Any news on new 50-140 f2.8?
p.1 #1Any news on new 50-140 f2.8?
Back in June, Fuji Rumours was saying there would be a Mark II version of the 50-140 in early September. That date is almost here, but I haven’t seen any more news.
Is there an more indication we can expect the Mark II soon?
Is there an more indication we can expect the Mark II soon?
Aug 18, 2026 at 07:16 PM
p.1 #2Any news on new 50-140 f2.8?
Given that the existing 50-140 is a really good lens, it seems like a pretty high threshold to exceed in a meaningful way. It might be more of an incremental update (better, but not in an earthshaking way) rather than a “sell my current lens to get this new one” situation.
Things they could do to make it a bit better include:
1. Rethink the lens foot design. It is almost comically large. (I replaced mine with third party alternative.)
2. Maybe there is a way to make it a bit lighter? Smaller? It isn’t a light lens, though to be honest we would not really expect the APS-C equivalent of 70-200mm f/2.8 lenses to be small or light. :-)
3. Mine focuses fine, but there’s probably room to improve it given the time since it was released.
Things they could do to make it a bit better include:
1. Rethink the lens foot design. It is almost comically large. (I replaced mine with third party alternative.)
2. Maybe there is a way to make it a bit lighter? Smaller? It isn’t a light lens, though to be honest we would not really expect the APS-C equivalent of 70-200mm f/2.8 lenses to be small or light. :-)
3. Mine focuses fine, but there’s probably room to improve it given the time since it was released.
Aug 18, 2026 at 10:20 PM
p.1 #3Any news on new 50-140 f2.8?
I know from using my 55-200 how much I would miss the top end. So I would wish for a longer lens to supplement it, if you add a 1.4x to the 50'140 it's only half a stop faster than the 55-200. I keep hoping Tamron will do their 70-180 2.8 in Fuji mount.
Gerry
Gerry
Aug 19, 2026 at 01:35 AM
p.1 #4Any news on new 50-140 f2.8?
Heard n nothing either, but all it really needs is to be on a diet. The current one is a beast, too much of a beast. I don't use mine, should get it to a new home.
Like, the previously mentioned Tamron 70-180mm F2.8 Di III VC VXD G2, for a Nikon as example, is about 100 grams more than the Fuji 50-140, and the Tamron is also 20mm shorter when packed, and has a 67mm filter and not the 72 on the Fuji. A classic example of how APS-C is not always smaller and lighter.
But sure, a Fuji fan can say the 50-140 has 3 linear motors (exciting), and the Tamron has 1, but does the Tamron really focus, or track focus, slower than the Fuji? Fuji can sell a lot more 50-140's if they make it lose a couple hundred grams, and shrink...
Like, the previously mentioned Tamron 70-180mm F2.8 Di III VC VXD G2, for a Nikon as example, is about 100 grams more than the Fuji 50-140, and the Tamron is also 20mm shorter when packed, and has a 67mm filter and not the 72 on the Fuji. A classic example of how APS-C is not always smaller and lighter.
But sure, a Fuji fan can say the 50-140 has 3 linear motors (exciting), and the Tamron has 1, but does the Tamron really focus, or track focus, slower than the Fuji? Fuji can sell a lot more 50-140's if they make it lose a couple hundred grams, and shrink...
Aug 19, 2026 at 07:14 AM
RoamingScott
Offline
Activity
[X]
Details
p.1 #5Any news on new 50-140 f2.8?
It's likely delayed with the X-T6 as the rumor was they were launching together.
Aug 19, 2026 at 07:15 AM
p.1 #6Any news on new 50-140 f2.8?
gdanmitchell wrote:
2. Maybe there is a way to make it a bit lighter? Smaller? It isn’t a light lens, though to be honest we would not really expect the APS-C equivalent of 70-200mm f/2.8 lenses to be small or light. :-)
50-140/2.8 should be more like the equivalent of a 70-200/4.
EBH
2. Maybe there is a way to make it a bit lighter? Smaller? It isn’t a light lens, though to be honest we would not really expect the APS-C equivalent of 70-200mm f/2.8 lenses to be small or light. :-)
50-140/2.8 should be more like the equivalent of a 70-200/4.
EBH
Aug 19, 2026 at 07:43 AM
p.1 #7Any news on new 50-140 f2.8?
Watch them announce this and then two weeks after I buy it Sigma announces the 50-100 1.8 just like what happened when I got the 16-55 2.8 II 
Aug 19, 2026 at 08:16 AM
|
p.1 #8Any news on new 50-140 f2.8?
EB-1 wrote:
50-140/2.8 should be more like the equivalent of a 70-200/4.
EBH
Sigh.
I was just waiting for someone to chime in with that “equivalency” bit.
Double sigh.
gdanmitchell wrote
2. Maybe there is a way to make it a bit lighter? Smaller? It isn’t a light lens, though to be honest we would not really expect the APS-C equivalent of 70-200mm f/2.8 lenses to be small or light. :-)EBH
Sigh.
I was just waiting for someone to chime in with that “equivalency” bit.
Double sigh.
Aug 19, 2026 at 09:44 AM
p.1 #9Any news on new 50-140 f2.8?
EB-1 wrote:
50-140/2.8 should be more like the equivalent of a 70-200/4.
EBH
It's only equivalent in certain.limited parameters, which you have failed to define. Sloppy comparison typical of the Equivalence brigade. Brevity to the point of meaningless
I submit that the main reason for the popularity of these long zooms has been the f/2.8, for It's light gathering, for sports in low light. If anything the greater DoF is a bonus in this case, as is the greater reach of 200 on APS-C. .
I still have an 80-200 2.8 AF for my Nikons, and an MF 180 2.8 so am very aware of what is equivalent to what in the use these are likely to get.
Gerry
gdanmitchell wrote
2. Maybe there is a way to make it a bit lighter? Smaller? It isn’t a light lens, though to be honest we would not really expect the APS-C equivalent of 70-200mm f/2.8 lenses to be small or light. :-)EBH
It's only equivalent in certain.limited parameters, which you have failed to define. Sloppy comparison typical of the Equivalence brigade. Brevity to the point of meaningless
I submit that the main reason for the popularity of these long zooms has been the f/2.8, for It's light gathering, for sports in low light. If anything the greater DoF is a bonus in this case, as is the greater reach of 200 on APS-C. .
I still have an 80-200 2.8 AF for my Nikons, and an MF 180 2.8 so am very aware of what is equivalent to what in the use these are likely to get.
Gerry
Aug 19, 2026 at 10:10 AM
p.1 #10Any news on new 50-140 f2.8?
gdanmitchell wrote:
50-140/2.8 should be more like the equivalent of a 70-200/4.
EBHSigh.
I was just waiting for someone to chime in with that “equivalency” bit.
Double sigh.
Your comment was about the size and weight.
The front element of a 70-200/4 would be about the same diameter as 50-140/2.8 as one measure of equivalency.
A 140/2 would have about the same front lens size as 70-200/2.8.
I was not even mentioning light gathering powers, but everyone goes there.
EBH
EB-1 wrote
gdanmitchell wrote
2. Maybe there is a way to make it a bit lighter? Smaller? It isn’t a light lens, though to be honest we would not really expect the APS-C equivalent of 70-200mm f/2.8 lenses to be small or light. :-)EBH
I was just waiting for someone to chime in with that “equivalency” bit.
Double sigh.
Your comment was about the size and weight.
The front element of a 70-200/4 would be about the same diameter as 50-140/2.8 as one measure of equivalency.
A 140/2 would have about the same front lens size as 70-200/2.8.
I was not even mentioning light gathering powers, but everyone goes there.
EBH
Aug 19, 2026 at 11:34 AM
p.1 #11Any news on new 50-140 f2.8?
I hope they don't add a de-click feature for the aperture to the detriment of feel, like they did on the 16-55II. But I do hope it gets a similar weight savings while preserving optical quality. If so, I'm probably on board. Maybe the X-T6 delay will mean the lens is actually going to hit inventory sooner after the release announcement. I remain optimistic on all fronts.
Aug 19, 2026 at 12:22 PM
p.1 #12Any news on new 50-140 f2.8?
EB-1 wrote:
50-140/2.8 should be more like the equivalent of a 70-200/4.
EBHSigh.
I was just waiting for someone to chime in with that “equivalency” bit.
Double sigh.Your comment was about the size and weight.
The front element of a 70-200/4 would be about the same diameter as 50-140/2.8 as one measure of equivalency.
A 140/2 would have about the same front lens size as 70-200/2.8.
I was not even mentioning light gathering powers, but everyone goes there.
EBH
Ah, now you're specifying your equivalence, a step in the right direction, although really I can't think of a less important characteristic than the size of the front element. Although your equivalence is not necessarily correct, I have owned or used 4 35mm f/2 lenses, all for the same format (35mm film), all had different size front elements. Depends on optical design.
gdanmitchell wrote
EB-1 wrote
gdanmitchell wrote
2. Maybe there is a way to make it a bit lighter? Smaller? It isn’t a light lens, though to be honest we would not really expect the APS-C equivalent of 70-200mm f/2.8 lenses to be small or light. :-)EBH
I was just waiting for someone to chime in with that “equivalency” bit.
Double sigh.
The front element of a 70-200/4 would be about the same diameter as 50-140/2.8 as one measure of equivalency.
A 140/2 would have about the same front lens size as 70-200/2.8.
I was not even mentioning light gathering powers, but everyone goes there.
EBH
Ah, now you're specifying your equivalence, a step in the right direction, although really I can't think of a less important characteristic than the size of the front element. Although your equivalence is not necessarily correct, I have owned or used 4 35mm f/2 lenses, all for the same format (35mm film), all had different size front elements. Depends on optical design.
Aug 19, 2026 at 12:52 PM
p.1 #13Any news on new 50-140 f2.8?
Let’s call it “DOF equivalence,” OK?
Since in practical terms, in the vast majority of situations (if not all) we shoot a 50-140mm f/2.8 on APS-C pretty much the same way we’d shoot the 70-200mm f/2.8 lenses on FF.
That “light gathering” business amounts to virtually nothing in actual photography except arguably, maybe, possibly in a few edge cases where you might push exposure to the very (soft) limits of what is possible.
Since in practical terms, in the vast majority of situations (if not all) we shoot a 50-140mm f/2.8 on APS-C pretty much the same way we’d shoot the 70-200mm f/2.8 lenses on FF.
That “light gathering” business amounts to virtually nothing in actual photography except arguably, maybe, possibly in a few edge cases where you might push exposure to the very (soft) limits of what is possible.
Aug 19, 2026 at 02:04 PM