An anonymous source (with nick-name) just shared with us the following rumor: the XF 90mm F2 will come in July.
The source also claims it had the opportunity to see some samples taken with a prototype circulating in the US and says it is “Fujinon at its best. Probably best XF prime!”
I remind you that Fuji Guy Greg said to BigHeadTaco here that it will be weather sealed.
[poll id=”73″]
56 Responses
Get. Hype. I only shoot a 135/2 and a Sigma 35 1.4 on my Canon (well, 95% of the time), been waiting on this very much.
hoping for 9 aperture blades. Give us a cream machine (no APD version, just smoother aperture)
Eh, a 135mm f/3 equivalent will be nice on occasion, but the majority of the time the 56mm f/1.2 will do just fine; can’t think of many times I’m doing headshots that close unless I’m using medium format anyway. A 1.4x converter will take the 56mm very close to the 90mm (118mm equivalent vs 135mm equivalent) and it’ll still be roughly a third of a stop faster (f/1.8 actual, equivalent f/2.7-2.8, depending on exactly how much light the extra distance eats up).
For me, the 16mm f/1.4 is more interesting and useful, assuming the optics are up to scratch wide-open or by f/2. I can see myself living very happily with nothing but the 56 and 16 lenses; 85mm f/1.8 and 24mm f/2.1 equivalents will get 99% of jobs done, at least in terms of the things I like to use Fuji cameras for.
Other than the 16mm, I’d also put the 100-400mm ahead of the 90mm, for me. Mirrorless aren’t exactly known for being superb wildlife or sports cameras, so if nothing else, it will be very interesting to see how the system develops with a properly long zoom available.
The 1.4x converter will not work with the 56 1.2. It is constructed to work with 50-140, 100-400 and 120 macro as far as I know (dont know about the 90 though)
Ah, shame. Makes sense though, otherwise they’d be creating competition between their own lenses.
In that case, fair enough, the 90mm’s value raises a little in my kit bag, though I’ll still be picking up the 16mm (and possibly the 100-400 and 1.4x) before the 90.
I’m far more interested in the 16mm lens that I expected to be here by now. I wonder why there is no word about this. We’re already into astrophotography season and I’ve got no good options. The 14 is too slow. The 23 isn’t wide enough — at least for me.
Bad idea to have expectations on release dates. But the two most recent roadmaps at least show the 16 and 90mm to be released together, at around halfway through 2015.
July is more than halfway, but i don’t think any previous lens on the roadmap has really been on time either, so this was to be expected.
rokinon 12mm f2.0 super sharp.
yeah super sharp coma that is. ^.^
July is a little too late for this years wedding season.
The typicial wedding season (where I live) starts now until end of june then continues as of mid august to end of october.
I am not sure if I am going to buy this lens when it comes out or wait for 6 month to find it in one of the many rebates.
Don’t forget it won’t start shipping immediately. It’ll probably be availible in august-september.
Voted for new 35/2 WR which is certainly smaller and has faster AF compared to 35/1.4R. Fuji fastes f/1.2 – 1.4 and big lenses just do not work for me mounted on small X-cams for dynamic action and street, especially on RF type X-E1/X-E2/Pro. Both latest primes 23/1.4 & 56/1.2 are big, quite heavy and do focus much much slower (because of large glass) than my 18/2. New 90/2 and 16/1.4 are also very big, I understand many photographers will love them and wait for such fast lenses. I hope this new couple will close for a while the “fast” range of Fuji lens release, and Fuji will start to bring – after new 35/2 WR announcement – next small f/2 WR classic primes: 23/2, 56/2, 16/2 and 85/2.8. The above pool shows that most Fuji users voted for small 35/2 WR 🙂 it gives me hope Fuji will understand how many of us want smaller WR primes (and resonably f/2 fast) mounted on beautifull small X-cams for our photography. My best Fuji lens is now 18/2. Guess why?
I agree completely, I understand the need for fuji to make the 1.2/1.4 lenses but they are big and heavy lenses and focus slower than their 35mm sensor 1.8 equivalent lenses. Id like to see this range of very small f2 lenses. If I want to carry lenses of the size of the 1.4 and 1.2 lenses I might as well shoot full frame while im at it and have the faster focus and better battery life. Thats not to say people shouldnt buy the 1.4 lenses but i think it would be a mistake for fuji not to promote an f2, small range, in addition to these lenses.
Agreed.
I hope once Fuji get their “high-end” lenses out of their system, they will return to making some smaller XC lenses.
I doubt the equivalents aside the 35mm focal length would be f/2 but rather f/2.8 to differentiate more between the lens lines.
New 35mm will be f/2:
http://photorumors.com/2015/02/10/first-picture-of-the-fuji-xf-35mm-f2-r-wr-asph-lens/
f/2 primes line will differ enough from fast f/1.4 line – to keep big interest and price. f/2.8 will be kept more for pancake primes in range 23-50mm I think.
New 35mm will be f/2: http://www.fujirumors.com/?s=+35mm+f2+WR
f/2 line is enough to differ from f/1.4 prime line – to keep interest and good price.
Fast lenses probably focus slowly because of high precision requirement rather than large glass.
I voted for the 90mm F2 but i will want to see just how big it is. My Carl Zeiss 50mm 1.7 covers shoer telephoto pretty well and nice and light. It would be good to have something longer with AF (rather than using some of my legacy glass). 90mm should be just do the job on my XE2. For a longer reach i’d be reaching for my D700.
90 f2 is huge..
The Summicron isn’t. I wish Fuji would start dabbling into MF rangefinder lenses, but the new 35 looks good.
Summicron is not..made by Fuji. My 56 1.2 is big, 90 f2 will be…more.
There’s no reason for the 90mm to be that much bigger than the 56mm, which itself is not a big lens by any means; the 56 is smaller and lighter than a Canon or Nikon 85mm f/1.8 lens, which is what it’s the equivalent of. The old Canon 135mm f/2.8 isn’t that much bigger than the 56mm f/1.2, and that is what the 90mm f/2 is the equivalent of. In fact the Canon 135mm f/2.8 is actually 35g lighter than the 85mm, and though it’s 2.5cm longer, it’s 5mm narrower.
In fact, the Canon 60mm Macro is almost exactly the same length and width as the Fuji 56mm, and obviously is very close to the optical field of view. So, if we follow the trends of those equivalent Canon lenses, which are so close to the Fujis in terms of specification, the Fuji 90mm lens should end up being only around 2cm longer than the 56mm lens, it shouldn’t be any more than 1-2mm wider (or it could even be very slightly narrower!) and it should weigh less than 10% more.
I voted 100 – 400, but I’ll probably wait for something like fast 300 mm. It would be nice with 1.4 extender.
Eagerly awaiting the 90mm f/2. One piece of gear I miss from my old Canon gear is the 135mm L f/2. If Fuji can make the autofocus snappy I’ll have my double duty portrait & midrange sports lens back.
I would really love something small, light and weather resistant. The new 35 fits the bill, but something wider for landscape work in the rain and snow would be nice. I would love a weather resistant 16 to 23mm prime, not too heavy. All the current weather lenses are kind of heavy.
Release a camera body with the new sensor. It’s not 2012 anymore.
Just shut up, Joe!
How do you know? You seem to be stuck there.
Just shut up, will ya!
Patrick, please delete that. Disqus somehow messed that up…
It’s interesting how evenly distributed the voting is in the poll. I voted for the 16 but I could’ve voted the 100-400 too. I’d love to have that lens this summer, not that this is even a possibility. The only one I probably won’t end up owning is the 35. I just don’t seem to see compositions around 50mm (FFE).
It shows that by and large the lens lineup is fairly complete imho
Fuji really knows how to get on everybody’s good side equally. 🙂
This will have OIS?
Is 135mm equiv too much for hand-held without IOS?
It will be not WR. I have my source.
Yeah……. and it’s Tomato 😉
Sorry, couldn’t help it!
It will be Tomato resistant ?
it’s without…OIS & WR, Sorry..but it’s the true, don’t make any dreams, the project was without ois and wr, no time to change the process: project, develop or testing. OIS with 90 means big..very bing lens..
I would say something about this amazing reply to Tomato resistance, but you’re a cat, so .. no worries.
*ps, we know there’s no OIS, and you don’t know anything more than we do about any WR.
sorry to tell the true. but if you wanna live in the clouds..no problems for me.
Lol, amazing .. you really can only hear yourself. Nobody was actually saying anything against it, but we all need to hear ‘the true’ .. yeah somebody sure is in the clouds.
And queue the next preaching with blatant disregard for what was actually said, tell me more about the TR:
don’t worry. Dreams are free.
What exactly is the dreaming about, you realize the subject has been Tomatoes since the first reply and nobody actually disagreed.
I have voted for the XF 90mm F2.0. If this is WR and has OIS the result will be a powerful tool for portraits and landscapes. I see it as an alternative to the XF 56mm F1.2 + XF 55-200mm. The pool doesn’t let you pick 2 lenses. The other one is the XF 16mm F1.4 – an alternative to the XF 14mm, XF 18mm, XF 10-24mm.
The project was without OIS or WR, so, the pre-prod version of this lens are all without OIS or WR.
no, it’s without any OIS or WR. It’s like 135 L f2 Canon (135 canon is without any OIS..or WR!)
At what shutterspeed can a 135mm be held at?
I’m guessing not too fast?
I guess the fact I am asking that question means I shouldn’t be forking out much money for what looks like expensive glass!
I use the Canon 135mm at 1/100th just fine, though I’m one of those lucky weird freaks who works better the heavier and larger the equipment is. I do try to keep it faster than 1/125th as a minimum; because I’m using it to get closer to subjects, I actually usually have the shutter above 1/400th anyway just to make sure subject motion is totally frozen. I can’t think of many times I would use a 135mm lens with a shutter speed slow enough for any subject motion to creep in, so I wouldn’t consider OIS necessary for 135mm.
YMMV, though, everyone uses gear differently and shoots different things.
Where is the 16mm f/1.4?
‘None of the above’ is not available, so I didn’t vote. I don’t think I want/need any of those lenses. At the moment I’m more in need of a good RAF-converter (+ image assesment software) for Linux.
Have you tried RawTherapee and/or DarkTable? How do they seem?
Yes. Both are reasonable but not usable imho. I thought I had to give Darktable a big plus, until I had an image with such a strange blue coat I could not correct in any way. ;).
I am surprised that you find RawTherapee not usable – granted it requires some reading and learning but I find it’s output pretty good. As for the Darktable the developpers are more than happy to look at any weird image
Just my 0.02€
These seems to me to a weird choice for Fuji to make. Back in the film days the 135mm focal length languished on dealer shelves. Could not sell them. It is just not enough different from a portrait length. People will buy either the 56 or the 90, not both. Most will choose the shorter length because it is more flattering in a head shot. Nikon has not made a new 135 since going digital. It is an artificial focal length that is related to the longest lens that could be sort of focused by a Leica rangefinder. The next logical step past a 85-100 portrait lens is a 200mm and that is amply demonstrated by its popularity. A 200 equivalent F2,the much more desirable FL, and a really sharp even longer focal length both would sell better.
Longer lenses are more flattering for a headshot, not shorter. 85mm (the 56’s equivalent length) is around the mark where you’re not getting any compression for a headshot, but you’re not getting any distortion, either, so it’s kind of the minimum. 135mm (the 90mm) is around the point where you’re getting moderate compression, enough to make sure noses don’t look big and eyes don’t look sunken, but you’re not getting so much compression that it looks unrealistic or totally flat. You have to go to about 200mm or more to get to the point where a lens is too long to be flattering. Because compression doesn’t work to a linear scale, 135mm is halfway between what 100mm looks like on a face and 200mm. 100mm is often deemd okay but maybe not quite enough for all subjects, 200mm is almost always too much; 135mm makes perfect sense.
That said, I do agree that it’s a weird length for Fuji to go for, and if you look at the way most of the big, well-known Fuji users shoot, that kind of very tight headshot isn’t popular and the 56mm (85mm) does fine. 135mm did take off once Canon developed their 135mm f/2 autofocusing lenses and their 135mm lenses specifically are incredibly popular, and Samyang’s new 135mm f/2 is blocked up with pre-orders. But those are very different audiences to Fuji’s. The kind of professionals who have switched over to Fuji are mostly the sort who do more casual, environmental portraits, and they’re leaving the close headshots to medium format rigs. So I see why it is a good idea for a 135mm equivalent to exist in the Fuji range, but I, like you, don’t believe it will be a big seller for Fuji and it’s not something to put much time into. It feels like Fuji is now aggressively going after the DSLR market, even though that’s clearly not the appeal of Fuji.