p.6 #5 · Fuji 90/F2 prototype - why so big and heavy?
I think the lens looks more than a simple mock up to me and I think it is most likely wishful thinking it will end up being significantly smaller. It is large, but it isn't huge. Not very long but arguably "fat". When was the last time you saw a "mock up/dummy" that looked like a finished product and it ended up a lot different?
I mean, look at the Sony FE 90/2.8 macro. Who thinks it will end up being smaller? I don't. And that thing is unreasonably large.
p.6 #6 · Fuji 90/F2 prototype - why so big and heavy?
I actually think most modern lens lines are getting bigger and bigger.
Its probably because they're trying to keep all you pixel peepers happy (in vain)
Its physics, better performance needs bigger lenses, look at the size of the otuses. Unless you want to pay 6-7k to leica to keep it good and small, minus AF of course, and even then someone will mention the mid zone dip etc
digital was bad for the size of the lenses, it made pixel peeping easier and more precise, not to mention it nearly killed small wides because of the way it deals with light at an angle.
p.6 #8 · Fuji 90/F2 prototype - why so big and heavy?
I'd take the vignetting personally
but the lens makers have the consumer data/preferences, I guess it must show that people prefer a super-corrected lens even if it means it's a monster.
p.6 #12 · Fuji 90/F2 prototype - why so big and heavy?
itai195 wrote:
The large lenses are part of why I don't shoot Fuji anymore. May as well go FF, or MFT with significantly smaller lenses.
Well it really depends on what lenses you choose for comparison. My favorite Fuji lens the 14/2.8 has not really any comparable FF lens, or m43 for that matter. The lenses may not all be tiny but in general they are still a lot smaller than most FF lenses, even made specially for crop and then you have yet to take into account the body. Even the smallest Canon FF body, the 6D looks and feels gigantic when compared to the largest Fuji X body the T-X1.
Here's a link to camerasize.com comparing Canon 6D with 24-70/4L, Fuji X-T1+18-55/2.8-4 and Olympus E-M1+Panasonic 12-35/2.8. The Canon looks huge even if lens is quite small. The Panasonic lens is beefier than the Fuji. ...Then the Fuji 16-55/2.8 will be larger than the 18-55 but probably tiny compared to the Canon EF-S 17-55/2.8.
p.6 #13 · Fuji 90/F2 prototype - why so big and heavy?
I'm content with the size of mostly all the X lenses I currently have, but not at all appreciative of the direction Fuji is going if the pending girth and weight of the 90 is any indication. I had transitioned from the Oly 4/3 system, selling virtually all of my many Oly/Pany lens but keeping the E-M5 body and the kit lens. The one lens that I hesitated selling since I considered it to be among the sharpest and best lenses I have owned was the 75/1.8; size and weight wise it was excellent. After thinking it over, I have re-ordered the Oly 75 and will pass on the 90 when released....I'll simply deem the 75 to be a dedicated lens and treat the Oly package to constitute a fixed lens camera....it certainly isn't large, heavy or space consuming so it's not a burden of any consequence. And that takes care of that. Also, I don't have any particular interest in any of the others on the drawing board except perhaps the 16. If as and when Fuji would do a 300/1.4 which could be used for birding, that would be a possibility; (I have no interest in the zoom included in the mockups, or any long zoom for that matter).However, Oly has a 300/4 lens in the hopper, and IF the IQ passes muster, it, together with the 75, would satisfy that pocket of this aged hobbyist's pursuits. Two distinct small systems is doable and not burdensome from my vantage point....like carrying two bodies with different lens.
p.6 #14 · Fuji 90/F2 prototype - why so big and heavy?
The 14 is closest in quality to the famous 21 Distagon, IMO, but smaller. A stop slower in DoF terms, but otherwise very similar in quality, and even a bit better in distortion, I believe.
p.6 #15 · Fuji 90/F2 prototype - why so big and heavy?
Carsten: Fuji XF 14/2.8 is one of my favorites in the line up. Would have been nice to compare it to the FF Biogon 21/2.8 for size and performance. I had the full G2 outfit and I think the comparison would be interesting. I think the full frame Biogon 21/2.8 is smaller than the XF14/2.8?
Regarding the 90/2 lens mock up: it all depends on which Fuji rep told that person that it "may not" be final in size. Anyone in charge of anything or "just a rep"?
Seems like a knee jerk answer from the rep to save grace, which probably wasn't expecting a negative comment on the lens/mock up and even if a couple more were to complain about the size on Photokina I am not so sure that they would go to such lengths as to revamp the whole lens. You can't just shrink it.
Most importantly I am not even sure that the feedback will reach the proper Fuji level: talk to the engineer and it is not his decision to make it smaller at this stage. Talk to a Fuji rep who isn't on a deciding level and that person will have to forward the negative comments to the right person through all the company filters in communication and then a discussion would have to follow, a decision has to be made to tear up the mock up and start over again. Considering everything else on Fuji's agenda I would be very surprised to see that whole chain of positive events would take place regarding the 90/2.
A memo would probably read: "A few people think the 90/2 is rather large" and not "We must shrink the 90/2 considerably".
That's why I am quite sure it ain't gonna happen. Not 100% - miracles have happened before - but 99%.
p.6 #16 · Fuji 90/F2 prototype - why so big and heavy?
The person I interviewed was the head of the Fujifilm Germany Service team. I asked to speak with someone familiar with the reasoning behind the future lens lineup and he was the guy multiple people pointed me towards.
p.6 #17 · Fuji 90/F2 prototype - why so big and heavy?
Ok, thanks for that.
I don't know how well a Head of Service Team in another country is connected to the actual R&D team in Japan, or plugged in to their thinking and decision making in lens design.
The statement he made bears no actual weight and is cleverly void of promise - it is just a non committal statement saying "it could end up being smaller" when the whole meaning if outspoken, would read: "I have no idea at all - but since I do not want to disappoint you I will give you a faint/false hope that it _could_ be smaller and if it isn't it I haven't lied about it".
If he really knew anything about it I believe the answer would have been different. If customers express concern over a negative aspect of a soon to be released product and you KNOW it is going to be bettered for final production you would not give a non committal answer like that. There would be no risk in saying "we are working on making it smaller" or simply state that for the sake of image quality it simply "has to be that size".
It is of course my take on it. I chalk all the rest up to the internet's ability to make wishful thinking "reality". I don't mean anything against you, it is just that people read all sorts of "info" out of snippets on the web and statements taken out of context. I greatly appreciate your efforts on Photokina - I have read as much as I have found of what you have posted on the topic.
p.6 #18 · Fuji 90/F2 prototype - why so big and heavy?
I agree that may very well be the case, but I can't exactly break down Fujifilm's engineering headquarters to verify. That said, the Fujifilm Germany staff I'm sure had extensive discussions with corporate prior to Photokina...it is the biggest photo show in the world.
p.6 #19 · Fuji 90/F2 prototype - why so big and heavy?
Yes, I am sure they did. I am just not that sure about R&D or engineering being involved all that much or at all in those discussions. I think it was more Marketing "what is coming, what are we going to display and what are the specifications" kind of communication prior to Photokina. I don't think the Germans were prying too much about the R&D and the Fuji folks did produce an advanced 90/2 mock up on display - but apparently with no firm instructions or hints on whether it would turn out any different in terms of size or other specs being changed.
They arguably had enough on their hand with the new releases and specs so I don't hold it against the Fuji reps at Photokina. Considering they had some Fuji people there from Japan I think that it would be unlikely to present a mock up that would be far off the target size. So far they have been fairly consistent.
Considering the size of the other lenses I am quite firm in my belief that the mock up is fairly accurate.
I would of course be very happy for the Fuji users if I was wrong and the 90/2 turned out significantly smaller. We will just have to wait and see.
Thanks again for many hours of slogging the mess halls a great service indeed!
p.6 #20 · Fuji 90/F2 prototype - why so big and heavy?
hauxon wrote:
Well it really depends on what lenses you choose for comparison. My favorite Fuji lens the 14/2.8 has not really any comparable FF lens, or m43 for that matter. The lenses may not all be tiny but in general they are still a lot smaller than most FF lenses, even made specially for crop and then you have yet to take into account the body. Even the smallest Canon FF body, the 6D looks and feels gigantic when compared to the largest Fuji X body the T-X1.
Here's a link to camerasize.com comparing Canon 6D with 24-70/4L, Fuji X-T1+18-55/2.8-4 and Olympus E-M1+Panasonic 12-35/2.8. The Canon looks huge even if lens is quite small. The Panasonic lens is beefier than the Fuji. ...Then the Fuji 16-55/2.8 will be larger than the 18-55 but probably tiny compared to the Canon EF-S 17-55/2.8.
The 14mm is an exception, it's a great lens and very small for what it is. I'm talking more about lenses like the 10-24, 56, and 90. They are great lenses, but all are larger than what I'd like to carry at that focal length. There are much smaller native options for MFT, albeit some of those require giving up speed (a tradeoff I'm generally happy to make).
The 10-24 was a particular disappointment to me in terms of size and weight. It's pretty much the size of an FF lens covering the same range.
In general, I'd like to see Fuji make some slower, smaller lenses. f/4 zooms and f/1.8-2 primes, for example.
