XF 100-400 Aperture Range now from 4.5 to 5.6? – POLL: Better Slower & Smaller (and cheaper) or Bigger & Faster?

[Patrick FR]

XF 100-400 Recap:

– July 2014: Fujifilm releases a new roadmap, showing a super tele-photo zoom lens coming in late 2015.
– Photokina, September 2014: Fujifilm shows XF 140-400 mock-up with an aperture range that goes from F4 to F5.6.
– February 2015: Fujifilm updates the roadmap and now shows an XF 100-400 coming in early 2016… no aperture range indication on the roadmap
– CP+, February 2015: a journalist of ValueTechTV says that the XF 100-400 release was delayed, because Fuji decided to change the aperture range at the wide end and make it slower and smaller.
– The latest roadmap spotted by FR-reader Stalkdog here, shows that Fuji will release the XF 100-400 in March 2016.

 

Now, FR-reader aki noted, that the roadmap shows an XF 100-400 that is 4.5 at the wide and 5.6 at the long end, confirming what the journalist at ValueTech said.

 

POLL at FujiRumors: http://www.fujirumors.com/xf-100-400-aperture-range-now-from-4-5-to-5-6-poll-better-slower-smaller-or-bigger-faster/

[citral]

Well if you're after such a giant lens, why not go all the way and have it as fast as possible?

 

On the other hand, it won't be targeted at real pros with a variable aperture. That will be more for the safari / wildlife enthusiast. So I can see that it would make sense to make it cheaper, but smaller ? Not a real issue in that range imho.

[SauveGV]

We've recently (no so for Canon) seen longer lenses introduced that have lower weight because of the use of a Fresnel type of glass element (PF at Nikon and DO at Canon).  So why not suggest a XF100-400 f4 making use of that technology?

[Marc G.]

Fuji's customers are not accustomed to the extreme prices that come with small badge, large aperture telephoto primes or zooms. A zoomlens making use of the Fresnel technology and being f/4 constant would probably cost way beyond 5000€ for Fuji, as they will sell a lot less than Canikon. Currently I just don't see a valid market for a large aperture, expensive telephoto zoom. The f/4.5-5.6 is likely to be the best solution, which is why Fuji will produce it. The 100-400 can still fit in a proper photo backpack without the need for one of those cumbersome glass taxi type backpacks.

 

People need to realize that Fuji doesn't have the market share of bigger companies, yet still acts as if they had a bigger market share. They're just not there yet, when it comes to the customer numbers to produce a 135/2, 200/2.8 or similar sport/wildlife-pro-considered lenses.

 

We should consider ourselves lucky that Fuji does provide us with a 150-600 equivalent. A very good OIS and the low noise are likely to help future users overcome the disadvantage of the slow aperture (although f/5.6 isn't really all that slow when looking at such a long focal length... it's 1 stop slower than the standard 600 f/4).

[waggles]

For a constant f4 zoom that goes to 400mm, it would be better to buy the Canon or Nikon and add a dslr body to the package. The extra cost and weight of the dslr body would be very small compared to using a fujifilm body and the performance would be superior.

[PatrickB]

As long as the AF- can focus easily and the sensor can keep up at higher ISOs needed it's fine for action shots. For isolation purposes a f4 lens would be better... 

[bhu]

For a long zoom like this, I would like it fast with OIS without making it overly bulky and heavy. That should be easy enough 

[dannat]

i wish they would drop the 100mm section, & make it 200-400, i find 100-200 mostly unusale -its either too close or doesn't get you close enough. im fine with f5.6 at 400mm -no faster needed -it adds too much bulk/weight. actualy id be happy if they made it a prime, either 300/4 or 400/5.6 with OIS

[EyesUnclouded]

actualy id be happy if they made it a prime, either 300/4 or 400/5.6 with OIS

 

This would be perfect, from a technical standpoint.

 

In fact, you could say there are also other "traditional" focal lenghts missing from the system, such as a 135mm f/2.8 (~200mm FoV FF equivalent) and 200mm f/3.5 or f/4 (300mm FoV FF equivalent). The only trouble is, while Canikon have the critical mass to include such lenses in their lineup (in fact, they already had them ages ago, from the film era), Fuji doesn't yet. I don't think there are enough Fuji high-end sports/wildlife photographers to justify investment in such specialized and expensive glass. Which is a shame, I'll admit. 

[NorAndFey]

I'm afraid of the size of this one. It can be huge. But by the sensor size, it can and should be a lot smaller and lighter than the bew Canon 100-400mm with same aperture range, which handles fullframe.

 

Something close to the size and weight of the 50-140mm, but a little bit shorter, is my wild guess.

 

I'm not sure if I will get it. Maybe if it's small enough. Then I will sell my 55-200mm. So I will welcome the 100-200mm range.

[Marc G.]

But by the sensor size, it can and should be a lot smaller and lighter than the bew Canon 100-400mm with same aperture range, which handles fullframe.

Wrong.

[PenThis]

But by the sensor size, it can and should be a lot smaller and lighter than the bew Canon 100-400mm with same aperture range, which handles fullframe.

 

 

Very wrong unfortunately.  Physics just doesn't support this comment - unless you wish to see the continuation of the already false aperture markings on these lens.  

[Marc G.]

And it's fairly easy to prove, too.

 

100-400 f/4.5-5.6 gives you the physical opening of 400/5.6 which equates to 71.43mm physical opening of the lens. It does not matter whether the lens has to supply a fullframe or aps sensor. It's just simple math.

[Felix]

I agree with dannat. Having used the 80-400mm on the Nikon FF, I have found that it was mostly used at the long end. While this doesn't make the lens much smaller, it would be easier to keep the optical performance at the sort of quality we have become used to from Fuji. 

I have gravitated to Fuji from the Nikon D800E simply because the FF rig ended up being too heavy to carry over extended distances. However, I am retaining one of the Nikon bodies and the 500mm prime lens simply because there is no alternative in Fuji's lineup.

The aperture used in the proposed long lens from Fuji needs to be bright enough to ensure good AF performance, even at the long end of the lens. If it can't lock onto birds in flight, it is not worth buying. On the other hand, if it can, I'll be the first in line to smash my piggy bank to buy one.

OIS is not important to me. I shoot all my wildlife shots in manual exposure mode at an ISO setting high enough to gove me 1/2000sec or faster to keep the wingtips sharp. Camera shake becomes irrelevant at that speed.

[Patrick FR]

This mock-up is right now shown at the Digital Show in Melbourne. Shows aperture range from 4.5 to 5.6

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!

[Patrick FR]

120mm

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!

[mpw1950]

This would be perfect, from a technical standpoint.

 

In fact, you could say there are also other "traditional" focal lenghts missing from the system, such as a 135mm f/2.8 (~200mm FoV FF equivalent) and 200mm f/3.5 or f/4 (300mm FoV FF equivalent). The only trouble is, while Canikon have the critical mass to include such lenses in their lineup (in fact, they already had them ages ago, from the film era), Fuji doesn't yet. I don't think there are enough Fuji high-end sports/wildlife photographers to justify investment in such specialized and expensive glass. Which is a shame, I'll admit. 

 

There is an element of chicken and egg. There are not enough Fuji sport/wildlife shooters to justify fast, long lenses. But without them sport/wildlife photographers cannot switch. Probably need to get AF up to Canon/Nikon speed first though.

[Patrick FR]

XF 50-140 Vs. XF100-400 Size Comparison: http://www.fujirumors.com/xf100-400-mock-up-shows-a-4-5-to-5-6-aperture-range-no-further-delay-fuji-x-pro2-available-early-2016/

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!

[cale33]

I hope they show this lens next weekend at the PhotoPlus show here in NewYork.  Hope it comes out before the end of the year.  I'm going to go see tigers in India and I don't think they'll come close enough to use my dear 10-24 lens.

[Jürgen Heger]

Again no aperture numbers and no stops on the aperture ring. I really miss them on my 18-55 and 55-200.

[Lichtklicker]

Funny no one complains about the filter thread! 82mm?? What the heck...my old Canon 100-400 full frame lens has only 77mm and is a fine lens.
The Fuji is only APS-C and needs 82mm?​

[JKennedy]

I, for one, am very excited to add this lens to my kit. It more-or-less replicates Nikon's AF-S Nikokor 80-400mm f/4.5-5.6 lens, which Thom Hogan http://bythom.com uses on his photo safaris and workshops to produce absolutely beautiful images. Physics and cost constrain Fuji to the same f-stop range that Nikon faced. With airline size and weight limits getting ever more stringent, an f/4.0 lens is not w elcome prospect. Fuji X-Series high ISO performance is so stellar that getting that extra one-third to one full stop of exposure does not seem like that big of a sacrifice to me.

 

Like Lichtlicker, however, I am astonished at the 82mm filter thread size. A large objective lens is a major contributor to lens weight, along with the added weight of the larger diameter lens body to accomodate that larger lens element. I'm hoping the filter size shown is in error, and that it will come with come with 77mm threads. For what it's worth, Art Wolfe keeps a polarizer on all of his long glass to get more saturated colors, and you can imagine the cost of an 82mm circular polarizer....

 

Regarding the size comparison with the XF 50-140mm f/2.8 lens, note that the XF 100-400mm lens in the photo is sitting on the rear lens mount, and not on a lens cap, which would add even more to the height/length.

 

Just my random thoughts. I used the 55-200mm lens in the Galapagos Islands last November, and I was VERY disappointed by the extremely poor autofocus performance and the short reach. Personally, I can't wait to get my hands on this lens. 

[danwells]

I have to admit that I am quite disappointed in the 82mm filter size. The theoretical minimum filter size for this lens is actually 72mm (but that is SO tight that it would be surprising to actually see one). The aperture size is ~71.5mm (400/5.6), but front elements are generally larger than the aperture, and the filter size needs to be slightly larger than the front element. Canon and Nikon's modern ~100-400 lenses both have 77mm filter diameters on thoroughly modern designs (stabilized, weather resistant, multiple low-dispersion elements). Sigma had some older lenses that claimed to get "400mm f5.6" into a 72mm filter diameter, but I'm suspicious that the 400mm was more like 350, the f5.6 was closer to f6, or both (especially since newer Sigmas are 77mm for the same specs). I don't know why Fuji needs an extra 5mm over every other modern lens in the same focal length and aperture range?

 

The size and weight of a telephoto (which filter diameter is a proxy for) - if this lens were 82mm, but smaller and lighter than the CaNikon equivalents, I wouldn't worry about it - are almost completely independent of format, within reason. At least one 300mm f2.8 lens made for full frame was revealed to actually cover not only medium format, but 4x5 as well, once internal baffles are removed. The Olympus 300mm f2.8 for 4/3 (pre Micro 4/3) is not only larger and heavier than Canon and Nikon full frame 300 f2.8 lenses (which cover 4 times the area), but also heavier than Mamiya's 300 mm f2.8 for 645 medium format, and not much lighter than the Zeiss 300mm 2.8 fot the old square Hasselblads, which covered something like 10 times the area! On a wide-angle lens, format size matters in terms of size, weight and practicality, but it really doesn't for a long lens (other than that a 400 mm on APS-C will have the angle of view of a (much heavier) 600 mm on full frame, which is why many wildlife photographers carry a crop body). I used 300 f2.8s as an example, because they've been made for a ton of formats over the years. As such, I'd expect the Fuji 100-400 to be compatible with any future full-frame Fuji body , unless they change the mount (it might even work with a medium format body - it would be about the only lens that might, and probably not worth a special-purpose mount adapter)- but, conversely, it shouldn't be any smaller or lighter than a modern 100-400 f4.5-5.6 for full frame.

 

As for the constant-aperture wishes for this type of lens (other than constant f5.6, which WOULD be possible), that lens would be twice the weight and three times the price of what we're getting. The MINIMUM possible filter diameter is 100mm, and a real lens will be between 105 and 112mm (it would actually use rear drop-in filters). The Nikon version of a 200-400 mm f4 is 7.5 lbs and $7000, while the Canon is 8 lbs and $11,000 (but it has a built-in teleconverter). They start at 200mm, but once you're carrying THAT much weight and cost, you won't even notice the 50-140 coming along! Accept f5.6 on the long end, and the lenses are ~3.5 lbs and $2000 (the new Nikon is unusually expensive, at $2700).

 

What I'd personally love to see (but Fuji may be too small to give us) is a diffractive or fresnel version of this lens. The front diameter wouldn't change, but the lens would get much shorter and lighter. Judging by what's happened to Canon and Nikon lenses that have adopted this technology, the savings could be something like 30% in length and as much as 50% in weight. Nikon has a 1.7 lb 300 mm f4 fresnel (its predecessor was 3.2 lbs).

[CRAusmus]

I think that this should still be considered rumor.  The lens will be present as CES, so we should have definite specs come January...

[danwells]

I wonder if the release date is January 16 (the week after CES). That is the (solidly rumored) release date for the X-Pro 2, perhaps at an event for the 5th anniversary of the X System, and a couple of lenses would make sense there as well.