What a surprise! Adorama is already accepting pre-order on the unreleased XF 50-140 f/2.8 WR lens!!!! Check it out here! It will cost %1,599! (thx to FR-reader April 😉 )
THE SPECS
Type Fujinon lens
Lens Configuration 23 elements in 16 groups
(includes 5 extra low dispersion elements and 1 super extra low dispersion element)
Focal Length f=50 – 140mm
35mm Format Equivalent 76-213mm
Angle of View 31.7°-11.6°
Max. Aperture F2.8
Min. Aperture F22
Number of Blades 7 (rounded diaphragm opening)
Step Size 1/3 EV (19 steps)
Focus Range Normal: 1.0m to infinity (whole zoom position)
Macro: 1.0m to 3m (whole zoom position)
Max. Magnification 0.12x (telephoto)
Filter Size 72mm
Diameter x Length 3.3 x 6.9″ (82.9 x 175.9mm)
Weight 2.2 lbs (995g)
89 Responses
Okay, I bit. Pre-order in. I guess it’s about time to sell the 70-200 2.8 L IS II…
Tell us if it exceeds Canon L quality. I owned the Canon non-IS version, and the Fuji 55-200 w/OIS is better, imo.
That’s like I like to read and I read it more and more… I don’t fancy variable aperture zooms mainly because they extend, so I’m still waiting for the other zooms to be announced, but it looks more and more like I’ll buy a 55-200 as I won’t need the f/2.8 all that much, it’s monstly for convenience and the weather sealing…. so yeah there’s that as well…. à$èé*”%ç !
The 55-200 is fantastic. It really is. I can do a quick comparison to the 70-200 and post the results.
please share, I am interested. Thx
http://lividphoto.com/fuji-vs-canon-part-1/
The Canon 70-200 f4 IS should be the more comparable tele zoom lens with regardt to its f4 aperture, speed, size, weight…..the 2.8 is a different league but maybe rather comparable to the upcoming fuji xf 40-150 2.8 wr ois lens….
Actually, the Canon 70-300 L is the most comparable, but the discussion I was replying to was how the 55-200 compared to the 70-200 2.8. Yes, the intent is to revisit the comparison when the 50-140 2.8 arrives.
Wow…23 elements in 16 groups? That’s one heck of a complex design. This lens is one of those sticky wickets. It’s a bit big for me to want to carry around regularly, so it would likely be on a shelf most of the time in favor of the 55-200. However, when you need f/2.8, you need it. I was wishing for this lens a few weeks ago when I shot an event. It would have been nice to be shooting at ISO 1250 instead of 3200.
More expensive than I had wish, I thought $1300 US. I will now wait to see is the 16-55 2.8 will get OIS
Patrick. Your website is playing video in auto-mode. It’s annoying.
That’s google adsense. I’ve checked it… the audio starts when you pass with the mouse over the ad
The price has not been set. It is expected to be released in 2015 🙁
Adorama says $1,599
The rumors said between $1500-$1600)
I quoted this from Adorama’s listing. But, yeah, you can see the price when you pre order. Maybe it will change 😛
that’s why I included the second screenshot at the bottom of the post 😉
Not happy with the 2015 release date… really hoping that’s not official.
1600 for an APS-c lens? Well, certainly not me. It’s probably oversized for this type of camera. The Sigma 50-150 f2,8 is half the price…
I’ll certainly get it, one way or the other. I dived into Fujis System, so there I am. This lens has more or equal sum of elements than Canikon lenses, which sounds like this lens will kick ass in the image quality department. The price is steep but you get what you pay for. I’m quite convinced this lens will equal the already great 10-24, 23 and 56mm lenses.
Number of element is not related to the final image quality, in fact it’s quite the oposite, the more glass, the more thing to disturb the light. All this glass makes the lens that much more expensive and heavy.
With Zooms, the number of elements equals the grade of aberration control. Sure, less surfaces used to be better, but with modern coatings and more advanced glass types you can eliminate/limit optical aberrations to a very minor degree. This is e.g. why the canon 70-200 IS II 2.8 is so good. Got 23 elements too. Now don’t say you think this lens doesn’t deliver in the IQ department.
With all the latest lenses, the old rule less glass – less aberrations doesn’t work. Look at the OTUS, or 50mm ART, or latests zooms – all are getting more lens elements and quality is getting higher.
weight: 995g… no thanks.
Constant aperture zooms are always big and heavy, what were people expecting? If you put your primary value in lightness there’s a very good 50-200mm lens Fuji will sell you.
Ever see a Tamron 17-50 f/2.8 lens? Not heavy at all and tack sharp wide open.
That’s wonderful but your average 17-50 variable zoom lens will be far lighter. Fuji’s 16-50 is 195g for example, less than half the weight of the Tamron – the point was generally variable aperture lenses are lighter. Not sure why that’s in contention.
Hmm. The Canon 70-200 F4 USM IS L lens is $1299 and 760 grams. Yes this lens is f/2.8, but the Canon 70-200 F4 will give equivalent DOF on a full-frame DSLR. Though you’ll have to go up a stop in ISO when it’s get darker.
Plus your Canon body is significantly heavier negating the slight weight advantage of the lens.
6D: 770 grams. X-T1: 440 grams. Only ~100 grams different when you add in the 70-200 F4 and the Fuji 40-150 F2.8.
Sure but that’s an old model now, the 7D and the 5D MK3 are all heavier. Plus while the DOF is the same more or less the Fuji lens is still brighter in terms of light captured which is important for the target market (think wedding photographers)
Canon recently provided an interview of one of their top camera body designers…who stated Canon bodies would become smaller and lighter…and he gave the AL-1 as an example of his perfect sized body..so maybe the 7D2 will be smaller…we will know shortly if Canon is serious. Or the interview was BS.
Uh, the 6D is a current model. The 7D is discontinued. While the Fuji lens has an aperture (2.8 vs 4) that is twice as bright, the Canon lens projects light on twice the surface area. So it’s kind of a wash.
Oh ok assumed 7D was the new model, I don’t really follow Canon that closely.
23 elements in 16 groups !! ..
So I wonder if it is internal zoom (ie no extension when zooming). At 176mm long I would hope so. I compared it to Nikon:
70-200 f4.0: 179mm long / 850g
70-200 f2.8 VRII 209mm long / 1540g
To be honest it is longer / heavier than I had hoped considering it is “only” a 140mm focal length lens. Look what happen to the Sigma 50-150mm F2.8 OS HSM – rumoured to be discontinued probably because its as big as 70-200 f2.8, so people get that instead.
I think all the Fuji zooms have had internal focusing to date? Doubt this will change that especially as it’s clearly aimed at the professional market.
He said internal zoom, not internal focusing. Only one Fuji zoom does that so far. 😉 But I guess it will be internal zoom anyway.
Not so sure… I think it will be external like on the 18-135, with their ventilation system to avoid sucking dust or water in.
Can’t wait for this! 2 pounds weight is nothing compared to my old vr II!
EXACTLY!!
What? No ultra extra low dispersion element???
no, that will be for the APD version released 6 months from now 😉
Heavy thing. 995g is far from 360g of Panasonic 35-100/2.8 covering roughly the same range.
Yet at least it is available. Sony and Samsung have nothing for the class after 5 years. Of course neither are Nikon and Canon for their mirrorless lines (but those look hopeless and not that old) or their APS-C DSLR lines.
Remember the Panny lens has to cover a much smaller image circle so the heavy glass elements don’t need to be as big.
Not that much smaller. 140/2.8 could reasonably be 40% heavier, it would be 500-something g, not 995.
I think that the Panasonic lens is better compared to the XF 55-200/3.5-4.8 in terms of how your photos will actually look.
Obviously, this lens will be larger, but it will also likely perform noticeably better than the Panasonic / micro 4/3 combination.
I haven’t heard anybody complaint about quality of 35-100/2.8 for its intended purposes (sports, events/portraits). Maybe somebody wants to shoot low-light landscapes at f/2.8 at 200mm-equivalent and somehow overcome DoF issues, so then slightly less than stellar corners at tele end at f/2.8 will be an issue? I haven’t heard about such uses either (except shooting flat test charts).
Sony had an ‘equivalent’ lens 2 months after launch, some 11 months ago.
No it did not. NEX has no f/2.8 zoom still, not just for APS-C, but even for FE (which would not really be a good fit for size/cost/price).
The Panasonic is a 4/3’s lens with a 2X not an 1.5 crop so yeah its smaller.
The problem is by HOW MUCH. It is not extra 40%, it is extra 200%.
Thinking of selling my X-T1 for the next Canon line..
I am disappointed by what Fuji is doing recently.
-Fuji did the same update as Canon could do with its X30,
-All the new lenses are way overpriced,
-Really do we need another 56mm now ?
-What about the OIS on the 16-55 ? And what about respecting the roadmap ?
-40-150mm f2.8 at $1600 this is insane ! 995g! / the Canon 70-200 f4 IS (yes you buy a lens for the bokeh first, just crank 1 stop iso for the speed) cost $1299 and 760g !!
Next Canon full frame generation, I am out of Fuji system !
Bye! PS the weight difference between the X-T1 and the Canon 5D III is 420g which more than makes up for this *one* lens being slightly heavier.
Why are you comparing the APS-C X-T1 with the FF 5D III?
He said he was switching to full frame Canon in the next generation? I don’t know how heavy the 8D or MK4 will be but they’ll be heavier than an X-T1 I’d wager.
For all we know he’s looking at a Rebel.
Edit: never mind, missed the FF part. 🙂
Erm aren’t the Rebel series all APS-C?
Yes, they are. 🙂
And what is the weight difference between an A7 with 70-200mm f4?
With or without tripod mount? That thing is massive!
Err, you do realise this is bigger right?
Ah you’re right, I thought the Sony was physically bigger but it is about the same size as the Fuji.
We should wait for the first reviews. If it is well corrected and sharp already wide open, without CAs and less flare it would be a nice lens. Another factor is focusing speed. It is only slightly heavier than my 50mm/1.4 Sigma Art lens and has a 1m minimum focus distance. This makes up for some nice close up shots.
As far as I know (correct me if I’m wrong), there is no tripod collar with the Canon lens, makes another 210$ and 100-200g.
BYE the way not every lens will be made to make you happy.
Too expensive. Too heavy. I’m moving away from my Canon 5D3 and lenses because the system is too heavy and Canon’s new lenses are debuting at ridiculous prices. This info suggests Fuji is moving in the same direction. Disappointing.
It’s a long telephoto constant aperture zoom lens which Fuji will likely be selling to a very small niche of their customer base, what were you expecting? If you want small and light there’s a perfectly good 55-200mm zoom.
Equivalent lenses are of equivalent size and weight, for similar materials (here aperture diameter should be similar to that of a 70-200/4 lens). So there is no magic involved and differences should be minimal.
Well it is about 20% heavier than the Sony 70-200mm f4.
True, but did you read that I wrote “for similar materials”?
What do you think the 70-200mm is made of? Anyway, I am agreeing with you that there is no ‘magic’ involved with these things, for a similar FF lens they just don’t save much.
Sony’s 70-200/4 doesn’t incorporate the tripod mount into the lens weight, any idea whether this is true also for Fuji? I guess not, since the tripod mount is mentioned seperately as add-on, whereas only the lens caps are mentioned for Fuji. This would further close the weight gap (although I don’t care about 100 grams.
It’s a F2.8 its going to be Heaver, Just has to be to be a F2.8. An F3.5 would of worked for me but some need the speed or like big lenses! lol
go for the regular XF55-200. No constant aperture and WR but still pretty nice and light!
Compared to my former love, the 70-200vrii, this is cheaper and considerably lighter. I’m buying!! That 70-200 was my most used lens. I’ve been waiting for the Fuji since I sold it 🙂
Fuji is trying to stand out of the crowd. But outstanding lenses are not necessarily the best for everyday use. Like big sport cars are far from ideal to go to the supermarket.
A small lens with limited range (unlike the heavy 55-200mm) and a sliding aperture (unlike the heavier 50-140mm) and external zoom, something like a 55-135mm f2.8-4, would have been a sensible choice imho.
This 50-140mm lens on an XT1 will be as bulky and heavy as a Pentax K3 with 50-135mm f2.8. The X system is becoming a DSLR system … without mirror.
It was never a secret, that you lose the size advantage of mirrorless, if you go into the telephoto(zoom) range. That is why they bring this lens only now, when the shorter lenses are almost complete.
This is for those who want to have a compact mirrorless without having a dslr-kit alongside but still need a pro-grade telezoom, hence also the price. It is NOT for people to carry around in the streets, for sightseeing or on the family holidays.
That’s the point… Different photographers have different needs. Most DSLR mounts have a complete lens lineup. Fuji does not. Why should they only release lenses that fit your photography? They already have cheap primes, fast primes, and variable aperture zoom lenses.
You should go with Sony then. They’ve really figured out how to shrink their telephoto lenses. It looks like a joy to shoot handheld.
http://camerasize.com/compact/#488.392,380.294,ha,t
The Canon lens is smaller and lighter, in your example. The difference is the camera.
Where is the 16-55mm f2.8 in all this? I think that is really the lens most of us have been waiting for. The delay makes me believe we probably won’t see it until the X-T2 becomes available as well. Hopefully, one reason for postponing it is to make it weather resistant. I cannot imagine a better all-purpose, walk-around combo than a standard f2.8 WR lens with a sealed X-T body. I don’t mind being patient, but this complete lack of news causes me to believe we won’t see anything until at least 2016.
Well, on the latest roadmap it is scheduled for early 2015 and is weather resistant. So I wouldn’t worry too much.
They really need this more! I too want the 16-55 but thats covered in a slightly slower lens now that in all likely hood be coveted after the last one is sold.
This lens will work a treat with my xpro1 🙂
Great specs. The 12-24, the upcoming 16-55, and this 50-140 is – in my opinion – a ideal lineup for traveling. If its internal zooming (no extension when zooming) I’ ll get it as fast as I can. If not, I’ll wait for the 90mm. I hate this kind of extendable zooms.
Could anyone check or provide more information regarding internal / extension zooming?
Heavy guy, like others are complaining about. BUT if it’s sharp wide open, and internal zooming, those would be pretty big pluses in my book. I’ll be taking a wait and see approach. Saving weight on the longer zooms isn’t horribly important to me, as I don’t really use those in long hiking situations as much. I’ll likely replace my 55-200 with the 50-140, and the rumored 100-400 or whatever, some day.
I’ll still enjoy my “street” set up of a couple primes in a light weight bag 🙂
F2.8 zoom with an F 2.8 max all the way thru will be Heavy, No way to make a smaller one and keep the max F stop.
Pentax did it lighter with a 50-135mm f/2.8 for APS-C.
Tokina (same optics as Pentax) did it at the same weight as the rumored Fujifilm — but Tokinas are typically heavy.
Differences in weight may be due to DSLR vs mirrorless mounts.
Tokina has less plastic and makes a lot of the lens with name brand’s Zeiss comes to mind as Tokina makes the Touit line for them and parts for others.
Yeah it’s a per order so they know how much to make, Getting smart about it I think. Panning will have the parts so they cam make one run and get on to the next lens and not have to push back an announced one.