SGinNorcal wrote:
I agree, if they go retro brass, it should be full on retro brass MF. I think they also need to bridge the f2 gap between 90 and 200, maybe a 140/f2 prime. Sigma kind of took care of the 12/1.4 that I wanted so Fuji needs to be better than that, a Astro special MF maybe. Updating the 50-140 and 10-24 is a no-brainer. A 10-24/2.8 would be nice if it didn't have to grow much.
I would LOVE a 10-24 2.8 if it somehow wasn't much longer than the f/4. I love my 10-24 v1 and might be willing to sell off my Sigma 18-50 if they made the ultrawide 2.8. X-T5 can crop enough for me to not really need a standard zoom, just bring along a 35 and call it a day. Just don't want my only zoom to be an f/4
You could likely make a 200mm f2.8 for less than half the price of a 200mm f2.
Yes, I would think certainly less than half. And the biggest difference would be the weight. Looking at the difference between the Canon EF 200mm f2 and the Canon EF 200mm 2.8, the 2.0 weighs a whopping 5.56 lbs. The 2.8 comes in at 1.69 lbs. For those who don't wish to deal with the cost and the weight of an f2, a Fuji 200mm 2.8 would be a welcome alternative.
JadedWriter wrote:
The only interesting things to me were the 33 1.0 and the 18-50 1.4 lenses. They had nothing in the telephoto region to vote on, kind of sad really.
The survey strikes me as Fuji's marketing trying to think outside the box. None of these seem like mainstream choices. As pointed out by others, it probably shouldn't be looked at as a road map of what's to come. I also doubt a survey like this really represents peoples buying habits at the end of the day.
SGinNorcal wrote:
The survey strikes me as Fuji's marketing trying to think outside the box. None of these seem like mainstream choices. As pointed out by others, it probably shouldn't be looked at as a road map of what's to come. I also doubt a survey like this really represents peoples buying habits at the end of the day.
I think the only thing in that list that was at one point in the R&D phase was the 33 1.0, which they stopped working on to make the 50 1.0. I would like a 50-140 F2, but I'm crazy so they are not making that. It honestly wouldn't be that much bigger than a full frame 70-200, but people want weight saving. SGinNorcal wrote:
The survey strikes me as Fuji's marketing trying to think outside the box. None of these seem like mainstream choices. As pointed out by others, it probably shouldn't be looked at as a road map of what's to come. I also doubt a survey like this really represents peoples buying habits at the end of the day.
They didn't even succeed in getting me to watch it. I honestly just want a fast 28mm equivalent on GFX, but they aren't making that. gdanmitchell wrote:
Fuji’s marketing department succeeded in getting y’all to talk about this stuff, didn’t they? ;-)
Perhaps a bit left field, but I would love to see something close to 14-50/4.0, with extra attention paid to imaging quality, and weather sealing. For my travel photography, which is most of what I shoot presently, that would be the one lens to rule them all.
The 18 / 30mm dual lens is a really interesting idea. It’s not a zoom but rather similar to the Leica Tri-Elmar.
Also voted for the 14-140mm as that could be a really interesting option on a smaller format, if they make it high-quality (as the description states they would).
Last vote went to the brass versions of the 23,35,50mm. Mostly because I found it the most appealing from the remaining options - I don’t need another 35mm f1.4 and I doubt the 16-80mm f2.8 would be good. Also weird that they have a 16-50mm on there when they just released one.
These polls are interesting - not so much regarding the proposed lenses, but rather a "view" into the consumer's preferences.
Personally - I couldn't think of anything more boring than the top choices - super fast / heavy, million element count zooms. Sadly, if lenses don't measure well on a MTF chart or against a brick wall, they won't get made.
Similar to the manufacturers incessant drive to build cameras with faster AF and burst rates. I think this is a giant waste of resources and time - but is demanded by many consumers. Putting it bluntly, its because camera enthusiasts drive the market not photographers.
Fujifilm should take a leaf out of Cosinas book and stop "oversharing" lens specifications and design goals. Leave a little "mystery" in the products for the consumers to find and explore. Consumers honestly don't know what they want - lead the market to where you want it to go. Sensor technology and optics are so good these days that there's no reason that APS-C couldn't become the preference compared to Full Frame competitors.
fjablo wrote:
The 18 / 30mm dual lens is a really interesting idea. It’s not a zoom but rather similar to the Leica Tri-Elmar.
As you point out, it is an old idea. But I think it could be pretty useful to people who may carry several primes and prefer to (at times) not use zooms. The size and optical quality would make a difference.
Fuji has a recent habit of only releasing 4 or 5 lenses a year, except for last year which had a whopping TWO. And these 2 were tiny things.
I don't think they really care about lenses, they want to sell bodies, and they have spit out 21 of them in the last 5 years with the same sensors.
RWNPhoto wrote:
Fuji has a recent habit of only releasing 4 or 5 lenses a year, except for last year which had a whopping TWO. And these 2 were tiny things.
I don't think they really care about lenses, they want to sell bodies, and they have spit out 21 of them in the last 5 years with the same sensors.
How many are you expecting? If there are about 40 X lenses and 4-5 per year that means a turnover of about 8-10 years if they maintain 40 lenses. If you are expecting a continual 50 lenses then it's a bit longer, but that depends on what is a reasonable number of lens models available at one time.
My vote goes for XF 14-140
Apart Sigma 16-300 and Tamron 17-70 there is no sensible option in Fuji X mount for super-zoom lens.
Although XF 16-80/2.8 is quite intriguing too.
EB-1 wrote:
How many are you expecting? If there are about 40 X lenses and 4-5 per year that means a turnover of about 8-10 years if they maintain 40 lenses. If you are expecting a continual 50 lenses then it's a bit longer, but that depends on what is a reasonable number of lens models available at one time.
EBH
They also have 2 different lens mounts, so let's not forget that. And one of the lenses they put both lens mounts on.
snappy_happy wrote:
Personally - I couldn't think of anything more boring than the top choices - super fast / heavy, million element count zooms.
I agree. I voted for the manual focus option but it is not very popular, it seems. I didn’t vote for another 35, even though Fuji is clearly thinking in that direction, because I have a 35/2 and it’s great. It’s all I’ve used for the past few weeks, in fact.
But now that I think about it… hey Fuji, how about a manual focus version of that legendary 35 1.4? Nobody will complain about the autofocus speed then!
