mm F2 have been around for almost a year now, and we very recently got some glimpse of it.

 

That lens rumor start in June, that's not even a quarterly yet. There is no way they would have a finished product yet, at best, they might have a prototype and could be moving into field testing within the next quarterly or maybe early Q1 next year.

 

Long story short, take some patience and wait for it. Fuji has to release a fully fleshed out triumvirate of F2.8 "pro" lenses and they are aware of it. There are no need to rush for it as alternatives exist, even native from Fuji.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...

It is important that Fuji demonstrate that the X system is even capable of supporting a full f/2.8 zoom "trinity". What sort of a mount would it be if it couldn't support the full focal range for every application? 

 

The trouble is that it is known that mirrorless ultra wides are difficult to design, and it is terra incognito for optical engineers. SLR ultra wides are derivatives of old designs, but engineers are breaking new ground with mirrorless ultra wides. That means it will take longer, but it is simply logical that Fuji need to fill out its lens range by offering the full fast zoom trinity. In that sense it is hardly mere rumour and speculation that at some point Fuji will manage to come up with a satisfactory optical formula for an ultra wide fast zoom. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

As long as 8mm is rectilinear, I'm all for it.  Ultra wide is an acquired taste any it takes time to figure out what subject matter it works best with.  Also, it the max focal length were 18mm that might be a little nicer since that i one use a lot. (selfish me!)

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...
  • 1 month later...

Please please please make it 8-16mm f/2.8 WR and most importantly compact. Not like as compact as 35mm f/2.0 WR because that's pretty impossible but just compact enough so we can walkaround with it.

 

Just imagine all the possibilities with a 8-16mm lens :) :)

 

The same is for me.  I tried 3 different 10-24, all were blurred at the left side. Don't want to try a 4th or 5th one.

So please give us this lens.  B)  ;)

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

Do you guys think it will be smaller or bigger or about the same size as the 10-24?

 

It would definitely be bigger, just compare any F4 to F2.8 lenses that are the same focal length.

But that being said ... if they released a 2.8 version and did not put IS in the lens ... it may not be too much larger than the current which has IS. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

A 2.8 lens should be huuuge :-)

 

 

It would definitely be bigger, just compare any F4 to F2.8 lenses that are the same focal length.

But that being said ... if they released a 2.8 version and did not put IS in the lens ... it may not be too much larger than the current which has IS. 

 

Good! Then I'm still at the dilemma between chosing between just the 16 and 10-24

Edited by Hermelin
Link to post
Share on other sites

Good! Then I'm still at the dilemma between chosing between just the 16 and 10-24

 

Get both ... I did!

 

Got the 10-24 first, then 12 months later I got the 16.

 

I use them at totally different times, so having both is ideal

I use the 10-24 when outside in adequate light or when I want (or need) hand held slow shutter as the IS is quite good.  I can shoot @ 1/4 second easily with that lens and get a nice sharp image.

 

I use the 16 when I go indoors and set the aperture to 1.4 and don't touch it.  That is where that lens shines.   :)

Edited by Adam Woodhouse
Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share


×
×
  • Create New...