Jump to content
quincy

Complete Overview over the available and upcoming Fuji X-Mount lenses

Recommended Posts

.Most of you will be proud, this is my first post. 

 

I have Rokinon 85mm T1.5 CINE (EOS Mount) which you listed it as Samyang 85mm f/1.4 VCSC.

I owned it for nearly 10 months. I use it with EOS-FX ZY Optics Lens Turbo II (Focal Reducer). The lens really sharp wide open but critical to nail the focus  because the DOF is very shallow... you will end up with small focus area where it's sharp, this why most people claimed its soft. If you stop it down to f/2.4 and up, it starts to get sharper all the way up to f/11 Bokeh performance doesn't have the characters of the classic vintage lenses. I owned many vintage lenses that needs to be mention. If you decide to get the lens, you might not be happy with bokeh but mostly happy with sharpness and how it handles CA very extremely well. My work speaks for itself, check out the samples here

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To the OP:

 

Your post about all of these lenses seem like you do not have any first hand experience with the Fuji X system. Seems more conjecture and guessing. I own a decent amount of Fuji glass with my XT-1.  Keep in mind what is not a good lens or camera or filter or anything is the perfect item for someone else.

 

If you are going to review a lens you either have to be crystal clear that you have the lens, shot the lens, used the lens to make money at photography, made actual prints from said lens.  If not all this means is you can not financially afford said lens and wish your could or it is troll like.

 

I guarantee you I do not spend $1,000 on a lens just to spend $1,000. 

 

 

What does Pro-Orientated mean? If you have a p&s camera and someone pays you to take photos, you are a pro. Being recognized for your photography past that it is just a hobby. The 16-55 mm 2.8 is a big lens, but it is not as you say very big heavy and expensive. Use the Fuji large hand grip, learn how to hold a camera and lens, use a mono-pod if you have to. The 16-55 is currently less expensive than the Fuji XT-1 body with the current sale as of today. 

 

It is also obvious the 18-55 mm 2.8 to 4.0 is less expensive and that is my point is that, one complains when it comes to cost like this. Then you say the 16-55 is only for studio work? No it is not. I think the Full Frame Nikon and Canon shooters who use their 24-70 mm 2.8 lenses don't stay inside to shoot in a studio.  If the 18-55 mm was a 2.8 lens it would also be big to match the APS-C sensor 

 

If you want something small get a micro four third system. I extensively shot the Panasonic system before switching to Fuji X and it has advantages over Fuji X in some areas. 

 

I am not touching on everything else since it would be a very long post, but your assessment of Fuji X lenses is not IMO at all well informed.

 

I am not using 3 rd party glass so I would not use or test it for myself especially with what I have invested.

 

Last, point in how I truly believe you do not own any of the Fuji X lenses that you criticize. No one will every say their camera or lenses suck after spending the money, Nikon, Canon, Fuji, Sony (whatever). However, one would say the lens did not suit or perform to a standard to do XYZ job. You then return or sell the lens.

 

I see your detail as invalid and a waste of time to even compile the list. I do not think it fair information for those looking at the Fuji system or thinking of getting XYZ lens.

 

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This weekend, I took some time to sit down and think about the future of my Fuji system. Looking through my highest rated shots, I realized that some things I try to shoot just don’t work out the way I’d like, and don’t show up with the 4- or 5-star pics. While I’m perfectly happy with every single piece of my current kit* when used for the intended purpose, it seems that I probably need a new lens or two.

*Short explanation: Wanted to buy just the X-T1 and the XF 55-200, and a fast prime later on. Ended up buying the X-T1 + XF 18-55 kit as a demo sample in a shop for a price less than a new body alone, which prevented me from buying a fast prime so far. The XF 18-55 does just everything except extreme bokeh. But for bokeh, I can use the incredible 55-200.

And as always before buying new stuff I dug deep into the specs, numbers and reviews and tried to find an overview of the options available. Since I haven’t found one, I tried to collect a complete list of all lenses (available and upcoming) for the Fuji X-Mount myself. And that’s what I’ve come up with:

 

 

 

Fujinon (Native Lenses)

Prime Lenses

 

XF 14mm 2.8 R

Close Focus Distance: 0,18 m - Magnification: 1:8,33 - Filter Thread: 58 mm - Diameter: 65 mm - Lenght: 58,4 mm - Weight: 235 g - Price (approx.): €880/$700

Currently the widest prime in the native lens lineup. It’s said to be very sharp, but now that the 16 1.4 is out, i don't quite see the point in choosing the 14 over the 16, which is not much more expensive.

 

XF 16mm 1.4 R WR

Close Focus Distance: 0,15 m - Magnification: 1:4,76 - Filter Thread: 67 mm - Diameter: 73,4 mm - Lenght: 73 mm - Weight: 375 g - Price (approx.): €1000/$850

Close-to-perfect wide angle lens, relatively high magnification due to short close focus distance, even weather resistant. Only downside seems to be coma in the corners (bad for astrophotography). Quite big and expensive.

 

XF 18mm 2.0 R

Close Focus Distance: 0,18 m - Magnification: 1:7 - Filter Thread: 52 mm - Diameter: 64,5 mm - Lenght: 40,6 mm - Weight: 116 g - Price (approx.): €410/$450

One of the original three prime lenses from the beginning of the X-System. Very small and light. The varying rating of the optical quality throughout many reviews suggests copy-to-copy variation.

 

XF 23mm 1.4 R

Close Focus Distance: 0,28 m - Magnification: 1:10 - Filter Thread: 62 mm - Diameter: 72 mm - Lenght: 63 mm - Weight: 300 g - Price (approx.): €890/$750

Excellent fast medium-wide-angle prime. Have not heard anything bad about it.

 

XF 27mm 2.8

Close Focus Distance: 0,34 m - Magnification: 1:10 - Filter Thread: 39 mm - Diameter: 61,2 mm - Lenght: 23 mm - Weight: 78 g - Price (approx.): €350/$250

The smallest and lightest X-Mount lens. Optically not perfect, but still good when stopped down (most say from f/4 downwards). Has no aperture ring. Is said to have a loud autofocus motor.

 

XF 35mm 1.4 R

Close Focus Distance: 0,28 m - Magnification: 1:5,88 - Filter Thread: 52 mm - Diameter: 65 mm - Lenght: 54,9 mm - Weight: 187 g - Price (approx.): €590/$400

One of the original three prime lenses from the beginning of the X-System. Some say it's super sharp, some say it is not. Anyway, a good normal prime lens for the X-System. Only downside seems to be the slow-ish autofocus, but that was addressed with a firmwareupgrade.

 

XF 56mm 1.2 R

Close Focus Distance: 0,7 m - Magnification: 1:11,11 - Filter Thread: 62 mm - Diameter: 73 mm - Lenght: 70 mm - Weight: 405 g - Price (approx.): €1000/$900

The (85mm f/1.8 fullframe equivalent) portrait prime in the lens lineup. As recently tested by Admiring Light, quite close to perfect.

 

XF 56mm 1.2 R APD

Close Focus Distance: 0,7 m - Magnification: 1:11,11 - Filter Thread: 62 mm - Diameter: 73 mm - Lenght: 70 mm - Weight: 405 g - Price (approx.): €1300/$1200

Same as above, but with built in apodization filter (radial, gradual ND-Filter that gets darker towards the corners) to smoothen out the bokeh at the expense of lens brightness. Instead of f/1.2, the light transmissivity is equivalent to t/1.7. Effect is neutralized at f/5.6. This would be the lens I'd choose out of those two, for it's uniqueness.

 

XF 60mm 2.4 R Makro

Close Focus Distance: 0,27 m - Magnification: 1:2 - Filter Thread: 39 mm - Diameter: 64,1 mm - Lenght: 70,9 mm - Weight: 215 g - Price (approx.): €600/$450

One of the original three prime lenses from the beginning of the X-System, and the first macro lens. Very sharp, slow autofocus. For me personally, the magnification is not high enough, and the focal lenght is too short to be useful as a macro lens.

 

XF 90mm 2.0 R LM WR

Close Focus Distance: 0,6 m - Magnification: 1:5 - Filter Thread: 62 mm - Diameter: 75 mm - Lenght: 105 mm - Weight: 540 g - Price (approx.): €900/$950

Recently released telephoto prime lens. Everything heard so far was very positive, seems to be an outstanding lens.

 

XF 120mm 2.8 Macro

Close Focus Distance: --m - Magnification: 1:1 - Filter Thread: -- mm - Diameter: -- mm - Lenght: -- mm - Weight: -- g - Price (approx.): €--/$--

Upcoming telephoto macro lens, to be released in 2016.

 

 

Zoom Lenses

 

XC 16-50mm 3.5-5.6 OIS

Close Focus Distance: 0,3 m - Magnification: 1:6,67 - Filter Thread: 58 mm - Diameter: 62,6 mm - Lenght: 65,2 mm - Weight: 195 g - Price (approx.): €320/$340

The cheapest zoom lens for the X-mount. No aperture ring. Quite small, but i don't see why someone would chose this over the 18-55 2.8-4.0. I guess they had to make it to have a kit lens for the cheaper entry level bodies.

 

XC 50-230mm 4.5-6.7 OIS

Close Focus Distance: 1,1 m - Magnification: 1:5 - Filter Thread: 58 mm - Diameter: 70 mm - Lenght: 111 mm - Weight: 375 g - Price (approx.): €250/$400

This cheap telephoto zoom lens has so far the longest focal lenght in the X-mount lineup. But the aperture range makes it a sunshine-only lens. No aperture ring.

 

XF 18-135mm 3.5-5.6 R LM OIS WR

Close Focus Distance: 0,45 m - Magnification: 1:3,7 - Filter Thread: 67 mm - Diameter: 75,7 mm - Lenght: 97,8 mm - Weight: 490 g - Price (approx.): €800/$750

Fuji's take on a weather resistant always-on travelzoom. Optically, it seems to be good for what it is, but the aperture range does not impress.

 

XF 18-55mm 2.8-4.0 R LM OIS

Close Focus Distance: 0,3 m - Magnification: 1:6,67 - Filter Thread: 58 mm - Diameter: 65 mm - Lenght: 70,4 mm - Weight: 310 g - Price (approx.): €700/$600

Is said to be the standard zoom "kit" lens for the X-mount. My experience says, it's much better than the usual APS-C kit lens. Rather comparable to the L kit lenses canon sells with its full frame cameras. The aperture range is good, the size and weight is perfect, optical image stabilization works very well, and the lens is sharp. Really nothig to complain, especially since it comes at about 350-400€ when bought as a kit.

 

XF 55-200mm 3.5-4.8 R LM OIS

Close Focus Distance: 1,1 m - Magnification: 1:5,56 - Filter Thread: 62 mm - Diameter: 75 mm - Lenght: 118 mm - Weight: 580 g - Price (approx.): €670/$550

This lens does not have the reach of the cheaper XC 50-230, but with an aperture range from 3.5 to 4.8 it is a lot brighter, and therefore much more usable for the common telephoto applications (a.k.a. wildlife). Very compact when collapsed, and doubles as acceptable macro lens when combined with a +3 diopters achromat.

 

XF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6 R LM OIS

Close Focus Distance:--m - Magnification: -- - Filter Thread: -- mm - Diameter: -- mm - Lenght: -- mm - Weight: -- g - Price (approx.): €--/$--

To be released in 2016.

 

XF 10-24mm 4.0 R OIS

Close Focus Distance: 0,24 m - Magnification: 1:6,25 - Filter Thread: 72 mm - Diameter: 78 mm - Lenght: 87 mm - Weight: 410 g - Price (approx.): €950/$850

The widest lens in the Fujinon X-mount lineup. Nothing bad to say about this one, too.

 

XF 16-55mm 2.8 R LM WR

Close Focus Distance: 0,3 m - Magnification: 1:6,25 - Filter Thread: 77 mm - Diameter: 83,3 mm - Lenght: 106 mm - Weight: 655 g - Price (approx.): €1100/$1100

The pro-oriented standard zoom lens. Very good, but also very big, heavy and expensive compared to the 18-55. I'd use that only for studio work.

 

XF 50-140mm 2.8 R LM OIS WR

Close Focus Distance: 1 m - Magnification: 1:8,33 - Filter Thread: 72 mm - Diameter: 82,9 mm - Lenght: 175,9 mm - Weight: 995 g - Price (approx.): €1500/$1500

The pro-oriented medium telezoom lens. Very good, but it's the biggest, heaviest and also most expensive (only by a bit) lens in the whole lineup. (studio lens, for me. Wouldn't want to lug that around)

 

 

 

Third Party (only the Zeiss lenses have autofocus, all other are manual focus lenses)

Zeiss

Touit 12mm 2.8

Close Focus Distance: 0,18 m - Magnification: 1:9 - Filter Thread: 67 mm - Diameter: 88 mm - Lenght: 68 mm - Weight: 270 g - Price (approx.): €850/$700

A lot more expensive than its direct competitor, the Samyang 12mm 2.0. Not sure if autofocus is worth that much money on a lens where everything to infinity is sharp anyway.

 

Touit 32mm 1.8

Close Focus Distance: 0,37 m - Magnification: 1:9 - Filter Thread: 52 mm - Diameter: 65 mm - Lenght: 58 mm - Weight: 210 g - Price (approx.): €600/$500

Some say it's as good as the XF 35mm 1.4, some say it is not. I guess that decision is up to personal preference.

 

Touit 50mm 2.8 Makro

Close Focus Distance: 0,15 m - Magnification: 1:1 - Filter Thread: 52 mm - Diameter: 65 mm - Lenght: 91 mm - Weight: 290 g - Price (approx.): €900/$1000

The first macro lens for the X-Mount with a magnification of 1:1. Said to be very sharp. For me personally, the focal lenght is really too short to be useful as a macro lens.

 

 

HandeVision

Ibelux 40mm 0.85

Close Focus Distance: 0,75 m - Magnification: 1:20 - Filter Thread: 67 mm - Diameter: 74 mm - Lenght: 128 mm - Weight: 1150 g - Price (approx.): €1700/$1200

The brightest lens for the Fuji X-Mount, and, as far as I know, the brightest CSC-Lens overall. Close focus distance does not look much useful. In short, not worth the money. (Review at FujiRumors part 1 part 2)

 

 

Lensbaby

Circular Fisheye 5.8mm f/3.5 not in Europe

Close Focus Distance: -- m - Magnification: -- - Filter Thread: none - Diameter: 69,9 mm - Lenght: 69,9 mm - Weight: 329 g - Price (approx.): €--/$300

No idea about that one.

 

35mm f/2.5 Composer Pro Lens with Sweet 35 Optic not in Europe

Close Focus Distance: -- m - Magnification: -- - Filter Thread: 46 mm - Diameter: 63,5 mm - Lenght: 50,8 mm - Weight: 216 g - Price (approx.): €--/$330

No idea about that one.

 

50mm f/2.0 Composer Pro Lens with Sweet 50 Optic not in Europe

Close Focus Distance: -- m - Magnification: -- - Filter Thread: 46 mm - Diameter: 63,5 mm - Lenght: 50,8 mm - Weight: 184 g - Price (approx.): €--/$300

No idea about that one.

 

Velvet 56mm

Close Focus Distance: 0,13 m - Magnification: 1:2 - Filter Thread: 62 mm - Diameter: 72 mm - Lenght: 85 mm - Weight: 400 g - Price (approx.): €500/$500

"classic" soft focus lens, with a classic portrait focal lenght. I guess you need to like the soft focus effect. I'd choose the XF 56mm 1.2 APD.

 

 

Meyer Optik Görlitz

Nocturnus 35mm 0.95

Close Focus Distance: 0,3 m - Magnification: -- - Filter Thread: none - Diameter: -- mm - Lenght: -- mm - Weight: 680 g - Price (approx.): €2000/$--

Very bright normal lens. I have yet to find a review for that one.

 

Trioplan 100mm 2.8

Close Focus Distance: 1,1 m - Magnification: -- - Filter Thread: 52 mm - Diameter: -- mm - Lenght: -- mm - Weight: -- g - Price (approx.): €1400/$--

Upcoming soap-bubble-bokeh telephoto prime. There's also a kickstarter for that one. Looks interresting, but I think I would not pay that much money for brighter rims in out-of-focus highlights.

 

 

SLR Magic

23mm f/1.7 Hyperprime not in Europe

Close Focus Distance: -- m - Magnification: -- - Filter Thread: 49 mm - Diameter: -- mm - Lenght: 61,3 mm - Weight: 265 g - Price (approx.): €--/$400

No idea about that one.

 

35mm T f/1.4 not in Europe

Close Focus Distance: 0,3 m - Magnification: -- - Filter Thread: 52 mm - Diameter: -- mm - Lenght: 70,3 mm - Weight: 390 g - Price (approx.): €--/$350

No idea about that one.

 

Noktor 50mm f/0.95 HyperPrime not in Europe

Close Focus Distance: -- m - Magnification: -- - Filter Thread: 62 mm - Diameter: -- mm - Lenght: -- mm - Weight: 490 g - Price (approx.): €--/$950

No idea about that one.

 

 

Zhongyi

Mitakon 24mm f/1.7 not in Europe

Close Focus Distance: 0,15 m - Magnification: -- - Filter Thread: 49 mm - Diameter: 61,5 mm - Lenght: 55 mm - Weight: 246 g - Price (approx.): €--/$350

No idea about that one.

 

Mitakon 35mm f/0.95

Close Focus Distance: 0,35 m - Magnification: -- - Filter Thread: 58 mm - Diameter: 68 mm - Lenght: 85 mm - Weight: 680 g - Price (approx.): €740/$680

Is this the same lens as the Meyer Optik Görlitz Nocturnus? Quite the price difference, but the specs look similar so far. Pictures I've seen show a lens that is not very sharp wide open and has a lot of CA, which is both corrected when stopping the lens down quite a bit.

 

 

Samyang / Rokinon / Walimex / Bower

8mm f/2.8 Fisheye

Close Focus Distance: 0,3 m - Magnification: -- - Filter Thread: none - Diameter: 60 mm - Lenght: 56,1 mm - Weight: 260 g - Price (approx.): €350/$260

There's a newer version of this lens.

 

8mm f/2.8 Fisheye II & 8mm t/3.1 Fisheye II VCSC

Close Focus Distance: 0,3 m - Magnification: -- - Filter Thread: none - Diameter: 60 mm - Lenght: 65 mm - Weight: 290 g - Price (approx.): €380/$300

The go-to fisheye lens for the X-Mount. Small, light, bright, and not very expensive.

 

8mm t/3.8 Fisheye VDSLR

Close Focus Distance: 0,3 m - Magnification: -- - Filter Thread: none - Diameter: 75 mm - Lenght: 77,3 mm - Weight: 420 g - Price (approx.): €400/$--

Big, heavy DSLR-Lens that was adapted to the X-Mount. Would not buy, the 8mm 2.8 looks much more promising.

 

8mm f/3.5 Fisheye II & 8mm t/3.8 Fisheye II VDSLR

Close Focus Distance: 0,3 m - Magnification: -- - Filter Thread: none - Diameter: 75 mm - Lenght: 77,3 mm - Weight: 440 g - Price (approx.): €380/$200

Big, heavy DSLR-Lens that was adapted to the X-Mount, version II. Would not buy, the 8mm 2.8 looks much more promising.

 

10mm t/3.1 Fisheye VCSC

Close Focus Distance: 0,24 m - Magnification: -- - Filter Thread: none - Diameter: 87 mm - Lenght: 130,9 mm - Weight: 630 g - Price (approx.): €540/$--

Gigantonormous Lens, even for a Samyang-converted-DSLR-lens. Heavy too.

 

10mm f/2.8 ED AS NCS CS

Close Focus Distance: 0,25 m - Magnification: -- - Filter Thread: none - Diameter: 86 mm - Lenght: 106 mm - Weight: 625 g - Price (approx.): €400/$360

Is this the same lens as above, just not the video version? The weight would suggest that.

 

12mm f/2.0 NCS CS & 12mm t/2.2 VCSC

Close Focus Distance: 0,2 m - Magnification: -- - Filter Thread: 67 mm - Diameter: 73 mm - Lenght: 59 mm - Weight: 260 g - Price (approx.): €380/$320

Davin Lavikka (Youtube) does not seem to be happy with that lens on an APS-C size sensor because of the soft corners and CA wide open. Other than that, I've only heard good things about it.

 

12mm f/2.8 ED AS NCS Fisheye

Close Focus Distance: 0,2 m - Magnification: -- - Filter Thread: none - Diameter: 77,3 mm - Lenght: 99 mm - Weight: 565 g - Price (approx.): €550/$--

Big lens. When I'd like to have a fisheye, I'd rather go really wide and have the 8mm, which is smaller, lighter and cheaper.

 

12mm f/7.4 RMC Fisheye not in Europe

Close Focus Distance: 0,3 m - Magnification: -- - Filter Thread: none - Diameter: 65 mm - Lenght: 57,4 mm - Weight: 220 g - Price (approx.): €--/$130

No idea about that one.

 

14mm f/2.8 & 14mm t/3.1 VDSLR

Close Focus Distance: 0,28 m - Magnification: -- - Filter Thread: none - Diameter: 87 mm - Lenght: 96,1 mm - Weight: 620 g - Price (approx.): €400/$290

I'd rather use the XF 14mm 2.8. Don't see a place for this lens in the X-System.

 

16mm f/2.0 ED AS UMC CS & 16mm t/2.2 VDSRL

Close Focus Distance: 0,2 m - Magnification: -- - Filter Thread: 77 mm - Diameter: 83 mm - Lenght: 89,4 mm - Weight: 583 g - Price (approx.): €400/$330

With the release of the XF 16mm 1.4, this one does not seem to be interresting anymore.

 

24mm t/1.4 CSC & 24mm t/1.5 VCSC

Close Focus Distance: 0,25 m - Magnification: -- - Filter Thread: 77 mm - Diameter: 83 mm - Lenght: 97,5 mm - Weight: 610 g - Price (approx.): €600/$450

I'd rather use the XF 23mm 1.4. Price is not that much different, and it's even smaller and lighter despite having autofocus.

 

T-S 24mm f/3.5 CSC

Close Focus Distance: 0,2 m - Magnification: -- - Filter Thread: 82 mm - Diameter: 86 mm - Lenght: 136 mm - Weight: 745 g - Price (approx.): €1000/$0

The only tilt-shift-lens for the X-Mount. If you need one, you either need to buy this one, or adapt a DSLR-lens.

 

35mm f/1.4 CSC & 35mm t/1.5 VDSLR

Close Focus Distance: 0,3 m - Magnification: -- - Filter Thread: 77 mm - Diameter: 83 mm - Lenght: 110 mm - Weight: 716 g - Price (approx.): €380/$410

Big, heavy DSLR-Lens that was adapted to the X-Mount, as many other within the Samyang Lineup.

 

50mm f/1.5 VCSC

Close Focus Distance: 0,45 m - Magnification: -- - Filter Thread: 77 mm - Diameter: 82 mm - Lenght: 101 mm - Weight: 640 g - Price (approx.): €520/$--

Video lens. Have not found anything about that one.

 

85mm f/1.4 VCSC

Close Focus Distance: 1,1 m - Magnification: -- - Filter Thread: 72 mm - Diameter: 78 mm - Lenght: 101 mm - Weight: 645 g - Price (approx.): €360/$--

I'm not sure about this one and the next. They are quite similar in their optical design, but have different close focus distances. Exterior looks very different too.

 

85mm f/1.4 CSC

Close Focus Distance: 1 m - Magnification: -- - Filter Thread: 72 mm - Diameter: 78 mm - Lenght: 101 mm - Weight: 610 g - Price (approx.): €350/$270

Seems to be a cheap, bright medium telephoto lens. Does anyone have that one?

 

100mm f/2.8 ED UMC Makro

Close Focus Distance: 0,31 m - Magnification: 1:1 - Filter Thread: 67 mm - Diameter: 72,5 mm - Lenght: 149,4 mm - Weight: 770 g - Price (approx.): €530/$550

True 1:1 macro lens for the X-Mount. Pictures I've seen so far look very promising, but with the XF 120mm 2.8 in the pipeline, I guess I'll rather wait for that one and have a fast telephoto lens with autofocus.

 

135mm f/2.0 ED UMC & 135mm t/2.2 VDSLR

Close Focus Distance: 0,8 m - Magnification: -- - Filter Thread: 77 mm - Diameter: 82 mm - Lenght: 120 mm - Weight: 880 g - Price (approx.): €550/$550

Huge DSLR-lens, adapted to the X-Mount. Would rather use the upcoming 120mm 2.8 Macro, the already available 90mm 2.0 or even the 50-140mm 2.8.

 

300mm f/6.3 ED UMC CS Reflex

Close Focus Distance: 0,9 m - Magnification: -- - Filter Thread: none - Diameter: 64,5 mm - Lenght: 74 mm - Weight: 316 g - Price (approx.): €240/$260

It's a long telephoto, but it's also a reflex design. And the maximum aperture is at least 2 stops too slow. Pictures don't look sharp and show a lot of CA.

 

800mm f/8.0 Reflex

Close Focus Distance: 3,5 m - Magnification: -- - Filter Thread: 35 mm - Diameter: 111 mm - Lenght: 113 mm - Weight: 946 g - Price (approx.): €260/$--

very long telephoto, but reflex. Have not seen a review for this one.

 

 

As you can see, I’m not completely sure about every lens. But perhaps that’s where you can help.

I’ve also made a chart, plotting the lenses’ maximum aperture over the focal length. The focal length scale is logarithmic to show the prime area more prominent.

 

X-Mount.png

 

I’m not sure if the aperture curves for the zoom lenses are correct. However, I had a look at what aperture my own two zoom lenses have depending on the focal length, and fitted a formula to compute the aperture curve. I then used that formula for the other lenses too. When comparing your own lenses, consider that the aperture shown on your camera is a rounded value, and probably jumps to the higher value before really reaching it when increasing the focal length, and vice versa for decreasing the focal length.

In case I missed a lens, something is wrong or you have answers to my questions that I have scattered throughout the whole post, I’d be happy if you contribute to this thread. Perhaps we can even collect enough data to generate some kind of “lens guide” out of this thread.

Anyway, I just wanted to share my “work” with you, because I thought it would be a shame if the data would just sleep on my harddrive.

 

 

Great Work! Thanks for assembling everything in one spot.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok. So I'm not sure how to start this. Uhm...

 

It seems that many people are... let us say... 'not pleased' with the comments I wrote about the lenses, and I can very well accept that, especially since they are nowhere near to be finished, as I stated previously.

However, I am uncertain about how to address that problem, since I obviously don't understand the issue in it's entirety. I guess the posting of ryan2007, which I will address more in detail later, shows what miladro said earlier: My OP seems somehow to imply that I have tested every single lens, and that I would be some kind of lens guru who knows everything, which I am definitely not, and never wanted to leave that impression. I can only suppose that it must be the language barrier, and that the original meaning of my posting, (which was to collect a list of all lenses available for the X-Mount, and to show them and the coverage of aperture and focal lenght together in one post) somehow got lost during the process of translation.

So my questions are, should I just take out all the comments until this issue is solved? Should I add links to reviews, as was my original plan from the beginning? Should I completely replace the comments by links to reviews?

 

 

 

@Patrick FR:

I am somewhat overwhelmed by the way you featured my humble attempt on a lens overview prominently in a blog posting on it's own. I had expected something more in line with just a single sentence linking to the forum.

 

 

@milandro:

Please see the first paragraph of this posting, as I have adressed most of the concerns there.

While it is common practice in science to quote things that have been quoted that have been quoted..., mostly because most people only have 3 to 5 years for their scientific work and must leave the university after their doctorate graduation, I don't see where I did that here. My long term goal for this list was always to have direct links to reviews from people who have first hand experience with the lenses.

And the whole intent of this thread was to be a list for people who look for new lenses. So, for example, if someone was searching for a new wideangle prime lens in the range of 24mm (35mm equivalency), she/he could look into this thread, see that there are the Samyang 12/14/16/24, Fuji XF14/16/18/23, Zeiss 12, SLRMagic 23 and Zhongyi 24, all of which might or might not suit her/his needs, see if they have autofocus, optical image stabilization, how big, heavy and (in)expensive they approximately are, and then decide what suits them best based on the reviews linked here or found across the internet. I suppose, I got that intent verbalized totally wrong.

 

 

@boondoggle:

Indeed I did forget the 35 f/2.0. It was in the chart, marked with light green color, as the other upcoming Fujinon lenses are, but not in the text. Will add that one asap.

 

 

@dfallsfilm:

Thank you very much for your input! I originally wanted to ask you if it would be alright for you if i link to your samples in the comment to that lens in the original post, but with the situation being as is now, please understand that I can not proceed with that attempt in the near future.

 

 

@ that nice guy who pointed out that I should use a logarithmic scale for the aperture as well, but whose posting somehow disappeared:

I will do exactly that, asap. Equal intervals between full aperture stops are way more useful for comparison purposes, and it will give the now somewhat cramped prime area even more prominence. I originally intended to do so, but did not know how. Your post made me think, and I found a simple solution.

 

 

@ryan2007:

I can retrace the critique for the most part, and please rest assured that I really appreciate your honest words. On the other hand, some parts of your posting somehow suggest to me that I might have kind of tread on your toes, I just don't know how exactly. I'm not sure about this, and I don't want to impute something to anyone. But if I did, please tell me what it was.

However, I will try to go through your posting step by step. Please don't evaluate anything I write as personal offense, it is not meant that way.

 

Your post about all of these lenses seem like you do not have any first hand experience with the Fuji X system.

[...]

Last, point in how I truly believe you do not own any of the Fuji X lenses that you criticize. No one will every say their camera or lenses suck after spending the money, Nikon, Canon, Fuji, Sony (whatever). However, one would say the lens did not suit or perform to a standard to do XYZ job. You then return or sell the lens.

As I said in my original post, I do own the X-T1, and I do (at the moment) own the 18-55 and the 55-200. When I went out to buy it, I was able to compare the XC16-50/50-230, the XF18-55/XF55-200 and XF16-55/XF50-140 on the X-T1 I bought in the end. I have tried many of the XF prime lenses myself over time (16, 23, 27, 35, 60), but I do not own one right now.

What I do not understand is, why should someone not say that he/she is not happy with what he/she bought? Out of personal pride, or brand loyalty? And where did I say that any of the XF lenses "sucks"? That part confused me a lot.

 

If you are going to review a lens you either have to be crystal clear that you have the lens, shot the lens, used the lens to make money at photography, made actual prints from said lens.

I respect your opinion on that.

 

If not all this means is you can not financially afford said lens and wish your could or it is troll like.

I guarantee you I do not spend $1,000 on a lens just to spend $1,000.

This one, I did not understand.

 

What does Pro-Orientated mean? If you have a p&s camera and someone pays you to take photos, you are a pro. Being recognized for your photography past that it is just a hobby. The 16-55 mm 2.8 is a big lens, but it is not as you say very big heavy and expensive. Use the Fuji large hand grip, learn how to hold a camera and lens, use a mono-pod if you have to. The 16-55 is currently less expensive than the Fuji XT-1 body with the current sale as of today.

 

It is also obvious the 18-55 mm 2.8 to 4.0 is less expensive and that is my point is that, one complains when it comes to cost like this. Then you say the 16-55 is only for studio work? No it is not. I think the Full Frame Nikon and Canon shooters who use their 24-70 mm 2.8 lenses don't stay inside to shoot in a studio.

I guess you are right with that. But one note on one part of that quote: What I exactly wrote was: "big, heavy and expensive compared to the 18-55". 310 g vs 655 g, 65x70 mm vs 83x106 mm. By no means is that an insignificant difference.

 

If the 18-55 mm was a 2.8 lens it would also be big to match the APS-C sensor

I can absolutely not see the relevance of this. The 16-55 has exactly that role within the X-System. A standard zoom lens with a fixed aperture. Which makes it of course bigger and heavier than the non-fixed aperture 18-55.

 

If you want something small get a micro four third system.

Fujifilm has big and small lenses, as well as big and small camera bodies. Do you suggest that no one should buy the smaller Fuji gear and instead buy MFT cameras? And why is that? Considering the smaller MFT sensor with a crop factor of 2.0 instead of 1.53 with Fuji's APS-C, the light efficiency and DOF possibilities should play a role in the choice of camera system, as well as many other factors like the X-Trans Filter, the handling, etc. etc.

 

I see your detail as invalid and a waste of time to even compile the list. I do not think it fair information for those looking at the Fuji system or thinking of getting XYZ lens.

You could help to make it better anytime.

 

@Blacksheep:

Thank you very much for your kind words!

 

 

 

Unrelated picture from my collection, just for the fun of it:

(does the forum somehow compress the uploaded pictures?)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

[...] 

You could help to make it better anytime.

 

Exactly what I was thinking

 

Very nice job compiling all this data and providing a starting place for some short comments on each lens. You clearly put a lot of time and thought into this post.

 

Your Samyang 8mm 2.8II comment was right on. I love that lens. So sharp wide open. I was blown away after my first shoot with the lens.

 

IMO your comments around the larger 2.8 zooms were a bit light on substance (no offense meant). Yes, they are much larger lenses but although I have the 18-55, I use the 16-55 on travel because it has that extra 2mm at the wide side, is noticeably sharper, has weather sealing and faster aperture at the long end (lack of OIS is unfortunate though). That said, it is significantly heavier and after a day of lugging it around you'll notice that.

 

You can't please everyone. Go for rough consensus (IETF style) and call it a day. Remember- perfection is the enemy of good

/uploads/emoticons/default_smile.png">

 

Russ

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well done.

You ask of the 16-50 XC 

 

 

The cheapest zoom lens for the X-mount. No aperture ring. Quite small, but i don't see why someone would chose this over the 18-55 2.8-4.0. 

I got mine with my first Fuji ILC the X-A1. I probably WOULDN'T have purchased it at all, but I couldn't buy the camera without it. I'm glad that's the case because it is one of the lenses I use most often (other than the 10-24/4). The 18-55 is a great lens, but the advantage of those extra 2mm of wide angle and the excellent image quality and OIS of the XC lens make it a STEAL for the price. The f/2.8 is wonderful as well as I'm sure the 16/1.4, but the 2.8 is a behemoth the likes of which I left behind with my DSLR mirrors and the 1.4 is a much more expensive prime. For the price, size, wide angle and quality, the XC is hard to beat even though I have the much 'nicer' lenses on hand as well. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Quincy, I personally don’t think there is anything wrong in having collected information from different sources on internet and having put it all together. I am very appreciative of the massive amount of work that that has represented and I definitely consider your article to be useful and providing much very good information.

 

 

But, as you said yourself a few times in the edited version and the various commentaries, it is a compilation based for the most part ( and how could it have been any different?) on other people experiences. 

 

It contains a factual part which is very useful data, and it contains your comments.

 

 

 

Some of your comments are a mere opinion, an opinion which is not always not based on direct experience of the thing that you are commenting on but on what you’ve read on line written for the most part by people whom you don’t know.

 

The moment you venture into making your own comments based on something that you have only read from someone else, who might or might not have done the same thing that you did ( reporting someone else’s opinion) you are going astray from factual report and may, unknowingly, confuse someone who might be thinking that your comment is based on experience while it is reporting someone else’s internet wisdom, perhaps based on hearsay. There is no telling about the quality of information found on line.

 

 

 

Thank you for your work, anyway. It is certainly a valuable resource.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

- changed the aperture scale in the chart

- added missing Mitakon 24 1.7 to the chart

- added upcoming XF 35 F2.0 R WR to the list

- made all upcoming lenses in the list grey

- corrected lens naming convention throughout the whole post, they now match the manufacturers style

- started adding links to reviews. Couldn't add nearly as much as I wanted to, but time is up for today.

 

 

@russw:

Thank you very much! Your posting, and GoodPhoto's, show exactly what I originally intended to kick off: Discussions about the lenses in a productive way.

I clearly forgot those two extra mm the 16-50 (and 16-50) have over the 18-55, and what a big difference they make. (strange, considering that I thought about buying the 16 1.4)

 

@GoodPhotos:

Very good points, thank you. I have rephrased the comments on the 16-50 and 16-55 accordingly.

 

@milandro:

Thank you again!

 

@boondoggle & milandro, about the XF 35 2.0:

I think what boondoggle meant was, that I already added the upcoming 120 2.8 and 100-400 to the list, but not the 35 2.0. Corrected that now, as well as marked them clearer as "upcoming".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

- added links to the manufacturer's product page for each lens

- added the number of aperture blades to the stats-line for each lens

- added links to reviews for (nearly) all released lenses

- revised all comments to the lenses

- moved non-related text parts from the OP to my second posting and marked them accordingly.

- cosmetic changes

 

Big update for the original post today! And from my side, for the time being, it is finished. I'm always open for suggestions and comments. Just leave me a message, and I will see what I can do. Again, thank you all for your help. This has grown into a bigger project than I'd thought, but I have learned a lot along the way.

I will try to find out more about those SLR Magic lenses in the future, but to be honest, since the availability is so bad anyway, and their homepage is only a shop without any information about what those things are they sell, it is not on high priority for me.

 

I think it is a pity that ryan2007 did not answer anymore, but perhaps I really made him angry with something.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Big update for the original post today! And from my side, for the time being, it is finished. I'm always open for suggestions and comments. Just leave me a message, and I will see what I can do. Again, thank you all for your help. This has grown into a bigger project than I'd thought, but I have learned a lot along the way.

I will try to find out more about those SLR Magic lenses in the future, but to be honest, since the availability is so bad anyway, and their homepage is only a shop without any information about what those things are they sell, it is not on high priority for me.

 

I think it is a pity that ryan2007 did not answer anymore, but perhaps I really made him angry with something.

Then I guess it's time to tell the X-world via FujiRumors, that the masterpiece is complete! Really terrific work, quincy! This clear overview is something the whole X-shooter community will benefit from. Thanks

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

OP, thanks for writing this topic.

I only used three original primes and X-Pro 1 body, so my experience is limited.

18mm F/2.0 - small, cheap, lightweight. My 18 mil was almost certainly a defected one, because its right upper and lower corners were extremely bad, and even at F/5.6 these areas were significantly worse than center.

But even with that said I was quite pleased with the results of this lens.

 

35mm F/1.4 - small, great build, excellent optics. Sharp center, creamy bokeh, great contrast and clours. This lens (and the X-Trans sensor) was the reason why I selled my 5D Mark II and EF 50mm/F1.2. And I never looked back. Ken Rockwell say that this lens is as good as Summilux 50mm F/1.4.

 

60mm F/2.4 - rather big compared to 18 and 35, and slow. But again - very sharp, nice colours, and at the times of X-Pro 1 it was the only portrait (sort of) lens. And it worked well.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Patrick FR: Thank you! I truly feel honored! And I will still continue to maintain the list, depending on the feedback.

 

@Snzkgb: Thank you for your input! The way I see it, we seem to agree on those three lenses? So far, I did not write anything about the color rendition, because that topic is a bit up to personal taste.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Snzkgb: Thank you for your input! The way I see it, we seem to agree on those three lenses? So far, I did not write anything about the color rendition, because that topic is a bit up to personal taste.

Well, of course the color rendition is all about personal taste, but I was able to compare the Fujinon XF 35mm F/1.4 with Canon EF 50mm F/1.2 L and Fujinon wins.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That's quite some work you did there!

One remark/question. How about adding, say a fat black outline to the circles at all lenses that do have AF, I personally think that marking if a lens is MF only or AF/MF would add even more value to such a graphic as decision help/support.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

From the second half of the '80 onwards there were many AF cameras and electric lenses and yes we shot less but there were many more cameras around that there are now and it seems to me that there were less complaints, but I can’t say for sure.

With all due respect, this is a bit of an overstatement... The Minolta Maxxim was the first integrated (the self contained AF lenses were horrible and not worth the mention) AF camera to hit the market and it did so in 1985. AF was largely scoffed at for the first couple of years and even then, professionals saw it only as a novel innovation that eventually might have it's place... but likely never for the serious pros, they would always use manual focus (lol). Time brings improvement when innovation rests and the concepts of AF did improve and rapidly, but I would suggest that it was the mid 90's when it really started to become functional; there will be exceptions of course.

 

I do agree though that we are not only shooting far more, but the construction of lenses has become far more complex. The early AF lenses had very little in them other than a drive linkage (motors were still in the camera body) and there was no such thing as meta data to be transfered so all logic was in the body. Now we have moving elements for either IS or floating elements to improve focsing performance. Moving parts break... a lot.

 

I don't think the failure rates are all that high though all things considered, I used to shoot Leica M and I was constantly sending in my lenses and bodies to have the focusing recalibrated. Regardless of your opinion of that brand, they are very well made products but it's about moving parts here, not quality control.

 

Just my thoughts

/uploads/emoticons/default_smile.png">

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@hughsaunders, ceUs, redfishingboat: You're welcome, thank you for reading!

 

@ceUs: Nice idea. I've thought about marking the AF lenses in some way (e.g. square vs round marking), but as milandro pointed out already, only Fujinon and Zeiss lenses have autofocus. Thus, I'd only mark the lenses that are green and dark blue anyway, and that's why I didn't do it in the end.

Share this post


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.

Loading...

  • Similar Content

    • By Dwain
      Hello Everyone,
       
      My name is Dwain and I'm new to this forum and to Fujifilm cameras but not to their film.  I'm a former Canon shooter (not professional).   I've decided to keep my Canon 6D, the 24-105 F4 and the 100 F2.8 macro lenses just in case.  I delved into large format (Chamonix 4x5) for a short time, shooting primarily Acros developed in Rollo Pyro.  My interests tend to lean towards landscape, architectural, environmental portraiture and night photography but lately, I've been itching to try street and event photography. 
      I recently placed an order for the X-T3 and the Fujinon XF18-55 F2.8-4 lens to get use to the system and a good place to start.  Not sure which other lenses to consider at this early stage.  I did look at the Poll here regarding the most used Fuji lenses and two of the focal lengths I've been considering (23 1.4 and 35 1.4) seem to be the most popular despite these being older designs.  The XF 16 1.4 also looks interesting. 
      Anyway, thought I'd introduce myself. 
      Feedback and suggestions welcome.
       
       
    • By jlmphotos
      Well my friends I went and done it!
       
      Some of you guys who have been here a while may recall my daughter "borrowed" my X-T1 and my "don't leave home without it lens" the Fuji 18-55.  For the last several months I've been photographing using my primes only -- the fabulous 16 f1.4, the 23 1.4, 35 1.4, and 60 2.4 plus the 55-200 zoom.  And I loved doing that.  I've truly enjoyed making images as I have to be slower, and more thoughtful in the process plus, let's face reality, the primes will always beat a zoom with regards to sharpness, and micro-contrast among other things.
      However, the 18-55 is a lens I cannot live without!  I love it.  There I said it.  If I loved it any more I'd have to name it and provide it it's own ss number for tax purposes.  
      I do plan on continuing to use primes for most of my images as I really enjoyed using them and have weened myself off the zoom, but I will feel much better knowing my 18-55 is back in my bag just in case I need it!
       
      To be completely honest:  I looked at the 16-55 2.8.  Many of you who "know me" know that I've said I would never purchase this lens, and it's brother the 50-140 2.8 due to 1) the weight  and 2) price.  I looked at the 16-55 2.8, i thought about it, but I just couldn't bring myself to purchase this heavy, and expensive lens when for a quarter of the price my 18-55 works wonders, is super tack sharp, and has provided me with YEARS of use -- my original 18-55 was the kit lens that came on my Fuji X-E1 I purchased back in February 2013!
       
      This image below is one of over 16,000 images I have taken in various locations ranging from Key West, to Prince Edward Island in Northern Canada between mid-July, and early November.  I believe I "lost" the 18-55 to my daughter when I returned from the Keys and was prepping to head north -- this image was in fact taken with the 18-55 lens.
       
      So, I'm now whole again and I couldn't be happier knowing it's there in case I need it.
       
      PS:  Here in the Classifieds I'm offering for sale my Zeiss/Touit 12mm F2.8 lens.  Check it out if you are in the market for a wide-angle for your Fuji!

      Hello guest! Please register or sign in to view the hidden content.
    • By jlmphotos
      So my daughter, who already has taken ownership of some of my Nikon gear, has fallen in love with my X-T1 and my beloved 18-55 lens!
       
      She's been home from school for three months and returns next week for her final semester.  She has started a "new teachers blog" and has been using my X-T1 with the 18-55 to film it.  Now, she wants to take the X-T1 and the 18-55 back with her.  I don't care about the X-T1, but it's gonna hurt real bad not having the lens.  As many of you know, that's my "don't leave home without it lens".  
       
      I'm very torn up.  Initially I gave her, yes, gave her the X-T1 and the 23mm 1.4 as the 23 is not a lens I use often but every time I came home she had the 18-55 on there.  I have a  feeling I'm going to lose it.
       
      So, it looks that I'll be a prime shooter for at least six months -- Except for my 55-200, all my lower range lenses are primes.   I'm very, very nervous about not having that lens in the bag.  I can't tell you how many times I've gone out with the sole intention of shooting with the primes, have gotten so frustrated and fed up and just switched over to the 18-55 and was as happy as a pig in sh*t.
       
      Lordy Lordy....
    • By Goose46
      Hi all, I have just started to use an X-T2 and have still kept the Nikon, I have an adapter to use my Nikon lenses with the Fuji.  I need to set the focal length in Mount Adaptor Settings, it seems simple enough for primes eg. 105 mm, 35 mm, etc, but how do I input the focal length when using a zoom?  Do I set up the shot and then, before taking it, input the actual, or nearest!, focal length - then shoot?  I can get up to 999 mm but can't get 80-200 mm.......................... over to you.
    • By greenj98
      Fall road trip with my wife for a mix of subjects, landscape, street, urban and travel. Can't decide if the 18-55 or the 18-135 is the best walk around lens for this trip. the other lenses I am taking include 14, 35 1.4, 56 and the 55-200. 
×
×
  • Create New...