_ _ _
A source, who was right in the past (SRP), just gave me an update about the previously rumored super fast F1.0 lens.
The source said that it is true: Fujifilm is considering to make a super fast lens (at the moment planed as XF 33mmF1.0). The bad part of this rumor: it’s not a final decision of Fujifilm… plans could still be dropped.
So let’s help Fuji to make their final decision: do you think such a super-fast “prestige” lens (or call it “freak” lens) would be a good move by Fujifilm and how much you would eventually pay for it. And most important: how do we get away with buying the 33mmF1.0 and avoid divorce? An initial guide on How To Convince your better half can be found at our New Fuji X Forum… everyone can read it, and feel free to join the discussion with your own suggestions 😉 .
[poll id=”88″]
[poll id=”89″]
143 Responses
A lens like this would be good for bragging rights if nothing else, it would certainly get Fuji a lot of attention. I dread to think how much it would cost though.
I would probably not pay more than 1000€ for that. The 35 1.4 R is already a beautiful nifty fifty. I’m more concerned about the damn focus clutch. If that’s being implemented I’ll likely pass on that… got enough of the dreaded thing with my 23 and 16
Can you please elaborate a bit on your opinion about focus clutch?
Why do you consider it as a “dreaded thing” as it is presented as an advantage for people wanting to use zone focus, specially for people interested in styles as street?
The focus scale is barely usable. Quantity of information provided on the scale is too little. I far prefer the electronic scale on the screen/in the viewfinder and a PROPER ring, as used in the 35/56/90/16-55/50-140. I always found the focus clutch to be a nuisance rather than helpful. Also, I find zone focus to be easier when using the electronic DOF scale.
What is ‘proper’ about the 35mm lens? The 56 is quite different from it. The 90? Not even out. Comparing any prime to zooms is silly.
In other words, which focus ring do you care about? Your description is too full of gaps.
All of the mentioned share 1 thing: 1 ring that turns smoothly (without hard stops, due to by-wire) and you just have to move the AF switch. Not so hard to recognize, isn’t it? Even the zooms have a simple by-wire focus ring that nearly all fujinons share. And yes, the 35 1.4 R does have a proper focus ring. You can see the one from the 90 in the images, too. So don’t play dumb please. I haven’t said anything about tactile qualities. That would indeed be impossible with the 90.
It’s curious but the by-wire used to be pointed as a reason for some lack of precision of AF and DoF graphic bar in the viewfinder not as a synonymous of “proper”.
as proper as it gets in the Fuji X System. I don’t expect mirrorless lenses to have a mechanic focus ring.
I wasn’t ‘playing dumb’. You simply didn’t define terms. I also dislike the clutch, but then a properly designed lens system wouldn’t need one. A turn of the focus ring would override AF.
So while we agree on that point, it’s fair for me to say that your description is too full of gaps. I wasn’t attacking you, nor did I use ad hominem. You, however, did attack, and use ad hominem. That part was clear.
It’s only a good option for people that have never, ever, used a lens with true manual override, or a manual focus lens. Clutch mechanisms require you to switch back and forth, which isn’t necessary except in the vacuum of good engineering.
It doesn’t seem that you can blame the clutch option to the inconveniences of not having a manual override, like (for instance) the one of AF-S lenses of Nikon.
Even AF and AF-D Nikon lenses require to operate a switch to fine manual focus adjustments.
The way Fuji choose to expose the DoF marks can be arguable but in practical terms is just the equivalent to the use of a switch on the side of the lens.
The switch necessary to use on Nikon AFD lenses was awful. And it is more or less the equivalent to the clutch, though I would probably prefer the clutch, which is easier to use, but just as obtuse.
AFS lens AF is immediately overridden by a simple turn of the focus ring. There is no need to move the lens to M mode unless all you want to do is MF, but even then, there is no need. The lens is already in MF mode from the moment it is on the camera as the focus ring is coupled to the gears of the motor.
A clutch exists because there is no coupling and so something has to be done to make it work. It is a workaround that is inelegant compared to full time manual focus override that needs no switches, nor clutches; that needs a simple twisting of the focus ring.
I actually know because I’ve both AF-D and AF-S lenses but I thought the way mirrorless cameras’ (not just Fuji) AF works is something different because they use the electronically controlled by-wire tech.
But as I said above to sir_c my questions are intended to get information not to defend a particular method as I have no practical experience with these Fuji lenses (the only Fuji camera I’ve so far is a fixe lens X100).
The clutch does interfere with the firmware option for AF+MF.
With that option you can do AF and then finetune it manually. Lenses with clutch mechanisms cannot do that.
But if you don’t select the “clutch MF” can you fine-tune via the focus ring or not?
Sorry for all these questions but I’m interested but I don’t have practical experience with this hardware. Therefore, my questions are not the kind of “pros and against” but just the will to understand how it works beyond the marketing claims.
Nope, 31.28/0.97 would be better.
focal length sounds odd but comes out at exactly 50mm. The 35 is a 53mm, to be precise. So that odd number actually makes sense.
Sure. It’s just for fun.
Yeah as if the crop factor is exactly 1.5000….
And then I dare you to find any 50mm lens which has an exact focal length of 50.00mm. Really, try it.
And besides which, what would be the point of this exercise?
No need. Better to create a new version of the 35mm. Perhaps make that one 33mm and keep the 1.4 which is more than fast enough and keeps the lens light and small.
as a DOF-equivalent 50 1.4 is pretty standard in fullframe territory for as little as 300 bucks…so yes, totaly should make that lens. and it shouldn´t cost 2000€ or wheight half a kilo….
It’s nonsense to compare a high-end Fujinon to the street price of the value-line 1.4 of Canon/Nikon.
Fujinon lenses play in one league with Canon L, Sigma Art or even Zeiss Otus – so 750€ or more is a reasonable price for such a high-end lens.
If you want a really good 50mm lens for a lower price go for the existing 1.4, which is not a bad lens at all.
Or purchase the 50/2 Nikkor from the 1970’s, which is both equivalently faster, and nearly as sharp. It goes for 60-120$.
i use several canon L, sigma art and fujinon lenses so yes, i am aware of their strengths and weaknesses 😉 i just wanted to point out that a 35 f1.0 is not “that” special (nor is the 56 1.2) when you compare it in terms of DOF and light gathering abilities to their cheap fullframe counterparts.
the 35 1.4 is “okay” but i wouldnt rave about its optic qualities. edges are bad wide open and it needs to be stopped down to archive good contrast. for the price its okay though.
The 35mm f/1.4 is much better than “okay”. In fact, it’s an exceptional lens by “normal” lens standards.
its fine wide open compared f.e. to a canon 50 f1.4. there is a “but” – take a 6D & 50 1.4@2.2 and compare it to a x-t1 & 35 1.4 wide open and they are easily matched. (albeit the canon bokeh is rubiish 😉 ).
F1.2 is super fast, tested and successfully implemented in XF 56mm F1.2 R for making it more affordable.
33/1 will be super duper expensive. Which is fine. But the system is more or less defeated vis-a-vis Fufjifilm’s marketing. I’d like to hear a real modus operandi for X from them than:
lighter than FF
cheaper than FF
Both of which, at the lens level, are wrong.
Why are you so negative about Fuji? They’re a company that wants to make money, they’re not going to be running around telling you the benefits of FF (which obviously exist).
FF lenses clearly have a size advantage when it comes to equivalent DOF with comparable image quality (compared to APS-C lenses) and many of us know that (granted, many don’t). But most of us don’t need that extremely shallow DOF all the time (or at all). And the appeal of fast lenses for a bright viewfinder (with DSLRs) has been lost with mirrorless as well.
So what are the reasons to choose APS-C and live with more expensive lenses?
– Smaller size when you can live with less DOF (or prefer it) meaning you buy lenses with equivalent aperture not equivalent DOF.
– Cheaper body prices: already cheaper than FF bodies but price/performance is getting even better now with cameras like the X-T10. Since bodies are updated a lot more often than lenses it is better to have more expensive lenses and cheaper bodies since in the end you will save money.
So, to a certain extent, what Fuji is saying is wrong but it really depends on your personal needs. For many people a Fuji APS-C system is both smaller and cheaper and yes, to me those – coupled with great quality images – are the main two reasons to choose Fuji right now. You prefer FF. Great, enjoy your A7 cameras then. Are these constant wars between formats really necessary?
Oh, and when comparing price and size you really need to take image and build quality into account. Can’t really compare a metal Fuji lens to a plastic Nikkor one on price.
That said, I still think that a few cheaper primes are absolutely needed for Fuji. The only thing keeping me from selling my D7000 with 50 1.8G and buying an X-T10 is the lack of an equivalent lens. Can’t afford the 56 f1.2 and could easily live with f1.8 or f2. If Fuji built a plastic XC 56 f2 (but with aperture ring) for under 200€ my Nikon would be hitting eBay within minutes… A metal XF would be even better if they kept it under 300€. And Fuji, don’t forget the 23 f2 after that. Thanks 😉
I am not negative about Fujifilm, I am skeptical about the benefits of mirrorless, namely price, size, and weight.
it is true that mirrorless APS-C is cheaper generally than FF dSLRs, but it is also true that APS-C dSLRs are generally cheaper than APS-C mirrorless.
And even compared directly to FF dSLRs, one thing to keep in mind, and one that you pointed out, is that bodies are updated far more often.
And unlike with dSLRs, people tend to upgrade at a rapid rate. In other words, you buy two, or more, mirrorless bodies in the span, or a much shorter span, that you would buy a single dSLR.
I see no price benefits if you take the general picking/hovering buying method of mirrorless purchases. And, I blame the manufacturers for this. They run marketing campaigns that tie perfectly in to unaware purchases, where people expect dSLR-like responsiveness and general performance, and either are somewhat happy, but wish something was different, or are unhappy, sell the stuff and move on, or buy the next in line.
When/if mirrorless companies bring out mature products that in all ways can supplant the dSLR, I hope that people will be satisfied with a single body in the same span as they loved a single dSLR body.
Mirrorless encourages a rapid upgrade cycle. It is more expensive. Savings in camera body size are real, and lenses, only when, as you pointed out, aperture equivalents are taken out of the picture.
But then again, with small sensors, you have to pay much, much more to equate even modest aperture DOF values of larger sensor/film sizes.
Which means: the only true benefit to mirrorless comes down to subjective measures: is the EVF better _for you_ than the optical viewfinder? Does it make life easier? Does it make photographic life better?
If yes, wonderful, but with the number of constant upgrades I see both here and among my mirrorless friends, I see that people are NOT satisfied, or are too enticed into buying more and keeping up. And therefore, mirrorless is much, much more expensive a platform to invest in.
I mostly agree with that now that you elaborate on it. Doesn’t really come across in your other posts though.
The problem is not with mirrorless. It’s with technology that is not yet matured. The rate of improvements is still much greater from generation to generation. The difference between manufacturers is also much greater (the DSLR choice between Nikon and Canon mostly came down to small differences but Fuji vs. Sony vs. MFT is a whole different story).
Fuji has really needed a few years to nail (well, for camera manufacturers) the user interface and get some decent AF. I believe when the new sensor comes out many will upgrade again and after that the rate will slow down significantly. Their first cameras had some truly idiotic limitations like EC not working in manual mode or non-customizable buttons and the AF was just inadequate for many uses.
You remember the huge differences between DSLRs in the first years? Compare a D200 and a D300, what a difference!
Certainly my replies were not the clearest. Apologies. I replied after wine time.
I call BS (yes, BS) on Fujfiilm needing time to nail the user interface. Anyone can fix software, but not anyone can nail great user-sensitive hardware interfaces. But even if you’re not great at it, you can come up with a simple, classic interface.
It’s probably poor taste to reference Apple, but I’ll do it. While they did move buttons around from gen 1 to gen 3 of the iPod, they nailed a basic navigation system from day one and then iterated it until the demise of the circle thumb pad.
Cameras are more tricky, but the simple things: single controls for singular functions: aperture, shutter speed, are always better than convoluted systems that require users to twiddle two or more controls.
X: to change shutter speed to 1/160, you have to go into a secondary dial. And that dial cannot select ANY speed without governance. It only serves at third stops in and around the main shutter speed selector. I makes it much slower and less direct than both a classic film camera and/or any dSLR.
The same goes for the X100 aperture ring, which until the T, forced you to twiddle two different controls to set aperture from full to third stops.
That secondary controls are even necessary is ridiculous and was obvious from day one. They were, and are, unnecessary. It doesn’t take years on market to recognise this. Poor design can only be ameliorated by time. Or, by compounding it, it is exacerbated.
I always talk about it, and I’m the only one I know that is, but I reckon it has less to do with my stick-in-the-mud attitude than it has to do with camera users that have put up with shitty interfaces so long that ridiculous errors such as the above, the ten-and-counting user interfaces for X lenses, unlocked drive/meter dials that even my wife’s microscopic fingers accidentally engage, flaps that pull open by the brush of a hand, too sensitive eye detectors, threaded on/off buttons that turn on or off when the remote is screwed in, etc. and so on… are glossed over.
Modern cameras are so convoluted and so poorly designed that the X-T1, as much of a mishmash as it is, that the X series, which operate opposite to its marketing principles, not to mention its apparent modus operandi, is considered ‘good’, or considered to return ‘soul’ to shooting.
I would argue that much of the design problem is down to Fujifilm designing and making things here, in Japan. I have two Suzuki cars, both purchased after 2008. Even from the same manufacturer, the basic interface is all over the place. There is NO cohesion here. In fact, it is so bad that turning the entry key clockwise opens one car, and locks the other.
If Fujifilm want to make a good interface, they need to hire user-oriented designers from outside of Japan, from countries where utility is beauty and simplicity and uniformity are paramount.
Seriously, if Fujifilm couldn’t even nail aperture/shutter speed in single controls from day one, they failed. I could pick on Sony just as much for other things. But I won’t here.
I’m glad that they’re pushing boundaries in APS-C optics. I hope they continue to make good to great optics. But I’m realistic in my expectations: they will continue to be more expensive, roughly the same size, and as always, will perform up to the standards of the year in which they are debuted to market.
There isn’t anything magical about X. There are a LOT of promises, a lot of bad marketing, and a very, very vocal group of supporters.
Apart from the fact that I do find you have a very negative view of Fuji I mostly agree with you. But there is a reason why they have so many loyal sheep and why many pros have been switching since the X-T1 came out and it sure isn’t only marketing. My own DSLR is mostly lying around since I got the X100S. I can’t tell you precisely why though. There are a lot more things that annoy me with the Fuji compared to my Nikon. But for some reason it still is more fun to shoot the Fuji and I much prefer the images.
I fully agree: Fuji could have nailed the user interface from day 1 and they should have. So claiming they “needed time” for that wasn’t saying they couldn’t have done it faster, it was just stating that they (as we can all see) needed the time (and they still haven’t nailed it really).
I completely agree with your complaints about the user interface. Except for the missing aperture ring the current DSLRs were close to perfect for me. And I agree that DSLR-style control dials are actually a lot easier and faster to use than dials on the top plate. Why fix something that wasn’t broken especially if it leads to crazy things like needing two dials for one setting. The perfect camera for me would have:
– Aperture ring (with third stops!) on the lens.
– Control dial on the front for ISO. Pressing it toggles between auto modes (highest ISO to choose) and manual.
– Control dial on the back for shutter speed. Pressing it toggles auto mode (which slowest shutter speed) and manual mode.
– EC dial like it is now.
With the T setting being updated on the X-T1 it is coming pretty close to what I would want from a camera in terms of handling basic exposure parameters. So slowly Fuji is getting there. But I still totally agree: the Japanese for some reason aren’t good at UI and they should just admit it and hire someone else to do it for them.
With Fuji’s really good automatic exposure and live preview due to the EVF I think many have turned to shooting with Auto ISO (and Auto SS). For that reason the completely broken interface of setting third stops is not as big a problem as it could have been.
It will be huge lens, so I am not interested to have one on small Fuji body, I am more interested in coming new smaller 35/2WR and would like Fuji to bring more small primes with f/2: 23/2, 55/2, 16/2 instead of bigger and bigger ones. Like Sony with its f/1.8 primes.
+1 here for that 23/2! But that would cannibalize X100 series, so I don’t think it’s happening.
Fuji doesn’t care if you buy a x100. You can’t buy lenses for it. They’d rather sell more ILCs. The cameras are vehicles for selling lenses. They will make a 23 f2 if the new 35 does well.
I’m not so sure about that. Fujifilm would have released a 23/2 for their XLC range already if they were interested in you buying ‘anything’ Fujifilm. That the only 23mm lens that’s materialised is f/1,4 begs a LOT of questions. That there’s no 23/2 followup begs even more.
Fujifilm are NOT Apple INC.
I think the 35 f2 is the beginning of a new line of smaller lenses. If it does well they will surely build other focal lengths.
Why does the current 23 beg a lot of questions? The new 35 is their first lens that addresses a focal length they already produce with a different aperture.
Fujifilm produce a 33 teleconverter for an F/2 lens on the X100. They do NOT produce an F/2 version of the 23mm lens found on the X100 for the X mount.
Why are they starting at 35? Maybe that’s the best focal length for a lot of people. Or, maybe they seriously think that they have to protect the X100.
Honestly, Fujifilim have NOT shown in any way that they are like Apple and happy that their stuff is cannibalised by their stuff.
The 16mm, arguably, has cannibalised the 14mm. The 56mm and the extension tubes have made the 600mm more or less redundant. They’re going to have two 35mm lenses. They made the X100T with minimal changes over the X100S and the X-T10 completely overules the X-E2 and eats into the X-T1.
So there’s really no reason to believe they wouldn’t release a smaller, slower 23mm lens, too. Especially since what Greg D said is right, selling lenses is a bigger money-maker. A camera body which sells for about £1000 only actually generates about £35-£40 profit for a shop. Selling bodies is only worthwhile to shops if they are selling second hand ones. New bodies don’t shift quickly and they’re not worth keeping in stock. New lenses, however, sell every day and represent better margins for shops—about £220 for every £1000 spent—so it is much, much more worthwhile for shops to buy in lots of lenses. Very few people buy more than one body but a decent amount of people buy more than one lens. Selling a 23mm f/2 makes perfect sense.
Where are you getting these Apple references from? Fuji is a business. Their goal is to sell product. Interchangeable lens cameras fulfill that goal better than fixed lens cameras. They haven’t built a 23mm F2 because they cannot design, source, & build 8 lenses simultaneously. It will come provided the 35mm does well.
I totally support your view! The main reason for switching to Fuji (from Nikon D700) was size and weight. Even if i love my 23mm, it’s still quite big. Way bigger and much more expensive than my 35mm Nikkor – which is full frame… Instead of developping faster and bigger lenses i would ask Fuji to focus on one (of course not the only) of their main competitive advantages – which is size and weight. The more my X-T1 resembles my X-100 and not my former D-700 the better 😀 Fuji for me is about shooting experience and image quality – not feature gear war.
A 33mm f/1.0?
Yes, please!
That would be awesome for lowlight situations and when a really thin DoF it’s required.
Ofcourse that kind of lens would be big, heavy and pricy if compared with other XF lenses as the “old” 35mm f/1.4, but not so enormous in comparison with the XF56 I think. For example, the theoretical entrance pupil of a 33mm f/1 is 33mm, actually smaller than the 46,667mm pupil of the XF56, or than the 45mm pupil of the XF90.
I would 100% buy it. I currently shoot with my 23 and 56mm, and the 35 seams so out of place. If I could have a 33mm (50mm) with a filter size of 62mm I would be in heaven
the 35 seems to be out of place? As out of place as a classic can be. It’s rather a result of your photographic interest than a disadvantage of the lens.
For me the focus feels slower then the other two. And having to use a step up ring to 62mm for filters is annoying. I would love a 23 33 and 56mm, that would cover about 99% of all my needs. My 18mm is for traveling small, at that point I would get the 50mm f2 for travel as well. My 60mm is studio macro work only. I would be all set.
Only if it’s WR (weather resistant) lens!!!
Better yet, OIS! OMG! OIS! OIS! OIS!
(sarcasm somewhere)
http://sd.keepcalm-o-matic.co.uk/i/keep-calm-and-omg-omg-squirrel-1.png
Since they have chosen not to produce a full frame mirrorless camera, and they have nearly completed the lens road map (just need telephoto and macro), they should perhaps make some superfast standard lenses. That would satisfy the bokeh lovers and will provide greater depth-of-field control and better low-light performance.
They should also consider some tilt-shift lenses and a fast prime telephoto lens (300 mm f/2). If they had even a fast 200mm (f/2 or f/2.8), I would prefer it over the 55-200mm.
With all of these excellent lenses and improvements in the features and performance of the cameras (X-T1 and X-T10), in my opinion, Fuji needs to focus on providing an excellent sensor to match the lenses and, if they stick with the X-Trans colour filter, proper RAW support (either the ability to convert the files to a lossless file format in camera or provide their own bare-bones raw converter). If they are going to continue to ignore that, then scrap the X-Trans colour filter and just use a Bayer colour filter without an AA filter.
So a 300mm lens with an ~165mm filter thread and $6-12k price tag would be ok with you?
Or… it might be nice to have more in the f2-3.5 range – smaller, better optical quality (slower generally means better quality and less expensive optical tricks to get there). I love the superglass we’re getting now, but given how good the sensors are getting, a slower, smaller lens of excellent quality might be attractive. Back to the Leica/rangefinder aesthetic, but affordable.
Could not agree more. I think it is time for Fuji to slow down on the lens design showing off and work on a line of compact, super sharp lenses that actually fit with their compact bodies. The upcoming 35/2 is a step in the right direction. The compact body unbalanced by a hulking lens is so Sony. The shooting experience is what drew many people to Fuji, but the concentration on large, heavy lenses is kind of shoots that in the head.
Personally I am ready for what attracted me to the system in the first place. Small, capable lenses of great optical quality. Now if they would just create a worthy rangefinder style body…..and please don’t make the body too small (an X Pro successor).
They’re already making a 35mm f/2 which is more retro-styled and should be cheaper (or at least no more expensive than) the current, already cheap 35mm f/1.4.
Yep – I like this direction. Don’t get me wrong. I love the uber-glass lenses. But lately I’ve been sold by restricting myself to the 27mm pancake.
Um… what’s the point? the 35/1,4 (which gives a DOF of a 50/2,2 on FF) is already more than double the cost of its FF equivalent image producer. A 1,0 lens will be double that again, or more than 4x the price of its FF 50/1,4 equivalent.
Still, nice to see that Fujifilm are going for the large and bulbous.
What is all of this based on again? No pricing or size has been announced. By your logic the 16-50 should have sold for $8k.
The 16-50 costs exactly what it should. The 16-55 falls right in line with the 2,8 spec, but next to a budget F4 FF zoom, is expensive, as is almost ALWAYS the case with APS-C lenses that do their best to equivocate FF DOF.
8K? rubbish. But 1200-1500$? No problem.
Your observation that APS-C glass is always more expensive is flawed. You state that it is always 2x-4x the price of the equivalent FF gear. This is wrong. My point is that the Canon 24-70 II is $2k. By your logic Fuji’s equivalent should have been $4k or more. It’s not.
You cannot compare Fuji’s 1.4 lenses to Canon’s 1.4 lenses. Have you used both? I have. Like a previous poster said, Canon’s are a joke wide open. Fuji 1.4 glass should be compared to Canon L series. Not sure of the Nikon equivalent.
Canon’s 50mm 1.2 is $1.5k. I highly doubt Fuji’s 33mm 1.0 will be $3k.
‘Equivalent’ was defined as lenses that ‘do their best to equivocate FF DOF’. ‘Equivocate’ was a stupid word to use. I mean ‘equate’. Use my terms and you will find that ‘equivalent’ means: providing similar DOF/FOV to the sensor/film plane. I’m not into splitting hairs about performance.
If I was, I would find that Fujifilm lenses perform very similarly to their DOF/FOV 1,8 equivalent lenses that return similar images (DOF)/framing(FOV) to larger sensors. Those lenses ARE sharp, contrasty, and generally, much newer.
And, Fujifilm’s lenses are generally double the cost.
The point of a 33mm f/1.0 would be to have something to boast about, something which can be pointed at as being comparative to Leica’s 50mm f/0.95. Compared to the 35mm f1.4, and assuming light transmission and sensor reproduction is about the same rate, it’ll give you two thirds of a stop more light than the f/1.4 lens; I always like to get as much light coming through the lens as possible, but for 99.99% of situations, two thirds more light over f/1.4 is going to be a waste. These sorts of lenses are never made to actually be practical items bought by many people.
That it would be unlikely to out-perform something like the Sigma ART 50mm f/1.4 , and the fact that it would probably cost more than any other lens in the Fuji lineup, is quite irrelevant with spec-sheet-bragging items like this.
Can you please elaborate on your calculation that yields 2/3 of a stop exposure advantage?
I don’t disagree, I’m just interested in the math involved.
It’s a ‘guesstimate’ based on:
– f/1.0 is one full stop brighter than f/1.4
– Larger lenses tend to lose more light during transmission (t-stop) and f/1.2 -0.95 lenses are notorioucs for never truly giving f/1.2, f/1.1, f/1.0 or f/0.95.
– Light isn’t entirely linear and you get diminishing returns after around t/1.8.
So, if the lens in theory gives a mximum of one stop more light, but we know each third of a stop after t/1.8 isn’t a true full third, and we assume any fast lens is going to be large enough to have less efficient transmission, it is a safe guess that a 33mm f/1.0 lens would only, in practical terms, give you a 2/3rd stop advantage over the f/1.4 lens. In order to give an actual full stop of light more, the lens would have to be manufactured to a standard that is absolutely unheard of and impossible to repeat consistently and it would actually have to be f/0.95.
… Again, in theory. I’m not saying it’s absolutely impossible. It’s just that even lenses costing five figures do not transmit light accurately enough to hit their top f-number. It’s why we have t-stops, after all.
Thanks! I’ve never heard of t-stops before. But now I have. I’ll look it up.
T-stops aren’t very important with mirrorless cameras and barely matter for digital stills, but they’re important if you do video and absolutely vital if you ever use film. It’s definitely a good idea to learn about how f-stops and t-stops relate to each other and the real light you actually get from a lens!
I don’t get the boasting on smaller formats. Smaller formats always have had to use exotic glass in order to equate the look (DOF) of lenses with similar output FOVs to larger formats.
It’s the same from MF to LF and smartphones to m43 to APS-C.
The 33/1,0 would be fast, yes, but it would return an image almost identical to a typical FF 50/1,4, not a 50/0,95. Cool as that is (as there is no equivalent to 50/1,4 among smaller format systems), it’s nothing in comparison to boast lenses on FF or larger formats.
No, but most people don’t think about these things to that extent. Look at how many people think of the 56mm f/1.2 as being an 85mm f/1.2. And look at how rubbish the 85mm f/1.2L is at f/1.2, yet people still go crazy for it! Look at how many people get confused by medium format having 90-110mm lenses as ‘standard’.
It’s not, in any way, about how this lens would actually perform. It’s purely about getting the headline-grabbing “f/1.0” out there.
can’t compared every 50 1.4 to the other 50 1.4s. Canons and Nikons current models are a joke wide open. take the Sigma then you got a real performance 50, in line with 35 1.4s or 85 1.4s. it’s just that the 50 always had to be small and cheap as the always-good-to-have lens, which is why the current canikon models don’t impress me. sigma shows how big & expensive a good 50 has to be in order to be competitive. or look at the 55 otus. Let’s compare a future Fuji 33 1.0 to one of those lenses rather than a crappy 50 1.4 USM (when it was announced/released).
Again, the lenses that need to be compared to the 35/1,4 X are 1,8 or 2,0 lenses, not 1,4 lenses. When/if the 33/1,0 comes out, it is fair to compare it to Nikon/Canon and other FF 50/1,4 lenses.
Of course, that 33/1,0 lens will be at least double the cost, if not much more.
And on their native mounts, the Nikon lens you are so opposed to performs very well; at least as well as the 35/1,4 X does on its native mount. Of course, it returns quite a different image.
Nikon 50/1,4 AFS:
http://www.photozone.de/nikon_ff/441-nikkor_afs_50_14_ff?start=1
Fujifilm 35/1,4 X:
http://www.photozone.de/fuji_x/746-fuji35f14?start=1
When stopped down to achieve similar DOF, the Nikon 1,4 is more than a match for the Fujifilm.
But the lens that more properly matches its output for DOF and FOV is the 50/1,8G:
http://www.photozone.de/nikon_ff/631-nikkorafs5018ff?start=1
Still avoiding the main issue I had with your post: It’s not fair to compare the upcoming 33 1.0 (if those are the final specs…) to a lens such as the Canon 50 1.4 USM (or the Nikkor). Those lenses suffer badly from uncorrected aberrations. Take the Sigma instead, costing 800€. That’s a better to create a fair comparison with a lens that’s hard to beat, if at all.
Oh, and I can post links of review sites, too:
http://www.lenstip.com/162.4-Lens_review-Nikon_Nikkor_AF-S_50_mm_f_1.4G_Image_resolution.html
Marc: I posted two reviews from the same site, showing each lens on its native mount/sensor size. It was a good comparison, showing very clearly that under the same test conditions, there was very little between the 50/1,4 Nikkor (which returns an image closer to what a 33/1.0 lens would on APS-C) and the 35/1,4.
I’m not saying that there are NO problems with the Nikkor or Canon. I use neither. I’m not a fan of either Canon or Nikon, nor do I own any Nikon or Canon bodies apart from film cameras.
I do own the 35/1,4 and find it to be a fantastic optic. But it’s no better than its closest modern FOV/DOF equivalent, the 50/1,8G. It’s a modern optic, that’s it.
You are holding one leg of the elephant but your “it’s like a tree” description doesn’t describe the full picture.
With the Fuji lens, I can get sufficient dof in my picture while keeping the aperture one stop more open. That allows me to use smaller less powerfull flashes. So, no, I don’t need to compare to FF lenses, F 1.4 is F1.4 is F1.4. as far as my light requirements are concerned. Think of that : smaller lenses do the job better. How much nicer can it get?
Yes, f 1,4 is f 1,4. The image a small sensor captures from an f 1,4 lens is far different to the image a large sensor captures from a 1,4 lens that covers its image circle.
With smaller sensors, faster and more expensive lenses are the norm simply because in order to even equate the image style of a larger slower format lens, the lenses have to be one, or many stops faster.
We are talking about the same thing. But, I am pointing out that the benefits you quote can easily be had by FF, and lens-wise, at the same price with a larger creative DOF range plus the ability to stop down.
I’m not saying that a lens should only be used at f/1,4 and that minuscule DOF is all important. But if you want it, it is easy, and relatively cheap on FF in comparison to smaller formats where to equate the same style of image, you need a MUCH faster lens.
No f/1,0 lens is going to come cheap, small, compact, or, barring many-thousands $$$, optically excellent.
I have never used a FF camera, I don’t care what the FF equivalent is. However, I have used FF lenses on crop sensor bodies, and I have found the Fuji lenses I have used to be smaller and lighter.
Of course FF lenses with the same focal lengths and apertures are larger than APS-C lenses with the same spec. They cover larger image circles and are wider angle view lenses.
For FF, a 50/1,8 is roughly the same size/weight as the 35/1,4 X and returns as equivalent an image as is possible as there isn’t a 1,2 X-Mount 35mm lens, which would return an image nearly perfectly equivalent to a 50/1,8 FF lens.
It’s ridiculous to compare a FF 35/1,4, which is a mild wide angle lens on its native mount, to a 35/1,4 APS-C lens, which works out on its native mount to a ‘normal’ lens when comparing systems.
The truth is that we are paying far more for FF-equivalent lenses with our APS-C purchases. And there is no lens size advantage that favours APS-C across systems when factoring in the final image output where DOF and FOV are important.
If all that matters is size and f-stop, APS-C is trumped by m43, and m43 trumped by smaller sensors. When taking into account the type of image produced, and matching that image across systems, there is NO advantage in price, or size, to smaller sensors.
Which is fine. But that should be the talk rather than pitting fast wide angle FF lenses that on their native mounts return completely different images to their exact mm and aperture analogues on smaller sensors that return completely different images.
There is a size benefit in getting rid of the mirror. Not to mention the many advantages of an EVF. Also I would say that lenses you call equivalent to this potential 33 f/1 are in reality no where near the quality that the fuji lens would have.
That is an interesting question. Olympus Pen-F SLR cameras use film sizes that are slightly larger than APS-C and they have mirrors, but are quite a bit more compact than today’s X-T1 camera is. The Full-size Nikon FE is just a bit larger and it uses the entire 35mm portion of the film.
I am trying to (and obviously failing) to point out that the size advantage is a relative thing. Canon’s new tiny dSLR is tiny, absolutely.
The benefits of each OVF and EVF are myriad. As many love the EVF as the OVF. There are certain things only made possible with one, or the other.
Again, this hypothetical 33/1 would have to compete with 50/1,4 lenses, which, as is visible at photozone (linked by me elsewhere in this thread) show that even today’s 10+ year old Nikon 50/1,4, which isn’t as good a performer wide open as the 50/1,8G, which is closer in DOF/FOV to the 35/1,4, is already a match in most areas to the 35/1,4 even wide open, even when shot on 24 megapixels vs 16 on the X cameras.
This idea that the 50/1,4 lens is worse is wrong. The Fujifilm cameras are more accurate focusing wide open thanks to CDAF, which can make them seem sharper, but when carefully focused, the differences between them evaporate, or tilt very slightly toward the newer lens.
I would buy it provided it sells for $1k or less.
1000$ is probably the lower limit for this lens. Which is absolute bling bling for a FF dSLR user. APS-C is expensive, but provides a reasonable amount of clearance for anyone not willing to compare images back to back, or for anyone to whom F-stop is the only answer.
In which case, my iPhone f/2,2 lens should show up in speed, power, resolving capability, and price, your X-something and 18/2.
How many current of former Canon shooters here have or used to have an EF 50/1.0L?…
Hi Trenton,
I’ve used the 1.2 50L and loved it due to its colour reproduction, contrast and very smooth background.
And it also really made me mad because of its really unpredictable AF-performance. When it hits, its already very sharp at 1.2, when not than not. It behaved like a diva.
I also love the 1.4 35mm, for me it’s not as versatile as the 23mm, but still more magical and I fear I would buy a 1.0 33mm in a heartbeat without waiting until the price drops a bit.
Daniel
I used to have the 50 f/1.2, I still have the 50 f/1.4 which I use for video. The 33 f/1 would be equivalent to the 1.4 canon, but obviously much better IQ.
You sure about better IQ? I’m sure it would be good, but unless many thousands of dollars, and Zeiss-sized, not stellar. Nikon’s current 50/1,4 (from 2008) measures very similarly in context of a higher resolution, larger, sensor (D3x) to the Fujifilm 35/1,4 on X.
The canon design may be older. But each of these lenses performs up to the standard of the day. Fujifilm’s lenses are just newer, and therefore benefit from newer production techniques.
Still, there is about a hair between the X35/1,4 and the AFSG50/1,4 on Nikon, though DOF-wise, the 50/1,8AFSG, which performs even better, is the more apt comparison to the X35/1,4.
In other words, I’d expect the 1,0 to at best, equate a semi-modern 50/1,4. But again, unless building to Zeiss size/weight/price, that would be stretching it.
I’d like to see more compact lenses, most of the recent releases are huge. This lens will be big and expensive, easily $1500. I’d also like to see improved AF, better video and a MP bump.
They do whatever they want… Just release the 100-400 asap !
I would like a 23mm f2 please? It’s been in the X100’s for years, surely I can’t be on my own here?
I don’t see the point. One extra stop won’t get you the super bokeh you’re looking for anyway.
The current 35/1,4 has great bokeh, but a 1,0 lens would change the final image style even more. A lot of people skip budget 50/1,8s for 1,4 lenses. Those people would be a great target for a 1,0/33 lens. Price and size would be the only real issues.
I just want a 50mm f1.8 for 200$ or less, like I had on a Nikon.
Almost zero chance of seeing such a lens as, fortunately, Fuji don’t seem to be in the business of producing cheap plastic lenses
Yeah, like the XC 16-50 that doesn’t exist…
It’s about enabling people on a tight budget (who like primes) to enter a system. Later – when their wallet feels better – they’ll stay with you. Right now a beginner would buy a D5x00 or D7x00 with said prime (which is plastic but awesome) because Fuji has nothing for his budget.
I believe an XC 23 f2 and XC 56 f2 would make the Fuji system very attractive for casual shooters or students who have skill but little money. You people on Internet forums often seem to forget how many people do photography on a pretty good level but can’t invest thousands of bucks.
Thanks, Jano! This is exactly what I think.
Agreed.
Plenty of cheap f2 lenses can be adapted to the x mount. There isn’t really a body from Fuji that i would say fits the ‘people with little money’ requirement. If they release lower end primes, which i think they will eventually, they should also make a lower end EVF body to go with them.
For now, a second hand X-E1 and some vintage glass makes a superb kit for someone looking to get creative on a budget.
You said it yourself. A used X-E1 or X-E2 and soon a used X-T10 will be great used options. They’re plenty cheap.
You should know yourself that there’s a big difference (especially for beginners) between MF and AF so adapting vintage glass is great for some things but won’t lure many beginners / budget enthusiasts into your system.
While I agree, I don’t think it’s in Fuji’s interest to be investing in glass that supports the second hand camera market. The cheap glass will come when there are cheap bodies. This will take time and will happen as Fuji become more established and have a full lens line up. Right now people should be enticed by premium build and performance of their catalogue to date.
I think it would be great to see Fuji repurpose the xtrans 2 internals for a lower end body based on the X-E2 when the E3 and T2 are launched. A sub $500 body with evf would pull in a lot of sales, especially if there where more small primes like a 35/2 and 50/2 launched at the same time.
This should be fairly cheap to implement and would enable Fuji to further gain from investments in the E2 assembly line and core deign. Somehow I can’t see it happening though, at least any time soon. They have to be careful not to cannibalise sales of their higher end gear.
I think you are underestimating the value of a solid second hand market for a company. Do you think people would be updating their iPhones as often as they are if they lost as much value as the average Android phone does? I’m pretty sure they wouldn’t. A good resale value leads to more people buying the newest models because they lose less money doing so.
The cheap Nikon 50mm’s are actually very nice lenses. But way to be super negative.
Not sure where the ‘metal is better’ idea comes from. Not all Fujifilm lenses are metal. Jano explained that below. A few are cheap.
But their metal bodies are slaved to cheap inner focusing mechanisms that have NOTHING at all to do with the barrel. The barrel doesn’t cling even to the motor. It is a mere switch, on and off.
As to optics, almost any modern lens is great unless it’s the really cheap kit lenses. The modern 50/1,8s for FF are amazing and so were their forebears. Plastic barrels or no, they are very good, and extremely robust.
It’s about time to announce first XM Tilt-Shift lens for pro’s (60mm F2.8 would be nice) instead of fiddling with another 1.x aimed at show off folks
Do you mean literally a 50mm or a 50mm equivalent, like 33mm? If so, the 35mm is pretty damn close to the FL, but has the DOF equivalent of f/2 or 2,2. Pretty close. Just not cheap.
Cheap isn’t possible in smaller sensors when trying to emulate both the DOF and FOV of larger sensor/lens combinations.
I didn’t vote as I won’t buy such a lens. It would surely be great for purely image & marketing driven reasons.
As far as photography goes, I’d rather Fuji put their effort towards smaller, weather sealed F2 primes (16mm, 23mm, 50mm), update the 60mm F2.4 (make it 70mm F2.8 with 1:1 macro and WR) and introduce a nice, small and light tele prime (Fresnel anyone?). A 333mm F4 OIS WR more less the size of Nikon’s new 300mm F4 and priced not above it would be a dream come true!
And how should that be possible without the sale numbers the Nikon likely reaches? People really need to think about the factors of pricing…
I’m well aware economies of scale provide Nikon with far more flexibility in regards to pricing. However you should consider how much Nikon’s take up is compared to all the Sigmas, Tamrons and such, who as far as I know sell less lenses. They need to mostly reverse engineer the mount compatibility and still turn profit on as little as 50% the prices of the original manufacturers.
Just saying my dreams are not that far fetched…
“Smaller, weather sealed F2 primes (16mm, 23mm, 50mm)” – yes please!
the small f2 part is almost the description of a X100T with a rain cover (19mm, 23mm, 50mm)
Although I voted for the lens, I would actually prefer it to be of a longer focal length than 33 mm, which is almost exactly 50 mm on full frame, and has always seemed to me to be a sort of ‘neither one thing or the other focal length’.
I would prefer a focal length of 38 to 40 mm, 56 to 60 on full frame, as this is almost exactly half way between the 23 mm f1.4 and the 56 mm f1.2. It could be either f1.0 or f1.2, if possible with the same optical characteristics as the 56 mm f1.2. This would be a beautiful lens for half length portraiture and would give Fuji a set of four wide aperture lenses for ‘people’ photography, 23, 40, 56 and 90 mm unmatched by any other system.
Unmatched by any other system apart from every other mature system, you mean. Canon, Nikon, Leica, have wide-aperture options and have for years in exactly the same FOV lenses for decades.
It’s official….27% of the respondents to the poll are idiots. Do you honestly think Fuji is going to make a lens like this and sell it for ‘no more than $900’???
So far it sells the 56 1.2 for less than $900 so why not? Maybe not during first 6 months, but I doubt it will have much appeal if priced above $1000 (also proven by the poll)
Yes, makes sense for it to see for around the same as the 56mm f/1.2
If you think this lens will have not much appeal if it’s priced above $1k, then it simply won’t appear!
It’s not like the 56mm f1.2, which is a lens on many Fuji user’s wish lists (or already in their camera bags). This is a specialist lens, selling in specialist numbers, to specialists. If it ever appeared, it would sell at 56 APD money at least.
Look at how much the Nikon 58mm f1.4 costs compared to Nikon’s 50mm f1.4 or f1.8, and look at how much more a Leica Noctilux costs compared to a Summilux… That’s the kind of price premium to expect for a creature of the night like this. So, I’d expect it to be at least 3x the price of the 35mm f1.4. Which would make it somewhere between $1,500-$1,800 at launch.
Yes, the price might drop over time, because companies make batches of lenses and then fail to play the long game. But, if this lens was launched tomorrow, I’d doubt you’d see it drop below $1,000 for several years.
The price and size will be specialist, but the utility of a 33/1,0 (equating a 50/1,4 on FF) is pretty ubiquitous.
For starters a 33mm 1.0 lens is much more difficult to make then a 56mm 1.2, so it is 100% guaranteed to be more expensive than the 56mm. Secondly, the 56mm is only recently selling for less than $900…it’s been out for a while now.
The question is how much would you not what do you expect fuji to sell it for…
It depends if making such lens would mean some other one would not be made.
An f/1 would look nice in the folder, and serve some niche. But honestly, i am pretty happy with 1.2 and 1.4 primes.
It’s about time to announce first XM Tilt-Shift lens for pro’s (60mm
F2.8 would be nice) instead of fiddling with another 1.x aimed at show
off folks!
sorry, posted the same inside thread before
Perfect replacement for the 35mm f1.4!
I’d say, ‘perfect complement’ to the 35 f/1,4. This lens will be at least double the cost, which isn’t exactly ‘replacement’ material unless suddenly Fujifilm decide to truly drop economical X fans, which simply won’t happen.
So Three 50mm equivalent lenses when all anybody wants is a compact 35mm equivalent. Really Fuji, this is sort of redundant. The 50 1.4 is compact enough. The 50 f2 seems wasted when all anyone wants is a 23 f2. Even changing the 27 f2.8 to a 27 f2 would be better. Making another 50mm is just for posturing, and I am guessing it’s because of all lenses it’s probably easier to build.
I think you’re misunderstanding your own conscience. You’re not in charge of the hive mind. Look at the results of the poll. 80% of people want this lens. ‘All anybody wants’ is just the most self-involved statement.
Personally, what I want is three primes at 15-20mm, 50mm, and 105mm all WR and ideally OIS too, with apertures around 1.4. Fuji are well on their way to this, even if the 90mm was a swing-and-a-miss for me. Your concerns about compactness don’t even come into my mind, and as for compact 35mm… Just get an X100S. I don’t even know why they released the 23mm in the first place, let alone a more compact one. Sorry…
It doesn’t matter if 80% of voters “want” this lens. What matters is (1) how many of that 80% will actually buy the lens, and (2) how much resources does this lens consume that could have been used in developing other lenses that will be purchased by a greater number of photographers.
How much resources ….. that could have been used in developing some nice modern sensor finally! Gee. How much more we are going to be stuck with same old 16Mp 90’s crap?
5 years later: Samsung, Sony, Canikon, even m43 all will have some new generation silicon based 96Mp sensors, while Fuji….yeah right 16Mp. Same old.
Old isn’t necessarily crap. Personally I find 16MP heaps enough and would rather prefer FUJIFILM sticking to that density whilst reducing noise and increasing DR. If they continually increase the pixel density, then they also continually increase the noise whilst decreasing DR.
But speaking of old “sensors”, I would be interested in a “Kodachrome” and a “FP4” equivalent camera.
What exactly are you intending to do with 96 megapixels that you can’t do with 16? I have no desire to see more pixels whatsoever (minus 4K anyway), and given that we could all be shooting on a 30 megapixel system if we chose without spending more cash, it’s clear that’s not what anyone’s here for. What matters is IQ, DR and noise, and if we keep improving those 3, Fuji can be the camera system for people who actually want to take photographs, not boast about 100% crops. Someone’s got to do it.
Also, can we please understand that the guys who make sensors aren’t the same guys who design lenses? Completely different degrees, let alone career paths.
Yeah and precisely becuase DR, IQ and noise matters – it is the first reason why we need to move on from outdated noisy, mediocre iQ and low DR sensor.
Then we definitely do NOT want more megapixels. More pixels = more noise + worse DR = lower IQ. I’m very happy for them to continue to develop the sensor, but stop counting pixels and start looking at pictures. The X sensor competes on noise, IQ and DR with the D810 quite admirably, and given that you can get that same sensor on a £200 camera in the range, it completely wipes the floor with the D3200 and the 100D.
To quote again, ‘all anybody wants’… The poll is ‘do you want…’
Whilst I agree with you to an extent, I think we should all be more than relaxed with Fuji’s business strategy, given that they’ve yet to put a foot wrong with us. They’re not going to spend the money if they can’t see a valuable return on this, and if it doesn’t line up with the bigger picture. Likewise, they’re going to spend the money on Michael’s fantasy 23mm the moment they believe it’s worth the money to do so. No need to worry; they have all the MBAs and market research analysts they need.
If you asked “If you could only have one new lens” a 50 0.25f or a 23 f/2, it would be a landslide towards 23.
Everyone wants everything to be made. What people will actually buy is a different story, and when given a choice to have 3 50mm equivalents, or one compact 23 (in addition to the massive one we have), you would find that’s the kit that makes sense. Posturing with a $1,500 50mm is hardly what 80% of the voters would actually do.
You have no evidence to support that conclusion, and the situation is nonsensical anyway. We are not being offered that choice, and Fuji, being the intelligent business people that they are, with far more information than you have, are more than able to make EITHER your fantasy 50/0.25 OR 23/2 OR both. It is rather clear that you’re only representing your own interests (not least from the second attempt to claim majority status as if that in some way makes your position more tenable) however if I may propose for a moment:
Perhaps 80% of respondents are NOT voting on the grounds of being impatient for the next lens on their wishlist. Perhaps they’re voting because they appreciate that the R&D to create this lens will aid in the construction of lenses that are on their wish list. Perhaps they’re voting because they believe this will cause the current 50/1.4 that IS on their wish list to descend in price. Perhaps they’re voting because they believe having such a lens on the system would be a worthwhile marketing exercise and would help the brand grow. Perhaps they’re voting because they believe such a lens will attract more pros which will in turn attract more amateurs and help sales. Perhaps they’re all plants from Nikon and Canon trying to throw Fuji in the wrong direction.
The one thing we can be certain of is that they’re not just poo-pooing something because it isn’t exactly what THEY want in their camera bag… This is actually the only thing that makes me think there might be more than a few people who really want your fantasy 23mm f/2… Fuji can’t announce a single thing without your particular cult clamouring like the end is nigh. Personally, I think you’re a vocal minority. I have yet to meet a photographer IRL who values 35mm half as much as you precious children do that doesn’t either A: think it’s redundant because their iPhone is perfect for this, or B: think it’s redundant because their X100T is perfect for this. I think Fuji’s research agrees with me, hence their refusal to spend good R&D on a project with minimal returns that may split their market segment elsewhere. Or maybe they just want you to expand your horizons and try some other focal lengths? 😀
What 50/2 and 50/1,4? We have a 56/1,2 and a 60/2,4, unless you count the Touit macro lens, but that lens is f/2,8.
What will the bokeh be like? Not soap bubbles this time.. maybe translucent volleyballs?
How about some quality small, light and affordable stabilised lenses with REALISTICALLY useful apertures?
Well, a lens like the above would give Fujifilm’s APS-C cameras a FOV and DOF similar to the typical fast 50/1,4 on FF, which has been a popular staple lens from weddings to family photos and more.
Useful, but not affordable.
60mm? What’re you using tilt and shift for as a pro with that kind of focal length?
Product/food photography for example. Canon TS 90mm was the most used TS lens from their trio in my studio
You could just speedboost your Canon to it. The loss of some quality is minor. I’ve used that exact setup (in Nikon) in a few shoots with the X-T1. Not perfect, but works just fine.
No way speed boosting would allow for full aperture range use, just wide open. I would certainly vote for Fujinon XM anytime.
No can do, as I don’t have a Canon T&S lens. Also, if FUJIFILM made a native lens, then they could also have it write T&S data in the EXIF.
Fascinating. I’m gonna have to have a google 🙂 Thanks for the info!
Already has similar config. Carl Zeiss Planar T* 1.4/50 on Metabones Speedbooster Ultra… Work like a charm.
Nice, didn’t read of this rumor before… But I’d definately look at such a lens. However what would be more important than the aperture would be the “rendering” of the lens. The 35/1,4 is still my favorite lens of the FUji X system, it has such a smooth, nice look, nicer than some of the others which have a more technical look to the pics.
But if they tried to build such a lens, and it was good, yes, that could further shorten the difference towards full frame. Add a high resolving, high dynamic organic sensor, and no need for larger formats anymore…