p.2 #1 · Fuji 90/F2 prototype - why so big and heavy?
That 90/2 would be more interesting to me if it had optical image stabilization. Currently it seems that no one makes a 135mm equivalent lens with optical image stabilization. The closest is the Olympus 75/1.8 on Olympus m43 cameras with in-body stabilization.
p.2 #2 · 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.
+1 @ ^
Optical projection design is a series of compromises ...
Consider a "pancake" lens vs. a normally designed lens. Most folks recognize the tradeoff's made in IQ to achieve the pancake size. The Otus, Arts ... and maybe the Fuji, now ... are the inverse (in principle) of a "pancake" design in that they aren't trying to "spread the light" from a close distance to the film plane, but rather line it up for more direct angular impingement from farther away.
Vector forces (light energy impingement) are angular trig dependent ... I would expect the contrast of lens such as this to be excellent @ wide open compared to a smaller/shorter counterpart that would see losses/compromises.
p.2 #3 · 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.................
For some of us it makes all the difference in the world. I've got a bad neck that's very weight sensitive. I just hiked 26 miles along the Inca Trail in Peru with my X-E1 and lenses, no way I would have done that with my old 6D and lenses.
p.2 #4 · Fuji 90/F2 prototype - why so big and heavy?
Does it really matter how big a lens is if you like to shoot with it?
Yes, of course it does if you walk and carry your gear. If you drive everywhere or have an assistant then it may be another matter.
I am just not interested in large, heavy lenses, especially if they are large through lazy design or cost-cutting. Or, at the other extreme, if they are large due to tiny quality improvements. I would never go the Otus route over Leica M lenses - two different lens philosophies, both achieving very high and good enough IQ. I want to be out, walking about and protecting my back.
p.2 #5 · Fuji 90/F2 prototype - why so big and heavy?
RustyBug wrote:
+1 @ ^
Optical projection design is a series of compromises ...
Consider a "pancake" lens vs. a normally designed lens. Most folks recognize the tradeoff's made in IQ to achieve the pancake size. The Otus, Arts ... and maybe the Fuji, now ... are the inverse (in principle) of a "pancake" design in that they aren't trying to "spread the light" from a close distance to the film plane, but rather line it up for more direct angular impingement from farther away.
Vector forces (light energy impingement) are angular trig dependent ... I would expect the contrast of lens such as this to be excellent @ wide open compared to a smaller/shorter counterpart that would see losses/compromises....Show more →
I can't see the purpose in "size no object" designs for mirrorless cameras, we have FF DSLR or medium format for that.
When you go with mirrorless you've already made sacrifices, you got much worse AF, TV screen viewfinder.... I for example don't lust for an Otus 85/1.4, and I don't care for it really. There has always been ultra expensive exotic lenses around and I've never been in the market for them and never will be. I wan't Fuji to make compromises and produce lenses that make sense within the concept of a small mirrorless system. Just like Olympus did with the 75/1.8. It's not the most ultimate exotic glass ever made but still great optic. I love my XF 35/1.4, not because it's a mini Otus. ...I love it because it's small, well built, fast, with good optics and last but not least it is cheap! I could not care less if the Otus has less CA wide open or even slightly more contrast ..or tiny bit less distortion. I just don't care because I can't affors it and would not want to carry such a brick with me all day.
p.2 #6 · Fuji 90/F2 prototype - why so big and heavy?
If you are really interested in lightening your load ... try out the Panasonic DMC-FZ1000.
From Macro to 25mm-400mm (35mm equiv) ... all in one neat package under a kilo. It's not gonna win any mega-iso pixel peeping battles, but I just finished a trip through the Badlands, Black Hills, Yellowstone & Tetons with it ... never once pulled out my FF. Too easy to run & gun at all there was to see, never once thinking, darn I walked all the way out here and didn't bring the right lens or darn I walked all the way up here and didn't need all this gear. Pretty sweet setup really ... but it will go so far under the radar that it will be ignored by the vast majority of folks.
Even with the Fuji, you gotta carry multiple glass (I returned my Fuji & Touits) to get the versatility. Battery life is a little short, but spares are small to carry.
If smaller / lighter is really your game ... can't say enough good @ the Panny. Sure, it is bulkier on spec than the Fuji body ... but that includes the lens that eq's @ 400/4.0 ... all for under a thousand grams and under a thousand $$$.
Will be very interested to see its upcoming counterpart with faster glass/shorter zoom in the LX100. I can see these two as a veritable 1-2 punch for those who are interested in small/light ... and self-contained.
p.2 #7 · Fuji 90/F2 prototype - why so big and heavy?
I've owned samyang 85 1.4 Rokinon version. My sample was sharp even at 1.4. Now let's not compare 1.4 to 1.8 or 2.0 in 85mm size. Every 1.4 lens in 85 is significantly larger and heavier than 85/1.8. And here it is 2.0 not even 1.8. So this comparison is not proper in my opinion. By the way Rokinon 85/1.4 costs $299 new. How much is fuji 90/2? I doubt it would be close to $299. More like $1299 if we r lucky
Mescalamba wrote:
High quality lens with AF? Sure its big even for APS-C, every saw Samsung 85/1.4? Pretty much size of regular 85/1.4.
Only MF lens can be much smaller and Leica, but then you pay for it a lot.
Or there is option they will finally make X-trans FF. Which if it had enough MPix could be awesome.
p.2 #8 · Fuji 90/F2 prototype - why so big and heavy?
Spyro P. wrote:
The only excuse I will give them is that their big lenses are usually optically excellent.
there it is. that is the reason they're so big. optical excellence means the lenses need to be either bigger or much or expensive (or both). the critical reception that fuji's 18/2 received probably convinced them that optical excellence was the way to go with fast lenses rather than small size.
rattymouse wrote:
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.
no it's not. the 85/2 ais is decent wide open and overall average in the range of 85/2 and 85/1.8 lenses. i expect this lens to have much higher contrast and fewer aberrations at f/2.
p.2 #9 · Fuji 90/F2 prototype - why so big and heavy?
A great many of us have transitioned from a DSLR system to mirrorless (in whole or in part) mainly due to the size and weight factors; even more so recently, as the IQ differential is de minimus if it indeed exists. Originally, I moved to the 4/3 system, but Fuji won me over for its incredible renderings etc. The increase in weight from 4/3 to Fuji has been tolerable, to date, though the apparent size and weight of the 90/2 is quite disturbing. The lens that I really had trouble parting with was the Oly 75/1.8....the size, weight, FL etc were almost too good to be true. Unless Fuji is listening to the comments/complaints about the proposed size of the 90, it might even pay to go with an Oly 75 dedicated to an Oly body if one really wants that FL in a prime. Sounds ludicrous (for anyone other than a dedicated prime shooter) but I wouldn't rule it out. My sense is that Fuji is moving too quickly as it's market has been momentum charged, and wants to strike while the "iron is hot" (so-called). On the other hand, Fuji may well have been "testing the waters" and will go back to the drawing board and come to market with a more tolerable size and weight.
p.2 #10 · Fuji 90/F2 prototype - why so big and heavy?
RustyBug wrote:
If you are really interested in lightening your load ... try out the Panasonic DMC-FZ1000.
.........
So we're ok with Fuji destroying the concept because we can buy the Panasonic DMC-FZ1000? ...makes sense! haha
But seriously, I sold all my Canon gear and switched to Fuji mostly to lighten my bag. These big lenses are really a big f**k you to me and others who have switched to save weight. I'd like Fuji to stay with the concept and let others seek the ultimate mega money lenses. ...it's even worse with Sony!!
p.2 #12 · Fuji 90/F2 prototype - why so big and heavy?
Spyro P. wrote:
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....Show more →
I don't think their shorter FL lenses are large for their specification - the 23mm 1.4 is shorter than the Sony 24mm 1.8, and 35mm 1.4 is close to Sony 35mm 1.8 despite being f1.4 and high quality. The 90mm f2 seems huge though, hopefully it is not the final size.
p.2 #13 · Fuji 90/F2 prototype - why so big and heavy?
hauxon wrote:
These big lenses are really a big f**k you to me and others who have switched to save weight.
Well, from an absolute value to a relative perspective ... how does the size/weight compare to say carrying the Canon FF 135/2?
I'd think that 90mm with a 45mm (optical) aperture would be smaller in size/weight than a 135mm with 67.5mm aperture. In that regard, they could still be giving a reduction in weight, despite being a large(r) lens than one might have hoped for. Do we have the spec on it, or just the impression that its so big they've "reversed course" against their customer base ideology @ smaller.
From what I've always heard, Fuji purports their sensors to have IQ competing with FF ... it would stand to reason that they would likewise need glass to support that claim as well. What would you prefer they design ... a 90/2 pancake that vignettes about 4 stops from center to edge?
p.2 #14 · Fuji 90/F2 prototype - why so big and heavy?
RustyBug wrote:
Well, from an absolute value to a relative perspective ... how does the size/weight compare to say carrying the Canon FF 135/2?
I'd think that 90mm with a 45mm (optical) aperture would be smaller in size/weight than a 135mm with 67.5mm aperture. In that regard, they could still be giving a reduction in weight, despite being a large(r) lens than one might have hoped for. Do we have the spec on it, or just the impression that its so big they've "reversed course" against their customer base ideology @ smaller.
From what I've always heard, Fuji purports their sensors to have IQ competing with FF ... it would stand to reason that they would likewise need glass to support that claim as well. What would you prefer they design ... a 90/2 pancake? ...Show more →
Filter size looks the same (72mm), but looks shorter than the 135mm so looks good to me.
p.2 #17 · Fuji 90/F2 prototype - why so big and heavy?
I got the 42.5/1.2 Pan Leica and it is excellent, but it's large and heavy for m43.
The price for optical excellence seems to be size and weight and Fuji is no different.
p.2 #18 · Fuji 90/F2 prototype - why so big and heavy?
Just for a quick size comparison. Here's the 90 next to the 56 and the 60. The 56 isn't enormous, but it's not small either. Note the 90 also doesn't have its rear cap on.
p.2 #19 · Fuji 90/F2 prototype - why so big and heavy?
rattymouse wrote:
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.
The Nikon 85/2.0 AI-S is also the worst 85 Nikon has made optically. It's not even vaguely extremely sharp wide open, especially if compared to the 105/2.5 AI-S (probably the standard for wide-open performance in a Nikkor short tele of that era),
Don't get me wrong, for its era it was a good but not outstanding performer, but the older 85/1.8, and all the newer Nikkor 85's walk all over it optically. Only the 85/1.8AF/AF-D is really similar in performance and even that is better. There's a good reason why the 85/2 is the least valuable Nikkor 85.
p.2 #20 · Fuji 90/F2 prototype - why so big and heavy?
curious80 wrote:
I don't think their shorter FL lenses are large for their specification - the 23mm 1.4 is shorter than the Sony 24mm 1.8, and 35mm 1.4 is close to Sony 35mm 1.8 despite being f1.4 and high quality. The 90mm f2 seems huge though, hopefully it is not the final size.
The 23/1.4 is significantly larger than the ZA E 24/1.8, but it's all in diameter. The Sony has a 52mm front thread, the Fuji a 62mm. The ZA 24 is 2.5mm longer, but the Fuji is 9mm wider in diameter (72mm vs 63mm)
