I am thinking logically this lens should not be larger than any common 85/1.8 lens designed to cover full frame, like 85 1.8G for Nikon or 85 1.8 EF for Canon. In fact, the Fuji lens should be smaller than the two I mentioned since it only needs to cover the smaller circle of the APSC sensor. So why is it so huge??
I am hearing that after a certain focal length, there is no advantage of mirrorless over DSLR and that is why all these tele lenses like Fuji 40-150/2.8 or Sony 70-200FE are just as large if not larger than their full frame DSLR equivalents.
However, should we take it further? Is there something that mirrorless manufacturers don't want to tell us? Is it not only no advantage of the mirrorless with tele lenses (meaning anything around 80mm and longer) but it becomes a disadvantage, because in a DSLR there is a longer flange distance between the sensor and the rear element of the lens because of the mirror, and such distance is minimal in a mirrorless, and therefore that distance needs to be placed somewhere and it is placed inside the lens instead, making the lens actually longer and larger than it would have been for a regular DSLR camera? And the size of the sensor has very little difference?
However, if my last statement is truth, how come Olympus 75/1.8 is a very compact lens? Those m43 cameras have small flange distance just like APSC and Sony FE cameras.
Can someone explain? I am thinking at this large size and weight, I am not sure 90/2 makes sense over 40-150/2.8. it maybe not much heavier. it is like considering Canon 135L F2 vs 70-200L 2.8 II. You get one stop less light in the zoom, but you get IS and you get a flexibility of a zoom in a very useful range and your bokeh at 200/2.8 is not much different from 135 at F2. Just thinking aloud
p.1 #3 · Fuji 90/F2 prototype - why so big and heavy?
No, it's big. I saw it when I did my Fuji booth coverage. It's a monster. It's closer to the size of the Canon 85L than most f/2 lenses in that range. Take the 56/1.2 and blow it up about 15% in all directions. (Which is a large volume increase).
Personally, I was put off a fair bit by the size. It's going to be a bear to fit in my bag, and I really wanted one.
My only guess on the size is they designed it for near Otus levels of image quality.
p.1 #4 · Fuji 90/F2 prototype - why so big and heavy?
it is interesting because their 56/1.2 is on the same scale as other 50/1.2 lenses. My old 50/1.2 Nikon AiS was about the same size and weight. And 56/1.2 has ridiculous image quality, which Jordan here by the way reviewed. So I don't know what is so special about 90/2. Maybe they made a mistake on the lens and it is really 90/1.4 and not a F/2? remember how they initially said 56/1.4 but then made it a 1.2?
p.1 #5 · Fuji 90/F2 prototype - why so big and heavy?
Personally I consider it unacceptable.
I know people have other bones to pick with the X system, the sensor, the megapixels etc, but for me the size of the lenses is the only one thing that falls short of expectations.
And although I am far from a tech expert I think it's obvious there's a cock up somewhere either in the way they designed this mount or the way they're designing lenses, maybe they're rushing to get them out the door to meet the roadmap, I dont know.
But for the price they're charging, combined with the size of the sensor they have to cover and the modest specs and AF speed of their lenses, they should have done better in the size department.
The only excuse I will give them is that their big lenses are usually optically excellent.
p.1 #7 · Fuji 90/F2 prototype - why so big and heavy?
not really...
thats why I dont mention it all the time, but since it's the topic of the discussion. It can bother me sometimes, to think how great my XT1 would be if my 23 and 14 were a bit shorter.
p.1 #8 · Fuji 90/F2 prototype - why so big and heavy?
freaklikeme wrote:
Does it really matter how big a lens is if you like to shoot with it?
I think so, yes.
It can be the difference between taking a camera with you at all. I know I certainly don't take my slrs with me day-to-day or on trips. But then I'd never likely take a 90mm lens with me for that sort of thing anyway.
p.1 #9 · Fuji 90/F2 prototype - why so big and heavy?
On the other hand, Fuji has designed FAST lenses for their lineup. Sony doesn't have a single lens for Emount faster than f/1.8. Fuji has 3, with a fourth on its way within a year. That's part of the size reason. Second, as we've seen from other manufacturers (Zeiss, Sigma and even Panasonic with the 42.5 Nocticron), very high optical correction often takes big lenses unless you want to put crazy special glass in them or extremely difficult to grind lenses, which is the tack Leica takes, but you pay for it with your wallet rather than your back.
The size does make the 90/2 a 'let's wait and see' lens rather than a 'pre order immediately' though, and it was in the latter category until I saw it. It is larger than I generally want to carry for a prime. On the other hand, when I would pack the 90, I'd probably leave my 55-200 at home, so I would necessarily be carrying much more. But I'm justifying things now. :-) the 90/2 needs to be optically spectacular to justify the size. Like, best 135 equivalent ever good.
p.1 #12 · Fuji 90/F2 prototype - why so big and heavy?
Jman13 wrote:
On the other hand, Fuji has designed FAST lenses for their lineup. Sony doesn't have a single lens for Emount faster than f/1.8. Fuji has 3, with a fourth on its way within a year. That's part of the size reason. Second, as we've seen from other manufacturers (Zeiss, Sigma and even Panasonic with the 42.5 Nocticron), very high optical correction often takes big lenses unless you want to put crazy special glass in them or extremely difficult to grind lenses, which is the tack Leica takes, but you pay for it with your wallet rather than your back.
The size does make the 90/2 a 'let's wait and see' lens rather than a 'pre order immediately' though, and it was in the latter category until I saw it. It is larger than I generally want to carry for a prime. On the other hand, when I would pack the 90, I'd probably leave my 55-200 at home, so I would necessarily be carrying much more. But I'm justifying things now. :-) the 90/2 needs to be optically spectacular to justify the size. Like, best 135 equivalent ever good. ...Show more →
The Nikon 85mm f/2.0 AIS lens is absolutely tiny and tack sharp corner to corner. I shoot it all time wide open without hesitation because of its extreme sharpness.
Surely autofocus motors can't cause a size increase like that.
p.1 #15 · Fuji 90/F2 prototype - why so big and heavy?
rattymouse wrote
Listening to all the mirrorless fans you'd swear that smaller gear is their salvation in life.................
Five years ago my wife had a pretty scary fall while mountain climbing, largely due to the huge pack she had on. She had over 10 lbs of DSLR equipment in there. (I had even more in my pack.)
Now we are mirrorless. They have made a huge difference for us, carrying no more than 2 lbs between us. It isn't "salvation" but it has enabled us to enjoy two very important pieces of our life, hiking and photography. That's not insignificant.
p.1 #16 · Fuji 90/F2 prototype - why so big and heavy?
Look at otuses and sigma arts. They are way bigger and heavier than their equivalent focal length counterparts. So, Fuji is probably aiming that high quality standard with their 90mm. If the quality is that high and the price is bearable, I don't mind the size at all.
p.1 #19 · Fuji 90/F2 prototype - why so big and heavy?
fsiagian wrote:
Look at otuses and sigma arts. They are way bigger and heavier than their equivalent focal length counterparts. So, Fuji is probably aiming that high quality standard with their 90mm. If the quality is that high and the price is bearable, I don't mind the size at all.
Sigma lens are big, cause they must pass SD1 testbench. Which is most demanding sensor right now (pure 15 mpix on APS-C). Thats also reason why they are so good now..
Fuji most demanding sensor is 16 mpix X-trans, which IMHO isnt demanding at all. So there is good question if they plan something interesting in the future sensorwise or not..
p.1 #20 · Fuji 90/F2 prototype - why so big and heavy?
Mescalamba wrote:
....
Only MF lens can be much smaller and Leica, but then you pay for it a lot.
....
Well the Olympus 75/1.8 is tiny, it is auto focus, it has great IQ and costs $899. One would expect a comparable lens for Fuji to be only slightly larger.
??
So there is good question if they plan something interesting in the future sensorwise or not..