According to an anonymous source, Fuji has once more postponed the announcement XF 18-135. The source says that it is now set to “mid June”. Shipping will be in July.
Please keep in mind that announcement dates are one of trickiest part of rumors, as Fuji can change them in any moment. But time is near :-).
85 Responses
What a crappy lens.
if I may ask : based on ?
There are no crappy lenses, only crappy photos and overpriced lenses. ^^
Wow! You’re clairvoyant! You know how the lens will perform even before it’s officially announced! Please, what’s the winning lotto numbers for today? I better tap into this amazing power while I have a chance.
no just a pro for over 15 years
I am so sorry for your hypothetical customers, it’s pretty evident in this thread that you haven’t a clue what are you talking about.
Amazing how many people on this site are clueless.
a pro that doesn’t know how apertures work in terms of how it relates to shutter speed…
Just like all the other ‘pros’ here who need full frame but have no idea of the basics of photography.
Hahahahahah. You guys are amatures hahahahaha crazy what you find on these sites
I’m not even sure why I’m replying but OK here we go. Let say you have a 50mm f.18 lens on a FF body. When you put that exact same lens on a APSC body, it is still the same lens but the FOV changes. The actual lens does NOT get darker as you mentioned in a previous post. You would NOT have to compensate by increasing shutter speed or ISO. It is still the same lens with the same light gathering capabilities.
And your photos are not that good, there are just a lot of amateurs here that are easily impressed with landscape photography.
Based on the fact that the range of the zoom is huge and it’s really like a f5.6 to almost f11 and will loose quality at the zoom extremes due to the range. Sorry not your light gathering prodigy here.
Back when I was working in populous outdoor event/school studios, we used 28-300 VR zooms from Nikon. Yep, the crappy ones. And guess what? The photos were amazing. This will be a great lens.
A bit of softness here or distortion there will never show up in any of that you will usually take.
I Bet!!!!
Just about anything can deliver great results in bright sunlight these days.
Hello,
Ok, to shorten that discussion I would like to give you a simplified view from an Optical Engineer with Phd done 10 years ago here in Germany. Yes, that’s me.
18mm are 18mm and F3.5 is f3.5. period. Then we have of course the field of view and the depth of field. Both is depends on the diagonal of the sensor.
After that you have your shutter speed, which more or less only depends on brightness and F-stop. Here does the sensor size plays no role, its not part of the function.
If one don’t understand optical rules one can come to the conclusion that a 18mm f3.5 on APS is gathering less light then a 27mm f3.5 on Fullframe(which by the way is the most stupid term for a sensor size, but ok) as the able to read photo geek knows that the size of lens pupil is a function of focal length and aperture. Well, this is correct, but the 18mm f3.5 has to illuminate a much smaller area, therefore is the light gathering for the purpose identical to the 27mm f3.5 on fullframe
… Ipad issues … So I continue here.
So, that’s roughly how it is. Everything else is internet nonsense.
I typed the stuff on my ipad, so please excuse typos or stupid grammer 😉
Regards,
Peter
I don’t think anyone is arguing those points. Someone was sad that this lens wasn’t a faster lens. Another equated it with crap. I said it would probably be fine. Everyone knows a 3,5 is a 3,5 and that DOF is a function of the sensor size.
But the sensor size plays a large role in determining the LOOK of the output. APS-C 35/1,4 gives the look of FF 50/2. This idea that we have as deep of bokeh, etc., in our APS-C lenses and that these lenses are cheaper, smaller, or lighters, is wrong.
I don’t think anyone who rubs belligerent about focal lengths really cares about light gathering capabilities. No one is confused about that.
But everyone seems to think that a 56/1,2 will give the look of an 85/1,2 on FF. It won’t. We shouldn’t be happy that our 56/1,2 is cheaper and lighter than Canon’s 85/1,2. The look the lens produces is similar to the Nikon 85/1,8 but it is much more expensive and about the same size/weight.
But that’s not important for anyone here. Here we just argue about ISO and light for some reason.
No one cares about look.
When we go on about slow lenses, I can only think that slow crazy zoom lenses like the 18-135, is great for doing most of what you need in one lens at specific events.
P mode, flash, and that lens produces amazing photos of the most boring kind. I can’t believe people bought our images, but they did/do. But no problems with the 28-300 that gets ragged on all the time. I expect Fujifilm to be as good.
I know you know what you are talking about. But there are people who ARE confused about it. My complaint with your post is again, that you are a little inexact with your formulation. And for people that haven’t figured out the optical rules yet, this can be a little confusing.
“We shouldn’t be happy that our 56/1,2 is cheaper and lighter than Canon’s 85/1,2. The look the lens produces is similar to the Nikon 85/1,8”
Here your did it again: you let the sensor out of the equation. (Although you mentioned in the sentence before.) A 56/1.2 on APS-C will “look” like an 85/1.8 on a Full Frame camera with respect to field of view and depth of field.
Again, I know you know it better, but somebody might be led to believe he can put a 85/1.8 on his D7000 and it will look the same as the 56/1.2 on a Fuji.
These “equivalences” can be a bit confusing for beginners, if they are not handled with care. 😉
And on the other hand, if the 56/1.2 is “worth” more than any 85/1.8 is on a whole other page. I don’t doubt it.
I typed from my bed. I have to stop doing that.
But it goes both ways: we have a huge population of people that think a 35/1,4 APS-C lens on an APS-C sensor will return the same results as a 50/1,4 FF lens on a FF sensor. They are so surprised at how small the 35/1,4 is, and somehow, that it is so cheap, when in fact, like all most APS-C X lenses, we are paying a HUGE premium over equivalent lenses on FF sensors.
Huge premiums. And the lenses themselves are either roughly the same size, or larger than their equivalents (all things _sensor included_ considered).
I only ever talk about APS-C vs FF. I think all of us are conflating too many things to be truly cogent. But the truth is that:
– X lenses cost more than their equivalents on equivalent mounts.
– X lenses are roughly as large, or larger than their equivalents (all things considered).
– Size is saved only in the camera body, and that, only against digital SLR cameras. Film SLR cameras are the same size as X cameras, if not smaller.
– X cameras should not be compared in build quality to D800/5DMKIII. They are far and away from being as robust. They are not bad, but are still a long way away. They should be compared to APS-C dSLR cameras in the same price range (and even so, come away well robust), or at the most stretchy, FF entry-level cameras.
I love my X cameras, but will never, ever, mistake them for equivalents for FF dSLRs or their analogues in APS-C dSLR worlds. That is, until they are built to the same standards, or wear FF sensors.
You are certainly right, there are a lot of people confusing lots of things. And the whole price/value/equivalence comparison is a total mess. Let’s not discuss this anywhere. But the choice we have today is great, if you know what you want and what you get. 🙂
Within constraints, the selection is great. But It’s a bit of a turnoff to face 2,8 wide and semi-long zooms. The range is perfect, but I’d rather pay big bucks for the same look as I had on my 28-70/2,8 on film and FF digital.
I am excited by the 56/1,2 because it gives a bit of a softer rendering than most 85/1,8 FF lenses. It’s just that, because it has to be so fast in order to be somewhat equivalent to a FF system 85/1,8, it is so damn expensive. And heavy/large.
One of the reasons I hope Fujifilm go FF is so that lenses can be cheaper/smaller. If they offered 1,8/2,0 equivalents (all things considered) as they do today, they would be smaller than the APS-C lenses, and cheaper. And for those that wanted to go whole-hog, they could offer faster 1,4 variants.
One thing we had in abundance in the days of film was options. Today we have so few. Even Nikon make only two prime lines: 1,4 and 1,8. They used to make 1,4 – 4,0 lines for most focal lengths. Truly small lenses and truly large lenses.
I’d love for those days to come back. But before that comes back, I hope Fujifilm will get a FF system out.
I’d love to discuss this but I fear the comments section here is not really suited for it. How about we switch here: http://www.fujix-forum.com
I started a thread there…
It will really be a f/3.5 to f/5.6.
no it won’t!!!!!! you have to convert the f stop as well to obtain the true aperture size.
Yeah, but we’re used to that. APS-C lenses always have been slow, particularly the zoom lenses. I’m sure it will be a great, slow lens.
We have to face it: APS-C won’t get us the look an FF lens will get. And often, lenses are the same size or larger. But, we’re fine with it. We’re used to it.
An APS-C sensor won’t look like a FF. Leave the lens out of this. 😉
My wording was poor. I can’t figure out what I was trying to say. Can you help me out?
I guess the essence of the tony something awful video, if there was such a thing.
Just take it with a grain of humor and all is well.
I convert nothing and I don’t have to.
Hahahahahah. Good one.
Aperture is a physical property. No conversion required. If you’re comparing to a 35mm frame with same field of view then yes you need to make equivalences. But that statement itself, by itself, is totally incorrect.
Have fun with this fantastic piece of glass
If f stop has no standard then why bother. They should have said it’s a 2.0 to 4.0. And they can still get away with it. Look up the formula for aperture and you will see you are wrong.
Now it is getting ridiculous. You realize it is a 18-135/3.5-5.6. That is the actual focal length and aperture, not an “equivalent”.
Duh it’s an 18 if you put it on a full frame. Your apsc on your fuji can’t capture the whole image circle. So no it’s not an 18 on your fuji. It’s just not. If your output is not 18mm then who cares what your lens really is. You have to go by what the out is. 18mm on aps outputs 27mm field of view. Easy. And aperture refers to the ability to gather the light and it’s not a f3.5.
You’re totally wrong. It’s 18mm designed for APS sized sensors. If it was designed to illuminate a 35mm frame maybe you’d have something. And aperture is a formula unrelated to film or sensor. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aperture
Ok I didn’t want to do this. You put up your three best pics. I put up my three and let’s the people decide. If you have taken your shots with a similar lens than the one in question you will loose. Why? Cus the lens specs truly suck.
Nobody doubts you can take great photos. You don’t need to know the least bit about optics to do that, nor do you need an expensive lens.
Wow. This tells me a lot.
You are ridiculous.
Lol, I’m real scared. Here’s my flickr. Chose what you like: https://www.flickr.com/photos/nwcs0822/
Now show me yours.
You mean an 18mm on aps-c gives you the same field of view as 27mm on FF? I agree. But it is still an 18mm lens.
You mean an 18mm/3.5 gives you the DOF of a 27mm/5.4 on FF? I agree. But it is still an 18mm/3.5.
And I guess you also agree you use the same ISO for 18/3.5 and the 27/3.5.
Wow… That could not be father from the truth…
The conversion only really applies to DOF and focal length not so much speed.
You are mistaken. Sorry
No, he’s not. In terms of speed, f/2.8 is f/2.8. The conversion applies to DOF. And you are overstating the conversion, Pablo. You are also making assumptions about subject matter and artistic goals when you complain about the full frame equivalent aperture. For example, a hiker looking for a lightweight kit to shoot landscapes is better off with this lens than a full frame version with the same aperture range. He/she is getting deeper DOF for any given aperture. One cannot assume that this is always a bad thing. It can be a good thing.
That said, I can’t help but agree with the thought that this lens may not compare favorably with the optical performance of a lens with a shorter zoom range. I’m anxious to see what Fuji can do with it.
I hope you don’t teach photography. And you studied optical engineering? Wow,such a basic concept that you can not comprehend.
Pablo, you are just ignorant as hell. And too thick-headed to realize it.
I think there has been a pro photographer recently on YouTube that made the same mistake and came out with a correction just after. The 35mm equivalent is just to give people a point of reference (standard) to base things on. IMHO they should have come up with a new one, but then, who’s would you pick?
Basically, the argument that is being made is opposite sides of the same coin. Yes f2.8 is a physical measurement of how much light goes through the lens, but it equivalents to many different image effects depending on what size sensor it is paired with. So, take a lens and put it on a bellows system, now there is a whole set of calculations on how that lens will perform and what the effects are.
The issue goes down to what types of photos your taking. Many portrait photographers are looking for extremely shallow depth of field and you see them using medium format systems. Landscape photographers are not looking for the same DoF, so they may use full frame or APS-C or even Micro 4/3, especially if they are carrying that equipment to report locations.
Point is, choose the correct tool. If there was one camera that did it all, we would all own it and there would be no need for different equipment
With the software algorithms that are used with most lenses today, both in camera and in post processing, many of the shortcomings are compensated for. That being said, every lens is a compromise to some degree. True, prime lenses have less compromise, but still have them. You can decrease the compromise of lenses, but they tend to get big and very expensive.
I was a day away from buying a 55-200 as a complement for my 18-55
I’ll hold off for a bit then, as that could be a very nice walk around lens that a couple of bright fixed primes would nicely complement. If the price is right that is. Or a good way to wait for the 50-140 2.8.
Don’t hold. I bought the 55-200 and it is an amazing lens. Even when I get the 18-135 as a travel lens, I’m still keeping both the 18-55 and the 55-200
Sold both of mine. This will be a nice option when traveling light is the top priority.
Although I find it interesting to see how good Fuji can make the 18-135 I am even more interested in the 16-55 for a light travel kit paired with the X-T1 or X-Pro2. I prefer the possibility to get shallower DOF and the higher IQ the 16-55 will likely give. Maybe the reason for why the 16-55 and 50-140 will be announced in the fall is that there is a new body planned to be announced together with them? Interesting to see what comes next. Should be something with the newer 24 MP Sony sensor. More resolution and faster (while still accurate) AF please.
don’t expect the 16-55 and 50-140 to be light solutions… they are BIG, so probably a tad heavy too. probably heavier than a 14mm + 35mm combo, but more flexible…
I do expect the 16-55 to have a weight around 600 g at the lowest, which would be good if Fuji manages that. The Nikon APS-C 17-55/2.8 is around 755 g for comparison. The 50-140 will likely become even heavier than the 16-55, and would compromise my low weight approach, so the 16-55 alone could become my choice for travelling for the reasons high IQ, shallow DOF and the convenience a zoom gives you (fast FL change and no sensor exposure while changing FL).
Maybe they’ll officially put the 90mm on the roadmap too, if it’s real, and give that super tele and high speed wide a real name too. 🙂
Don’t expect them to spill the beans on a replacement of the 35/1.4.
Thank You. Someone with some sense.
The price first and the image quality second will be the big factors for me. I think that even thought the aperture is not as fast as some of the other lenses, it will make an amazing travel lens for the X cameras. Plus the Weather sealing will be a great complement to my X-T1
yes, I have a very rainy weekend trip starting tomorrow and I realize how much I’d appreciate a WR lens…
Cam on, there is a coffee shop next corner some people behave like amateur
we are here, because we want to lessen from the other photographer not to
make jocks
Thank you
Fuji taught me one of the best gear lessons I have learned: you can only use the stuff you can buy, not the stuff you are waiting for.
I hope Fuji offers this lens in a kit with the X-T1.
Dirk here is my first. Now you.
Xt1 14 2.8. Or shall I say 21mm f4?
Now what?
now you show him yours 😉
A 14mm at 2.8 is a 14mm at 2.8 by definition … sensor size is not relevant.
F-Stop from wikipedia: In optics, the f-number of an optical system is the ratio of the lens’s focal length to the diameter of the entrance pupil.
And focal length: The focal length of an optical system is a measure of how strongly the system converges or diverges light.
Blah blah blah. You r using it on a x mount right? So the field of view is not 14
Field of view is measured in radian or degree, not in mm.
you have the whole focal range bro. Hahahaah what crap.
Dirk here’s number 2. R u gonna post some fab pics you took with that focal length aperture combo or what?
Xt1 14mm
Nice shot but I wonder how this pictures or any other are supposed to prove that it is actually a 21/4 lens. Or how I could prove the opposite by sharing one of mine.
Dude post a pic!!!!! And of course field of view is in angles not mm hahahhaah. Whatevs man.
Sorry, but you will have to play the my-lens-is-longer game all by yourself.
Wait but my lens is shorter.
All the best.
Pablo Sartor
Please excuse any typos as this email was sent from my handheld device.
The best to you too, pablo. 🙂
I have to say that I don’t ever recall reading a thread where I was completely baffled about the point of contention. Obviously, a 14mm lens used on an APS-C sensor is going to yield a different FOV than a 14mm lens used on a FF sensor. And obviously, the apparent DOF is going to be different in these two scenarios—but not the exposure. The nice photos prove what? Doesn’t matter. I love it! Keep going, guys.
I think we are done. 😉
Funny, I’ve never been as much concerned about the equipment ui use as about the pictures I produce. I have shot almost every brand and almost every format, and the camera/lens has just been the tool, or the means to the result. You do need to understand your tools and the advantages/disadvantages of them, but just because you don’t have the exact tool doesn’t mean you don’t take the shot, you just need to adapt your technique for it.
I like this shot. Did you use a HDR or a time laps?
None. Just 30sec exposure. On tripod 2.8 14mm at 2.8 ficus infinity then pull back a bit. Crazy it was pitch black and it looks like the sun is setting.
All the best.
Pablo Sartor
Please excuse any typos as this email was sent from my handheld device.
Great! Nicely done.
Took this one with the 55-200mm on the X-T1
I was really hoping to have this lens for a mid-July trek. I’m starting to worry that isn’t going to happen.
The only complaint I have with Fuji, is the huge wait in time between a lens added to the roadmap an actually being able to buy the lens at a local store. Just seems it will be May 2015 before actually being able to purchase the 50-140 and Oct 2015 for the 120-400, if even that, as Fuji hasn’t even said what it will be.
I hear you—though I don’t think there is any way Fuji (or anyone else) could predict with complete accuracy when products will finally come to market. There are too many variables. We are better off with the roadmap than without.
Yep. And I am very happy with how Fuji handles that issue, compared to sony…