PART 1
_ _ _
Fujirumors’ window to CP+: DAY 4
Follow FR at facebook, google+, RSS-feed and twitter
_ _ _
ValueTechTV shared 2 short video presentations of some unreleased lenses at (Part1 – Part2).
For non-German speaking FR-readers, here are what I consider the most interesting things they say:
Part 1: The XF35mmF2 will come end of 2015. It’s smaller than the 35mmF1.4, which is very good if you look through the OVF, so the lens protrudes less into the viewfinder. [admin: the journalist probably just forgot to add: “ if you look through the OVF… of the X-PRO2” 😉 ]
Part 2: ValueTechTV says that the XF 100-400 was delayed, because Fuji decided to change the aperture range at the wide end [mock-ups at photokina showed an aperture range from F4 to F5.6]. Always according to ValueTechTV, Fuji is still “experimenting”, but it will have more or less a range that goes from F5 to F5.6 in order to make it more compact.
PART 2
X-Mount Filter Lens video mounted on a X-A2
68 Responses
Nothing to do with the actual lens (besides I’m OK with a smaller shutter and lens) but watching with Google translation to English on the subtitles is hilarious.
“objective is really half Janet” – well there’s a thing!
can somebody do the sub? thanks
To be any useful, especially with a TC, that telezoom needs to be much faster… or the camera needs to have a really good low light AF.
First two videos: He says nothing really new or interesting, just a bunch of specs about the lenses and which ones are prototypes that might be usable and which ones don’t have real glass in it. He says the 35 f2 is surprisingly heavy (300 to 400 grams, but he says the weight of the mockup “has nothing to do” with the final lens), and he says the small size is great for the X-Pro 1 since it does not cover the viewfinder as much.
That really long zoom lens will probably be around f5–5.6 aperture, though that’s not final yet. According to him, they had initially aimed for a larger aperture on the wide end and the development has been delayed a bit due to that change.
Contrary to the description in the post, the second video is not in Japanese except the guy asking the person at the booth how much the lens will be in something resembling English, and the Fujifilm person answers in Japanese that it will be [about] 10 000 Yen (a bit over 70€, but usually US and European prices are higher than the direct Yen equivalent).
Additionally he mentions
– the 100-400 will have an OIS, also the 120mm macro
– the teleconverter will be compatible for only 3 lenses, because the longer end of the converter will be protruding into the lens barrel. (But he forgot to mention which lenses are compatible. I suppose 100-400mm, 50-140mm, 90mm ???)
100-400, 50-140 and 120 ?
The Canon 100-400 is f4.5-f5.6. So a 35mm equiv of 150-600mm looks pretty cool to me….I’m more interested in the effectiveness of OIS
In the 3rd Chinese video, the most interesting was:
1. estimated price 10,000 JPY, about 75 Euro
2. the two effect lenses can be switched by simply pushing the lever at the side of the lens
Thanks, but not in a million years i’m losing €75 on that. ^.^
They should just make the 100-400mm f/4 throughout despite the size, as the lens will be large regardless. i am sure, those that are interested in this lens are not too concerned about size.
However, I may not know what I am talking about.
I on the other hand think they should just make the aperture a constant f/5.6. The difference between f/5 and 5.6 is less than half a stop. If they can make the lens even more compact, that would be more welcome than keeping that negligible difference in max aperture at the wide end.
i am of a different mindset i dislike variable aperture lenses. they should just make the lens a constant f/4.8 (middle of the ground between f/4 and f//5.6. should keep the lens relatively compact, provide a semi-decent constant aperture. And with the tele converter, the aperture will still be f/6.7, no slower than the slowest zooms in the market.
I think your answer makes perfect sense.
The rumour by ” ValueTechTV” isn’t.
Everybody knows this is a large lens afterall.
Making it f4.0 might make it heavier but also much more useful.
I am not interested anymore in this lens if its going to be f5.6 overall.
I agree this. It should be at least f/4.0 and accurate autofocus to be interesting for nature photography.
At f/4 what would be the depth of field ? I did not realise that nature photographers wanted just one whisker of the tiger to be sharp and the rest of the animal blurred 🙂
I can’t begin to tell you how annoyed I’m getting at this line of argument. Do you want inherently large DOF? Go buy a compact camera, they work wonders in this regard…
I did not realize that nature photographers were not buying the 400 f2.8s and 600 f4s and so on… and what a waste is that Canon 200mm f2…
and I can’t begin to tell you how strongly I would advise you to take a deep breath, drink some chamomile or lime and relax instead of jumping at someone else’s throat at the first opportunity.
Have a good day
I am sorry, that is not jumping at someone else’s throat, and you still haven’t answered my point :).
I guess we’ll haagree to disagree
At least we agree on something – no point carrying on.
f 5.6 to f4.0 means double the weight & maybe triple the price. I am happy Fuji are aiming at a 100-400 f5.6 lens as it suits my needs well (amateur travel safari). I am sure a pro photographer wanting a dedicated wildlife / sports lens would welcome f4.0, but that is a different market.
Agreed. I dislike variable aperture lenses. An f/4.8 lens wouldn’t be a bad idea either. Add the 1.4x tele, and what you get is an f/6.7 aperture lens — still decent.
But you know what the price/size/weight of the, e.g., 200-400 f4 Nikkor/Canon
is, and how ‘big’ the market is for such lenses? I know it’s a FF
example but with that kind of lenses there is no reason to go Fuji-X for
compactness as the camera becomes a tiny component in such a setup
anyway. Hence, there is no reason for Fujifilm to go the f4 (or faster)
route with super teles. Fast super teles I put on my D800.
Ha ha, maybe “However, I may not know what I am talking about.” should be appended to the bottom of every comment automatically; might save a lot of animosity!
No not likely as the price will be much higher as in a $1000.+ To get F4 at 400mm the front lens would be 100 mil or more. I be happy with a 4-5.6 but needs to hold at 5.6 at the slowest. Otherwise its a f9+ with a 1.4 X on way to slow.
Has anyone else noticed that new 35mm has Super EBC, cant seem to find it on any of the Fuji lenses I own nor have I noticed it on one before… any thoughts?
Super EBC is on most XF lenses. Its the standard coating. The 16-55 & 50-140 have nano GI which is supposed to be more flare resistant.
Patrick, why has my post been deleted twice now? 🙁 I was trying to provide my thoughts about giving the super tele zoom a slowish but decent constant max aperture.
F5 would be truly disappointing. Size is not the primary issue with a 100-400. The CP+ prototype looked appropriate—even small.
I bought into the Fuji-X system to reduce bulk (and because of the intuitive interface of the X-T1) while retaining excellent optical quality. When bulkiness is not an issue (or inevitable as with fast super teles) I take my D800 anyway.
Are you buying a 100-400 lens to use it on its wide end? An F/4-5.6 will be F5 by 180mm anyway. Is half a stop light loss (only at 100mm, less as you zoom in) such a tragic loss?
To those ‘make it F4’ comments, i’ll just show you this:
AF-S Nikkor 80-400mm f/4.5-5.6G: $2,296.95
AF-S Nikkor 200-400mm f/4G: $6,649.00
Well I guess you’re right about size not being a concern .. ^.^
Lets add…
Canon 100-400 f’/4.5-5.6L IS II USM = $2,199 US (weight 3.62 pounds)
Canon 200-400 f/4L IS USM Extender 1.4x – $11,799 US (Weight 7.981 Pounds)
Absolutely agree. I’d rather have a more compact f5-5.6 or even f5.6-6.8 for $2000 than a huge constant f4 for $6000.
Yep and the size will need a big tripod too! A 4.5-5.6 will be ideal.
Nothing about the 90mm?
He seems to pick it up for a second, but then the video seems to skip.
Sad. Such an interesting lens – I hope we’ll really see it in 2015
Noticed that too, maybe he said something he wasn’t supposed to (or incorrect) and had to cut it out. But hey it’s a 90/2, that’s the plan, that’s all there is to know for now i guess.
Hurry up with the real prototypes i’d say!
I’m sure Zack Arias can’t wait to test it. 😛
The DPR CP+ report on the new roadmap and mockup lenses (http://www.dpreview.com/articles/2575482925/cp-2015-fujifilm-shows-prototype-roadmap-lenses?slide=11 ) is missing pictures of the 90/2 as well. However, the lens is at least mentioned briefly: “One final lens – a 90mm F2 prime – was shown to us in working but cosmetically non-final form. It’s expected to become available later this year. ” Though it’s anybody’s guess why closeups of the lenses to be released in 2016 (which probably are anything but final) are shown whereas pictures of the 90 that’s expected for this year aren’t.
Maybe they brought the wrong mockup and are going with the stubby/fat design we’ve seen before after all 😉
Been wondering about that myself. Hope it doesn’t mean another delay, as I have been waiting for this lens even before the first Roadmap was published.
That 120 looks better and better. Long, but not massive. *drool*
Looks really classic for some reason.
Oh i see, it looks like a built in hood but isn’t. They should do that!
Looks like it better be weather resistant for your needs….
No doubt! 😉
OK Patrick, you need to do a poll. Do we prefer:
1. 100-400 f/4-5 compatible with 1.4 teleconverter (this would be the heavier lens)
2. 100-400 f/4.5-5.6 compatible with 1.4 teleconverter (this would be a lighter version)
3. 140-440 f/4.5-5.6 compatible with 1.4 teleconverter (lets take the weight savings of going from f/5 to f/5.6 on the long end and add the weight back into the lens by making it longer. Maybe you can’t go from 400 to 440 on the long end but maybe 400 to 420.
Of course, the body needs to AF at f/8 (f/5.6 plus 1.4 teleconverter)
Also add…
4. Should Fuji make the 1.4 teleconverter into the body of the 100-400 lens like the Canon 200-400 f/4. this will make the 100-400 body longer but save time by not having to take the lens off the camera to add the 1.4 teleconverter.
The Photokina version may have been 140-400 f/4-5 now we are looking at 100-400 f/4.5-5.6.
Maybe all the comments about the size of the 90 f/2 made Fuji rethink the 140-400.
The cost of that lens is ridiculously high especially considering the Nikon version and separate tc. I’m not going to worry about the lens yet until it gets announced. I somehow doubt it’ll be the only longer lens fuji develops.
Sure, make a poll, and people that will never actually buy that lens will vote. I wonder what the result will be.. hmmm….
I love it, so positive, so up beat, Serge, your just a master of knowledge and understanding….. Mean while….
Ricoh shows at CP+ a full frame HD Pentax-D FA 150-450mm F4.5-5.6ED DC AW for …… want for it…….$2499.95.
What was that, a FULL FRAME 150-450 f/4.5-5.6 for $2500….are they crazy!!!!!!! I mean that’s just CRAZY.
I am positive…I think Fuji can do a great 100-400 f/4-5 OIS WR and even have a built in 1.4 converter like the Canon 200-400.
Ah, the 2kg bazooka – I’m sure people will be thrilled to carry that gun on an X body, defeating one of points of going mirrorless.
Maybe and maybe not…. if you need the range of 150 to 450 to get the shot, then I would say maybe.
I KNOW I need a 400mm zoom, I know what the Canon 100-400 4.5-5.6 version I and II costs and weights, and the Nikon 80-400, etc. I would like Fuji to do the same thing only better. I saw photos of the Fuji Photokina sample of the 140-400 and I saw photos of the CP+ sample 100-400 now. and if one was f/4-5 and the other f/5-5.6 I would take the fatter, heavier f/4-5 because it lets in more light. And, by the way, would be better than both Canon or Nikon which are at f/4.5-5.6. And Canon’s implementation of the 1.4 teleconverter in the 200-400 lens is just genius. So if Fuji could do the same implementation in their smaller and lighter 100-400 f/4-5, that would be fantastic. But that is just me, and I never would think of ever speaking for anyone else.
Fuji has 20 lenses made or on their roadmap from 10mm to 200mm, and one on the roadmap going to 400mm. There is only two that goes to 200mm, but 17 that are 100mm or less.
I am asking for 1 lens, that due to physics, I KNOW will NOT be light and small and that is OK with me.
People will vote for the fastest aperture, largest focal range, and will be silent when you’ll ask them how much they will pay for it. Or say a price that’s way below the cheapest option with similar characteristics.
So you suggest making a poll but you completely ignore the reasonable change to f5 at the wide end only to support your dream lens? This is not democratic in any way. And if you think the 440mm at the long end is much better than 100mm at the wide end: You are trading 0.35° (400->440) for 4.37° (100->140) more wideangle. I prefer to have more reserves at the wide end then having this tiny little advance at the tele.
I was just putting out examples….please make your own suggestions. Join the party. Throw your hat into the ring. Make a stand for what you want.
Just make those aperture values more realistic and similiar to the options Fuji is playing with:
1) 100-400 f/4.0-5.6 (old mockup from fuji: faster but bigger, heavier and more expensive)
2) 100-400 f/5.0-5.6 (new mockup from fuji: slower but more compact, more lightweight and less expensive)
We could add options for the focal length, but I think this will make the poll cluttered. At least there should be mentioned the field of view in degree. As I stated before people tend to think they could just subtract the focal lenght from the wide end, add it to the tele end and then they have an amazing tele lens. bigger numbers != better.
nobody deleted you. The fact is you didn’t verify your email on disqus. Non-verified comments from visitors without verified emails require approval.
Please approve your email, and you won’t have to wait anymore for my manual approval
Stop with negative comments, whatever Fuji will make will be the best lens possible, they have amazing bright cinema lenses that weight as much as a motorcycle and cost as much as a car. And I doubt any of us on this forum what that.
I trust Fuji to do their best and deliver great lenses for affordable prices that work great on Fuji X bodies. Cant wait for 120mm macro.
BTW has anyone ever seen a small bright high-quality 400mm lens with AF, WR OIS? Yea I thought so!
Seriously, discerning consumers have the right and the duty to make product considerations prior to purchase, and not to obsequiously roll over to the whims of any for-profit corporation manufacturer of consumer products.
Dear Fujifilm, please make it either 200-400mm f/4 (similar to Nikon) or 200-600mm f/5-6.3 (similar to Sigma or Tamron). However, I will buy it in any form (even as 100-400 f/5-5.6), because I badly miss a wildlife lens. If I could make a wish, 400mm prime would be even better. PS: Thank you for all the great lenses so far.
I think, that over f/4.0 it’s not a wildlife lens.
But then at 6.7 the AF as it exists would have a pretty hard time. and I can’t picture myself manually focusing that beast.
The 100-400 is going to be a little bit problematic no matter what apertures they decide on.
If the widest aperture at the long end stays at f/5.6, the aesthetic difference at the short end is a matter of personal taste — f/4 vs. f/5. (By one online calculator the 100mm DOF at 25 feet is 3.02 feet vs 3.81 feet.)
Citing constant aperture zooms like the Nikon 200-400 f/4 adds nothing to the discussion. $6,650 for an equivalent lens aint gonna happen here. Even my more modest Sigma 120-300 mm f/2.8 was about $3,600.
The internal discussion at Fujifilm is likely about cost, size/weight, max aperture, and optical quality. Deciding on a max aperture between f/4 and f/5 doesn’t change things that much for the shooter — if you really need a faster long zoom at 100-200 mm, you need to look to Canon or Nikon or Sigma. Cost first and size/weight is what the consumers will be focusing on, with optical quality following behind. “Good enough for Facebook” is still a standard used by many.
The Nikon 80-400 f/4.5-5.6 ($2,300) is an interesting comparison point. Fuji probably wants to stay below that price point and going to F/4 may have put them over — in addition to all the whining about size/weight. So I’m thinking the f/5 solution, for around $2,000 – $2,100, is where they are heading.
Personally I wouldn’t mind 100-400 being constant f5.6. Canon 100-400L was my first lens and I mainly used it at f8. For wildlife/birds etc aperture doesn’t matter much IMHO. And for sports, you need f2.8 for that nice back ground blur. I used to shoot both with 500mm f4 and 300mm f2.8.
DearFujifilm,
One MAJOR request from a guy owning many of your lenses —- please don’t do plastic for the 24mm lens cap…VERY important. Please don’t do plastic with metal painting. That’s really bad. Do real metal. Add another $10+ to the price, add another 10+ grams, I don’t care, but please, do metal.
You can have my $100 this second. Thanks!
Does anyone else find that revised aperture range for the 100-400 a little disappointing? I would rather sacrifice the compactness/price for a faster lens; just my preference, I guess.
An 4.5 to 5.6 is likely, Yeah Im not a fan of 5.6 but at 400 mm 5.6 isn’t slow f 8 is slow and a f 4 at 400 would be out of my range expensive. Even a f4.5 at 400 is big. as is this Canon f4 http://shop.usa.canon.com/shop/en/catalog/lenses-flashes/super-telephoto-lenses/ef-400mm-f-4-do-is-ii-usm?utm_source=google&utm_medium=Product_Search&utm_campaign=Google_Product_Feed&cm_mmc=GA-_-Camera_&_Optic_Lenses-_-G_Canon_Product%20Listing%20Ads-_-36190
We need a 100-200/f2.8 here, no 100-400, which is SILLY!!!