A message landet in my rumor box, from an anonymous source (thanks!), and it shared the answer to one big question about the imminent XF35mmF2… how much will it cost?
Well, according to the source, the price of the XF35mmF2 will be very attractive. It will cost:
€399!
I also got another hint (anonmyous source with nick-name, thanks!) unveiling the price of the 1.4x Teleconverter. It should be of € 449. Not really a bargain, but I’m sure it will deliver great results !
Consider that there might be slight variations according to the EU-country. But in any case, if the information is correct, the 35mmF2 has a really interesting price tag. It will be even cheaper than the XF27mmF2.8 (regular price)!
And now spread the word… and quote the source 😉
enjoy you Sunday
Fuji X Forum, Facebook, Google+, RSS-feed and Twitter
46 Responses
I’d hardly call 399 euros a bargain. I don’t really know what is costs in Europe but the xf 35mm 1.4 costs less where I live by about USD $50.
It’s ~530 euros new in the US.
No worries, I should have checked. Ouch. It’s 400 usd (360 euro) where I live.
Or just under 300 usd (256 euro) in near new condition. It just didn’t seem that cheap to me. I’m guessing the price is going to be a lot less here.
Link please. Thanks.
The price in Europe is more like 550€, with occasional discounts to just under 500€. The price difference with the 35 f2 is less than I expected. In the Nikon primes range, the 50 1.8 G is about a third of the price of the 1.4 G. I know the build and water resistance is probably not the same but still…
From amazon.it you can get a 35mm for 454 €.
http://www.amazon.it/Fujifilm-F1-4-Obiettivo-Attacco-Mount/dp/B006ZSNSRI/ref=cm_cr_pr_product_top?ie=UTF8
Yet another reason to move to Italy, IMHO
That was exactly the price that I was hoping for. I Think it’s really fair for a weather resistent lens (and it being small with good IQ)
Not bad and it will no doubt be reduced in time too, Fuji like their cash back offers.
has there been any technical specs disclosed on the 35mm f2?
I’m particularly interested in what the MFD (macro ratio) will be.
I say it’s not a macro as Macro’s tend to be longer and fat.
yes, not asserting that it will be a true macro lens (1:1), just want to know it’s specs, as it’s a “general-use” or “normal” lens. The usefulness of such a lens can vary for each individual, but as it’s not a terribly fast lens, nor extremely compact, I’d like to ascertain where it’s strengths lie. If if can focus closer than the 35mm f1.4, or my 56mm f1.2, I may be interested, otherwise I am probably not in the market for this one. True sharpness and bokeh quality have also not been proven as yet. But Id like a normal lens, just want to know which is more useful to me when the full specs are released.
True It’s mostly made to not block the OVF on the X Pro 2 and one thing about slower normal lenses they tend to be sharper so there is hope that you may want it for that? if it is.
Frankly, bull shit. 35/1.4 almost new may cost less these days. Maybe as a future possibility to cost ~$200 later.
There is a significant gap between MRSP and street price. So in practice it may come cheaper i think
Agreed, the 35 1.4 was on sale at Amazon for $400 new not too long ago. A 35 2.0 should be a LOT cheaper since the lens cost for fast lenses is exponential, not linear. Given that the form factor is not that smaller, the only real selling point is a much cheaper lens. This price doesn’t make sense to me.
Wow, I expected US$599 or the like.
I guess it must be more price competitive to keep it attractive versus the f1.4 version.
The next big thing would be a 23mm f2 for US$449.
Due to marketing reason Fujifilm will never do it. If you want a compact 35mm equivalent, they say – buy a Fujifilm x100!
But this is unfair, because x100 is not a part of interchangeable system. I don’t want to get answers for FL needs by x100, xq2, instax or orher no interchangeable products.
Sooner or later, Fujifilm is going to update the 23mm – to be at least WR. The x100 series isn’t WR too. So there is still some potential.
This is much expensive than I expected !!! the 35mmf1.4 costs 470 € (http://www.amazon.fr/Fujifilm-Fujinon-Objectif-XF-35-F1-4/dp/B006ZSNSRI)
Really? That would be a great price for a weather resistent lens. Comparing it to the current price oft a 3 years old lens is a bit useless.
The Nikon AF-S DX 35mm f1.8 (also an APS-C lens) is about 185€ here, and it’s quite a good lens. And the amazing Fuji TCL-X100, which essentially results in a 33mm f2 is 195€.
I disagree with the common notion that a prime lens absolutely has to to be f1.4 or faster to be considered professional or worth paying a substantial price for, but if they are really going for 450€, that 35mm f2 better be pretty incredible.
most lens are incredible when stepped down.
Dutch pricewatch says indeed round 550 for the xf 351.4
http://tweakers.net/pricewatch/301364/fujifilm-fujinon-xf-35mm-f14-r.html
I’ve been looking forward to this lens for a year now, but won’t buy it immediately now =(. Way too expensive when I can get a 35/1.4 on sale for $400 new from Amazon!
Definitely a buzzkiller. Going to wait longer now for sales or a used copy.
I don’t understand the excitement for such a slow and “normal” prime lens. A lens with these qualities should cost $150 max. A 50/1.8 on Nikon is $130, for example. Maybe it should be slightly more due to having a motor, $200 maybe? But this 35/2 is equivalent to 50/2.8 (well, 53.2/3.04 if we want to be anal about it) in the realm of the Nikon I compare it to, so it stings even more. 50/2.8 is such a boring photometric property. In fact, at that point, it would make more sense to me to go for the 27/2.8 because of its pancake nature. This new 35/2 isn’t even all that small.
The only way this lens makes sense to me is if it is extremely cheap.
I agree, the rest of the XF lenses are a good bargain comparing to the CaNikon lenses except for the nifty fifty range. Why does a XF 35 F2 cost so much??
Isn’t it funny when people blurt out random prices for a product without actually having no idea on manufacturing cost, R&D against market share volumes?
May I suggest shifting to Holga cams then? I heard they are dirt cheap.
It’s all about price vs demand curve. They tend to find the point where price*demand is highest regardless of actual cost. Current Fuji users are less price sensitive than C/N/S folks. Thus Fuji prices it higher.
Yes you are correct but those curves are still based off by cost and advertising. The demand curves factor comes in on how fast they can recover investment to turn a profit base on how much the the market will bear the suggested price.
N/C/S have a greater share in the market that is why they can lower the price. In any manufacturing business, the more volume you move the cheaper it is to manufacture.
Sony has a much larger customer base, and their products are so expensive. Sigma and Tamron are third-party makers and their products are cheaper than manufacturer’s brand.
I’m not contending that demand also influence price but …
Are you comparing ff to apc price? Have you checked the price of say a6000 vs fuji x ti?
However Fuji is not cheap. X-T1 and 10 are priced similar to Nikon D7200 and D7100. A6000 is also much cheaper. Nikon also has D610 at similar price. But Sony is expensive. Their lens are either priced very high or crappy, some are priced high and crappy. They don’t have anything like Nikon’s f/1.8 league.
It should be an improvement over the existing 35mm but you’re correct. It’s pricey for what it is and the teleconverter we’re price is very high, compared to full frame options. Looks like Fuji is sticking with the affordable Leica pricing.
Nikon 50/1.8 is $130. Leica Summarit-M 50/2.4 is $1,950. Why do you think price should correlate to lens speed?
A lens can be very high quality and not have a super fast aperture.
However, this doesn’t justify the price.
What’s the cheapest weather-resistant normal prime?
I think there’s room for a cheap normal, but there’s also a niche for a weather-resistant model.
You’re neglecting that many folks got into Fuji because of the rangefinder appeal of the original XP1 and XE1. We want small high-quality lenses that fit that aesthetic. Of course, what always seems to be the primary discussion point here is cost. Given that fuji is quite niche and the lenses are really quite good – this seems like a reasonable price point. Since the current 35 is worshiped in this community, and this version is pretty blatantly a response to the demand for a smaller more rangefinder-esque lens, I’m surprised it’s a cheap as it is. +1 on the 27 though. My go to lens. I’ll withhold judgement until we see the performance on the new 35 though.
Link to the prices I’m quoting? amazon.co.jp & auctions.yahoo.co.jp
I have no opinion about the 35 f/2 but the teleconverter seems really overpriced to me.
I think it’s quite expensive compared to some Canikon prices.
But I keep in mind that Canikon sell millions of 50 f/1.8, that build quality is bad, optical quality probably better on this Fuji and this is a retail price, I’m pretty sure there will be interesting cashback / discount on this lens as well.
The Canon EF 35mm f/2 IS costs EUR 499 in my country (street price, MRSP is EUR 859). So yes, you have IS, but no, you do not have WR.
Now, how exactly is the XF 35/2 an expensive lens?
Sorry, am I the only one who sees sample shots with lousy sharpness on that French site? If that is the real performance of that lens I never would buy one.
449 for an 1.4 Teleconverter is way overpriced, I’m seriously consider 4/3 now.
I suspect the TC will have to be very, very good to succeed at that price. I’m optimistic because it would be shame to put a poor TC on the superlative 50-140.