*Fujifilm Reads You!
Click HERE to see the original FujiRumors Poll, that Fujfiilm used in an official presentation to the Press
_ _ _
When I shared the 60mmMKII rumor here, I asked you to tell us in the comments, which lens you would like to be updated as next, promising to make a Poll out of them… and here it is.
I went through the almost 100 comments and summed up all your suggestions (and added suggestions also coming from our Forum here). There where inevitably some X-shooters, who asked for completely new lenses and I thought it could be nice to collect them in a separate Poll.
So let’s Fuji know about our dreams… and you know Fujifilm DOES like our Polls … which is not a surprise.
Fuji would not care about our Polls, if we’d hardy get a few dozen of votes… but since our Polls normally get a few thousands of votes each time, I can tell you that they really care about them – keep it up, you’re great, guys! 😉 .
Poll 1 lists ALL currently available Fujinon lenses, except the XC16-50, XC50-230 and XF35mm, because these 3 lenses already got (or will get very soon) an update in 2015. All the other lenses are included. Vote the one you would have updated as next.
[poll id=”130″]
_ _ _
Poll 2 shows the suggestions of variations of existing lenses shared in the comments to this post. NOTE: The focus in this Poll is on the aperture of these lenses. I take it for granted that all the below listes lenses will have Weather sealing and faster AF. Some lenses are marked as “MKII”, meaning that the aperture will remain the same, but they will have faster AF and WR. Vote your favorite lens variation.
[poll id=”131″]
_ _ _
Poll 3 features completely new Fujinon lenses. Vote your favorite.
[poll id=”132″]
67 Responses
What about a XC-10-18mm? An affordable UWA, like the 10-18 for Canon DSLRs.
The 12-18mm f/4 would be an affordable UWA.
Ok my secret wish.. an xc16-40-ish collapsible or shorter than the xc16-50 which wouldn’t block the corner of the xpro1/2 OVF. Great for taking the camera with me everyday, as I do now with the xf27…
18mm f/1.4
33mm f/1.0
10-18/24mm f/2.8 Wr!
that’s all I want for now (maxbe a 200 f/2)
Small classic primes please for X-Pro2: 23/2, 55/2, 16/2 and 85/2.8.
Almost exactly my choice 🙂 I already have the 14/2.8, so not really interested in 16/2, but I’d really love a 23/2 and either a 55/2 or a 85/2.8. Honestly even an updated 60/2.4 with reasonable AF speed would be good for a medium tele, but a compact 23 would be so useful.
I could accept 60/2.4 instead of 55/2 if it gets really improved AF. I tried 14/2.8 but it’s too wide for street for me, 16mm (24mm in FF) is perfect WA and great companion for 23mm.
There’s really nothing wrong with the 16 1.4. It balances on smaller bodies better than the 56 and is very, very sharp at f/2. A 16mm f/2 is still likely to be bigger than the current 35 and is likely to be less sharp than than the current 16. This idea of a 16mm f/2 that keeps floating around FR seems really weird to me (no camera company offers that level of lens choice). If you want a lens for street ,get the 18. I actually miss the way it renders people photos wide open since upgrading to the 16.
Even though the 16 1.4 might balance well even on smaller bodies, to me, it’s just prohibitivly big and heavy. I really like the size of the 35, or even up the 14, and if the 16 2.0 cannot be packed into those proportions, I’d sacrifice one stop.
Plus I don’t care so much about sharpness accross the entire frame wide open. I really like the approach of the 35 to sacrifice the edges when wide open while having great sharpness in the center and then gradually improving towards the edges and corners when being stopped down. The 18 is not quite there in that respect. If this helps to keep the lens compact, fine with me.
Fuji X is about reducing weight and bulk, among other things… so instead of that 300/2.8 I can humbly accept 200/1.4.
Additionally, due to the crop factor we can shrink the front lens diameter by 1.5x. Then put a lens turbo on it to have our light back! Brilliant, no?
I would rather prefer an earlier arrival of the 120mm macro. A “decent macro” is the one thing the X system is still lacking. I mean, the 60 is great iq-wise but it is only 1:3 and the 50 Touit is even shorter than the already short (at least for my taste) 60…
What’s the point in giving 60 f2 and 56 f2 as two choices? That is close to being identical and just leads to that choice being lower than it should be. Add both of those up and it would be 4th place, almost 3rd.
I read the vote as 60mm (macro) vs 56mm (not macro) but it’s just my guess.
Since there’s also an option for a 60 f2.4 Mk II either way there would be one double entry since for macro it really doesn’t matter whether it’s f2 or f2.4, only for portrait does is make a relevant difference.
they should make a Linup of compact primes like the 35 F2. Great quality in a small package is the key. i think its better to embrace the benfits of having a smaller camera with crop sensor, then trying to compete with fullframe pro lvl cameras like Nikon 810 / 1DX / 5DS and their lenses. 16-55 40-150 are nice to have but who needs them except some pro level shooters. x-e2, x-pro2 with small primes 16/2 23/2 55/2 would be a nice camera bag for traveling the world
As far as lenses are concerned, size matters!
Most of Fuji’s gear are state of art lenses, but they are huge, heavy, and expensive…
I need more “pancakes” to travel with easily, especially ultra-wide angle (12 or 14mm equ.), even if quality is lower…
Some light but high quality travel lenses I can understand indeed.
But even though not exactly cheap, I wouldn’t classify Fuji’s lenses as expensive. Some example with what I’d probably buy when I would buy a Canon APSC system
Fuji XF18-55: 700 EUR, XF55-200: 700, XF35: 550, XF56: 999.
Canon EF-S 17-55/2.8: 675 EUR, EF 70-200/4 IS: 1100, EF 35/1.4: 1300, EF 50/1.2: 1300
That’s a 1400 difference in favour of Fuji.
I’m still waiting for the long promised and delayed FX 100-400mm. The lack of a decent longer than 200mm zoom lens is the largest gap in the Fuji lens line up, and although I appreciate that not all X system users need or desire a long focal length lens, personally I would like to see this gap addressed before updating existing lenses or introducing near duplicates.
+1. Wouldn’t mind a 300mm f/4 with built in 1.4x teleconverter instead, as I always tend to use the longer end of the 100-400 range.
Agreed!
I don’t agrre that 35mm/f2 is an upgrade to 35mm/f1.4…
85mm f1.4, though i reckon it would not make much sense strategically speaking given there is a 90mm f2. And more longer primes, eg 200mm f2.8, 300 f4
I don’t see the 35mm f2 as an update, it’s more a compact and cheaper alternative. I just purchased the 35mm 1.4 and I’m really happy with it’s fast aperture. The autofocus is decent (even with an X-E1), but any improvement or innovation with this lens in the future is greatly appreciated in my opinion.
I would love to see a 23mm f2 and a 18mm f2 with weather sealing, aperture rings and a depth of field scale please fuji!!
Unless we’re getting in-body stabilization in the upcoming X-T2 (hey, I can dream), I’d like to see some primes with the feature. The 90mm seems like it would have been an obvious candidate, but I doubt that’s getting a refresh soon. Maybe the 70mm 1:1 macro you suggest, or a new 135mm.
35mmF1.4 MKII please!
You’re welcome to it, but I never really understood the appeal of the 50mm (eq.) focal length. I’m sure the lens is optically great, but as a photographic tool it’s neither one thing nor the other.
And I don’t understand the appeal of not owning a 50’ish mm
(eq.) focal length fast prime lens.
I like the versatility, and form factor (compact). Fast 50’s usually have pretty good shallow depth of field and I’ve been told in school more times than I can count that a 50’ish mm lens comes the closest to capturing what your eye naturally sees. Lastly, it may not be the best lens for the shot but I like the challenge of getting the shot I want with a 50mm. It forces me to be even more creative and see things differently and most times better than I thought. I think modern “photographers” get to caught up in the tech side of the house and forget this is an art form.
You’re right about the form factor. 🙂
I’d love to see a 40mm prime. It’s a very nice focal length on APS-C, but most manufacturers tend to only offer 35. It’s not that much of a difference, but given completely free choice I’d probably prefer 28 and 40 over a 35.
Patrick…. what no prime 8 or 10? There should really be a true fisheye in the lineup.
Nobody suggested one in the comments previously, so I didn’t include it. But I’ll next time in the updated poll version
Patrick, we need the poll of lense lineup or ideology. Today the ideology of fuji is FF competitor by offering lighter (in case of weight) and sharper on open aperture lenses, but all of them are heavy and bulky. What all amateures really needs is ideology of aps-c and 4/3 competitor – lineup of classic not heavy lenses like 35/2, for example 23/2, 50-60/2, 85-90/2.8 and other but in the same ideology
I think an excellent 9 or 10mm f.whatever (2.8 ok I guess) is very needed. If you want to go very wide you currently buy the 10-24, which is not light nor small, and afaik not on par in sharpness with the zeiss 12 and fuji 14. A very wide (excellent, not big) prime would be a unique proposition and a selling point for Fuji.
18 1.4 R WR please.
The 35/2 is not a replacement to the 35/1.4 !! !! !! !! !! !! It badly needs an AF update, probably most of all, why the heck would you exclude it.
Even if the first poll is meant to be purely about the optics (then that really should’ve be clarified), it doesn’t make sense to exclude it. Even the 90/2 is in the list and people actually voted on it, what the .. ?
prolly they meant to include IS on the thing? I could not think of anything else. Agreed on the XF35, even though I would not sell mine.
A weather resistant XF 10-24mm f/4 (or f/2.8) with a marked aperture ring would be my dream lens. Since this lens is used for landscape photography, it seems crucial to me that it would be weather resistant. I love the quality of the images but the speed of use would increase significantly with a marked aperture ring.
I’ve got the 10-24, but would still consider buying a revised f4.0 version that was WR and marked aperture ring.
I would like to see the primes with the same silent and fast-focusing linear motors which Fuji uses in their zooms. I adore the rendering of the existing 35 and 56, so optically there is little to desire. The wide-angle to portrait range is covered pretty decently, methinks. Except for some niche fisheye maybe.
A nice tele prime would be interesting, e.g. 200/2.8 to 400 f/5.6 range, with IS. Being just an amateur, I would not a buy a bulky/expensive 400/2.8. Also some longer 1:1 macro lens, e.g. 100mm+ would find some use I guess.
Oh, and hotshoe mountable fresnel lens unit with electronically adjustable illuminator unit, that would be something! a.k.a. a flash system.
since there already is a 60 macro, I’d like to see the 70mm proposal to be a non- macro 70mm f2 or even f2.8 compact …like the new 35mm f2 or Pentax 70 Limited.
I’ll scream the same thing I’ve been screaming at Fuji for the last year (sometimes literally, if we’ve been out drinking…)
70mm f/2.
No WR, no OIS, no macro. Don’t care about any of that. Those things can be shoved in if the lens is still light and cheap enough, but I’m not paying extra for things like that. Don’t need them. I just want a lens in the 100-110mm equivalent range and faster than f/2.8, though it doesn’t have to be any faster than f/2. 105mm f/2.8 is where I was shooting on 35mm and medium format, so 70mm f/2 is what gets me there on APS-C. The 56mm isn’t long enough and the 90mm is too long. The 50-140 is fine but it’s overkill and I’d rather have the size and weight of a prime.
70mm. f/2. That’s all I want out of Fuji now. Do that and my lens selection is complete. There’s nothing else I need, nothing else to tempt me with.
Almost totally agree but I would like WR and f1.4 if that is possible with a 62mm filter thread. If the replacement for the current 35mm f1.4 were made f1.2, also with a 62mm filter thread, we would then have a set, 23/35/56/70 & 90mm, of wide aperture lenses with a common filter thread which would form a ideal set of people/portrait lenses.
I don’t believe the maths works out there. 70mm at f/1.4 works out to need a front element (and therefore filter) around 5-6mm larger than the 56mm and 90mm lenses, minimum; a 67mm filter thread would be most likely. Reality is if you wanted that made well with as little transmission loss as possible and also weather sealed, you’d likely be looking at something like a 72mm filter thread.
Conversely, 35mm at f/1.2 still would not need anywhere near a 62mm filter, so if they tacked on one that large it would be a waste of materials, mean a significant increase in cost and it would render many popular portrait effect filters useless, as specular, bokeh and flare shaping would all only be taking place in the very center of the filter.
And, on a personal note, I think that many lenses would be overkill anyway. At that point I actually would rather just carry a zoom than five primes. 50mm and 100-110mm has done all I’ve needed for the last decade, both in 35mm and 6×7 medium format. It’s been a long time since I needed anything wider or longer.
The theoretical element diameter for a 70mm f1.4 is 50mm and I would have thought that 12mm difference would be enough, However if it wasn’t I would settle for f1.7 as I would rather have the option of shallow depth of field if I should want it.
The final pass through would (well, could) be 50mm. The front element needs to be larger in order to evenly gather light and avoid vignetting. Then you’ve got to actually take into account the physical mounting and shell of the lens.
Eh, 1.7 would be unlikely. 1.8, sure. Though then you get into the problem of there being virtually no difference between 1.8 and 2 (or 1.7, if you like) in terms of both depth of field and light gathered. When you factor in how much harder it is to get consistent light transmission beyond f/2.8, every extra third stop you try to push it becomes a grander and grander task. Hence why I’d go for f/2 because they already hit it with 90mm and f/2.4 with 60mm, so hitting f/2 with 70mm should be straight-forward, and it’s a nice ‘common’ aperture value. Not to mention it keeps the price, size and weight that bit lower again. I wouldn’t say no to a 70mm f/1.8, as long as it doesn’t cost me any more than an f/2 version would, but f/2 is what I’d aim for and is all I ask for.
Agree completely with you on this one. Especially since I did get the 90mm. Not that I find it too long, but way too big.
Whatever Fuji may release, I hope they will keep on updating the firmware of the existing lenses to make them work with newer bodies. This has been frightening me in the XF-concept since the very beginning – this concept is all fly by wire and requiring a lot of electronic components and according firmware into these lenses – a lot more than we are used to in the DSLR world. And Fuji is not the only going by this ‘fully distributed control’ approach.
This is the lens that i want, the one in the middle, the Fujifilm XF 55-120mm F2.8-4 R LM OIS. More small, short and fast then 55-200, would be the ideal mate of the 18-55, when you want go out ligth and to have good tele possibility.
Oh yes, +1. I’d prefer a 55-135 or 50-125 though, even if needs to be slightly bitter and heavier (I actually really like the size and weight of the 90mm). But honestly, I don’t think this is going to happen. To me it seems that the majoriy would prefer to have a constant aperture of 4 (in order to have a marked aperture ring, I guess), whereas those like us voting for a shallower DOF / partial higher speed option are outnumbered 🙁
They could implement a marked aperture ring in a variable aperture zoom.
Example for 18-55 :
– setting F/2.8 is F/2.8 at 18mm or f/4 at 55mm (EVF show the real aperture).
– setting F/4 is F/4 at both.
Best of both worlds and doable since aperture ring with Fuji is electronic…
Main problem now is you have no clue of the aperture without with camera OFF.
Agree 100% this would be a great lens, had similar thoughts myself when I tried the 55-200mm, but once the 50-140mm came out I thought it unlikely (although both could exist side by side with very different users).
The small, light, but high quality zoom lens seems a neglected species in most systems.
Before any updates, they need a fast telephoto lens. 200mm or 300mm.
Is there a reason why there aren’t any compact zooms like 16-23 f2 and 23-56 f2? Or even two-in-one lenses such as a 23/56 f2? For aps-c most of my needs are covered by a set of 16, 23 and 56mm fast primes, but sometimes carrying and swapping lenses is inconvenient, the only alternative now is using zooms that are either large and heavy or not possible to throw backgrounds out of focus with.
I can see in fuji’s managers interviews, that they have ideology of FF competitor by offering lighter (in case of weight) and more sharper on open aperture lenses – all of them, as you said, are professional. Fuji forget about competitor in aps-c and 4/3 mirrorless, where the main thing of ideology is light weight of lenses. Stupid poll shows nothing in ideology need, like all pollers was monkeys with keyboard, for example i see 850 pollers to update 60 2.4 but only 300 polls in second poll about 60 2.4 mk2, where is logic?
Yes, the reason is called physics, they would be far from compact. Look at the size of the 16-55 f2.8, a 23-56 f2 would be even larger.
Thanks, the physical limitations for optics would be nice to know more about. Still, if the zoom range is shorter then the lens ought to be shorter too, right? How much smaller could a 23-56 f2.8 be than the 16-55 f2.8 for example? Or a 23/56 f2.8? I’ve noticed that Leica has a TRI-ELMAR lens and I’m sure there are some other uncommon design out there too, maybe not as fast as I’d like them to be for aps-c though.
Yes, the F-number is defined as the focal length divided by the diameter of the entrance pupil. The diameter of that pupil has its implications on the size of the front lens element, naturally. Especially since many wide-angle zooms are a reversed tele design, the size grows really fast when dropping the f-stop.
Thanks. I wrote the same reply to Janos, but was actually more thinking of it in reply to your comment. The physical limitations for optics would be nice to know more about. Still, if the zoom range is shorter then the lens ought to be shorter too, right? How much smaller could a 23-56 f2.8 be than the 16-55 f2.8 for example? Or a 23/56 f2.8? I’ve noticed that Leica has a tri-elmar lens and I’m sure there are some other uncommon design out there too, maybe not as fast as I’d like them to be for aps-c though.
I’d love to see a 135 f/2 and 200 f/2.8 OIS.
How do I vote?
Poll 1: The 60mm Macro – or ANY macro – MUST HAVE WEATHER PROOFING.
The 56mm 1.2 needs WR.
Poll 2: MK II should all have WR and some OIS.
Poll 3: 85 or 70mm – if it’s a macro and WR.
Lack of WR and huge lenses makes Fujinon lenses a tough sell for outdoor photogs.
16-85mm f/4 WR OIS please
I am not deep into optics, but i understand good WA lenses are notoriously difficult to make. Simple designs may be small but suffer from imperfections. Better optics involve more glass and will grow big.
200mmF2.8 interest
The lens I would most like FujiFilm to make is a 50-120 or 50-125 F4 (constant) that is shorter than the 55-200. For portraiture it would be ideal especially if not too heavy – not too worried about weather sealing but definitely OIS!