p.3 #1 · Fuji 90/F2 prototype - why so big and heavy?
Looks about 30% longer (pixel distance from red alignment mark to end) than the 56mm ... why does that seem so shockingly large to folks for a lens with a 60% longer FL?
p.3 #2 · Fuji 90/F2 prototype - why so big and heavy?
The length isn't the issue, it's the girth. This is a BIG lens around. It's a 72mm filter and probably 82-85mm in diameter. The 56 is a 62mm filter and actually has a very slightly larger aperture opening (46.6mm vs 45mm), so why so much bigger in diameter. Like I said, it looks to be roughly the size of the 85mm f/1.2L. The 85L is 91mm long and 84mm wide. THis lens, if 30% is correct, is 95mm long and 84mm wide. Longer I sort of understand, since the focal length needs to make up for the shorter flange distance. But this is an f/2 lens that, in mockup form at least, is as big or bigger than a full frame 85mm f/1.2. Why?
p.3 #4 · Fuji 90/F2 prototype - why so big and heavy?
RustyBug wrote:
What would you prefer they design ... a 90/2 pancake that vignettes about 4 stops from center to edge?
If you read some of my previous posts you would know I think the Olympus 75/1.8 is a good example of what can be achieved without going overboard in size. ...and stop being a wise guy!
p.3 #7 · Fuji 90/F2 prototype - why so big and heavy?
One would expect the Fuji lens to slightly larger since the entrance pupil is 90/2=45 vs. 75/1.8=41.7. The similar sized 85/1.2 would have 70.8. So Fuji is making the lens very big for it's ability to gather light.
Canon does not produce the 135/2.8 SF anymore which would be comparable to the Fuji 90/2 in angle of view ability to collect photons. I used to have it and while it's not equal of the 135L it was actually quite good. It is only 390 grams and has a 52mm filter thread.
p.3 #9 · Fuji 90/F2 prototype - why so big and heavy?
75 is absolutely amazing and maybe a reason in itself to hold on to at least one m43 body. It is ridiculously sharp and contrasty wide open and does not even need to be closed, I always shot it wide open. Further it only weighs 300 grams and is quite compact. And its 150mm equivalence makes a perfect focal length for head shots and general portrery. In fact as I am writing these words, I start remembering how much I miss it, and start thinking about buying it and a 43 body...... Don't do it...don't do it.....don't do it.......
p.3 #11 · Fuji 90/F2 prototype - why so big and heavy?
lexvo wrote:
Maybe Fuji is considering a larger aperture than f/2
you mean like they did with 56? first said it was going to be 1.4 but then made it 1.2? That would be nice if they did 90/1.4. Assuming that 90/1.4 is not larger than a typical 85/1.4 for full frame (about 550 grams, thinking of Nikon 85 1.4 or Zeiss 85 1.4 size and weight in the back of my mind).
p.3 #12 · Fuji 90/F2 prototype - why so big and heavy?
hauxon wrote:
One would expect the Fuji lens to slightly larger since the entrance pupil is 90/2=45 vs. 75/1.8=41.7. The similar sized 85/1.2 would have 70.8. So Fuji is making the lens very big for it's ability to gather light.
Maybe there's 1. missing in front of the 2 ....
The picture suggests that the front element is considerably larger than the entrance pupil. That is not typical for a 90-mm lens. I suspect that reduced vignetting is a feature of this design.
p.3 #13 · Fuji 90/F2 prototype - why so big and heavy?
mawz wrote:
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.
You have a defective copy. I've seen my own shots as well as *many* wide open shots on the MF lens thread in the Nikon forum. It's tack sharp.
It's the lowest priced MF 85 lens because Nikon made far more of them than the faster aperture versions. Supply vs demand you know??
Performance has nothing to do with price. It's all about supply and demand. A Zeiss 21mm Distagon would cost $5 if there were 5 billion of them lying around. Does that lower price make it a lesser performing lens? Nope.
p.3 #14 · Fuji 90/F2 prototype - why so big and heavy?
My 85 f.2 AI-S copy was pretty sharp wide open (as sharp as my 85 1.4 D wide open) on the NEX-7..
On the overall Fuji glass size discussion, this is my one gripe against the X system; the lenses are bigger than I'd like, especially on the X-E1/2 bodies. The 23 1.4 is simply amazing, and the way the MF engages is fantastic: no need to switch the camera to MF, and has a very short throw. But it's a porker
p.3 #17 · Fuji 90/F2 prototype - why so big and heavy?
Toothwalker wrote:
The picture suggests that the front element is considerably larger than the entrance pupil. That is not typical for a 90-mm lens. I suspect that reduced vignetting is a feature of this design.
+1 @ ^
Lots of glass out there that has an aperture spec in the center that is no where close to that spec in Zones B & C wide open.
I've got plenty of (FF) Oly's that are nice and small ... but the vignetting is the price to be paid, until you stop down sufficiently to even things out across the frame. How much vignetting is worth vs. how much size & weight is worth ... variably subjective, but rarely is there any "free lunch" when it comes to optics.
p.3 #18 · Fuji 90/F2 prototype - why so big and heavy?
That looks like a damn big looking lens to me.
Saying that, it is still a specialist lens. Not every man and his dog has a 35mm equivalent of a 135mm lens or would consider getting one .
Particularly I don't think these are the typical lens one carry around on travels so size may be less relevant compared to something in the more "useable" focal length. For this size, it better offer a very good IQ and competitive pricing.
p.3 #19 · Fuji 90/F2 prototype - why so big and heavy?
absolutic wrote:
you mean like they did with 56? first said it was going to be 1.4 but then made it 1.2? That would be nice if they did 90/1.4. Assuming that 90/1.4 is not larger than a typical 85/1.4 for full frame (about 550 grams, thinking of Nikon 85 1.4 or Zeiss 85 1.4 size and weight in the back of my mind).
p.3 #20 · Fuji 90/F2 prototype - why so big and heavy?
That looks like a damn big looking lens to me.
Saying that, it is still a specialist lens. Not every man and his dog has a 35mm equivalent of a 135mm lens or would consider getting one .
Particularly I don't think these are the typical lens one carry around on travels so size may be less relevant compared to something in the more "useable" focal length. For this size, it better offer a very good IQ and competitive pricing.
