Steve Spencer
Online
Upload & Sell: On
|
 Re: Fuji 90/F2 prototype - why so big and heavy? | |
Jman13 wrote:
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.
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 let\'s 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.
|
