The super tele-photo zoom lens will be a 140-400 F4-5.6 weather resistant lens! It’s obviously just a mock-up for now, but you can read in the description:
140-400 1:4-5.6 R LM OIS WR
filter mount: 86
Label – coming in 2015
And if you look at the image at the bottom, you’ll see it: the XF 16-55 has no OIS.
The image was spotted by FR-reader Jacek, Nn & Richard (thanks a lot) via fujifilm, dpreview and ephotozine.
In these days, Fujirumors will be the window to photokina for all X-shooters around the world who can’t, like me, go to Cologne. I’ll search the web for everything of interest around the X-system… and you can help!
If you find something interesting on the web too, or if you actually are at photokina and have a quick report or a useful information to share with other X-enthusiasts, then feel free to drop me an email at fujirumor [at] gmail.com. Or use the rumor box to contact me anonymously.
So follow Fujirumros also via facebook, google+, RSS-feed and twitter. And meet Rico Pfirstinger on Thursday (18SEP) between 10.00 and 11.30 AM at Photokina and ask him anything about Fuji X! Hall 4.1, Booth C27/D24 (d.punkt Verlag).
Oh, and Fuji, just to let you know:
[poll id=”56″]
100 Responses
2015= year for wildlifeshooters ..Fuji 140-400 and Olympus 300/4 (m4/3)
It surely is too soon to talk about its price, but what do you expect? 2000$?
I’m really hoping it’s < $1500.
I’m guessing since the 50-140 is $1600, it won’t be likely. But I hope I am wrong.
doubt it… more like $2.0-2.5k range. And event that would be considered a ‘reasonable’ price for what you’re getting.
Right, you get a lot of metal for your money from Fuji: http://1.static.img-dpreview.com/files/p/E~articles/8129162381/40_150mm.jpeg
(it’s the 50-140, but I guess the 140-400 will be built in the same way)
You can get a pretty nicely made (albeit, not for X system) Tamron 150-600 for $1069. I have been using one on my canon system since it was first released. Its surprisingly good. I’d hate to see a variable aperture F5.6 zoom come in at over $2000. That doesn’t make sense to me at all.
perhaps you’re right. I am still a bit confused about the Fuji pricing strategy. Some lenses are prices like Canon ‘L’ lenses and some like Tamron/Sigma lenses. For example, a comparison to Canon ‘L’ lineup puts new 56mm APD at $1500 which is close to Canon ‘L’ equivalent, on the other hand 18-55 lens pricing is very accessible (at $600). I see similar price contrast when I look at other lens offerings.
So my conclusion at this point is that pricing depends a great deal on build quality and lens availability, which is dictated by demand.
XF 140-400 will be the first lens of this kind in Fuji lineup. At this point I don’t think it’s clear how Fuji will approach this lens: make it available to masses at a lower price (which means probably lower quality) or select few at a price premium (in which case they will need to offer premium build and optics). I am leaning towards premium build at this point. Picture of 50-140 cross-section shows lots of ‘ED’ and ‘Super ED’ glass. I think 140-400 will have similar setup.
Sounds about right. You could probably compare it to the
AF-S NIKKOR 80-400mm f/4.5-5.6G ED VR as the maximum,
i’d guess it would most likely be less than that.
Well… I use a Tamron 150-600 that is surprisingly good that only runs $1069. If a f5.6 zoom runs $2000 that will be unfortunate.
Yeah, there’s also a shot of the upcoming 16-55 F2.8 WR but no OIS lens… http://www.dpreview.com/articles/8129162381/photokina-2014-fujifilm-stand-report-and-x100t-hands-on?slide=10
I do remember a poll on FR about if this was a deal breaker, but I can’t remember if there was a final confirmation about this? I guess, now we do have that 🙁
But coming back to the 140-400mm… I can’t wait to put it on my X-M1 😉
no … you can’t wait to attach your x-m1 to the 140-400 :))
the 140-400 actually looks a lot more compact then I expected… For a super telephoto is appears to be a really good compromise between speed and size.
I don’t care about the 16-55. I want that 140-400 today!
+1
As handy as vibration reduction (OIS) is on a lens it actually degrades ultimate optical performance. I suspect that this, and the fact that it’s inclusion would have made the lens physically even larger than it is, are the reasons Fuji have decided to omit from the production version.
It *can* degrade image quality, or otherwise the added weight from all the extra elements trying to avoid the limitations put on by OIS will cause the shaking itself for the OIS to then stabilize. 😉
I guess the XF 16-55 f2.8 WR w/o OIS will be available at a very good discounted price a few months after introduction. Unless there is a very good technical reason I can’t understand why Fuji would not include OIS in this lens
My guess is that it’s done primarily to meet a price point. Looking at Canon and Nikon their versions of the 24-70 (or 17-55) don’t have stabilization either. So there probably is a reason. Correction, the Canon 17-55 does not but the Nikon does not.
The Tamron 17-50 f/2.8 has IS as well.
I heard that Fuji said they had problems with IQ at 16mm with OIS, so they left it out. If true, I’m glad they didn’t sacrifice IQ for OIS. I’m not a big fan of OIS anyway.
Oh I am glad too, but I must say that the 18-55 2.8-4 with it’s OIS is very versatile and of very decent (if not more) quality, I guess I wanted to have a fixed aperture; Now if it is a reasonned compromise, then I accept that. I guess I’ll have to see real life tests before deciding to jump instead of being on the waiting list because the WR makes it really tempting as I live very close to the sea and we are used to mid to high wind all year round.
I see, and OIS can be very helpful in strong winds
WR and OIS would have helped a lot in gale-force winds which we have pretty often and I a tad tired to use plastic bags and the like to protect the equipement. Oh well, I guess I’ll carry on looking like a loony with a plastic bag in front of his face in such weather 🙂
Hope that 140-400 will be able to focus really, really close. Gonna be terrific birding lens then.
I hope you are right. If indeed if it is comparable to the Canikon birding lenses as to IQ etc, there will be a mass migration to the Fuji X system. It is the only consideration precluding me (and presumably others) from the sale of all my Nikon equipment.
Terrific for stationary birds. BIF, I just can’t imagine.. I love the Fuji X system, but tracking AF is just not it’s strong suit no matter what the marketing says. I took my Xt1 out yesterday (again just to test) and the hit rate on moving soccer players was abysmal. As a sports shooter, I never purchased the Fuji system for this type of work, but I keep trying from time to time for fun and have yet to be impressed with tracking.
Of course its strictly for shooting perching/nesting birds from the blind. BIF require a completely different setup… however, I can easily imagine shooting soaring eagles at some gorge with that lens.
I just love the 16-55 2.8. There is absolutely no need for an OIS. I worked with a canon Lens 24-70mm 2.8 for years now, and i never actually needed the OIS to get a good result.
I don’t care about OIS, but I was hoping they removed it to keep the size down. From the picture it seems like it has a 77mm thread. Come on Fuji, extra bulk aside, I don’t want to carry step-down rings. Keep your 3 flagship zooms at 72mm.
wow that 16-55 is pretty big compared to the stock kitlens. 😀
I don’t care about OIS, but they had better figure out how to get a 72mm filter on there!
I cannot understand why many people moan about the lack of OIS in 16-55/2.8.I’m sure that there are lots of ex-Canikon users here. Nikon/Canon 17-55/2.8 and 24-70/2.8. All of these don’t have VR/IS in lens as well.
Only one thing that is annoying to me is that XF16-55/2.8 should have been smaller or more compact than this!
Just a mention: the Canon 17-55 2.8 has IS and is a great lens – sucks dust in, but otherwise awesome lens. And, BTW, there are a lot of people complaining about the lack of IS in the 24-70 2.8 Canon, just look at the forums when the lens was released.
Where are you getting this view? The lack of IS on the 24-70s for CaNikon has been moaned about ad nauseum on almost every photography forum I’ve been in for the past few years.
I myself am one of them and jumped ship to m4/3 when I could use the Oly equivalent 24-80 2.8 with my EM1. Going from years shooting my Nikon 24-70 with no IS to suddenly having this amazing IBIS was night and day, much more keepers which is what I wanted for a walk around all purpose lens.
Fuji has really shot themselves in the foot for this one. I own an X100S so I have no dog in this fight since my primary format is m4/3 but even Pana have managed to squeeze in an excellent IS in their 2.8 zoom and that thing is tiny!
Are you insane? CaNikon users have wanted IS in this type of lens for YEARS.
Tamron offers it. Fujifilm muffed it.
140-400 AND a 1.4x teleconverter, now that would be something to get exited about
Absolutely, I already like this focal range.
I’m more concerned about the eventual price of these new lenses, the 140-400, 16-55, 90mm F2 and 16mm F1.4. As great as the Fuji lenses are and it’s great the line up is steadily improving but the cost of the lenses has gone up significantly over time. I know the build and optical quality are top notch but it does risk pricing them out of other brands equivalents. The Samsung 50-150 F2.8 is somehow lighter and cheaper than the Fuji’s for example.
Is there any word on new Firmware updates and/or rumours on Flashes?
I’m guessing the 140-400 will be priced very similarly to the Nikon 80-400 afs. Pricing is part currency fluctuation hedge, the number of units expected to be manufactured (lower for fuji), regional legal requirements in taxes and warranty, and profit.
I hope that’s not the case as that lens is about £2k which would definitely price me out of it. I was thinking/hoping more for Canon 100-400 example so £1.5k at the most!
Thing is, that lens is an old design. If the rumored 100-400 II is released you can bet it’ll be priced similarly to the Nikon 80-400 AFS which is currently at $2700.
any price estimates on 16-55 f2.8?
I would think it will be priced somewhere between to 10-24 and the 50-140, maybe 1400 US$/1200€
yes, that’s what I was thinking as well ($1200-$1400 range) just wanted a sanity check. thanks!
The 16-55F2.8 has became shorter !!
The brownish photo dates from a few month’s ago (mockup version). The other one from Photokina 2014 (source: Admiringlight).
Definitely Fuji decided not to incorporate the OIS, so the lenghth of the lens could be diminshed ! The 16-55F2.8 is now even long as the 18-135 ! If that’s true, that should be great.
On second thougt when Iooking at the Photokina photo you see that the bodycap at the mount of the 16-55mmF2.8 is missing (did Fuji that on purpose ?), so the lens is actually a bit longer (relative to the other two lenses) than the photo suggests. We will see.
(photo 18-135+16-55+50-140; photo under: 16-55+18-55+18-135).
I wish Fuji would put dove tails on the tripod mounts so I/we would not have to buy extra plates to attach to Arca-Swiss type ball heads.
The 16-55mmF2.8 has became shorter when you compare the Admringlightphoto with mockup-photo’s from a few month’s ago !!!!!.
It’s kind of prove that OIS is now deleted. I just posted some photo’s but my post wasn’t published for reasons I don’t know (Patrick can you explain ?)
It should be great if the 16-55F2.8 has (about) the same length as the 18-135 !!
you posted some photos? where?
Ok, Thanks. I uploaded them to this forum, but I saw that my post was ‘on hold’ for appoval by FUJI RUMORS.
Nevertheless I’ve upload now the mockup photo from a few months ago. It can be compared with the photo uploaded bij ‘aki’.
Guys… In the first picture where height is equal 16-55 is without rear cap and 18-135 is with one. On the second image 16-55 is taller because it has a rear cap on and 18-135 doesn’t.
That said, the older mockup is indeed different, at least I can spot the xf badge being completely on the wider part of the barrel thereas on the final design it’s halfway towards the curved part leading towards the mount (sorry couldn’t say it better).
Oh, just found them… they were in the SPAM folder of the Disqus comment system… it happens now and then when someone posts a link (especially if you post it for the first time). Just approved it.
you’re right, 16-55 and 18-135 have exact same length now: http://admiringlight.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2014/09/16-55.jpg
anybody know filter size for 16-55?
I seen it somewhere 72 I think but don’t hold me to that.
140-400mm. Just what I have been waiting to hear. Means the expense of a dual Fuji / Nikon system will be over. Perhaps my tentatively planned Botswana safari in sept 2015 should be delayed until this one arrives. Would love this trip with 2 * X-T2, 16-55, 50-140 & 140-400.
thanks, Fuji, you just helped me save a lot of money. no OIS on 2.8 standard zoom, 86mm filter threat on long zoom and too heavy of a 50-140. I like the size of the primes though, so I guess they will complement my set for a small Fuji set and for anything else I will stay with my loved-hated Nikon…
140-400mm on X-T1.
When both hands on your camera, don’t shake too hard !
(Photo: ePhotozine)
As usual with telephoto lenses, you hold the lens, not the camera.
Ok, was meant cynically too emphasize the enormous weight this glass must have.
A Nikon 80-400 on a Nikon D3200 looks a bit silly but it sure does work fabulously. People shouldn’t expect miracles with physics on lenses this focal length range.
You can hire a Sherpa och use a dog as a Beast og Burden.
or lift iron as I do.
Sure, but don’t forget this lens is the fattest lens ever build by FUJI, and it is fatter than other branded equivalent lenses. But when you buy it the donkey is included 🙂
This isn’t enormous at all. It’s perfectly sized. Exactly what I was expecting with the first lens picture. Once they make this I’ll be buying it.
Yep no one can do better? The next crying will start with the price tho and my guess if they hold it to $2000 we are lucky as its a lot of glass and great glass to.
Thanks for the photo. looking forward to this lens, it will be the perfect travel safari lens. Hope the AF is very fast and we get more PD AF points in the body.
That looks just stupid.
Actually more compact than I though it would be. For a 200-600mm lens this is pretty good I think. Not for everybody though, I agree.
To steal a line from McDee’s I’m loving it. They made it so F 5.6 is the slowest it is hands up in praise as that added a lot to the size. Sigma and Tamron both saved cost and size by going to F 6.3 and thats a game changer as that slows AF so much!
Why do you even bother coming onto this site rattymouse? All you do is state negative comments. You are clearly not interested in the fuji system so why waste your time? Someone get me some rat poison…
If you look at their post history you’ll see that it’s 100% negativity and criticism against fuji and mirrorless. So either it’s a paid troll or they have some strange compulsion.
Who cares, Some just bitch a lot, Some don’t understand how things work, Like OIS in fast lenses is hard to do with short FL lenses, You have to add glass to make it a telephoto put in OIS lenses and make it a wide with a short BF to the sensor. IE no room.
Nope, only if it were off-white in color.
I will by it the first day.
I am longing for it, I live in a Bird Eldorado.
Not bad actually, I thought it would look much more ridicoulous and fuji would have to make another bigger body to accomodate this and other pro lenses. Seems now x-t1 would work fine.
Is changing f-stop easy with this combo ? I’ve my doubts, maybe more easy by changing command dial which isn’t implemented ?
No OIS in the 16-55 f/2.8 is just stupid. There, I said it. OIS in the 16-55 is one of the factors for ME leaving Canon. No OIS makes the decision that much harder. I use my 24-70 all the time and that focal length with OIS would be fantastic.
Fuji, please put OIS in the 90 f/2.
The 140-400 looks great, I don’t mind the size.
16mm 1.4 looks great.
Fujirumors had a vote for who wanted OIS on the 16-55 f/2.8. the results at the time of this post is 4550 want OIS, 605 don’t want OIS.
That’s kind of a polling issue. We don’t know how many of those people who said they wanted it would accept it without OIS. Is it 1% or 99%? Don’t know. Many polls, by how they ask the question, guide the user into an expected response.
I think, for ME, without OIS, I would NOT get the Fuji 16/55 f/2.8. I would just keep my Canon body and Canon 24-70 2.8. Why spend more money on something I already have.
If one needs OIS the 18-55 makes a great lens. As with Canons 24-70 with out IS they raised hell about that but it works just fine.
I dunno…I may be different from most, but I do not have a problem steadying a lens with this FL.
I have a hard time holding them steady and most things I shoot need a higher SP to stop it so not a big loss. I to want and need the 140-400 and Im just glad its small at 140mm at 400 I think not so much I say all most 2x as long zoomed out too 400. Thats ok If you a long lens guy you know it’s going to stick out a long way.
Don’t worry guys, I have it on good authority that FUJI will release this very same lens with OIS six months from now for $500 more.
Now that I see that Fuji says removal of OIS was image quality driven, I don’t have a problem with the fact that it doesn’t include it.
Where did Fuji say “removal of OIS was image quality driven”?
http://www.fujirumors.com/first-images-of-the-xf-16mm-f1-4-90mm-f2-live-fujirumors-window-to-photokina/
In the second paragraph of text.
Size and price being put aside.
No OIS on 16-55mm really hurts Fuji-X system.
This lens should have been a bench mark and distinguishing factor for Fuji.
Samsung has a 16-50mm f/2-2.8 with OIS so it wouldn’t have been very distinguishing even with OIS.
Have a look at the Performance at 50mm and the CAs, than we are talking again.
NO optical image stabilization on the 16-55mm f/2.8 …?!
Sorry Fuji, but you just lost me as a customer. No OIS, no buy. In fact, I’m selling all my Fuji kit right now.
Seriously. That’s some kinda BS! (And I don’t mean Bait and Switch; but that, too.)
http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-CMElXv5MtUI/T88PPs8TFmI/AAAAAAAAEWw/oWNqhYpSgtQ/s640/1.jpg
What do you have to sell? How cheap?
Nice overreaction. I’m sure someone will enjoy buying your discounted equipment.
Well he is the likely news on why no OIS, To keep the F 2.8 the last lens set is very big and just like Canons 24-70 f 2.8 that hasn’t IS they are just to big to move fast or there isn’t room. I think if there was a chance to put it in they would of.
I know this is a superficial comment on visual appearance, but I like what Fuji is doing with the red XF on the newer lenses – kinda has a Leica red dot feel to it. Good branding. : )
Looking forward to seeing some images with this glass – I’m really impressed with the XF 10-24mm. Might wait a bit until tax return time, but do need some longer reach with my kit…
140-400 Jummy!
No, I dont need the OIS for 16-55, when this way it could be smaller, and picture quality/bokeh could be better too.
But in other cases better to have OIS…
While brands like Canon and Nikon and full frame cameras in general have an advantage on aperture/low light performance, to “conquer to them” in order to compensate on this one, it is absolutely more than needed an OIS.
an aperture of 2.8 on an APSC, in the full frame world is translated as f4.2 concerned the noise/bokeh, while an OIS can not make a change on the Bokeh side, it surely can help keep ISO as low as up to 4 stops, especially on static or slow moving objects.