FujiXseriesJapan shared the first images of the 120mmF2.8 1:1 Macro (with OIS, focus-limiter and also WR!), XF 100-400, XF 35mmF2, XF 16mmF1.4, XF 90mmF2 and 1.4 Teleconverter.
Ealier today I already shared some new pics of the 90mmF2 and 16mmF1.4 WR, along with a new (and better) lens roadmap. Check it out here.
[poll id=”73″]
[UDPATED IMAGES]
iamge courtesy: fujifilm-blog & FujiXseriesJapan
155 Responses
The reason that I went with Fuji was because of the size ( and quality)…for that reason, I will never buy the 120F2.8 nor the XF100-400 ( if it was to carry such big lenses, I would just go back to Canon or Nikon ) 🙂
However, I am interested in the 90mm
You can’t have it all.
Good glass comes with size.
I guess if you plan to shoot with a long focal or shoot macro work and already get Fuji body, it’s better (weight and price) to carry thoses lenses than Canon/Nikon body + lenses.
IF autofocus improves before the release of those lenses…
The only way to get really long reach and have a really small camera is to buy a bridge camera. These lenses while big are still often far smaller and lighter than their Canikon counterparts.
now that I see that the 120mm get OIS, I might consider it ( for long reach….not for macro. For macro, I have extension tubes and filter, and it does work well for me)
Anyone else spot the OIS on the 120mm macro 🙂
yes
Honestly the 100-400 actually looks small for its coverage!
So we have some answers :
– 16mm : WR & Clutch mechanism
– 35mm : WR
– 90mm : no WR (???) & no OIS
– 120mm macro : focus-limiter (?), WR & OIS (!!!)
– 100-400 : can’t read any information
– teleconverter : shape is limitating for using with most X-lenses (not a surprise)
The focus limiter is needed, and if it could be manipulated manually on the lens… 😉 The Zeiss Touit 50mm macro doesn’t have it. About the 90, I don’t think anybody needs the WR marketing tag on a portrait lens ¬¬
I agree about WR for 90, but I read rumors that said it was WR.
“focus limiter (?)” : (?) means I wasn’t sure to see one on the first picture (but the picture of 120 has been added, I edited the comment)
A 90mm f2 isn’t only a portrait lens but can also be a substitute for a tele zoom lens (traveling, landscapes, etc.). In this context it makes a lot of sense to incorporate WR and OS.
You use the macro focusing mode switch on the camera to do the focus limiting on the Zeiss or any other lens where you want the priority to be close focusing.
yeah but it’s so annoying switching it from the menu. The Zeiss 50mm focus distance won’t be limited by the camera macro mode from what I’ve read.
Not limited but it does strongly favor certain ranges.
Now you see why the TC won’t be compatible with most lenses.
Highly suspect that the 35 f2 will be the ‘kit lens’ of the X-Pro 2, which will also come in silver and black options.
My suspicion too. BUT… am I the only one who thinks that this lens looks ridiculous on X-Pro body? This lens, IMO, would be an excellent aesthetic match for X-E sized body.
So maybe the new X-E is coming, or maybe the new X-Pro will be much more compact.
Nope, you’re not alone. But in my eyes this shape looks ridiculous anyway.
I’m really excited about the 100-400. When I switched from Nikon, the only lens I had that didn’t have a suitable replacement was my 70-300, and this looks like it will be even better. With the TC, the full frame equivalent will be 840mm!
I wonder if they purposefully removed the aperture from the photo though. On all the other lenses in the photo, you can clearly see it, but not this one. I’m hoping it will be 4-5.6
I’m also pretty excited about the 35mm F2, although depending on the size and price difference with the 1.4, I might just go with the 1.4.
Correct me if wrong on comment regarding aperture but I believe on the zooms Fuji does put it on but does not have numbers because at 100 you can be f4 but not at 400. My 18-55 (only fuji lens I own) is that way.
Yes, variable aperture lenses don’t have markings. It is a bit of a lens inconsistency that I wish there was a better way of solving.
This seems like such an easy problem to get around. For the 18-55 for example, have the markings go O, 4.0, 5.6, 8.0 … where O = open. If you have it on that setting the lens’s default behavior is to uses the maximum aperture available for the desired focal length, but it can be tweaked with the rear thumb dial. Any aperture above and including f/4 and you can set it manually. I know, there is the slight problem of when you are at 18, and you want 3.2 or something, but this has to be a rare instance, and in that case you could use the rear thumb dial to set it when the lens is in the O setting.
Oh, I didn’t realize that. I should have known because I only have 2 Fuji lenses right now: the 18-55 and 10-24.
Same I just got an XE-1 with 18-55. Took me a few minutes to realize why. Looking forward to owning a prime lens one day.
Ohh but what I meant by my post was the marking on the front of the lens. The 18-55 says 18-55mm 1:2.8-4, but in the image of the 100-400 it doesn’t say anything.
i know it´s just a mock-up, but that 90mm looks rather longish for its focal lenght…maybe OIS too?
It is not comparable to a 90mm slr-lens. If you compare it to a leica you have to add the x-mount adapter, too.
Previous mockup was shorter but fatter. I like this one a lot more.
I agree this latest mock-up looks better. Slimmed down will mean it fits in camera bag slot easier.
Here’s the filter diameters:
– 16mm F1.4: 67mm
– 35mm F2: 43mm
– 90mm F2: 62mm
– 120 F2.8: 62mm
– 100-400mm: ? (looks like > 77mm, so probably drop-in filters)
That’s how it is nowadays for all the lens manufacturers. It really only bothers people who use UV or clear filters for protection (I don’t, the lens hood is plenty). You’d only want a polarizer on one or two lenses (that is, 1 or 2 that people own — not what’s available). And nothing is stopping a person from buying a 77mm and using a stepup ring.
Don’t get me wrong, I wasn’t complaining about too many different filter diameters. Just wanted to add this bit of new information from the images to this thread.
I disagree. I have no problem buying clear filters for protection in different sizes. I would need to buy one for each of the lenses anyway; the size doesn’t matter. The issue for me is polarizers. Step up rings are great if you don’t use a lens hood. If you do use a lens hood you’re stuck buying six different polarizers which gets very expensive.
Or you could go for a square filter system like the Lee Seven5 and just buy a ring for each diameter.
There are ways to get around that, though. And how many different lenses does a person own that would benefit from a polarizer in a typical situation? A polarizer is a wonderful tool but best used in a narrow focal length range lest you get an uneven effect.
from memory of 140-400 mockup the filter size was 86mm!!
I’m not complaining too much:
Prime kit:
23mm, 56mm, 90mm &120mm = all 62mm
plus 14 – 58mm & 35mm 1.4 52mm
Zoom kit
10-24, 50-140 – 72mm
When will fuji make lens 300 f 2.8 ?
Hey Fujifilm R&D…. Nice glass, but enough with the lenses, let’s see a new pro body or two with a new and improved sensor
Bodies come and go. Lenses are the heart of a system. I’d much rather have them do this strategy. They just released a pro body last year, and the XOro 2 should be out this fall. That’s plentybof nice body development. I’m glad Fuji has concentrated on creating one of the best lens lineups around in such a short period of time.
This fall? I thought the end of the year? Next year? After already a full year of delay? Or is that a never until maybe the organic sensor will take off in Fuji-land? Fuji should have released an X-Pro1S taking over the X-T1’s & X100T improvements.
There is no such thing as delay for a thing, that has not been announced.
Rumors said it would come? Well then rumors were wrong
The point is still made: why not a X-Pro1S inheriting the best of all other ‘improved’ models?
Best guess: the XPro1 was a slow seller and there’s still inventory available. It would be hard to sell three very similar (not identical) models at three very different price points: X-E2, X-T1, X-Pro1s. Especially with excess inventory. Risky but better than announcing yet another minor incremented model.
Somehow I don’t think the Xpro1 was a slow seller, after all it was the entry point for many Fuji shooters.
Anyway I am very glad they show commitment by putting their resources onto a comprehensive lineup of quality lenses – after all this is what the light goes through before hitting the sensor.
All the evidence is that it’s a slow seller, especially compared to other systems out there. The fact that 3 years later there are still new ones means it’s either really slow or they way overestimated demand.
Or they carry o, making new o,es whilst there is some demand and the replacement is not there; I don’t see any evidence either way; May be you’ve got privileged info, I don’t
I’ve read on a Chinese rumor side that Fuji wants to have longer intervals between updates for their Pro bodies, at least 3 years, up to 4 years. In the meanwhile providing updates to keep up with minor software improvements.
Considering that the X-Pro1 came out Q2 2012, we can expect a newer version somewhere between Q4 2015 and Q1 2016.
It has been a LONG time.
True, bodies come and go and Fuji makes great glass. But if the sensors in current pro bodies can’t keep up with the resolving power of pro lenses, there is no point in releasing so many of them while pro body releases lag behind.
If you prefer a company that releases more bodies than lenses, you’ve already got a choice for that.
In any case, the timing of the 35/2 WR suggests that the X-Pro2 will be released in the Fall with that lens as the kit.
hehe, there isn’t enough glass. never. In fact, I rejected to buy the X-T1 and bought two new lenses instead, the 56mm and the 50-140. When I started to buy into the X system, I wasn’t sure how committed Fuji was to further develop the system. But the speed and rigorousness Fuji develops astonishing lenses made it clear in 2013 and 2014 that Fuji is all in. And so I kept buying lenses. I have currently 11 lenses, and the 56mm and 50-140 are on their way, making it 13 in total. And the good thing about glass is, it keeps its value. Bodies are thrown out of the window every two years, glass keeps its value. It’s an investment.
I so want that 100-400 right now. As in, yesterday. The macro will be great to have, too. Patience is not one of my virtues.
Agree!
Not too sure the XF120mm will have OIS…switch looks like a focus limit selector….
It says OIS on it though.
Ah didn’t spot that 🙂 must have 2 switches like the canon 100mm L macro. The visible one is definitely a focus switch
Any idea how much will the XF 120mm be when released? The OIS and WR will put the price up for sure.
The 100mm Canon L is somewhere around 900€ (selling for 750). Same for the Nikon. The lens probably closest ist the Sigma 150mm (1300/900€). While I am hoping for a sub 900€ price, I guess it could be the same as the XF 16-55
Thanks for the reply. I don’t need the OIS and WR but that would be selfish to say since I use tripod most of the time. I agree with you, the price will be somewhere close to the XF 16-55.
Another possibility, judging by Nikon’s 200/4 macro, would be a $1700-1800’ish price tag. At least that’s my expectation for the early adopter tax.
120mm macro with OIS and WR? working with Teleconverter? That’s orgasmic! I will start saving money from this day on (also want the 100-400!)
I like the 35mm F2.0’s looks… this a Leica mock-up. But does it make sense? What have been Fuji’s idea to give us the choice between a faster F1.4 and a weatherized, faster operating F2.0? I’d rather have seen both combined into a next gen F1.4 ‘mkII’.
Probably later they’ll revise the 1.4. Fuji can easily have the performance line and the smaller, lighter and somewhat slower line. Different tools for different needs.
May be the constraints being WR + Smaller => can’t have everything ; or price would be prohibitive. Each design decision is a result of a compromise.
I am a little bit disappointed that the new 35mm f2 has no distance scale. But you can’t get a distance scale and make it WR. 🙁
This small 35/2 WR lens with 43mm filter size looks really cute. It reminds me the look of Leica M lenses. This is the second Fuji lens I will like – first was small 18/2 though not WR – and these are best suited lenses for small RF styled mirrorless used for street and descrete shooting. 35/2 WR lens releasing gives me hope Fuji now will go now this direction and will bring also 23/2 WR, 55/2 WR and 16/2 WR. It’s pity Fuji enters this road just now, should 2-3 years ago.
Not everyone is a “street shooter”. Lenses are tools and different tools for different situations.
Yes, but the Xpro-1, X100, etc had rangefinder enthusiasts in mind when they created this line of cameras. The fact that they’re making these smaller lenses means they’re listening.
Right. Different tools for different enthusiasts.
Exactly
So true, but I won’t regret they’ve made an incredible set of fast lenses during these 2-3 years 🙂
Sony is dealing with F2.8 primes and huge F4 zooms light gathering 😀
I love the concept behind the 14, 16 and 23mm lenses (specially on the X-Pro1) but this 35mm, although smaller than the others, seems to carry the same useless manual focus system as the 18, 27 and 35 f1.4. I can’t wait to see how does this 90mm perform.
I wouldn’t call it useless, but I agree that without any distance scale on the lens itself manual focusing requires the EVF. Yes, it’s stupid. The whole point of manual focusing is to be able to use the focus scale on top of the lens. It would be awesome to have a distance scale on more lenses than just the 14, (16), and the 23. On a 35mm it really would make sense. On the 56 even more. I don’t know why this is not gonna happen.
I don’t need a distance scale on the lenses, myself, but I really do enjoy the limited range of the focus ring on the 14 and 23… makes manual focusing (through the EVF) a much quicker function.
the 16 looks big, anyone has a clue if its same size or bigger that the 56???
About the same. It’s little smaller than 10-24
thanks Dis!
Haven’t tried the 28, 27, or 35. What don’t you like about the way they focus? I do have the 14, 23, and 56 and I don’t love the clutch but maybe there’s a benefit i’m not appreciating.
Hi Arnold. I enjoy a lot pre-focusing and framing with the OVF 🙂 Besides of the DOF scale on the barrel (which btw I can’t read in the dark), I know what’s the focus distance going to be by the position of the forefinger. It’s very easy with the 14mm, but also with an f2.8 DOF on the 23mm with a little bit of practice. Then just pull up the ring and you’ll be on AF for an accurate f1.4 focusing. The whole experience is not only fast and enjoyable, but also lets me concentrate on the emotion of a moment.
The manual focus system on the 18, 27 and 35 1.4 are a mess. My english is not so good to describe it, the only word that comes to my mind is shit. It’s like if it was the first focus by wire lens in history. They’re very small and really good optically, and that 35mm has magic, but the concept line-up from the 14, 16 and 23 rocks for street. I’ve never used the 56, no idea how does it focus manually but my 10-24, for example, works great on manual focus.
Saludos.
It’s all about the glass, my friends, and Fuji is rocking it. I won’t stop until I have them all. (And in the meantime, i”ll be happily shooting away with the ones I have.)
No, Its all about the BASS, bout the BASS, bout the BASS. LOL!
Here, it’s all about the GAS, bout the GAS, bout the GAS!
Wow, new 90 lens mockup is way better than the one displayed on photokina!
Another reason not to get too worked up regarding prototypes and pre-release lenses.
In a way, yes. But on the other hand Fuji probably changed the design because of all those getting worked up. So I think prototypes are great for Fuji to test our reactions before being too far to change course. Keep getting worked up then!
Prototypes are absolutely useful for getting feedback. But I don’t think they worry too much about the average person on the street’s feedback. If they did, they would do something about their menu system and some other quirks commonly mentioned. Still, I am happy Fuji is willing to show us what’s coming instead of the vault of secrecy.
Second that last statement.
I very much hope Fuji cares about the man-on-the-street. Pros often have completely different needs than amateur enthusiasts and so they will give different feedback. Someone at Fuji ought to be reading these comments!
Concerning the menu system I think that is just some crazy spell that someone (probably Steve Jobs) cast on the Japanese. They all just don’t get that UI-thing…
I find it odd why some people are questioning Fuji making a 35mm f2 as oppose to the 2nd gen 1.4,
Canikon have 1.2 + 1.4 + 1.8 and similar focal lengths lenses with f2 + f2.8,
Why not diversify? Expand the range and bring in multi tier primes, surely the added lens options would bring in more customers which in turn means Fuji can carry on making more excellent cameras..
As a side note, I have no intention of buying the 35mm f2 but I welcome their desire to expand at break neck speed, I don’t recall Canikon ever releasing so many lenses in such a short space of time, and all of them very good to excellent quality
Well Done Fuji
Agreed. I hope the 35/2 WR opens up an opportunity for a 35/1.2 R. Heck, why not even an XC 35/2, Fuji plastic fantastic.
OK fuji the compact weather sealed lenses is going in the right direction now please make a X100T with lens interchangeability, weather sealed, articulating LCD and we’ve got a winner!
Is that not the X-Pro2 rumoured for this autumn?
XPro is too big
To me it has the best handling from all he IC line-up. I bet lenses like the 23 or 16 would block most of the OVF. For EVF only the X-E2 works fantastic.
XT1
XE5
Minolta? OK….
The XPro1 is really slow and too big. The quickest focussing is on the XT1 and the XE2. I sold my XPro1 and bought the XT1 and don’t regret it. I have the X100T for my OVF fix. The X100T is by far my favorite of the 3 I currently own. I would love an X100 type body, weather sealed, articulating LCD, with interchangeable lenses, which by the looks of it would be possible with the compact weather sealed lenses Fuji is coming out with. To me that would be the perfect camera.
Yes, the X100 is the sexiest design of all of their cameras. If they could design the X-Pro 2 similar to the X100, but a little bigger (I prefer the size of the X-Pro), that would be awesome.
If the made a body that was the same size of my X100T with my Gariz leather half case with all the features I listed about I’d gladly pay $2000 for it. Meaning just a little bigger than the X100T, but not as big as the XPro1.
So? X-Pro2 can be smaller. The size of x100 series with larger lenses.
Smaller Xpro2 with the compact lenses.
the whole point of the x100/s/t series is the fixed lens.
It’s called evolution
You might get a slightly smaller X-Pro1, but it will never be as small as a fixed lens camera. It’s called physics.
I’d be down for that… if they can somehow put the leaf shutter in the body. I like my crazy quiet shutter and insane sync speeds 😉
Yeah that is really nice
A leaf shutter can only be in the lens.
No way! The lens construction of the X100 extends deeply into the body, it’s definitely not an interchangeable design. Basically, you’ll end up with the X-Ex style body (size, controls). What you’re asking is for Fuji to terminate the X100/s/t line. Being a fixed, 35mm camera with superb optics (even wide open) at it’s current size is at the very heart of the X100 series.
This format has a rich history and the appeal that comes with it. PJs, travelers, documentary photographers very often carried a Leica with 35mm soldered (figuratively) onto it. This is the new Leica. I’m not that crowd, only been doing photography seriously for 4 years. But seeing some amazing 35mm work out there inspired me to learn this focal length.
35mm as a kinda dead zone for me in the previous years (I either shot very wide or 50/85mm. Took some time to get used to it, but it’s a camera you can slip in any bag and carry it everywhere. If you want to add lenses to the bag, again, there’s the XE line if you prefer a rangefinder style.
Shooting this baby almost exclusively (even on paid jobs I used it extensively) helped me discover the wonderful versatility of 35mm. I can’t believe what I have missed all those years. Now I’m confident using this focal lengths for a wide variety of subjects, it has become the single most versatile focal length for my work (music & art shows, portraiture, even some product shots!).
How does new 35/2 compare in length and width to 35/1.4?
23mm f/2 WR and I’ll pay up to $1000 for it
that makes 2 of us
3 to be exact… (well, I’ll pay $700)
But I’m afraid it will not be soon… as such a lens will clearly lower x100 series sale… (on the ither hand I’m not going to upgrade the body unless such glass is out there…,)
Really? I could pick up a X100S for that price. It’ snot WR but there’s so much more to it. I draw the line of a 23/2 WR at $500.
Not everyone wants the X100/S/T. I don’t like the performance of the lens wide open, and I’m not a fan of the OVF or the aesthetic. I don’t tink the lens WILL cost $1000 (if they ever make it), I’m just saying that is what it is worth to me. 35 (equiv) is my primary focal length, but I require an interchangeable lens system.
I took it serious too when read “I’ll pay up to $1000 for it”. Whats wrong with the 23mm 1.4?
I have it, it’s amazing, but it’s big and I rarely need the 1.4
Yeah. Sell it to me now! I’d consider leaving my A7 with the 35mm f/2.8 if there was a 23mm f/2 for the XT-1. Roughly the same control over DOF at 2.0 (APS-C) and 2.8 (FF). Overall the lenses offered by Fujifilm kicks Sony’s butt.
Fuji’s new motto appears to be “bigger is better” 🙁
Eh what? They surprisingly announced a compact version of an existing lens, reduced the size of the 90mm mockup drastically and still kept the size of the 100-400 mockup after reducing the minimal focal lenght from initial 140mm.
you do realise that a 120mm macro does not exist in pancake form, not then 100-400; wr adds to the bulk & diameter of the lens with it’s double shell construction
Those who prefer the minimalistic approach should take look at the X100T.
I agree. It’s my favorite camera. If they could design one like that with interchangeable, compact lenses, I would sell my left nut.
I’ve never seen a 150-600mm equivalent lens being as small as a normal 50 1.8 lens. If you have different data, please share it.
35mm f/2 seems to be a “smaller can be an alternative”. 120mm macro, 100-400 won’t be small in any APS-C system…
Next generation bodies with these lenses. Looks like Fuji is nailing it ~ within less than 4 years, they will have a full lens selection with high-quality, fast glass.
That’s a classic shape of non-collapsible RF “kit” lens. Leica/Contax/FED, you name it. Looks appropriate on appropriately sized body. Here, for example, is a COMBLOC FED-2: http://fedka.com/catalog/images/f2_186723.jpg
while I am most interested in the 120mm macro, as I want to replace my EF 100mm f/2.8L IS macro, the 35mm f/2 looks very nice. I have the 35mm f/1.4R, and it is great. However, the f/2 looks very nice.
Looking forward to the X-Pro 2…
OK if your dumping your Canon gear, I understand, but other than that, do you have an issue with the 100f/2.8L IS?
Looks like it’s 10mm thinner and 10mm shorter. It’ll be thinner but slightly longer than the 18mm.
If it can be the size of a Contax G2 I’d be happy
One more high res picture. 90/2 filter size is 62mm.
https://cdn3.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_asset/file/3401564/DSCF7297.0.jpg
Surely there are high resolution close ups of each lens somewhere on the internet
I want to vote, but my option ‘none’ is not available ;). Ofcourse these are probably all fine lenses, but for me the X-system is so nice because of it’s limited size. Perhaps I will someday buy the 2.8 telezoom (equivalent to 70-200), but that would be my only big lens for this system.
I want that 120mm Macro SO BAD … and OIS (special version for macro work?!) makes it even more desirable, it hurts!
That 35mm f2 must be wonderful, but as long as Fuji doesn’t come with a full frame body it’s quite useless…
I think you’ll find anything less than medium format is quite useless for your blurry cat photos.
Full frame mirrorless body is much more useless than APS-C because it has unproportianally large lenses. See new huge 35/1.4 sony lens.
Not true because we are talking about a 35/f2. Look at the RX1 for example. Full frame is the future so Fuji should step aboard as soon as possible.
No, because you can’t build a system only on small relatively slow primes. Want a compact FF camera? Get RX1. But if you want a FF system, get something proportional. I use FF Nikon system for my work and compact Fujis for casual shooting. Bodies match size with lenses well in both systems. And I can’t imagine 70-200/2.8 on x-t1 even with little bit shorter flange distance. BTW RX1 is too big for me too because when I need something extremely compact I grab my x100s. It’s even smaller. And what do you get with the upgrade to FF? F/2 lens for FF and f/1.4 lens for APS-C share the same size and DOF wide open. One stop ISO advantage is also compensated by larger aperture. And FF looses because of the price.
Technical agreed. BUT if you print lets say 45×30 seize, you notice “emotional” DOF on a FF feels different…i really cant explain this. FF has more 3D look, especially Leica lenses, which i simply dont get with my Fujis. i dont talk about Pixel etc…it Is the Way my eyes (and this Is what people watching the prints reply also) seeing the picture at Viewing distance.
But this Is my personal experience over years and prints. Viewing on the web, it really doesn’t matter.
So for me it depends, if i have family shots never been printed bigger than 15×10 or just web, or printing larger…
So it’s not “x Is better than xy”. Sometimes i shoot Only Film for a project. Sometimes x100.
Whatever fits your vision.
Well in this case APS-C and FF could be too close to each other. And you may want to have medium format Fuji. This is real upgrade.
Thing I noticed is the aperture is selected below f/2.8. Possible the 120 might end up being a f/2.0?
Edit: though, I suppose it might be a sloppily done non working mockup, so I won’t get too excited.
Please note: there is no aperture inside this thing, it’s hollow. Probably that ring rotates 360 degrees.
Yeah between filter size and a bit more coffee, I kinda realized that I was being stupid 😉
Definitely not with a 62mm filter size.
If the new XF35 would be introduced together with the new Xpro2, then the xf35 F2 could be a short focus (biogon) lens as the (hopefully) new organic sensor can handle steeper rays of incoming light. Could explain the compact size.
I don’t think they will change lens design. The compact size could be due to f/2 aperture 😉
Habría que adelantar la salida del 120mm Macro, una pena que este pensada su salida para el 2016
It looks like 2016 will be the year that I sell the rest of my Canon L lenses off and replace my EF 100mm f/2.8L IS and EF 70-200mm f/4L IS with Fuji’s XF 120mm f/2.8R and the XF 100 – 400mm. Looking forward to it. Especially if the X-Pro 2 is released around that time with the organic sensor ~ that would be fantastic.
I look forward to the 1-40. The 35/2 is quite nice (dust proof) as well.
I was frustrated no one has posted the new 35mm f/2 next to the existing f/1.4 lens. I took it upon myself to mock up a comparison with a photo I took of my 35mm f/1.4 and dropped it into the photo from CP+.
http://eldoradohillsblvd.blogspot.com/2015/02/fuji-xf35mm-f14-vs-f2.html
I may post a video with my thoughts and hopes about this lens soon:
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCstw9L-gxhtSiGNNYVlI-zQ
Cheers
Not sure why my link to the photo is being compressed:
http://eldoradohillsblvd.blogspot.com/2015/02/fuji-xf35mm-f14-vs-f2.html
http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-lIhBfLFjJPw/VOjmTfDRPOI/AAAAAAAADNU/kr7P6vioHV4/s1600/XF35_2.jpg