What lenses should Fuji release next?

[joshinthecity]

35mm f1.0.

 

I absolutely ADORE my 35mm f1.4, but I've got $1200-$1500 any day of the week for a world-class f1.0 version, which you just have to think Fujinon could do if they really wanted to.

If I squeeze my eyes closed really really tight, I can see my X-Pro2 35mm f1.0 combo.

 

j.

[Phil]

What's the point of having faster wide end? At shorter focal lengths one can shoot with longer shutter speeds. It's the tele end that need to be faster but nobody does that. Constant aperture lets you lock ISO and SS in constant lighting. That's important for lot's of people. 

 

Agreed. 9/10 times I treat variable aperture zooms like fixed zooms at the slowest maximum aperture (i.e. I'd treat a 2.8-4 like a fixed f/4), and if anything, I'd prefer the slower, fixed aperture to satisfy my OCD haha.

 

Plus, I use the marked aperture rings a lot more than I thought I would. I was seriously considering getting the 10-24mm, but for some reason it doesn't have a marked aperture ring, and I think it's a deal breaker for me. If I'm just shooting snapshots with family or on a vacation, I'll work in aperture priority, and usually choose an aperture for indoor/low light and an aperture for outdoor, and bounce between the two as lighting changes. Normally I'll just look down at the lens and change it with the camera on or off, but the 10-24 would require the camera being on and me looking at the back screen or viewfinder.

 

35mm f1.0.

 

I absolutely ADORE my 35mm f1.4, but I've got $1200-$1500 any day of the week for a world-class f1.0 version, which you just have to think Fujinon could do if they really wanted to.

If I squeeze my eyes closed really really tight, I can see my X-Pro2 35mm f1.0 combo.

 

j.

 

This. I find 35mm a little tight for general use, so it's become more of a specialized portrait lens for me. Other than that, I mostly use it for environmental photos where I want to give the subject a little more space (like shooting bar gigs and such). I'd take the 1.0 for the extra speed, even if the AF was the same or a bit slower. (On that note, for everyone wanting a 1.0-1.2 with faster AF, it's probably very unlikely. Fuji has said that the amount of glass will somewhat hamper the AF speed, so an f/1.0 lens with fast AF would probably be absolutely massive.) We know the 35 f/2 WR with fast AF is in the works, so hopefully there's a companion 35 1.0 for more specialized needs.

 

Having said that, the current lens lineup more than exceeds my needs or skill level, but I'd love to see:

 

-35mm 1.0 (ideally with wide open performance similar to the 35 1.4 wide open)

 

-10-24 2.8 (I'd be happy with a 10-16 if they needed to cut some range to keep size/costs down)

[darknj]

Thanks to the false alarm by Phil *nudge*nudge* I would like to leave the 23mm F2.8 pancake wishlist here ! 

[flesix]

What's the point of having faster wide end? At shorter focal lengths one can shoot with longer shutter speeds. It's the tele end that need to be faster but nobody does that. Constant aperture lets you lock ISO and SS in constant lighting. That's important for lot's of people. 

 

Shallower DOF. At the tele end, f4 suffices for me,  but at the wide end, the 3.5 of the 55-200 is barely enough for how I work. Plus I'd hope that reducing the zoom range would merit some advantage on the ergonomic side. I don't really like how the 55-200 handles. The 90mm is a bit better already and there might be some room on a 50-140 (135 would also be fine with me) to further improve this. 

[ThorstenMUC]

- 70mm f2.x 1:1 Macro OIS

 

- 18mm f1.x WR (ideally not much bigger, than the current one, but optically improved)

[Jürgen Heger]

For those who don't like variable start aperture on zooms: May be Fuji could just include in the next firmware update lower and may be upper limits for the aperture similar to the limit of the shutter speed in the Auto ISO settings. This should not be too difficult. Then people can decide if they want to benefit from the faster aperture at the wide side or if they want a lens with slower but constant aperture.

[Dis]

For those who don't like variable start aperture on zooms: May be Fuji could just include in the next firmware update lower and may be upper limits for the aperture similar to the limit of the shutter speed in the Auto ISO settings. This should not be too difficult. Then people can decide if they want to benefit from the faster aperture at the wide side or if they want a lens with slower but constant aperture.

The problem is not with the variable aperture itself. The more is better so larger aperture at some focal lengths is a bonus. One has switch to manual to benefit from constant exposure so there will be no aperture change anyway. My point is to get size and weight advantage lowering the aperture to constant value over full zoom range. I expect f/4 zoom to be smaller and lighter than f/2.8-4 zoom. Weight and size advantage could be traded for construction quality, better AF motors, better OIS, WR or whatever engineers manage to achieve.

[Monolomo]

Current 35mm (equivalent to 53mm f 2.1!) just is not fast enough and whole fuji system feels compromised compared to full frame.

So 35 mm f1.0, without blink of an eye…  

[Marc G.]

whole fuji system feels compromised compared to full frame.

Yeah, ahm, no.

[Drezik]

I dont know about you , but i will definitely buy a fuji x fisheye lens , something around 10.5mm like Nikon DX series. Or maybe a prime UWA .

[Wolffbastien]

Hi eveybody!

 

As a person who loves and enjoys photographing - work or no work - I do have to find myself a bit irritated, how much time people spend in arguing around about anything which gives what ever possibility to talk or write or guess around ....??

 

What ever Fuji up to now has delivered is quite perfect (in this category of tools - we are not talking about MF or FF or whatever else with what ever else corresponding criterias!!) and is originally made to photograph - not to elaborate and talk about utopia comparisons and alternative whishes for christmas. Photographing means "draw with light" ("photos" and "graphein") but not mostly searching opinions based on endless tests and criteria-hopping and technological and intellectual knowledge-posing.

 

As far as I am concerned, I think beside all that technical and "numbers and figures-stuff" we all in this forum should start to focus here as well (... especially here) far more on the "real thing": photographing with Fujis brilliant cameras!

 

I have the feeling, that the majority of the members is debating far more about reasons and perspectives of their GAS than about taking pictures and enoying and learning the light.

 

All these so hypercratic discussed focal-legths and f-stops and and and ... make only very little differences in my photographing-experience: 56 vs. 90 ... super-bokeh vs super duper-bokeh ... 35/1.4 vs 35/2 ... 16-55 vs 18-55 ... and so on.

 

Ok - there are differences in divers parameters, but the heck not by any means relevant for such endless argumentations. 56 vs 90 for example is in many situations just two steps..... Is there really such difference between 90/2 and 90/2.8 (50-140/2.8) and is that really such a relevant criterium for this or that picture .... and for most of us??

 

From my point of view there are far mor other criterias, which are by far more important: the light, the distance to the "object", the perspective (from above, horizontal, frontal, sideward, from the back ....), the posture of the model, and and and.  2.0 vs. 2.8 is there - Yes, but ..... :-))

 

So - back to work for today ... it´s not even midday here and these are just my two cents "into the blogging fuji-world":  Don't loose real lives beauty and go for it and make Yourself and others happy with Your personal Art of Light: Have sex or a good whiskey, but don't talk and think to much about and compare sexfilms and whiskey labels  ....... :-))) !!

 

 

Have a nice and happy day all

 

Wolffbastien

[darknj]

Current 35mm (equivalent to 53mm f 2.1!) just is not fast enough and whole fuji system feels compromised compared to full frame.

So 35 mm f1.0, without blink of an eye…  

 

Alright, this needs to stops... When you make the conversion from a cropped sensor to anything larger, you multiply the focal length to get an idea of about the field of view but you do not multiply the Fstop. F1.4 means F1.4 amount of light hitting the sensor, the size doesn't matter.

 

The depth of field is related to the sensor size, true. But you do not multiply the Fstop.

 

My apologies for this remark to land your plate mate, really, but it is really getting annoying after a certain point.

[jamesbernard]

I'd love a 8-500mm f/2 zoom, but maybe that's just me...

[Vidalgo]

I'm very interested in 55-200 Mk2, with better AF and WR added.

[Dis]

I'd love a 8-500mm f/2 zoom, but maybe that's just me...

Pancake, 100g, internal zoom, OIS, WR, AUTO-WORLDS-BEST-PHOTO button.

[Tom H.]

f2 is a bit slow, make it f1.4 please.

[jamesbernard]

Pancake, 100g, internal zoom, OIS, WR, AUTO-WORLDS-BEST-PHOTO button.

That's what I'm saying!

[gordonrussell76]

If we are talking blue sky here, the lens I would love to see them make would be a

 

12-33mm F2.8 Constant, could be 14/16-33/35 if it kept price down. Basically something in that range. Wider than 18mm and top end at FF50mm equivalent or close ie 33mm which is closer than the current 35mm which is actually nearer to 53mm.

 

This would give FF 18-50mm ) or 21/24-50) which for me would be an awesome range of focal lengths at decent light.

 

I would love this lens. This would be for me a do it all walk around lens, soon as I get past 35mm I want a prime anyway as we are in portrait territory.

 

I would have this lens the 56mm and the 90 and be a very happy little bunny.

 

At the moment the only option to cover this range is 10-24 and a 35mm prime. Or 16-55mm but I don't need the 35-55mm range and the lens is MASSIVE, if they could do a 16-33 or 14-33 and have it the same size as the 10-24 constant aperture and with F stops marked on aperture dial like the 16-55mm I would buy it in a heartbeat.

 

However they won't, why, because it would replace too many other lenses in there line up, if this lens was out a lot of people who have say the 10-24mm and 16-55 or 18-55 would probably happily trade in those two zooms for a lens that covered 14-35mm and then they could add in a 56mm for portraits That would be a hell of a 2 lens kit. You could always add a 55-140mm/55-200 or 90mm prime to round out to an amazing 3 lens kit depending on your preferences at the long end.

[chris7384bu]

A 33mm f0.95 or f1.0, please.

[ThorstenMUC]

just my mood of the day: Fujinon 18mm f1.7 R LM WR

[Maisy]

Well here is my list.

1) 16-70mm or 16- 80mm F4  no stabilizer to keep in compact

2)  Remake the 60mm Macro with better autofocus and stabilized

3) And of course the lens we all want, compact 23mm F2

[nielsgaastra]

70-200 F4 (like Canon, but not in white please  )

10-18 affordable wide angle

[SOSKIphoto]

I would love to have a long/fast lens like a 140 f/2 OIS (200mm f/2 equivalent) or a 200 f/2.8 OIS (300mm f/2.8 equivalent) for super compressed portraits/ big wedding and corporate venues, etc.

[Phil]

A 33mm f0.95 or f1.0, please.

 

Pretty sure I've said this already, but it bears repeating. The 56 is next on my list, and I really want the 16 and 90, but I would put everything on hold if they released a super fast 50mm equivalent (as long as the price was around/under the $1000 mark). I like the 35, but almost always choose the 23 instead for practicality's sake (it's wider, so more versatile for what I usually shoot). I shoot in dark situations a lot, and a super fast ~35mm would get a lot of practical use, and it would make for some really unique photos. 

[Marc G.]

I'd love to have a 2.8 weather sealed non-stabilized wide angle. 10-18 or 10-20 would suffice, regarding focal length range. WR/LM/R are must haves. Priced around 1200€, so slightly higher than the 16-55.