First Look: Fujinon XF 50-140mm F2.8 R LM OIS WR

115 Responses

1. I tried this lens in Yodobashi Camera last week. Quick focus, sharp, and for a bloke like me who feels like jello looking through EVFs at tele objects, it felt off. I felt off. Not the fault of the lens: the fault of the EVF. Another thing is that I never will get used to the heavy and fake feel of a fly-by-wire focus system. Good optics are awesome; bad feel is another.

   I think this lens will change things for the X system, but not fast enough. We need better ergonomics (buttons that feel different from one another, better tactile response, higher resolution EVF with MUCH faster refresh rates, etc.,) before lenses like this really convince.

   A step in the right direction though.

   Reply

   1. Have you tried the MF on the 14mm? That’s probably the best feeling fly-by-wire implementation Fuji have made so far. I agree the rest I’ve tried are rubbish, but the 14 is fairly close to the real thing with positive stops at each end.

      Reply

      1. I have tried the 14 on a number of occasions. It is a fine lens, but again, I can’t judge it unless from an optical standard. It produces amazing images.

         But, it feels very unlike a real mechanical lens. The clutch thing is hideous and you can’t flick focus with a finger like you can with equivalents on film.

         Basically, if the lens doesn’t feel or act like the lens it is supposed to emulate, why the illusion of mechanical parts? Why not just make look and act electronic? You can’t use it without electronic contacts, you can’t change focus or aperture, or even budge the lens from autofocus to manual without electric power… no free-lensing, no risers…

         Great optics. And that’s it.

         Reply

         1. Fair enough, you’re entitled to your opinion of course. I personally like the clutch and feel that the MF is pretty serviceable.

            Reply

            1. It is absolutely serviceable. But it is an alternative to a better method. I have no idea why mirrorless makers are crippling lenses this way. It is bad for stills; it is bad for video.

               It is cheaper to make and manufacture, but is bad for brand image.

               Whatever. Obviously there are loads of switcheroo customers who are waiting for something perfect and don’t mind the interim. I’m fine with that. Just not with fake.

               I guess my personal story gets in the way: I live in Japan and for years was surrounded with plastic/fake everything that was meant to look like real wood, real metal, real… something. I get sick when Japanese companies foist their junk designs on everyone else.

               Great optics that look like they’re housed in a real mechanical tube with mechanical controls. It makes no sense. It’s a design philosophy that belongs in the 1980s. Fake is fake. No amazing optic changes that.

               A brand that posits itself as premium shouldn’t follow the cheap trend and shouldn’t nod toward better workmanship without providing premium quality. Premium never is fake.

               And X shouldn’t be fake. As a fan, I stand by it and have a very hard time understanding why any other fan would support a system that rises on imitation whilst sacrificing utility.

            2. Woah! Didn’t realise I was opening such a large can of worms… 😉

               I imagine there may be a reason for the fly by wire, whether it be to keep motor size down or whatever. The good news is that minor focus adjustment is coming in the next firmware, so that should help solve one of your issues.

               It’s similar to the transition to fly-by-wire throttle in cars. At first it felt disconnected, but as car makers have learned lessons it’s got to the point that you wouldn’t notice (except when the car tells you off for trying to crash). Perhaps some of these lessons learned can be implemented by Fuji in lens firmware at a later date, who knows.

            3. I think the main difference with cars is that you are operating a single entity, slaved to a drivetrain, and that to parts that never come off (unless, as you hinted at, the car is falling apart).

               In an interchangeable lens system, an electronic system has NO user benefits vs. an electromechanical one. I am self-employed (audio and optical product still life photographer) so I understand that profit is a very important part of business. But I also understand that capturing the RIGHT customers, not just the MOST customers, is crucial to long-term success.

               I turn away customers that are not good for my business or for my brand. And I don’t feel that Fujifilm have any idea of who they want as customer apart from what appears to be a random (and very large) number generator appended to a beard machine.

               Again, I live in Japan. I hope that some Japanese company will start inventing rather than cheaping out. I hope because I see a very very bleak future here.

            4. I’m pretty sure it’s really hard to make an electromechanical auto-focus mechanical in a small package. You need strenght to move parts, you need small motors to achieve a compact design…

               Fly by wire is a compromise for compactness, fast auto-focus and manual focus. If you want mechanical manual focus, buy manual focus lenses.
               In my opinion, I prefer a compact lense with optional manual focus than bigger and more expensive one with electromechanical system…

            5. Yup, I reckon that’s pretty much the thought process of the Fuji engineers. Of course it doesn’t suit everyone – but what does?!

            6. Nothing should suit everyone. Niches exist for reasons. And Fujifilm are attending to one (the wow! I’ve got a mechanical camera — syke! group) while ignoring better, long-term customers.

               Engineers alone should never, ever, be in charge of projects. Ditto marketers. The two of them could put forth (and will) absolute bullocks, or poorly thought through interfaces painted over decent innards.

               The latter is the X system.

               The way to change that is engage Fujifilm as critics, not fanbois, not as drooling masses. But I rest my case. My voice is obviously minority here, if that.

            7. i partially agree with you about the feeling of MF but I don’t think that focus ring on X-line is a skeuomorphism.
               Is there a more ergonomic / intuitive place for a manual focus “button” than this one ?

               Trully speaking, I really like the feeling of my Rokkor lenses and the fact that I can read information on it while camera is off…

            8. I say it is a skeumorphism because it controls nothing on its own. Same with the aperture rings. I think we can all agree that that interface is a great system: ring for focus, ring for aperture. It’s been like that for decades. But removing parts, and functionality, and feel, while keeping the same look as a lens that hasn’t suffered a lobotomy, and marketing, and designing for the sake of nostalgia rather than utility (which is what skeumorphism does), isn’t just misleading.

               I didn’t understand part of your post: what is the ‘manual focus “button”‘ of which you speak?

               I’d like to know so that we can continue.

            9. all this exhausted venting.. while others are working through what’s at hand, turning out photos.

               and tutu probably meant “back-button AF” while in MF mode.

            10. Thanks for the explanation about the focus button.

                I guess that I don’t get what is wrong with what you call ‘venting’. Some of us are shooters, some of us are gear heads, some of are forum trawlers.

                I’m part of each. And, I’m a person that wishes for better. Why that is a problem for some people – and indeed, why it’s perfectly okay to pat makers on the back and not critically approach design practices – perplexes me.

            11. I have read your posts with interest here. I agree that there needs to be a more critical view on design choices and some (very few) of Fuji’s are perplexing. Fanboys are not useful (though I don’t think Rich was being one – nor do I think you suggested it!). Let’s all cool down here.

                I am pasting here a post made by ‘Spyro’ on this forum: http://www.fujix-forum.com/index.php/topic/14862-lenses-that-use-a-clutch-for-manual-focus/

                “I think (and this is just a guess), that the main benefit of the clutch mechanism from a design perspective, is that it switches from an AF focusing throw which needs to be as short as possible (to make AF fast) to a long MF focusing throw which needs to be long to make the distance scales usable and manual focusing accurate. To combine the two functions in one ring it means one of the two would need to be compromised.

                And indeed, I find the MF rings on AF Canon lenses that support full time manual terrible, if you look at the distance markings they are way too close to each other for fast and accurate zone & hyperfocal focusing.”

                Could this actually be an explanation of this particular design choice?

            12. On a somewhat unrelated note, a different design choice that has me scratching my head is the shutter dial and wheel implementation. If one wants to select in-between shutter speed values that are not on the dial, then the wheel can be used – but only for immediate values.

                For example, if I set the shutter spead to 1/500 and then use the wheel for a finer adjustment to 1/640, I cannot then keep using the wheel to go on to, say 1/1200. I would need to first take my eye off the viewfinder, move the dial to 1/1000 and then use the wheel again to go to my next desired shutter choice. This is an extremely poor way to shoot in situations where the light is dynamic and changing fast.

                But anyway, I digress! These are limitations that can be worked around, but they certainly need to be brought to the attention of Fuji.

            13. This is one of the insane inconsistencies that never even should have made it to the original X100. Again, Fujifilm not only rushed their products, they broke their own interface. I’ve been on and on about that for over a year now; it is nice to see another person that agrees.

                And still, with the X100T, that hasn’t been fixed. Leica have a wonderful method: half stops. And they move B, and T to a different control all together. Too many functions in the X series are crammed together, and then recklessly torn apart.

                But breaking your own interface… that is crazy.

            14. Where I believe that Fuji got their fly by wire design more refined and better is three fold
                – going all the way fly by wire and change the interface to be true to the form & function (from rings to something else) would be wrong IMHO force many to retrain on what is essencially a several decades long training; And would also shout ‘Cheap!’
                – Their lens are still very usable when switched to MF. Try a modern NIKON (the G type) lens in MF .. the ring travel is so ridiculously short that you can forget MF; Fuji improved a lot on that, showing that their engineers do care about the usability of a feature
                – Finally the new firware update which allows for MF fine tuning after AF has been engaged – This corresponds to Nikon’s most expensive lens for which they boast that feature. Feature which I personnally like a lot would not be feasible with a purely mechanical system. With Fuji every lens will allows this feature, I am happy for it especially since my outdated X-E1 will also get it!

            15. Sorry, it’snt clear. I mean in X-mount lenses; the ring is in fact an electronic button disguised in a mechanical focus ring.
                But the feeling and the ergonomics is better in my opinion that if it was two separate buttons (focus + / – ) and it handles acceleration too.

            16. Clearly you know better than Fuji. They should definitely bow to your superior knowledge. There’s no need to use the term “fanboi” when someone simply expresses an opinion in support of a product that they don’t see a real problem with. I simply acknowledge the fact that the people at Fuji know an awful lot more than you or I about designing cameras and lenses and I don’t try to pretend otherwise. If it doesn’t suit you, move on, simple as that. A great number of people couldn’t give a crap.

                I started out trying to offer a little help (suggesting you try the 14), which has rapidly turned into a one sided rant. Gosh the internet is an awful place…

            17. Rich, I don’t see how I caused you pain. If I did, for my part, I apologise. You started with a great suggestion, which I rebuffed. I’m a lad that sees little point in conflicting experience, and conflicting experience defines the current X series. I am more than willing to keep my opinion, as are you.

                No one berated another. I did not call you, or anyone else, a name. I said that we must interface with Fujifilm as critics. And I stand by that. They are getting a free ride just for their design and that design, while cute (and the reason I hope for better from them), is applied to methods of control and utility that are anything but uniform.

                No Fujifilm lens is equivalent to another. They each have different interfaces. You can’t grab a 14 and use it like you would a 35/1,4 despite both housing single aperture lenses, single focal lengths, and the same mount.

                I will go out on a limb and say this: that maybe I have thought more about interface than have Fujifilm. It doesn’t appear that they have invested much at all in designing a holistic system. Optics they can do. But so can anyone out there. And they started out sort of working on unique, simple interfaces, but bunged it from the very first because they wanted a system OUT right then, rather than a system out later that was designed from the ground up to make sense, and to be interoperable from the very first.

                And that saddens me.

            18. Fair enough. I may be a little over-sensitive at the moment as our toddler is not letting me sleep much! No harm, no foul.

                I agree that the system as a whole is not entirely cohesive and that this was probably due to a rush to the market after the success of the X100. They’ve made errors, but I think they are doing the right thing by trying to correct them, rather than proceed with the same mechanics for the sake of continuity. Had they had the time to really think about it, we may have seen a different product released as the XPro, but market pressure had an effect. I’m just happy that they are willing to admit failings and improve existing products as much as possible, rather than just releasing a new iteration as most other manufacturers do.

                It’s a relatively young system and if you look at other manufacturers, you can see similar confusion in philosophy (Olympus for example with some clutched lenses). Hopefully there will be a big refresh at some point of the lens lineup with a more coherent thread.

                I don’t think any system has developed quite so rapidly (except possibly in the m/43rds arena) and the growing pains are obvious!

                As I said, it really doesn’t bother me that much, but then I’ve not settled on any system (film or digital) for more than a few years before moving on (partly due to previously working in a camera shop). I’m hoping Fuji will be my “forever home”, just as contax would have been if it were not for the advent of digital.

            19. If manual focus is this important, it is unclear to me why wouldn’t you clap an adapted ZE prime or Leica M lens on it and call it a day? My old C/Y Zeiss adapt well and I love shooting them on the X-T1. But when I want AF, I pop on the Fujinon 23/1.4R, which is great for close quarters and street. Yet even the 23’s MF is better than on any of the studio’s Panasonic MFT lenses or Sony E-mounts. I’m guessing we’ll see more and not less of wire focus ring technology from all manufacturers in the future because of manufacturing cost and size.

                And it is also unclear to me who would run a project if engineering did not. Accounting? We have that already and call it “Canon Imaging, Inc.”

            20. Manual focus on AF lenses is direly important to me because every single AF-S lens I have used has been instantly overridable, had internal glass that moves with the focus ring no matter being attached or not being attached to a camera, and, while lacking hard stops, boasts soft stops that allow you to determine where the lens is focused.

                Engineering projects must be curbed. Engineers in general are geeks and are absolutely necessary to a project. But without interface designers and regular people that think of the HOW, not just the WHY, camera systems become what they are. Let me illustrate the problems with X which obviously got past because not enough people thought of HOW to use the system or of the system as a whole.

                1. lenses with aperture rings
                2. lenses without aperture rings
                3. lenses with labelled aperture rings
                4. lenses with unlabelled aperture rings
                5. lenses with full focus stops
                6. lenses without full focus stops
                7. lenses with distance labels on the barrel
                8. lenses without distance labels on the barrel

                I could go on. That is 8 different interfaces for a system not even 3 years old. It is quite obvious that interface designers were NOT consulted, or that the wrong interface designers were consulted.

                If you knew me, you would know that I dislike the modern 35mm dSLR from any manufacturer. I appreciate good, forward-thinking design. You don’t find it from Nikon or Canon or Pentax.

                And I will argue that Fujifilm are missing the boat with their current designs. They sometimes have the look, but they don’t have the followthrough or patience to make smoothly operable interfaces that stand the test of time. Instead, they tweak because they have to; because they ignored, or didn’t hire the right interface engineers/designers and let spec and ‘what if’ thinkers reign free.

            21. That is a fair assessment. The problem is that today’s fly-by-wire systems are in no way smaller than their electromechanical cousins in F and EF and other mounts. We are buying, and using, lenses of similar size that provide similar images, and weigh almost as much, and cost more.

                Again, there are NO advantages to the end customer for fly-by-wire lenses. Not one. There are no backups, no failsafes, no ways to interface without electronics. And yet X lenses LOOK like they are mechanical.

                It is skeuomorphism, and skeuomorphism has been out of date since the late 1980s. It was never a good idea, and is a worse idea today.

                I am impressed that the support for it isn’t support for it, but support for Fujifilm. If Fujifilm brought forth properly made lenses that did and acted exactly as they were designed, skeuo-fans would switch sides.

                Again, great optics, poor interface.

            22. I agree 100% with you, sadly, you too have been in Japan long enough to realize way most Japanese companies do business today. Sadly this will not change.

            23. Amen! I’d be more than willing to shell out a little extra for a well-made mechanical lens. It’s the one reason i continue to save up (for a leica? Or learn to love my Canons?) instead of immediately buying into the X system. The focus-by-wire thing just feels cheap and sad.

                ONE good 35mm (50mm equivalent) would do it. (and if it could be f/1.2, all the better.)

            24. Eventually, the market will realise that today’s crop of mirrorless cameras are doing nothing truly different. They are employing different technology only. It is just dSLR stuff put into pre-digital size SLR bodies and using electronics.

                To tell you the truth, I’m this close to giving up on mirrorless makers for just this reason. And on dSLRs. And I can admit I did the typical mirrorless thing: buy a model, then buy its upgrade. In four years, mirrorless gearheads will easily have spent what it costs, and more, to get a Leica, but will still say that they saved money.

                I probably have said it, too.

                That’s all to say that our ways of thinking are similar. Except that I don’t dig large lenses, so a 35/1,2 wouldn’t be my cup of tea.

            25. if you were going to only manually focus anyway, why not get that leica lens and add to an X body?

      2. If you’re using MF, you should also consider a half-price, faster Rokinon 12mm f/2.0. Current on sale @ BHPhoto for $320.

         Reply

         1. The problem with MF lenses is that lenses have to be focused wide open, then manually stopped down in order to obtain best sharpness on the intended focal plane. The only non-native lenses that sort of work are Olympus’s original Pen F lenses with an instant aperture preview button located on the lens.

            If non-native manual focus lenses worked as well on the X (or other mirrorless mounts) as they did on their native mounts, I’d be as giddy as a school boy.

            Loxia seems an interesting compromise.

            Reply

            1. Have you ever looked at older lens designs with presets (for ex the Russian made ones, MIR as an example) with two aperture rings : on the first one you preset the desired aperture – it will act as a block; with the second you open wide, focus and close down to the blocked value; it is a quite efficient process add to that 20 blades which gives an almost perfectly circular opening; Worth a look imho. Only drawback – it is build like a tank and weights a ton 🙂

            2. I’ll have to check them out. I’m not a big collector of lenses, but I am interested in what’s out there. Thank you.

   2. The fly-by-wire focus looked indeed weird to me at first, but hey, I’m able to achieve precise focus with only one finger on my XF 23mm 1.4! Being a result oriented person, that’s actually all I could wish from a lens 🙂

      Reply

      1. I appreciate results. I think we all do. But that is only ONE part of the equation and only one part of a good product. The truth is that in both the audio and photo worlds, good results are pretty easy to come by. Put enough good people behind a project and they come through.

         What’s hard to crack is great interfaces, and grabbing long-term customers.

         If Fujifilm’s customers are interested in results, Fujifilm are in for tough times. The next competitor that comes along with better, or with equal results, for less, or within a cooler form factor, will take their customers away.

         As much as we X shooters like to think that we are different, we are not. We are the same group that choose Olympus or Sony, but we have a Fujifilm slant. Fujifilm are not doing enough different, and not attracting a different type of customer.

         Faking it isn’t a good way to go.

         No fly-by-wire provides the feedback, speed, or instinct that even crappy-feeling electromechanical lenses can. That that hasn’t prevailed upon Fujifilm’s design is crazy.

         But it’s obvious that my way of thinking is completely opposite to that of this forum’s.

         Reply

         1. This is so true. Although I could care less about the focus feel personally, I’d gladly add some more weight to my X-T1s if they had metal dials and switches.

            Reply

            1. And better-placed buttons, not to mention buttons that feel different depending on their function. Too much attention has been paid to making things work however the photographer wants them to and not enough on specifics that allow one X photographer to pick up the X of another user and immediately know HOW to use the camera. Fujifilm, too, are giving into the easiest and oldest design fault: let the user decide.

               If that’s the mantra, there is no reason to do real research on HOW to make better interfaces. Instead, throw in a number of programmable functions, the more the better, and let things go the way they will. It is negligent design.

            2. – Using the x30 as a benchmark (and baring in mind that I never had the x-t1 in hand) they have managed to have different sizes and heights for most of the buttons, which came in very handy.
               – I agree and disagree at the same time to your ‘negligent design’ it is to a point, but even the best (Longest/most expensive) design research cannot satisfy both you, me and 1000000 others; look at the money spend by Microsoft and hear the complaints on their most recent products aka results of design and ergonomics: So I am not sure that there is a real satifying answer here; I could be better it won’t be perfect

            3. Microsoft design and research largely are listless. They want customers, and lots of them, but don’t think about what _sort_ of customer. Just many, and as soon as possible. That is their failing. Without the design constraints imposed by a target customer (age/income/location/epicurean/practical, etc.), you get bad design- design that is aimed at nothing at all but more customers.

               Fujifilm are a bit better aimed than Microsoft, but in the camera world, only high-end makers have any aim at all above _more_ customers. Fujifilm would do well to study not what other Japanese makers are doing and pointing (not one has a clear direction), but study brands from abroad as once they did.

               Insularity breeds complacence.

            4. ” Insularity breeds complacence. ”
               Very true

2. Great lens!

   But the looks in combination with the body are way ugly and totally unbalanced (almost crippled). In this respect the NX1 with 50-150 mm looks much better and balanced. So, with respect to aesthetics Fuji should have designed the 50-140 better.

   But with the X-T1 you can go small with the primes, a thing which is impossible with the NX1. I hope the X-T1 + grip with the 16-55 F2.8 looks better now that they have stripped of the IBIS (IQ will be great too, out of question).

   Reply

   1. Last alinea read OIS in stead of IBIS !

      Reply

3. In my opinion, if you tested the lens 2 years ago, with a
   T1, so both pre-production items, you can really give a good feedback.

   You say that the AF
   is slow and the T2 and PRO2 will improve. I think that it’s really possible
   that the lens and camera you tried 2 years ago are different in technical part
   and firmware of the one that are in the market now.

   These are just my two cent.

   Cheers

   Piero

   Reply

   1. It says a couple of weeks ago, not years.

      Reply

      1. Sorry, my mistake!!!

         Reply

   2. I never said that the AF is slow. I said that I didn’t feel it to be faster than other XF zooms (I happen to own all of them). That said, an X-T1 with firmware 1.10 certainly isn’t the limit of camera AF performance that Fuji will ever achieve, since we know that firmware 3 (and possibly even version 2) will feature some improvements. Not to mention new cameras like the X-Pro2 and X-T2 that will eventually emerge. The 50-140 isn’t a short-lived lens, it’s here to stay (and be competitive) for a few years, so I fully expect the current bodies to be the bottleneck when it comes to AF speed.

      Reply

      1. Do you have a graphite XT1 to try it on?

         Reply

         1. I don’t have the lens, and I don’t have a graphite X-T1.

            Reply

4. Well congrats to Rico, he’s the first tester I’ve seen who hasn’t made this lens look like a turd.

   Reply

   1. Perhaps what he’s trying to say is: thanks for the honest review that covers both pros and cons, instead of the over-the-top, too-good-to-be-true, gushing fan-boy reviews that are out there.

      Reply

      1. Quite right. I’m much more willing to trust a review that’s honest about shortcomings (no product is perfect) than one that looks like it’s been written by someone on the company payroll.

         Lens design is about choices and compromises, and all I want as a consumer is an honest assessment of the design choices made.

         Reply

5. While you complain about the size and weight, let’s remember that it would have been difficult to make this lens much smaller while retaining good image quality and stabilization. The closest comparable lens is the Sigma 50-150 f/2.8 OS for Nikon and Canon DSLRs. Both lenses provide excellent sharpness, autofocus, and stabilization (read the reviews of the Sigma, it’s a very impressive lens). The older non-stabilized Sigma 50-150 f/2.8 and the old Tokina/Pentax 50-135 f/2.8 are both smaller, but don’t provide stabilization, and the image quality of these lenses is relatively poor compared to the modern Sigma and Fuji.

   Comparing the Fuji to the Sigma:

   * the Sigma weighs 1340g vs. 995g for the Fuji – the Fuji is 25% lighter!

   * the Sigma is 86mm in diameter and 198mm long, vs. 83mm and 176mm long for the Fuji – the Fuji is 3% smaller in diameter and 11% shorter!

   * the Sigma has a bit better magnification at 0.16x (80cm minimum focus distance), but not much better than the Fuji’s 0.12x (100cm MFD). So the Fuji has about a 25% longer MFD. For comparison, a typical 70-200 2.8 has an MFD of about 120-140cm.

   * the Sigma has a bit more range 50-150 instead of 50-140. So the Fuji appears to have 10% less zoom range in mm. But that doesn’t tell the real story. Sigma’s AOV is 27.9° to 9.5°, or 18.4° of range. Fuji’s AOV is actually wider: 31.7° to 11.6°, or 20.1° of range. So really, the Fuji has about 9% more total zoom range.

   * the Sigma has 21 Elements in 15 Groups, and the Fuji has 23 elements in 16 groups. Both have six low-dispersion elements. The lens construction diagrams are pretty similar as well.
   Summary:

   So what can we take away from this analysis? The Fuji weighs about 25% less than the Sigma, and is 11% shorter, but has 9% more zoom range (albeit with a 25% longer MFD). Overall, this is a pretty impressive engineering result for a difficult-to-design class of lens, especially considering the very high image quality of the Sigma as a benchmark.

   Reply

6. Nice review Rico!

   I think the main questions are to do with comparing it with its DSLR counterparts, because lets face it, it has the same usage. Is it heavier to carry around that lens with an XT-1 or say the Nikon D610 with the 70-200 f2.8 or indeed the f4 lens? Both stunning lenses. This XF lens would probably give the same DoF as the f4 which has a 4 stop VR also. It’s defo not a carry around but for a very specific usage, mainly sport. This XF lens is a little more expensive than the 70-200 f4 as well.

   So the real question becomes: Do you buy this lens for an X-series or the DSLR counterpart for the DSLR? Personally I would love for this XF lens to be the answer as at sports events, it would be nicer to have the smaller set up. If it AF tracks very well aswell, then thats another reason not to go for the bigger set up!

   Either way looks like it gives beautiful results.

   Reply

7. “That said, it’s still lighter and smaller than comparable DSLR equipment”

   Not really. More expensive, too, by about 50% right now.

   The Canon 70-200/4 IS is 76.2 x 172.7 mm versus 82.9 X 175.9 mm for the 50-140. The Canon also weighs less, at 726 grams versus 995 g. And list price is $1300, versus $1600 for the Fuji lens. On top of that, you can currently get the Canon for $200 off, so only $1100. And, you can actually *get* it, not just pre-order it.

   Now, if you are talking about the Canon (or Nikon, I would guess) 70-200/2.8, sure. But that is a much faster lens.

   Reply

   1. Just because the DOF may be equivalent with the f4 Canon, the Fuji lens share the ‘fastness’ aka the light gathering properties of the Nikon 70-200 f2.8.

      Reply

      1. Nope, sorry. They share the same exposure, but the 70-200/2.8 gathers more than twice the light of the 50-140/2.8.

         Reply

         1. Sorry, but you´re not right.
            All F2,8 lenses gather same amount of light.
            The equivalent DOF: F2,8 for full frame sensor = F4,2 for APS-C sensor.

            Reply

            1. Eh, well, believe what you want. But at the same aperture setting (2.8 versus 2.8) and angle-of-view (‘equivalent focal length’), the lens on the 35mm camera gathers more than twice the light. If you stop it down to give the same equivalent aperture (the 4.2 versus 2.8), then it gathers the same amount of light, because the actual aperture opening is the same size.

            2. That’s not really a useful number for anything. Exposure is, that’s why they list it on the barrel of the lens

            3. I have no idea what number you are talking about. And I have never seen ‘exposure’ written on the end of a lens, lol. It also depends on shutter speed and ISO. And that last one is what is impacted by the total light gathered: for the same ‘exposure, where shutter speed, aperture, and ISO are the same, there is about 1/2 the noise on a 35mm sensor as on an APS-C. Else, why not just shoot with a 1/2.3 sensor in one of the zooms with fast lens? The new iPhone has an aperture of 2.2, so should be even better than the 50-140/2.8, other than being able to change the focal length, right?

            4. “amount of light gathered” is a meaningless number. Aperture (which you actually use to get an exposure) is not.

            5. No, amount of light gathered is not meaningless, it determines your noise levels.

               I mean really, are you saying that the Canon PowerShot G7 X, with a 1″ sensor and a 1.8-2.8 lens, takes the same picture at 100mm (35mm equivalent) as a Fuji X-T1 with the 50-150/2.8 at 100mm (35mm equivalent)? And the same as a medium format camera at 2.8, at 100mm (35mm equivalent)?

            6. Relax !

            7. Caerolle has a very good point.

            8. Caerolle, how about de noise? Bigger sensor means more noise, right?! So, S/N ratio would be the same…

            9. Nope. Noise is random, and averages out to some degree. Signal is in one direction only. This can also be seen practically, by comparing images shot at the same exposure settings. Or, more generally, think about reviews of cameras, and at what ISO the reviewer starts talking about high noise. For compacts, it tends to be only a few hundred, for APS-C a few thousand, and for 35mm several thousand.

            10. hmm. What? Signal, is not in one direction only. You may take your measurement using only one half of it. but the other half is there. Unles you clip it. Take your pick.

                http://www.cambridgeincolour.com/tutorials/image-noise.htm

            11. When making a SN measurement you are measuring the signal that is prevalent in your system, above the known constant noise level. The noise floor is always there, no matter how minute. The signal has positive and negative components. You may decide later to use only one half. Depending on the application.

            12. How does a light signal have a negative? Electric signals certainly can, or other physical properties that can have positive and negative qualities. But light intensity goes from zero to something above zero.

            13. Now we’re getting in light propagation and photonics. The visible light waves are just a portion of the entire electromagnetic spectrum. When the wavefront of a band of visible light is incident on specially
                doped silicon semiconductor materials, a variable number of electrons
                are released in proportion to the photon flux density incident on the
                surface of a photodiode. Both halves of the incident wave may be analysed on a optical spectrum analyzer or spectroscope. To understand how the incident planes of the waves are processed in the image cmos you might review digital imaging theory of cmos sensors. The wave front is not nice an tidy as in a mere perfect sine wave though, and it gets defracted as it hits the sensor. Wave optics, CMOS sensors.

                http://www.siliconimaging.com/ARTICLES/CMOS%20PRIMER.htm

                http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1304/1304.7339.pdf

            14. Yes, signal (in-coming light) is in one direction only, unless you are taking photos in a black hole which is sucking the light out of the camera. I think you are talking about dynamic range, maybe, and that you essentially only have so much bandwidth, so you have to choose what part of the signal you lose, the lower-intensity or the higher-intensity parts?

            15. The “noise figure” number used to determine you SN ratio is a constant. Its the inherent noise that is known to be in your system. It is a “Constant”. Not considered to be random when determining the SN ratio.

            16. It’s quite meaningful if you care about S/N ratio.

            17. This is a good explanation of the matter: http://admiringlight.com/blog/full-frame-equivalence-and-why-it-doesnt-matter/

                It depends heavily on the sensors compared as to how equivalent they are. But a blanket 1.5x more light statement for full frame vs. APS-C isn’t realistic.

            18. If we are trading links, try this one:

                http://www.dpreview.com/articles/2666934640/what-is-equivalence-and-why-should-i-care

                And it is over twice the light, not 1.5. The 1.5 is a multiplier for focal length and aperture. So, for example, 50/2.8 on APS-C corresponds to 75/4.2 on 35mm.

                By the way, the article you linked talks about comparing sensor generations, and warns against comparing, for example, current generations of a smaller sensor with an older one of 35mm. The smaller sensors do tend to ‘punch above their weight’, but the difference is still there.

                And the total light difference is a physical thing, no matter whether the sensor efficiency is the same or not. If you used the exact same film in a 35mm camera and in an APS-C one, with the same exposure settings, then made prints of the same size, there would be twice as much noise in the pictures from the APS-C camera. Of course, one point they were making in the Admiringlight link was that it may not matter, depending on what you are doing with the picture, and under what conditions you are shooting.

         2. Yes, total light, but what counts is the total light per unit sensor area, which is the the same for every lens with f2.8.

            Reply

            1. Of course talking about equivalence here!
               1 mm rain = 1 liter/sq.m^2

            2. Interesting:

               https://photographylife.com/sensor-crop-factors-and-equivalence

               .

            3. Not so light, that is a well-written piece. If you ever shoot much medium format film, you confront these differences more abruptly. It’s not about light or even perceived DOF but image perspective as a standard 6×6 lens is 80 or 85mm and 95 to 105 on 6×7, which would be a portrait on FF and short telephoto on APS-C. All will yield similar DOF, but, ah, the crop. You know, that “full frame look,” he chuckles to self and clicks off another shot on the Rollei.

               If what Caerolle said was true, then you could not use a light meter. Remember those? Light meters are the honeybadger of optics: they don’t care about crops or focal lengths. (BTW if you need a light meter still, get a Lumu, they are the bomb.) And if you don’t know about the Honeybadger you can google it in the context of LSU football.

            4. If you put the exact same lens on different cameras you get different pictures. That is a different thing. Who does that? Do you use medium format lenses on a medium format body and a crop sensor to shoot the same thing?

               And using a light meter does not contradict anything I have said. It works from a cameraphone through a 35mm sensor, and I am assuming for medium and large format, too. If you use 2.8 and the same shutter speed and ISO on them all, you will get roughly the same exposure (except for camera that misrepresent their ISO, we won’t get into that). And yes, if you use the exact same lens, then your DOF and noise will be the same, because your aperture opening is the same size.

               However, if you want to keep your angle-of-view the same, so you use different lenses on the two cameras to achieve that, if you use the same aperture, shutter, and ISO, your DOF, and just as significantly, if not more so, your noise level, will be less with larger sensors than with smaller ones. And it isn’t just about comparing 35mm with everything else, but comparing any two sensor sizes, to figure out how to get images with the same perspective, exposure, DOF, and noise on two different systems, given that the sensors have similar efficiencies, and the lenses have similar transmissivities.

               If you only shoot one system, who cares, you know what kind of picture you can get. If you shoot multiple systems, but no others, you still know. However, in the context of the statement that the 50-150/2.8 is smaller and lighter than its *comparable* 35mm lens, it *is* important. For example, it tells me that I could buy a 70-200/4 for my camera, and get the same kind of pictures I could get with the 50-150. If I compare it with the 70-200/2.8, then I know that I can get more shallow DOF, and more importantly to me, if I am not DOF limited, I can shoot at higher ISO.

               That helps me make informed decisions about, for example, should I buy an X-T1 and a 50-150. Other people can do what they want, I don’t care, and am not telling anyone they shouldn’t do that. In fact, even at the same size and price, there are a *lot* of other differentiating features (some people love those dedicated dials, some people love the EVF, and so forth) that may make someone choose the Fuji system. We all have to make the trade-offs that work best for each of us.

            5. I guess I just don’t really think that much about sensor equivalencies and the like because I’ll bring a different piece of equipment based on what I’m trying to accomplish. I generally *prefer* a larger sensor which is one of several reasons (other than sheer enjoyment) of shooting film I shoot medium format. But you are right certainly in that if you are thinking about buying into one specific system then equivalencies will matter. But 2.8 is 2.8 forever and I think that is where some may find your (and many others’) equivalency argument confusing. Equivalency is by definition comparing different focal lengths, to which I shrug because it is not how I think about the physics of it when I shoot.

               And no, I don’t put medium format lenses on crop sensors (though it is possible to do nowadays) but if a lens has an interesting look, I’ll use it. Almost always a prime. Usually in a cinematic context. Like I’ll put a 50mm ZE/1.4 on a GH4 and use it as a tight A-camera on an interview shoot, etc. It has to be further away, but the GH4 has other positive aspects in my work, so I deal with the sensor. Would I rather have GH4 performance on a big sensor with a couple of key features? (battery life and record time, especially) You bet.

               For what its worth, I’d probably never buy this lens. Not because it is expensive or whatever, but because unless something radical happens, I have no real use for it! 😉

            6. What will be your next camera ?

            7. Of course that Canikon fighter missed the X-PRO2 guy on the left of the image! No ?

               I know off topic, Caerolle sorry, this reply has nothing tot do with your quote above. I should have placed it elsewhere.

            8. That counts for exposure, or ‘brightness’ of the image. The larger sensor collects more light, which is more signal, so you have more signal to noise at the same exposure settings. Or are you saying that one of the superzooms with a 2.8 lens takes the same picture as your Fuji, other than perhaps sharpness?

            9. Caerolle, you’re right about that Signal to Noise Ratio.

      2. this matter has been put to rest http://www.dpreview.com/articles/2666934640/what-is-equivalence-and-why-should-i-care

         Reply

   2. You have to include the camera in your size/weight/cost comparison for it to be meaningful.

      Reply

      1. My impression was that he was referring to the lens. If you compare with a camera attached, it is still surprisingly close, if you compare the 6D and the X-T1, not so close if you use the 5D and X-E2:

         Body Price Weight
         6D $2700 1496 g
         5D $4200 1676 g

         X-E2 $2400 1345g
         X-T1 $2800 1435g

         Prices are current ones at B&H Photo, all have discounts ATM.

         No way am I going to try to compare overall sizes, lol. However, given that the 50-150 is only a bit bigger than the 70-200/4, and the 6D and especially 5D are considerably bigger, I would say that the Canon set-ups would be somewhat larger, especially the 5D set-up.

         Reply

         1. So, as I suspected, when comparing the system, the Canon loses the advantage.

            In my experience, I have also found the fuji x system more reliable. Not had to get a single lens serviced or repaired yet (after 2 wedding seasons with fuji). Used to spend £hundreds on the Canon L lenses every year to keep them going. Not to mention a 5D2 that look a slight knock and required a £800 overhaul!

            Reply

            1. Well, it depends on what your criteria are. My point was not one system is better than another, anyhow. It was just that if you look at ‘comparable’ lenses, the size, weight, and cost is not necessarily in the direction you might think.

               The m4/3 people love to do this, too (in fact they are the champions at it, I think). They have a new 35-100/2.8 or some such coming out, and of course they compare that to 70-200/2.8 lenses on 35mm bodies, and will compare it to the Fuji 50-150/2.8, to laugh at people who use those ‘big, expensive, systems.’ At least you can all make fun of those flipping mirrors and large, heavy bodies together, though! Well, as long as you don’t compare with the Sony a7 models, at least…

            2. Well you make a good and fair point about lens equivalence, although it’s worth bearing in mind the Canon lens is a lot older than the Fuji, and the Fuji lens will probably come down in price quite a lot once the early adopter premium disappears.

               As somebody who has taken hundreds of thousands of images with both X system and Canon Full Frame DSLRs, I can see pros and cons for both. But I think the mirrorless cameras are rapidly catching up in terms of AF, once that advantage has gone, and as EVFs continue to improve, it seems to me that it is inevitable that DSLR type cameras will eventually become obsolete, and so will all those lenses designed for those systems.

               There is a FF/crop debate to be had of course. But for me the reason I used FF on Canon was that all their best lenses were designed for FF. With the Fuji system they have some fantastic lenses purpose built for the sensor size. I miss the shallow DoF a bit, but the portability and unobtrusiveness of cameras like the X100s more than make up for that for what I do.

            3. I will be glad when the mirrorless *do* catch up. I actually want to have a mirrorless system, preferably APS-C with fast primes. Kinda like Fuji. I don’t really care about zooms, and the fast Fuji primes do all I want (I don’t need 1.2 on 35mm, 2ish is fast enough).

               I actually had a Fuji and several lenses at one point, and moved to my Canon system a little over a year ago. Just too many downsides in the Fuji system for me then, and still now—I rented an X-T1 and some lenses (including the 56) a few months ago, but still don’t like the system. Maybe someday, or maybe someone else will make something that works for what I need.

               One lesson I really, really learned in my time with mirrorless (the Fuji and a Sony NEX before that) was that you can’t shoot what a camera company promises, or may make someday. And stuff costs what it costs now, not what it will cost 10 years from now, when production costs come down. Those are the reasons I currently have a Canon system, even though I would prefer something else.~

            4. The X-T1 was a huge step up from the X-E1s we used previously. With the X-E1 we had to use MF for aisle shots etc. (or the X100s), but with the T1 we could use the AFC mode and it works as well as our old 5D2 used to. That gives me a lot of confidence in their ability to make more improvements with the next iteration, especially as new sensors will be designed with on sensor PDAF built in from the start.

               When we were using the E1s as our main cameras, there were a lot more compromises to make, although this was offset by the advantages of smaller size and weight. But those compromises are almost gone now.

               The main issue for some people used to DSLRs may be the interface, with manual dials for ISO/Aperture/shutter instead of a PASM dial. I much prefer the fuji interface, but it’s a matter to taste really.

         2. you forgot to add that to use this on Fuji, people probably would attache a vertical grip, or at least an extra hand grip. which adds to the weight of resulting Fuji package

            Reply

            1. IMHO: Fuji provides you OPTIONS and CHOICE; We do have fairly small and fairly light high-quality fixed lens, there are also a couple of zooms of varying aperture, weight and size; There are small and light bodies with integrated lens (X100x, X30) medium cost interchangeable lens (XE-2) and high-end bodies XPRO1 and X-T1;

               The X line is still a very young system, I /personnally/ do not see any reason to complain;

               Had Fuji produced and all plastic ultra light 50-150 zoom – many would be up in arms: Plastic does not cut it! Had they produced a very small 50-150 (if that is even possible) many would complain that it does not balance well on the bodies and for such a long lens it is too light to help the photographer to be stable. How can they win ?

         3. Pentax K3 + 50-135mm $1842 1484g

            If Fuji wants to compete directly with DSLR, this lens is absolutely perfect.
            But if they want to take advantage of the smaller size and weight of mirrorless cameras then this is obviously not the right lens.
            What about for example a 55-135mm f2.8-4 or even f4 ? The next Fujirumors lens poll will tell if size and weight are still important for mirrorless users. 😉

            Reply

8. Got this lens today! great impression. Some noise while working, and some moving noise while powered off, but it is normal. Funny moment. According to the current currency exchange rate, in Russia this lens costs 1350USD

   Reply

   1. Yes, the OIS is clearly audible.

      Reply

      1. Only start/stop, or for the whole duration?

         Reply

         1. whole duration, even if it is turned off

            Reply

            1. I guess asking about battery life would be pointless then.

   2. I have the noise as well. I thought it was something wrong with my lens and perhaps it is. I don’t like it regardless. It’s not the OIS, because switching it on or off doesn’t matter. I want it to be fixed.

      Reply

9. I personally feel that Fuji is losing the point for the compact camera. I would like to see smaller compact lenses. 24mm F2 75mm F2.8 Micro exc.

   Reply

   1. We already have a 23mm 1.4, 23mm 2.0 (on the x100 series), and 60mm 2.4 macro, so you’re pretty much covered there.

      I don’t think they are missing the point at all. The point is that if the X system and other mirrorless systems are the future for photography, now that the mirror is no longer advantageous, these new mirrorless systems need to be able to do everything that DSLR systems can currently do. That includes telephoto wide aperture lenses which are quite sizeable.

      We may even get some bigger cameras, I use a grip on my X-T1, I wouldn’t be at all surprised to see a future high end X series camera with an inbuilt grip, like a scaled down 1D style camera. It would be a great combo with the larger lenses.

      Reply

      1. I am slowly converting from Nikon D800 and a lot Nikkor glass. I just got tired of dragging all the heavy gear around. I have a XT-1 and an XE-1 and the original trilogy lenses plus the 55-200. I do understand your point. I guess I was disappointed with size of the 23mm 1.4. I use the 27mm 2.8 on the XE-1. My next lens is the 140-400!!!!
         Happy Shooting

         Reply

         1. 23mm f/2 will never happen, even though it could, because it would take a ton of sales away from the x100/x100S/x100T, Fuji’s most popular line.
            So, either buy an x100, or buy a 23mm/1.4 (and deal with the size and cost) or use the small 18mm/2 or 27mm/2.8 lenses. But 23mm f2 makes no sense for Fuji to ever, ever release.

            Reply

            1. Anyway If you are shooting high school sports the 50-140 would be a must have !!

   2. I agree. The whole reason for my going toward Fuji was compactness and high quality. A small light 55-140/f3.5 – f4.5 would have been much more welcome. I still have my heavy and large FF DSLR. Duplicating that size and weight with Fuji lenses is not expanding our options.

      Reply

      1. A lens that covers that range and aperture already exists in the 55-200mm f3.5-4.8. At 135mm its max aperture is f4.4. In my case Fuji X is my only system. It’s all about having options.

         Reply

      2. What is the issue here? You’ve got the 56, 60, and 55-200. Lots of options considering how young this system is.

         Reply

   3. Fuji has 18/2 and 60/2.8. That’s the same you need. And they are quite compact. Yes 60/2.8 is not a great lens. It’s has slow AF and max 1:2 mag. I think we’ll see a reincarnation of this lens in some time in smth like 70/2.8 OIS 1:1. Fuji has high demand on macro lenses and they definitely know that.

      Reply

10. Interesting that the bookeh looks nice on these shots. Some other examples on the web had been sharpened too much I think, which can make the bokeh look strange.

    Reply

11. All these (equivalence) discussions about weight/balance/size of this 50-140 f2.8 tells me that this lens needs a X-PRO2 !

    In that respect, I think, the X-T1 is better suited for the 55-200mm f3.5-4.8 with/without grip.

    Reply

12. Funny how the concern trolling over the “horrible bokeh” has simply evaporated after seeing these test shots (which, btw, have been out for quite a while).

    Reply

13. Photography is a whole more than just ” Bokeh ” . I would like to see that this lens does with fast action sports. I do not think this big lens was just designed as portrait lens

    Reply