p.7 #1 · Fuji 90/F2 prototype - why so big and heavy?
itai195 wrote:
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....Show more →
Making the 56mm an f/1.4 lens would have made a significant difference towards size reduction with an almost insignificant cost. That f/1.2 is purely there for marketing. I bought a Nikon 50mm f/1.2 lens and find the difference between f/1.2 and f/1.4 meaningless. However, the size difference is NOT meaningless. Going up to f/1.2 adds a very significant amount of mass to the lens. I wish I knew and understood that better before I bought the f/1.2. I could easily, easily live with f/1.4 in return for lower weight.
p.7 #2 · Fuji 90/F2 prototype - why so big and heavy?
Well the 23 and 56 are not really big compared to the FF eqv. lenses. I think it was wise making theses lenses fast because that's what most enthusiastic photographers wan't. You have the choice of smaller primes 18-35-60 if you like to travel light and then you have the 23-56-90 if you want faster lenses. I however agree on the 10-24, I'm hesitating to buy it because of the size, so I will probbaly end up with Samyang 12/2 and XF14 instead. But the 10-24 is a terrific performer and insanely wide ...so it's still alluring, at least for a landscape guy like me.
p.7 #3 · Fuji 90/F2 prototype - why so big and heavy?
itai195 wrote:
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).
To be fair, the equivalent to the Fuji 56 in m43 land, the 42.5mm Nocticron, is actually larger than the Fuji 56.
I too would like some slower options optimized for size, and they will probably be coming. The XF 27 is one if those slower small lenses, and it sells oK, but not like their premium glass, so I can't really blame Fuji here. M4/3 will always be smaller overall due to shorter focal lengths required at the long end.
p.7 #4 · Fuji 90/F2 prototype - why so big and heavy?
Well, if you're going to buy both lenses, then you might as well buy the 10-24, as it's smaller than carrying those two together.
I just have the 14 because it's so good and small. I did wish for the 10-24 a few times this week though. One thing about the 10-24 that's nice is that it's still quite light and it's skinny on the back, so I found it fit into my small bags fan if I put it rear cap down. It also feels smaller in use than it looks in pictures. hauxon wrote:
Well the 23 and 56 are not really big compared to the FF eqv. lenses. I think it was wise making theses lenses fast because that's what most enthusiastic photographers wan't. You have the choice of smaller primes 18-35-60 if you like to travel light and then you have the 23-56-90 if you want faster lenses. I however agree on the 10-24, I'm hesitating to buy it because of the size, so I will probbaly end up with Samyang 12/2 and XF14 instead. But the 10-24 is a terrific performer and insanely wide ...so it's still alluring, at least for a landscape guy like me. ...Show more →
p.7 #5 · Fuji 90/F2 prototype - why so big and heavy?
Well the 10-24 is similar in size or smaller than Canon's 10-22 which is not considered a big lens. The the Samyang 12/2 and 14/2.8 are only 85 grams heavier than the 10-24. Stacked the are only 3 cm taller and have less girth. The main reason for me however is night and aurora photography where the 12/2 will be very useful.
p.7 #6 · Fuji 90/F2 prototype - why so big and heavy?
FWIW, Olympus is currently focussing on high-end lenses. Their 4 PRO Series lenses are all super-high-grade all-weather lenses … so they are relatively big and heavy … but still significantly smaller and lighter than FF/DSLR lenses - especially their 300/4 PRO.
They are now talking about making super-fast w/a primes and have filed a patent for a 12/1.0 and 14/1.0 lenses …. yay! I do welcome these developments. Shallower DOF, higher resolution, lower light capability (so there is less need to crank up the ISO), etc are what's needed if they wish to be taken more seriously by pros and advanced photographers.
p.7 #7 · Fuji 90/F2 prototype - why so big and heavy?
bobbytan wrote:
FWIW, Olympus is currently focussing on high-end lenses. Their 4 PRO Series lenses are all super-high-grade all-weather lenses … so they are relatively big and heavy … but still significantly smaller and lighter than FF/DSLR lenses - especially their 300/4 PRO.
They are now talking about making super-fast w/a primes and have filed a patent for a 12/1.0 and 14/1.0 lenses …. yay! I do welcome these developments. Shallower DOF, higher resolution, lower light capability (so there is less need to crank up the ISO), etc are what's needed if they wish to be taken more seriously by pros and advanced photographers....Show more →
I'd want a 12/1 or 14/1 on 43 system.....one of the problems with m43 was that I love a razor thin DOF, and the closest I got to it in 43 was 75/1.8. Having 12/1 or 14/1 would be awesome, but I won't pay $1500 for these.
p.7 #8 · Fuji 90/F2 prototype - why so big and heavy?
Will a 10.5mm f:0.95 work? Voigtländer's will be out in the spring. absolutic wrote:
I'd want a 12/1 or 14/1 on 43 system.....one of the problems with m43 was that I love a razor thin DOF, and the closest I got to it in 43 was 75/1.8. Having 12/1 or 14/1 would be awesome, but I won't pay $1500 for these.
p.7 #9 · Fuji 90/F2 prototype - why so big and heavy?
Jman13 wrote:
Will a 10.5mm f:0.95 work? Voigtländer's will be out in the spring.
I'd like it a lot. However, the problem I have with the Voigt, is that their previous 0.95 for m43 all were kind of 'dreamy' or 'soft' or whatever you call it, wide open. and needed to be stopped down a little for some sharpness. Now, you and I both know, that if Panasonic Leica make a 0.95, that damn thing will be sharp and contrasty at 0.95. That's the difference.
Sep 22, 2014 at 12:48 PM
Steve Spencer Online • • • • • • • Upload & Sell: On
p.7 #10 · Fuji 90/F2 prototype - why so big and heavy?
Steve Spencer Online • • • • • • • Upload & Sell: On
p.7 #11 · Fuji 90/F2 prototype - why so big and heavy?
Jman13 wrote:
To be fair, the equivalent to the Fuji 56 in m43 land, the 42.5mm Nocticron, is actually larger than the Fuji 56.
I too would like some slower options optimized for size, and they will probably be coming. The XF 27 is one if those slower small lenses, and it sells oK, but not like their premium glass, so I can't really blame Fuji here. M4/3 will always be smaller overall due to shorter focal lengths required at the long end.
I don't really see the 42.5 Nocticron as equivalent to the Fuji 56. Both are great lenses. I think the Fuji makes pretty much all the right compromises. It has a nice wide aperture, it is well corrected but they left a few aberrations which kept it smaller. It has very good bokeh. The Nocticron, however, is a different sort of lens. To start it has optical stabilization, which adds to its size. It also is very highly corrected including a special process with the spherical elements that eliminates onion rings in the bokeh. To me it really sets the bar for m4/3rds lenses, but even as good as it is it doesn't have the shallow depth of field capabilities of the Fuji 56, although its short MFD is another great feature of the Nocticron. What I like about this lens is that it lets m4/3rds users who don't want to compromise on their lenses have a truly premium portrait lens. So given their different characters it is not surprising to me that the Panny/Leica is bigger. Although not to the same extent it is a bit like comparing the Canon 85L with the Otus 85. Sure the Canon is faster and the Otus is bigger, but that is pretty much what you would expect.
What I think sets m4/3rds apart right now, however, is that you can create a very small kit with this system. For a lot of people and what they want the really small kit just isn't there for Fuji. Said another way, for everyone of Fuji's lenses you can get an m4/3rds lens with the same field of view that is at least a third the size (with the exception of the 14 for which m4/3rds has no comparable lens). Now you might have to give up a half of a stop or a stop in aperture and another stop in depth of field possibilities, but you can really go tiny with m4/3rds in a way you can't with Fuji.
Personally, I don't care to go that small, but I understand why some people want to and why they are frustrated by Fuji. I think,however, that Fuji's current lenses make a lot of sense. They keep them just a bit smaller and lighter than FF lenses with a similar FOV and similar depth of field capabilities. Within those constraints they then make relatively fast lenses to a reasonably high standard. Part of that seems to be making lenses that are pretty fat, but that isn't all that bad. They don't really shoot the moon, however, and try to make premium lenses. They accept the compromises that keep the cost down. I think this is why so many people have been happy with the system.
Despite my very much liking their decision, for me it doesn't really work. I want manual focus lenses and it is starting to become clear--to me at least--that FF manual focus lenses can beat Fuji both for price and size at similar FOV and depth of field capabilities. If you pick carefully, anyway. So I will most likely be going that route and in no small part because I prefer manual focus. I can certainly see how if someone likes AF, that they would really like the Fuji system--even with its relatively fat lenses
p.7 #12 · Fuji 90/F2 prototype - why so big and heavy?
Steve Spencer wrote:
What I think sets m4/3rds apart right now, however, is that you can create a very small kit with this system. For a lot of people and what they want the really small kit just isn't there for Fuji.
I agree. I went for a while with EM5 and 14/2.5 and 45/1.8 as my portable m43 kit. EM5 (gripless) with 14/2.5 fits in many pockets, and 45/1.8 is phenomenally small and light 90mm equivalent which fits into any pocket. You can take it with you at night when going out and not look out of place and tackle many situation with such a kit.
p.7 #13 · Fuji 90/F2 prototype - why so big and heavy?
Steve Spencer wrote:
Said another way, for everyone of Fuji's lenses you can get an m4/3rds lens with the same field of view that is at least a third the size ...
Steve Spencer wrote:
Now you might have to give up a half of a stop or a stop in aperture and another stop in depth of field possibilities...
Said yet another way, the caveat above really means that the comparison is much more than just a surface-level one. For me there are deficiencies in the m4/3rds system which preclude it out of hand; I would just as soon get a Nikon 1 or Canon M.
Fuji hit my sweet spot, and has even changed my mind on the need for full frame cameras - with this kind of lens line-up, I don't need more than APS-C.
I just added a Voigtlander Heliar 15/4.5. Add the 18/2, 27/2.8, and 60/2.4 macro and that is a pretty darn tiny setup with an X-A1/X-M1. Put the 23/1.4, 35/1.4, and 56/1.2 for low light/shallow DOF and that is quite a dual kit. You also need to consider that even though the 14/23/56 might be one the bigger side, they are all lightweight - especially given their performance.
That being said, I too want the 90/2 to be smaller. I'm OK with the size of the 16/1.4, 23/1.4, and 56/1.2 but can't see what in this design is necessitating such a thick lens.
p.7 #14 · Fuji 90/F2 prototype - why so big and heavy?
Steve Spencer wrote:
Despite my very much liking their decision, for me it doesn't really work. I want manual focus lenses and it is starting to become clear--to me at least--that FF manual focus lenses can beat Fuji both for price and size at similar FOV and depth of field capabilities. If you pick carefully, anyway. So I will most likely be going that route and in no small part because I prefer manual focus. I can certainly see how if someone likes AF, that they would really like the Fuji system--even with its relatively fat lenses
agreed
now that the lens roadmap seems more or less complete, and the latest EVFs with focusing aids seem more or less capable, all we need is for fuji or CV to make a small batch of tiny MF lenses at the most popular focal lengths. 50, 35, 24/28 equivalents. There are also those new Chinese lenses, Mitakon etc, but I havent seen any samples yet (and not holding my breath).
For me the pinnacle of quality and usability, and what I'm comparing to, was the Contax G system. Comparing Fuji to that I'm not losing anything in terms of DOF or quality (at least I don't feel so anyway), but I do lose some in terms of lens size.
p.7 #16 · Fuji 90/F2 prototype - why so big and heavy?
Spyro P. wrote:
agreed
now that the lens roadmap seems more or less complete, and the latest EVFs with focusing aids seem more or less capable, all we need is for fuji or CV to make a small batch of tiny MF lenses at the most popular focal lengths. 50, 35, 24/28 equivalents. There are also those new Chinese lenses, Mitakon etc, but I havent seen any samples yet (and not holding my breath).
For me the pinnacle of quality and usability, and what I'm comparing to, was the Contax G system. Comparing Fuji to that I'm not losing anything in terms of DOF or quality (at least I don't feel so anyway), but I do lose some in terms of lens size....Show more →
Great. I hope they finish the lens lineup and go into maintenance mode: occasional updates (AF, coatings), perhaps a few more f/2 or f/2.8 primes for size/low price coming out here or there. Then get me a FF, high-MP camera to replace my 5D2. Do it like the APSc rollout, and give me two or three wide through normal f/2 primes at reasonable cost. *Goes back to dreaming*
p.7 #17 · Fuji 90/F2 prototype - why so big and heavy?
Since the filter size is 72 mm the 90 seems to be sorter than the 135 and same diameter or slightly winder, if I save a couple of handreds grams getting equal quality then I will sell the 135 and get that 90
