An Argument for an XF 135mm f/1.8 or f/2.0 Lens

[Sator-Photography]

With the appearance of a new lens roadmap, I thought I would put together my case in favour of an XF 135mm f/1.8 prime lens.

 

I appreciate that Fuji are focussing on smaller, more compact lenses that sell more volume. However, precisely within this philosophy I think there is a place for a 135mm f/1.8 lens.

 

1. It is Still Portable

 

If you have used the Sony A mount 135mm f/1.8 or either the Canon or Nikon 135mm f/2.0 lenses, then you will know that a fast 135mm prime isn't impossible to carry around. A vastly portable and practical 135m f/1.8 would see a lot of use out in the field. By way of contrast the sometimes rumoured XF 200mm f/2.0 would be very heavy and cumbersome to carry around.  

 

2. It Highlights the Strengths of the X System 

 

A 135mm lens gives you the same reach as a 200mm full frame prime lens. While 200mm f/2.0 primes are high-end lenses much coveted by portrait photographers, their size and weight tend to limit them to being studio only beasts for use on a tripod. You will virtually never see a wedding photographer carrying a full frame 200mm f/2.0 lens around with them. Yet a wedding or portrait photography could easily carry a 135mm f/1.8 lens with them to shoot in the field, and in fact it would be smaller than the XF 50-140mm f/2.8 zoom lens. 

 

3. It Would be Affordable

 

Affordable compared to full frame 200mm f/2.0 prime lenses, which not only tend to be extremely expensive, but for all their costliness the size severely limits the usefulness for anything other than studio work, making it even harder to justify the expense. The Canon 200mm f/2.0 costs $5,699.00 at B&H Photo, yet by comparison the Sony-Zeiss A mount 135mm f/1.8 costs $1,698.00—and given the price premium a Sony-Zeiss design commands, a Fuji XF 135mm f/1.8 would probably cost less. Affordable and practical here also means immensely sellable. 

 

4. It Compliments the Current Line Up

 

It seems a much more logical successor to follow on from the 90mm f/2.0 than a 200mm f/2.0 lens, which would be much more of a niche product. 

 

5. The X System is Still Better for Portraiture than Action

 

A 135mm fast prime would be excellent for the sort of thing that the X system excels at most such as portraiture and wedding photography. On the other hand, a 200mm f/2.0 prime would be more for sports and wildlife. While smaller format mirrorless is catching up, when shooting action it is still better at the sort of subject material you would shoot with a 135mm prime. It makes more sense to make a 135mm prime first, then once the X system matures to become even better at shooting sports and wildlife, make a 200mm fast prime to make full use of it.

 

To help give readers an idea of the size of a 135mm f/1.8 vs the XF 50-140mm f/2.8 lens, here is the full frame Sony-Zeiss 135mm f/1.8 for comparison:

 

 

In summary, a 135mm f/1.8 (or even a f/2.0) prime lens seems to cry out as a logical focal length for Fuji to develop, a lens that would showcase the key strengths of the X system over rival full frame systems in allowing a combination of high-end optics with tremendous portability. I think it would sell reasonably well, and moreover attract more users over to the X system. 

 

[frod]

I think the advent of the newer sensors and AF performance will start to bring more long lenses through. They were a tough sell before; why put up with nearly the same weight as a DSLR and inferior AF? But that will surely change over time now that the XT-2 in particular is here.

[wildcart]

Its too bad they didn't put a 135mm or 200mm on the updated roadmap yet    So until 2017 no new prime tele lens 

[kim]

I already have a 2/135 for my Fuji, it's not that small but it's light and the IQ is outstanding, also looks great with it's little red ring detail near the front. Focus system is a little slow at times though. 

[aceflibble]

Samyang do a 135mm f/2 for Fuji X mount, and of course you can adapt the Canon versions to Fuji, too. (Albeit stuck wide-open, unable to close the aperture.) The look is fine. It works fine. It's just a tough sell because 200mm f/2.8 has never been particularly popular as a prime lens in the SLR world, and everybody is stuck on 'converting' the lenses they're used to for SLR into mirrorless equivalents. Even if you took it to be 135mm f/1.4, so it's a proper replacement for an SLR's 200mm f/2, it'd still be a very hard sell. Those kinds of lenses are so rarely used in the SLR world that people just don't think of them. People will just query why they'd use that instead of using the 50-140, or the 90mm.

 

Maybe fi you really stacked the deck with f/1.4, WR, OIS, and the promise of either a much better AF system or semi-macro capabilities, and you somehow got the price and weight in well under the 50-140, then I could see that gaining a small following, in the same way the Canon 200mm f/2.8 has despite the more popular 135mm and 70-200s on that system. But a straight-forward 135mm f/2 for Fuji would just die on its arse.

[deva]

I see no reason to buy a 135/2 when I have the 50-140/2.8 that has exceptional OIS, is very sharp and is WR. I can shoot that handheld at 1/30th second. AF is fast and it is a zoom. 

 

What would I use the 135 for? Once you get up to that sort of focal length, you have to move the feet too much for framing. I'd rather have the zoom. Primes like the 16/1.4 or 23/1.4 it is easy to quickly move the feet for framing. 

 

A 135/1.4 would be interesting just cause it would open up low light opportunities out on the street at night... but how big and expensive would that be? I'd rather a 70/1.4 !

[aceflibble]

^ See, the problem there is you said "the street at night", which isn't what these kinds of lenses are made for. 200mm f/2 or f/2.8s are made and used almost exclusively for studio portraits, or other formal portrait settings. They're headshot lenses. They rarely adapt well for macro, they're too long for most product photography, they're too long for most events and street shooting, they're too restrictive for most landscape shooters, they're too restrictive for most sports, and they're nowhere near long enough for wildlife.

 

Basically, if you're not a professional portrait photographer, or a wedding photographer with a very particular style, a 200mm or equivalent isn't a lens you should look twice at. That doesn't mean it's useless or there is no point. It's simply a specialist lens, which is irreplaceable for the few people who do rely on them. See also: ultra-wide angle lenses, extreme macro lenses, tilt shift lenses, 400mm+ wildlife/sports lenses, etc.