Those are three key lenses for the system. It is nice to see that Fujifilm seems to be aware of the gaps customers see in the system and are working to fill them. I am definitely in for the wide zoom and 55.
JAUrrutia9 wrote:
Yeah I'm with you. I saw the 55/1.7 and instantly felt the weight lift from my wallet.
+1
The only fast lens I've been wishing for. Perfect focal length and reasonable speed so that it doesn't get too huge.
It won't replace my slower and smaller lenses though, but perhaps the 63 will be redundant. I really prefer a "true" normal (focal length = sensor diagonal).
The only fast lens I've been wishing for. Perfect focal length and reasonable speed so that it doesn't get too huge.
It won't replace my slower and smaller lenses though, but perhaps the 63 will be redundant. I really prefer a "true" normal (focal length = sensor diagonal).
What about the focal length do you like in particular?
shadow9d9 wrote:
What about the focal length do you like in particular?
Probably that it feels "normal". The modern normal lenses are for some reason a bit too long at ~50 mm equivalent in FF terms. I've always wanted something a tad shorter and when I used the Pentax 67 quite extensively, I prefered the 90 over the 105 even though it rendered slightly worse. On 24x36 I've been mostly drawn to 40 mm lenses and cropped to 4:3 or taller which gives a similar FOV.
If/when I want subject isolation, I don't want a long lens because I still want the background to be part of the image. Not just total blur; then I could as well shoot in a studio.
My most used lens is the 50/3.5, followed by the 63 and then 45. Not only because I like the size and rendering of the 50, but because that focal length is suitable for most of what I want to do. 5 mm longer won't hurt, so 55 will be nice.
Edit: I also hope it won't be a razor wide open. I'd love to see some "old school" rendering with a touch of spherical aberration wide open and then super sharp at ~f/2.5 or so. I also hope they prioritize correction for LoCA over smoothest possible bokeh. Don't really like the rendering of the 80/1.7 in that regard.
Sauseschritt wrote:
Well ... since my Voigtländer Nokton 58mm f1.4 SL is said to cover the 44x33mm sensor very nicely this one is probably not a lens I would ever need.
You'll most likely see that it's not true if/when you try.
Man, FR saying no LM in this 55mm f1.7. Not sure what's wrong with Fuji, either it is purely cost or they don't have tech to do it in a small pkg like Sony.
Well you surely likes your acronyms, I guess FR could be fujirumors but what is LM? bobby350z wrote:
Man, FR saying no LM in this 55mm f1.7. Not sure what's wrong with Fuji, either it is purely cost or they don't have tech to do it in a small pkg like Sony.
Why use an acronym for such a thing, it only makes it much harder for us that doesn’t have English as our native language to understand? bobby350z wrote:
Linear Motor as mentioned above.
bobby350z wrote:
Man, FR saying no LM in this 55mm f1.7. Not sure what's wrong with Fuji, either it is purely cost or they don't have tech to do it in a small pkg like Sony.
Or it would not allow them to design the lens as they want to. A linear motor requires a small and light lens group that does the focusing, which of course means you have to design the optics within that limitation.
I can't see why they would prioritize AF speed for the GF system at all. What are you gonna shoot that needs super fast AF, very shallow DOF and extremely high image quality?
No offense, but you seem to find flaws and problems with everything, even when there is no competition and no equivalent alternatives. What's the point with that?
Makten wrote:
Or it would not allow them to design the lens as they want to. A linear motor requires a small and light lens group that does the focusing, which of course means you have to design the optics within that limitation.
I can't see why they would prioritize AF speed for the GF system at all. What are you gonna shoot that needs super fast AF, very shallow DOF and extremely high image quality?
No offense, but you seem to find flaws and problems with everything, even when there is no competition and no equivalent alternatives. What's the point with that? ...Show more →
Well I thought the objective was to get more FF users to MF. Older medium format guys (or gals) would have said, why you need more than 1 AF point (or why even need AF), or why one needs IBIS or for that matter why needs eye AF. GF 80mm f1.7 is one small light lens. Adding LM would have made it focus faster. Look Canon 50mm f1.2 vs say Sony new 50mm f1.2 GM. That new GM lens is small, light, got bunch of linear motors, focusses like crazy. Sony is making lighter, smaller lenses which focus fast at the same time. Why one needs that, then one doesn't tell the model, "hold your pose, hold, just a bit longer, oh, I didn't get it, can we repeat it please". It is one more thing to make your shooting experience better. If you paying all this money, why not. I get all this MF being a slow movement thing, I do when shooting landscapes but for the case where one camera will be used for different genres, having fast AF is just as important as other things.
Or it maybe it is just that we Americans like to complain for anything. Honestly during Fuji's live event I was shouting like I was at the college football game. Wife heard that while sleeping and she is what happened. I was so happy about new 20-35mm zoom, TSE lens and 50mm f1.7. Fuji is doing great things, but can do some things better. That's all.
Makten wrote:
...A linear motor requires a small and light lens group that does the focusing, which of course means you have to design the optics within that limitation...
Fujifilm could use ring-type ultrasonic motors like Canon uses in the RF 85 f/1.2. The focusing group in that lens is so heavy and it moves so fast, it can rock my camera backward and forward a little when focusing. And what about using dual motors?
I think Fujifilm is more afraid of making their lenses too heavy, too large, and too expensive – things which Canon obviously doesn't care about.
The modern normal lenses are for some reason a bit too long at ~50 mm equivalent in FF terms. I've always wanted something a tad shorter and when I used the Pentax 67 quite extensively, I prefered the 90 over the 105 even though it rendered slightly worse. On 24x36 I've been mostly drawn to 40 mm lenses and cropped to 4:3 or taller which gives a similar FOV.