First take the Grain of Salt… and then you can start dreaming 😉
According to a New Source, Fujifilm is working on a Super Fast XF lens, that will have a widest opening of F1.0. The source says that the specs are not final until now, but the focal length planed at the moment is around 30mm.
Consider that it looks like we are in the early stages of development of this lens, so there might be some changes in the specs (if this rumor is true at all… remember, grain of salt)
The fastest XF lens available until now is the 56mmF1.2 (now $150 off!), which delivers sharp results all over the frame even at its maximum aperture. So Fujifilm has definitely the know-how and potential to design a lens that delivers astonishing results even at F/1.0.
What would be your ideal focal length for such an über-fast F1.0 lens?
stay tuned for more rumors,
facebook, google+, RSS-feed and twitter
XF 16mmF1.4 WR PRE-ORDER: USA:Â BHphoto / AmazonUS / Adorama / EUROPE: WexUK / PCHstore
Rico’s FIRST LOOK at the XF 16mmF1.4 (German Version)
FUJI X-SHIRTS available here in USA and here in Europe & CO.
Learn more about the 100% Fair Trade Charity X-shirts here.
74 Responses
A f1.0 at 30mm Now that’s a lens I would buy in a heart beat
Even if it costs 2000 euros and is twice the size and the weight of the f/1.4 equivalent? 😉
Yep, I used to shoot with the Mark III and the 85mm 1.2 and 50mm 1.2 cost that much. Just try finding an old canon 50mm 1.0 and you’ll be paying 4000+ for a used one.
I hope its would be priced around 1200 tho.
That’s my type of question:
Optimal focal length: 31.274mm
Features: f1 fixed aperture
Diameter: 76mm
WR, 5xOIS, ND filter inbuilt, and comes with metal lens hood
Who agrees?
i would love the 5xois in the body.. so the lenses could be smaller.. but the rest works for me.. 😉
OIS in a normal 1.0 prime? Seriously?
Fixed aperture ?
I guess I just need to swap the lens if I need deeper DOF ?
Make it a 35mm, similar to the character of the 35 1.4. That would be a winner.
You mean you want a 23/1.0 XF lens?
I think he meant the XF35mm
No, of course not. Why would you want a fast wide angle. Just a 35 1.0
Well, it is not faster than FF counterparts. 35/1.0 sounds okay. But current 35/1.4 performs weakly at 1.4. Maybe on the 35/1.0, F/1.4 will be more useful.
Make it 18mm. Ultimate documentary lens.
30mm seems like a good idea. At 45mm equivalent it is very versatile and probably neither the Fuji-Lineup nor the average camera bag will contain several 1.0 primes. Also it is a FL that is still missing. And juding by the size of the 27 and the 35 a lens in that range can be designed rather compact for x-mount.
If I were to buy a f/1 lens I would probably go for a 35mm length.
Ditto.
even faster lenses?!! Bring em!!!!!
(But don’t forget about some smaller, lighter primes – I’d love a 50mm F/1.8 or f/2, same of course for the 23mm )
And give us the 90mm, I have to decide between it and the 56mm!
23mm f/2.0 or f/1.4 with WR
I would appreciate a 70/1.4 – together with teh 16/1.4 and 35/1.4 it would be the perfect triple 😉
I’d like some fully manual lenses with WR built. I bet Fuji could give top Leica easily.
a 18 f1.2 (eq 28mm) would be just perfect, but only if size is kept between actual 18 and 35 (f it’s possible)
Have you seen the 16mm?
Oh, yeah, baby! NoctiFujiLux FTW!
Where. Is. My. 300/2.8?!
+1
and my 600-1200/ 1.8
About 28mm would be nice, which in FF format is around 43mm and in fact is the standard focal length (not 50mm). The image diagonal of 24x36mm is 43,3mm.
And 30 equals 45mm, which is damn-near indistinguishable from 43.3mm.
Is the picture meant to be genuine? The 3 and the 0 of “30mm” look like the have different fonts/orientations.
It’s a mock up made quickly during lunch break with Gimp
OK, thanks for clarifying 🙂
Not if this is supposed to be an image of the actual lens – the front optic will need to be a LOT bigger to accommodate the amount of light needed for that aperture.
As wide as possible whilst keeping size down. That way, you still get adequate DOF making the sole advantage of this lens low light performance. 27mm would probably be the best compromise. There’s already a 56mm f/1.2 for those who want shallow DOF.
Edit: Must have WR.
Why post a photo-chopped image?
Why not?
Its already here, just lacks AF
http://www.slrmagic.com/products/hyperprime.html
Funny, I was just contemplating that I wouldn’t be surpised if Fuji came up with a 33mm lens, fast and very sharp accross the frame like the 23 and 56 and now the 16. It would nicely fit into this new line of lenses which put optical performance and speed higher than compactness compared to the initial gang of 3. And it would also position itself in stronger contrast to the 35mm f2 than the 35mm f1.4 does.
33mm, in order to get a 50mm equivalent: some kind of “almost Noctilux” classic.
If they were some how able to keep the size around the 23/56… I’d consider selling both my 23 and 35 for it.
classic 50mm would be my choice
Classic 50mm 1.4 on ff are relatively cheap. This could cost more than 1500$ and maybe 2/3 times bigger/heavier!
If X-PRO2 crop factor is indeed 1.2x (APS-X), then it could be 42mm (eq to 50mm for pro2, also a good focal length for other cameras, it would not compete with 35mm or 56mm).
It won’t be 1.2x crop.
I would very much like to see an f1.0 or f1.2 lens with a focal length slightly longer than the current 35mm f1.4. Personally I have always found the 50FX(35DX) focal length to be too close to the 35FX(23DX), and too far away from the 85FX(56DX)mm. The lens I found really useful on my D700 was the 58mm Voightlander Nokton before I had to give up on manually focussing with the D700. Interesting enough Nikon have introduced a 58mm f1.4, at a ridiculous price for what it is, with almost exactly the same attributes as the Fuji 56mm, and I would buy a Fuji 38 or 40mm f1.2 on the day it went on sale, even if it meant crawling over broken glass to please the bank manager.
If I’m going with an f/1.0 (let alone the near-mythical f/0.95) aperture, I’d probably want something in the region of 65mm-70mm equivalent, so a 45mm would be perfect. (67.5mm equivalent). I like tighter framing for everything and that kind of focal length would let me do 99.99% of what and how I shoot. Wouldn’t be my ideal for portraits, I like 100-110mm for that, but it’d be close enough that for casually shooting people at an event I wouldn’t fear distortion too badly.
15mm, 45mm and 70mm would be my perfect range for a crop sensor. Trying to pick between keeping the 14mm (a fraction wide) or selling for the 16mm (a fraction close), making-do with the 35mm (touch too wide) and 56mm (not close enough; neither is the 60mm, which also isn’t fast enough) is driving me a little mad.
All that said, it’s very hard to make me want to part with the money that f/1.0 or faster demands. If you look at the cost of those lenses for other systems, you can usually buy several f/1.2 or f/1.4 lenses for the same as one f/1.0 or faster lens costs, and with the diminishing returns on light efficiency, the actual difference in light gathered between f/1.4 and f/1.0 is barely half a stop. (And not even that in the case of some glass.) The difference in look isn’t that great, either. Sure, I’d rather have the faster aperture if possible, but when you look at the common prices for such things, I find it very, very hard to justify. Moving from f/1.4 to f/1.0 isn’t going to revolutionise your images. You might be able to lower your ISO a third of a stop and increase your shutter one click. The depth of field is going to narrow by a fractional amount, when it’s already tiny to begin with; conversely, for the people suggesting wider focal lengths, you’re not going to notice a difference in depth of field at all, in actual, real-world use. So if I can get f/1.0 for free or a very, very small premium, okay, sure, sign me up. But if it’s going to come with the kind of premium that these things usually have then no, I’m okay with f/1.2 and f/1.4. I’d rather take that f/1.0 money and spend it on a newer body, another lens, some lights, a new bag and several sessions’ worth of studio time.
If true that would be a big chunk of glass. Probably not the fastest focusing XF lens however it would be unique.
Agreed Don, certainly bigger than the one in the image provided. I know the markings indicate 62mm, but that model has a very small objective lens for that type of speed… I’d say it’s a late April Fools Photo 🙂
I’m in! 45mm Fuji Noctilux would be perfect!
Could be the perfect replacement for the XF35mm f1.4, no?
We’ll get the f2 coming soon, with fast AF and WR, so time to make another 35mm that would balance differently, with super fast aperture, at the expense of AF speed, yes…
35mm (in FF terms) is a very versatile focal length (street, travel, portraits, events, etc.). It would make sense, but there’s the x100t and the 23mm F/1.4 already. Basically, 28-40mm (equivalent) would be interesting to me.
I guess the price of such a beast would be 1500 bucks or possibly (much) more.
Would I need it? No
Would I buy one? HELL YEAH!
I could see them make 3 line of a few (3-4) primes. the “normal” ones (which they are finished with), the slower, smaller budget ones (like the upcoming 35mm f/2) and the a “Pro” line with beasts like that speculated one (it’s said, that other mirrorlessmanufacturers are looking into such ultrafast primes too)
It would also make Fuji really competible to Full Frame, since – at least Nikon – is limited to f/1.2 (f/1.1 maximum)
And if they really think about building 2-3 freak lenses, I’d also love to see some ultra cream machine.
85mm f/1.0 – f/1.2, 9 aperture blades and APD filter
For all those, who think eyelashes should be out of focus 😀
85mm at f/1.2 doesn’t blow things out as much as a 135mm f/2 does, both of which already exist. If you’re going for the “absolutely no part of this image is in focus” look, 135mm f/1.2 or faster is what you want. Leave the 85 for full-length shots.
I thought about 135mm, but for my use (on the APS-C fujis)) would probably be too long in too many situations.
This rumor needs to be true, that is all I can say. 30mm (45 equiv) is a great starting point for F1.0 lenses. If it is no larger than the Sony 35/1.4 (which is large) and performs at F1.0 as well as that lens performs at F1.4 then it will have gone a significant way towards erasing FF advantages. I would buy such a lens immediately… listening Fuji?
35 is very different than 45. A 50 1.4 is much more similar and very cheap. a 24 f0.9 (that’s equivalent of a 35 1.4) would be MUCH MORE difficult to build, maybe not possible at human dimensions.
FF’s advantages are not limited to F values. At least high ISO performance is much better.
I’m not sure I understand what you are saying, but given the same sensor technology and shutter speed, these two are the same:
FF ISO 1000 @ F1.4
APS ISO 400 @ F1.0
So there is no ISO advantage to FF because, at the same depth of field, the APS can shoot at lower ISO. (For 1.5 crop factor the APS gets a 1.5^2 [2.25] ISO advantage when DOF is the same.)
apsc 30 f1 means 45mm 1.5 on full frame. So, what’s new? a 100$ 50 1.4 on FF is a better choice. Maybe better a wider angle: 24 f1 could be more interesting or a medium tele. Istead of a 30 f1 maybe it’s better to think on 1.4 on the new 90 and not f2.
the dof maybe… but not the quality and the f number (f1 is f1 and not 1.5).
This lens is exactly what I want!!!! I loved the Sigma 30 1.4!!!! Holy crap I’m excited if this is true!!
If it’s reasonable small and lightweight it will be a nice addition, but if not, it’s all wrong. I mean, the whole point with APS-C and mirrorless is that it’s supposed to be smaller and lighter than the FF counterpart. Otherwise you might as well use a Canon FF DSLR and lens which obviously gives an image quality advantage. Just my opinion.
FF does not obviously give you nothing :). Let’s be real, the 1 stop ISO advantage is negated by the one-stop f disadvantage you need to employ for the same DOF. Only thing FF gives you is a narrower DOF.
FF is the plebian version of medium format.
This sounds very exciting.
What’s that? A 30mm f/1.0 lens, the size of the 35mm f/1.4 on the new X200? I’m in!
😉
Sure, but what will be the difference in terms of price and weight instead of a cheap 50 1.4? the Mitakon APSC 35 0,95 cost 800$ (and usually mitakons are 1/4 of fuji) and it’s 1.5lb without autofocus. A 2.5lb 1500/2000$ lens equivalent to a 50 1.4? No, thanks!
your 45 1.5 is only an 80mm 2.4 on 645, pleb.
Sure. How much and weight a 645 with a 80 2.4? we could build 1/2 ton 50.000$ 25 f0.7 on a m4/3 system maybe! but the angle, cheapness, bokeh and lightness of a good 50 1.4 on full frame is impossible on other system
get yourself a 300mm f/5.6 for an 8×10 camera and you’ll have yourself a 43mm f/0.8 equivalent-ish (since you like to use 35mm as reference). no such lens available for your digital canikony…
Are you a clown? Ok, i’m laughlin’ ! Ahahahah!
The “photographers” looooove paying lots of money for whatever it is… A f1.0 at 999€? It has to be impossinle because the other brands charge thousands and that’s because they’re so generous and that is the cheapest they could sell them for, just having a minimal profit…
So Fuji: for 999€ and 35mm apsc you can take my money. More and I will shop somewhere else…
Good look getting a f1.0 af lens for X-mount somewhere else.