p.5 #1 · Fuji 90/F2 prototype - why so big and heavy?
michael49 wrote:
They might hear enough of this type of ranting that it causes them to work to reduce the size of the final product. Maybe this prototype was shown for exactly that reason - to gauge photographers response to the potential size of the lens.
You are exactly right. Fuji is one company where if we bitch enough, they will listen and make it smaller. I remember I was bitching that face detection on/off button could not be assigned to fn button on XE2, while it was available to be assigned to fn button on cheaper XA1. Fujiguys told me they would pass it along to engineers, and sure enough, in the next firmware, they included that option that I wanted. So yes, Fuji listens. Unlike many other Japanese camera manufacturers, by the way. And not just their tester photographers.
p.5 #2 · Fuji 90/F2 prototype - why so big and heavy?
Fuji has been great listening to customers. ...if Fuji is listening I really would like the lenses to have metal hoods like the first three lenses did. haha
p.5 #3 · Fuji 90/F2 prototype - why so big and heavy?
I don't....I hate the hood for my 35 and 60. The 35 hood can't be reversed, and the rubber cap falls off in the bag too easily, so I never, and I mean never...use it. The 60 hood is so huge, and the metal a potential finish scraper that that too never gets used.
p.5 #5 · Fuji 90/F2 prototype - why so big and heavy?
absolutic wrote:
You are exactly right. Fuji is one company where if we bitch enough, they will listen and make it smaller. I remember I was bitching that face detection on/off button could not be assigned to fn button on XE2, while it was available to be assigned to fn button on cheaper XA1. Fujiguys told me they would pass it along to engineers, and sure enough, in the next firmware, they included that option that I wanted. So yes, Fuji listens. Unlike many other Japanese camera manufacturers, by the way. And not just their tester photographers.
4 years people have been asking for greater exposure bracketing from Fujifilm. 4 years. Nothing. Absolutely nothing from them.
p.5 #6 · Fuji 90/F2 prototype - why so big and heavy?
Jman13 wrote:
I don't....I hate the hood for my 35 and 60. The 35 hood can't be reversed, and the rubber cap falls off in the bag too easily, so I never, and I mean never...use it. The 60 hood is so huge, and the metal a potential finish scraper that that too never gets used.
I never take the 35 hood off mine and love the 60 hood. It's probably more practical to have plastic hoods but I did always like to solid feel of the metal hoods on my Zeiss lenses. It's like alloy wheels on your car, it's not needed but it adds class.
p.5 #7 · Fuji 90/F2 prototype - why so big and heavy?
hauxon wrote:
Well the length is not unexpected.
The 135L is quite common lens with Canon users and thus not really a specialized lens in my opinion. I used mine a lot both for portraiture and landscape. I could skip having a 70-200 in my bag and have only the 135L and extenders for lower weight. I think that fat 90/2 would look rather strange with an adapter.
Its focal length and distance for use make it specialized. I challenge you to find 5 people that lug around the 135L for every day use.
As far as landscapes go, I am sure it does a great job at compressing your scene. Lets not kid ourselves though, the vast majority of people shooting this lens are using it for portraiture, whether it be people, animals or cars. Even fuji themselves describe it as a portrait lens, the 90/2. With that said if you are shooting portraits you'd take it. If not, well they have tons of other small glass for you to use
Sounds like you're searching for a reason to complain about the 90/2 to me.
p.5 #10 · Fuji 90/F2 prototype - why so big and heavy?
rattymouse wrote:
4 years people have been asking for greater exposure bracketing from Fujifilm. 4 years. Nothing. Absolutely nothing from them.
Hmmm - 4 years people have kept asking you to post in a less agressive tone and refrain a bit from bashing Fuji in about 80-90% of your postings.Nothing. Absolutely nothing from you.
p.5 #11 · Fuji 90/F2 prototype - why so big and heavy?
alba63 wrote:
Hmmm - 4 years people have kept asking you to post in a less agressive tone and refrain a bit from bashing Fuji in about 80-90% of your postings.Nothing. Absolutely nothing from you.
p.5 #12 · Fuji 90/F2 prototype - why so big and heavy?
ROTFL!
Sep 19, 2014 at 02:47 PM
Steve Spencer Online • • • • • • • Upload & Sell: On
p.5 #13 · Fuji 90/F2 prototype - why so big and heavy?
I am going to say something a bit controversial, but I think it is true. This lens shows some of Fuji's tendencies in lens design that you can see across all their lenses, but displays that more fully. I don't really think Fuji makes small lenses. It is true that some of their lenses are admirably short and almost all are admirably light and those are good things, but almost all their lenses have a big diameter for what they are. Even a relatively short lens that is light, with a big diameter isn't really a small lens (i.e., it still may have a pretty big volume).
I think a lot people have thought of Fuji as developing small lenses because they have compared these lenses to Sony/Zeiss (and Zeiss touit) lenses and Panny/Leica lenses. In my view, it is not that Fuji lenses are big, it is these brands of lenses tend to be large. Take for example the Fuji 10-24 f/4. This lens has has a 78mm diameter and although it isn't that long at 87mm, it is still a very large lens. In fact, it has the same diameter as the new Sony/Zeiss 16-35 f/4 full frame lens, and a much larger diameter than the Sony 10-18 f/4 (and it isn't the long end that is missing from this lens that allows it to have a narrower diameter).
Or consider even the 18 f/2 (one of Fuji's smallest lenses) it has a 64.5mm diameter. That lenses is noticeably fatter than the full frame Sony/Zeiss 35 f/2.8 (which doesn't make small lenses either) at 61.5mm. If you compare it to the Panny/Leica 15mm for m4/3rds it looks giant, which has a diameter of just 57.5mm, and is half the volume of the Fuji 18 f/2, and it looks like it will be a lot fatter than the new Sony 28 f/2 as well.
Even the Fuji 35 f/1.4, which is a small lens, has a pretty fat diameter at 65mm. This makes it fatter than the Sony/Zeiss 55 f/1.8 (64.4mm in diameter) and the Sony 35 f/1.8 (63mm in diameter), and way fatter than the Olympus 25 f/1.8 (57.5mm) and a little bigger than the Panny/Leica 25 f/1.4 (63mm in diameter). Only the Zeiss 32 f/1.8 has a diameter as large (it too is 65mm). So it is tied with the Zeiss for having the biggest diameter among mirror less normal lenses.
So, Fuji all along has shown this tendency to make lenses with larger diameters and this lens is just taken that to a pretty ridiculous extreme. I am sure they will make this lens a bit smaller and even reduce the very large diameter some, but I still expect it to be a pretty big diameter. That is just Fuji's way. On the positive side they do tend to keep lenses fairly short and fairly light, but it is Olympus and Leica (not Panny/Leica) that have consistently made small lenses.
p.5 #15 · Fuji 90/F2 prototype - why so big and heavy?
Steve Spencer wrote:
I am going to say something a bit controversial, but I think it is true. This lens shows some of Fuji's tendencies in lens design that you can see across all their lenses, but displays that more fully. I don't really think Fuji makes small lenses. It is true that some of their lenses are admirably short and almost all are admirably light and those are good things, but almost all their lenses have a big diameter for what they are. Even a relatively short lens that is light, with a big diameter isn't really a small lens (i.e., it still may have a pretty big volume).
I think a lot people have thought of Fuji as developing small lenses because they have compared these lenses to Sony/Zeiss (and Zeiss touit) lenses and Panny/Leica lenses. In my view, it is not that Fuji lenses are big, it is these brands of lenses tend to be large. Take for example the Fuji 10-24 f/4. This lens has has a 78mm diameter and although it isn't that long at 87mm, it is still a very large lens. In fact, it has the same diameter as the new Sony/Zeiss 16-35 f/4 full frame lens, and a much larger diameter than the Sony 10-18 f/4 (and it isn't the long end that is missing from this lens that allows it to have a narrower diameter).
Or consider even the 18 f/2 (one of Fuji's smallest lenses) it has a 64.5mm diameter. That lenses is noticeably fatter than the full frame Sony/Zeiss 35 f/2.8 (which doesn't make small lenses either) at 61.5mm. If you compare it to the Panny/Leica 15mm for m4/3rds it looks giant, which has a diameter of just 57.5mm, and is half the volume of the Fuji 18 f/2, and it looks like it will be a lot fatter than the new Sony 28 f/2 as well.
Even the Fuji 35 f/1.4, which is a small lens, has a pretty fat diameter at 65mm. This makes it fatter than the Sony/Zeiss 55 f/1.8 (64.4mm in diameter) and the Sony 35 f/1.8 (63mm in diameter), and way fatter than the Olympus 25 f/1.8 (57.5mm) and a little bigger than the Panny/Leica 25 f/1.4 (63mm in diameter). Only the Zeiss 32 f/1.8 has a diameter as large (it too is 65mm). So it is tied with the Zeiss for having the biggest diameter among mirror less normal lenses.
So, Fuji all along has shown this tendency to make lenses with larger diameters and this lens is just taken that to a pretty ridiculous extreme. I am sure they will make this lens a bit smaller and even reduce the very large diameter some, but I still expect it to be a pretty big diameter. That is just Fuji's way. On the positive side they do tend to keep lenses fairly short and fairly light, but it is Olympus and Leica (not Panny/Leica) that have consistently made small lenses....Show more →
p.5 #16 · Fuji 90/F2 prototype - why so big and heavy?
Steve Spencer wrote:
I am going to say something a bit controversial, but I think it is true. This lens shows some of Fuji's tendencies in lens design that you can see across all their lenses, but displays that more fully. I don't really think Fuji makes small lenses. It is true that some of their lenses are admirably short and almost all are admirably light and those are good things, but almost all their lenses have a big diameter for what they are. Even a relatively short lens that is light, with a big diameter isn't really a small lens (i.e., it still may have a pretty big volume).
I think a lot people have thought of Fuji as developing small lenses because they have compared these lenses to Sony/Zeiss (and Zeiss touit) lenses and Panny/Leica lenses. In my view, it is not that Fuji lenses are big, it is these brands of lenses tend to be large. Take for example the Fuji 10-24 f/4. This lens has has a 78mm diameter and although it isn't that long at 87mm, it is still a very large lens. In fact, it has the same diameter as the new Sony/Zeiss 16-35 f/4 full frame lens, and a much larger diameter than the Sony 10-18 f/4 (and it isn't the long end that is missing from this lens that allows it to have a narrower diameter).
Or consider even the 18 f/2 (one of Fuji's smallest lenses) it has a 64.5mm diameter. That lenses is noticeably fatter than the full frame Sony/Zeiss 35 f/2.8 (which doesn't make small lenses either) at 61.5mm. If you compare it to the Panny/Leica 15mm for m4/3rds it looks giant, which has a diameter of just 57.5mm, and is half the volume of the Fuji 18 f/2, and it looks like it will be a lot fatter than the new Sony 28 f/2 as well.
Even the Fuji 35 f/1.4, which is a small lens, has a pretty fat diameter at 65mm. This makes it fatter than the Sony/Zeiss 55 f/1.8 (64.4mm in diameter) and the Sony 35 f/1.8 (63mm in diameter), and way fatter than the Olympus 25 f/1.8 (57.5mm) and a little bigger than the Panny/Leica 25 f/1.4 (63mm in diameter). Only the Zeiss 32 f/1.8 has a diameter as large (it too is 65mm). So it is tied with the Zeiss for having the biggest diameter among mirror less normal lenses.
So, Fuji all along has shown this tendency to make lenses with larger diameters and this lens is just taken that to a pretty ridiculous extreme. I am sure they will make this lens a bit smaller and even reduce the very large diameter some, but I still expect it to be a pretty big diameter. That is just Fuji's way. On the positive side they do tend to keep lenses fairly short and fairly light, but it is Olympus and Leica (not Panny/Leica) that have consistently made small lenses....Show more →
You have to take into account that the outer diameter of the Fuji X lens mount is 59mm so a lens with 64 mm diameter is only 2.5mm outside of the mount. The 27mm pancake is (61.2mm) is essentially the same size as the mount. None of the zooms are fat and short. Still as good theory as any other.
Sep 19, 2014 at 06:23 PM
Steve Spencer Online • • • • • • • Upload & Sell: On
p.5 #17 · Fuji 90/F2 prototype - why so big and heavy?
jj_glos wrote:
Why compare against FF and m34 lenses?
I generally compared the Fuji lenses to other mirrorless lenses. You would expect at wider focal lengths that FF lenses would be the biggest, APS-C smaller, and m4/3rds the smallest. In diameter you see that the Fuji's tend to be as big or bigger than FF, and much larger than m4/3rds. This gives a context for understanding the size of the lenses.
p.5 #18 · Fuji 90/F2 prototype - why so big and heavy?
Jman13 wrote:
I don't....I hate the hood for my 35 and 60. The 35 hood can't be reversed, and the rubber cap falls off in the bag too easily, so I never, and I mean never...use it. The 60 hood is so huge, and the metal a potential finish scraper that that too never gets used.
Personally, I love the 35mm hood, but I never use the rubber cap.
The 60mm hood, on the other hand I agree is ridiculously large and I almost never use it for that reason.
Sep 19, 2014 at 08:39 PM
Steve Spencer Online • • • • • • • Upload & Sell: On
p.5 #19 · Fuji 90/F2 prototype - why so big and heavy?
hauxon wrote:
You have to take into account that the outer diameter of the Fuji X lens mount is 59mm so a lens with 64 mm diameter is only 2.5mm outside of the mount. The 27mm pancake is (61.2mm) is essentially the same size as the mount. None of the zooms are fat and short. Still as good theory as any other.
Yes, Fuji has a wider mount and that is part of the reason their lenses have a wider diameter, but to me the choice of the wider mount also reflects their design decision to have lenses with a wider diameter. With the zooms it is hard to do comparisons, because there really aren't comparable lenses to them. I don't really find any of the zooms as short, however, I will give you that. I do think, however, that all of them are pretty fat for what they are.
Anyway, for what it is worth my view is still that Fuji tends to build lenses with a wider diameter (and even chose a wider mount) and given that I wasn't as surprised by how fat the 90/2 prototype was.
p.5 #20 · Fuji 90/F2 prototype - why so big and heavy?
Well they chose a wider mount because it covers an APS-C sensor vs. A 4/3 sensor. The Sony E mount is even wider, and Canon EF and Nikon F are wider still.
