Just as Fujifilm promised in their latest roadmap, the last quarter of 2014 sees the announcement of their first professional-grade telephoto zoom lens, the XF 50-140mm f/2.8 R LM OIS WR. The surprise release, however, is the revised version of the already-very-popular XF 56mm f/1.2 lens that features an apodization filter. Let’s take a closer look at the specifications of both lenses.
Overview and Key Specifications
1) Fujinon XF 50-140mm f/2.8 R LM OIS WR
This lens is by far the largest and heaviest in the Fujinon line-up and even features a tripod ring. But then you would expect it to, as it is basically the equivalent of 70-200mm f/2.8 lenses for full-frame cameras in terms of field of view and light gathering. Yes, it is actually a 75-210mm equivalent in terms of field of view, but that’s not really much of a difference. What does make a difference is the price of $1600, because that also makes it the most expensive Fujinon. And, with WR sealing, it is the second to feature weather sealing and, as such, is very well suited to the Fujifilm X-T1 (click here to read our comprehensive review of this camera).
Is there anything else to like about it? Well, yes. As you would expect from such a lens, it comes beautifully built, does not extend when changing the focal length or focusing, and has optical image stabilization along silent autofocus courtesy of “world’s first Triple Linear Motor”. If we look past marketing talk, it’s easy to realize Fujifilm has used three focusing motors instead of just, say, one, to increase the focusing speed. On their website, they are quick to acknowledge that AF operation is swifter when the lens is used with camera bodies that have phase-detect AF system, such as the X-E2 and X-T1.
Fujifilm also claims that the mentioned OIS of the Fujinon 50-140mm lens is the best in its class. Whether that is true or not remains to be seen once we have a sample for a review, but it’s strange to see Fujifilm not mentioning which lenses specifically are in this class – all 70-200mm equivalents or just those for APS-C and smaller sensors? To be fair, it doesn’t actually matter as long as the lens is as good as Fujifilm claims. And so far, most of their lenses have been that good.
Here is a short list of key specifications of the new 50-140mm f/2.8 R:
- Focal length range of 50-140mm, 75-210mm equivalent
- Aperture range of f/2.8-22
- 23 elements in 16 groups
- Nano-GI coating reduces flare
- Optical Image Stabilization
- Weather Sealing
- Metal Construction
- Internal zooming and focusing for constant size
- Fast and silent AF courtesy of “Triple Linear Motor”
- 7 rounded diaphragm blades
- Minimum focus distance of 1m, maximum magnification 0.12x
- ø72 filter size
- Measures at 82.9mm x 175.9mm (diameter/length)
- Weighs 995g without caps or hood
- Priced at $1600
2) Fujinon XF 56mm f/1.2 R APD
The big surprise is the release of a second, somewhat different 56mm f/1.2 model. Don’t mistake the new models for a replacement, the regular XF 56mm f/1.2 R is far too recent and too good for that. This new APD-designated model is merely a niche sibling, and a rather interesting one. You see, it uses an apodization element to improve out-of-focus rendering. The only other such lens I am familiar with personally is the manual focus Sony 135mm f/2.8 (T4.5) STF, only the Fujinon retains AF (contrast-detect only, mind).
To explain APD in detail, we’d need a whole new, somewhat boring, very technical article. Let’s not bother. What matters is that the XF 56mm f/1.2 R APD is designed to deliver the smoothest possible out-of-focus highlight rendition. There is a caveat – the amount of light actually reaching the sensor at wider apertures is lower than the aperture would suggest, and that is why there are t-stop markings on the lens itself. Wide open, f-stops merely indicate depth of field, whilst t-stops are there to determine correct exposure. What this means is that whilst this lens has a maximum aperture of f/1.2, you’d need to set the exposure as if it were f/1.7 when wide open (the difference decreases as you stop down).
So, now you have a choice of two 56mm f/1.2 portrait lenses – one that works better for low-light photography, and one that is optimized without compromise for out-of-focus highlight rendition. Not that the original lens is bad in that regard, but choice is a good thing. There is a caveat. The APD version costs a slightly-staggering $500 premium, so that is $1500 against $1000 of the regular lens. Part of the reason for it is because fewer APD lenses will be made and sold, and so the production cost is higher. But we remain curious as to how much of a difference there really is – only a side-by-side comparison with some brilliant photographs will answer that question. Until we have a chance to do this, here is a short list of key specifications:
- Lens name: Fujinon XF 56mm f/1.2 R
- Lens Construction: 11 elements in 8 groups, APD filter
- Maximum aperture: f/1.2 (t/1.7)
- Minimum aperture: f/16
- Filter size: ø62mm
- Features an aperture ring with t-stop markings for exposure
- Metal construction
- Minimum focusing distance: 70cm (27.56″)
- Dimensions (Diameter x Length): 73.2mm x 69.7mm
- Number of diaphragm blades: 7
- Maximum magnification: 0.09x
- Weight: 405g / 0.89lb
- Priced at $1500
Official Press Release
Here is the official press release by Fujifilm:
FUJIFILM ANNOUNCES WEATHER RESISTANT FUJINON XF50-140mmF2.8 R LM OIS WR AND FAST APERTURE FUJINON XF56mmF1.2 R APD LENSES
Valhalla, N.Y., September 10, 2014 – FUJIFILM North America Corporation today announced two new premium XF lenses: the weather resistant FUJINON XF50-140mmF2.8 R LM OIS WR that creates a perfectly weather-sealed kit for amazing photography in all weather conditions when paired with FUJIFILM X-T1; and the fast aperture FUJINON XF56mmF1.2 R APD with apodization filter for all X-Series X-Mount CSC’s that creates perfect portraits with beautiful bokeh.
FUJINON XF50-140mmF2.8 R LM OIS WR
The new FUJINON XF50-140mmF2.8 R LM OIS WR has a focal length equivalent to 76-213mm, and a constant F2.8 aperture throughout the zoom range. The length of the lens barrel remains constant throughout the entire zoom range, and features a weather resistant and dust-resistant finish that can also work in temperatures as low as 14°F. Thanks to a high-performance gyro sensor, a unique image stabilization algorithm and the bright F2.8 aperture, hand-held photography is possible in a wider range of shooting conditions. The XF50-140mmF2.8 R LM OIS WR also now uses the world’s first Triple Linear Motor for fast and quiet autofocusing and shooting.
The FUJINON XF50-140mmF2.8 R LM OIS WR has a lens construction of 23 glass elements in 16 groups, which features five ED lens elements, and one Super ED lens element with low dispersion to substantially reduce chromatic aberrations. The XF50-140mmF2.8 R LM OIS WR also uses a new Nano-GI (Gradient Index) coating technology that ensures this high-performance lens delivers the outstanding imaging results that photographers have come to expect from the award-wining X-Series.
FUJINON XF56mmF1.2 R APD (Apodization)
The new FUJINON XF56mmF1.2 R APD (Apodization) is a fast and nearly silent lens for FUJIFILM X-Series CSC’s that has a maximum aperture of F1.2 to make it the world’s brightest autofocus lens for digital cameras with an APS-C sensor. In addition, the new apodizing filter makes it the ideal choice for portrait photography where every detail is crystal clear, with images set on a gorgeous bokeh with smooth outlines for pictures with a three-dimensional feel.
The XF56mm F1.2 R APD is constructed of 11 glass elements in eight groups, including one aspherical glass molded lens element and two extra low dispersion lens elements. Spherical aberrations are corrected by the aspherical glass element to deliver high resolution at the maximum aperture setting. Additionally, thanks to the combination of two extra-low dispersion lens elements and three cemented lens elements, chromatic aberrations are greatly reduced.
FUJINON XF50-140mmF2.8 (76-213mm) R LM OIS WR key features:
- FUJIFILM X-Mount is compatible with all FUJIFILM interchangeable system cameras
- Weather-resistant design with more than 20 sealing points
- Triple Linear Motor for high-speed, quiet AF and nearly silent operation
- Comprised of 23 glass elements in 16 groups with five ED lens elements and one Super ED lens
- Seven rounded aperture blades for smooth, circular bokeh
- Uses new Nano-GI (Gradient Index) coating technology, that alters the refractive index between glass and air to reduce ghosting and flare
- Powerful optical image stabilization minimizes shake and blur in low light
FUJINON XF56mmF1.2 R APD (Apodization) key features:
- FUJIFILM X-Mount is compatible with all FUJIFILM interchangeable system cameras
- HT-EBC multi-layer coating to minimize ghosting and flare
- Comprised of 11 glass elements in 8 groups with one aspherical glass molded lens element and two extra low dispersion lens elements
- Enhanced resolving power at all apertures when used with an X-series camera that incorporates a Lens Modulation Optimizer (LMO) function
- Seven rounded aperture blades for smooth, circular bokeh
- Inner focusing system that moves small elements in the middle or at the rear of the lens, while keeping the large, front elements stationery for high-speed AF
The FUJINON XF50-140mmF2.8 (76-213mm) R LM OIS WR will be available in December 2014 for USD $1599.95 \ CAD $1699.99
The FUJINON XF56mmF1.2 R APD will be available in December 2014 for USD $1,499.95 \ CAD $1599.99.
“..as it is basically the equivalent of 70-200mm f/2.8 lenses for full-frame cameras in terms of field of view and light gathering.”
If you’re going to adjust the focal length to make it equivalent to 76-213mm, then you should also adjust the aperture because it’s an equivalent to f/4.2. This put’s it on par with the 70-200mm FE f/4 lens from Sony in terms of amount of light captured by the lens.
Here’s a good video that explains equivalence:
Not true, Rishio. In terms of light captured – as I mentioned in that very same sentence you quoted – it is an f/2.8 lens. Mounted on an APS-C camera, all other settings being equal, it would result in the same exposure as if an f/2.8 lens was mounted on a full-frame camera. In terms of depth of field, yes, it is f/4.2.
I just don’t think it’s an accurate statement. Apple calls the iPhone 5 camera a 35mm f/2.2. It’s really a 4.13 f/2.2 and for people to think that a 4.12 f/2.2 will perform like a 35mm f/2.2 is a bit confusing. They are being cheated in my opinion with marketting.
If you’re going to adjust one side of the equation, the focal length, to make it FF equivalent, you have to adjust the other side, the aperture, to make it equivalent as well. What Fujifilm really released is a 50-140 f/2.8 which will perform similarly to a 76-213 f/4.2 FF. To me that’s much more understandable and fair.
Rishio, again, I disagree. Because that lens will perform as a 75-210 f/2.8 would on full-frame sensor. Otherwise, you are stating that you’d have to use shutter speed slower with the Fujifilm for the same exposure by over a stop, and that is simply not true.
Aperture is not about depth of field. The sensor size is, and focal length, and focus distance. Aperture is about light gathering. Yes, yes, it does affect depth of field, but only once the other three are equal. It affects exposure always. Sometimes, when I do mentioned depth of field, I also talk about aperture in that context and how they relate. But overall, I always convert focal length and always mention equivalent aperture *in terms of light gathering*.
First off, I love fujifilm lenses. I think they are fantastic and among the best. I love the fujifilm system in general and if they did video as well as Sony (I have the A7s), I’d be on the fuji system.
You are forgetting the ISO variable. ISO measures light per square inch. The full frame sensor gathers more total light than smaller sensors. The full frame sensor has a cleaner image because it gathers more light. So an APS-C 50-140 f/2.8 ISO 640 is equivalent to a FF 75-210 F/4.2 ISO 1600 if using the same sensor technology.
So in terms of getting the same amount of light and getting equivalent picture quality, a 50-140mm f/2.8 is equivalent to a 75-210 f/4.
I just have an issue with how people would see the fujifilm 50-210 f/2.8 would performing like a full frame 70-200 f/2.8. The Fujifilm will be smaller, but it can’t compete in terms of low light capability or shallow depth of field. A sony FE 70-200 f/4 versus a FujiFilm 50-210 f/2.8 in terms of price, size, weight, quality is a fair comparison.
The best video explaining these concepts in an accurate way is this one in my opinion:
www.youtube.com/watch…2K2p9tnwYQ
Thanks for your time and no disrespect to you. Just giving you my perspective and issues I have with what was written.
Actually I have to agree with Romanas here coz he said equivalent in terms of field of view and light gathering. In addition he also added in terms of depth of field it’s f4.2.
If you’re talking about low light capability then you’re talking about the camera sensor itself. The sensor improves every new generation regardless Full frame or crop, I wouldn’t be surprised if current crop (XT-1 for example) has better IQ than the early full frame camera (canon 5D for example). But again my point is we’re talking about the lens here not camera.
Rishio,
all is well, do not worry :)
Again, I disagree and believe your are a bit confused. You see, a bigger sensor gathers more light, yes, but it is not as if it gathers more light for the same APS-C area, in other words – it receives the same amount of light per square unit. And so the ISO performance – although it is quite irrelevant here, actually – depends not on the sensor size, but the size of pixels. It’s a variable. The amount of light that goes through a lens depends only on aperture (t-stop, actually). And it has no relation to the sensor size. So exposing an image at ISO 1600, f/2.8, 1/60s with an APS-C camera and lens and using the same settings with a full-frame camera and lens will result in the exact same “luminance” of the image (that’s not strictly true as lenses have different true light transmittance (t-stop), vignetting characteristics, while sensor sensitivity value is also very often not accurate). Now, the performance at ISO 1600 is a different matter, but then it is irrelevant when talking about the light transmittance of a lens.
Now, you could say that using a full-frame camera rather than an APS-C camera with the same generation sensor and same resolution would give you a one-stop or so advantage in ISO performance, as in you could shoot the APS-C at ISO 400 and full-frame at ISO 800 for a faster shutter speed, and get comparable image quality. But it has nothing to do with exposure, it’s merely theoretical, potential image quality at a higher sensitivity.
There is a lot of confusion among photographers on these issues.
While technically everything you say Romanas is correct, it’s also true that in fairness you can’t compare this lens to a full-frame 70-200/2.8. It gathers less light, total. Practically speaking, for a comparable image quality you’d have to gather more light per square meter, since the target (sensor) area is smaller.
Also rishio is correct in saying focal length and aperture are related, and it makes little sense to convert just one of the two to compare lens performance. Consider the Metabones Speed Booster and it’s 1-stop improvement claim. It’s obvious that the speed booster does not increase the lens capacity to gather light, it just concentrates the same amount of light onto a smaller target area.
The previous poster was actually right in saying that it it would be a 76-213mm 4.2 as a full frame equivalent. The f-number is defined as the focal length divided by the diameter of the iris in the lens. If you are going to obtain an effective focal length on full frame by multiplying the actual focal length by the crop factor, you are also multiplying the actual f-number by the crop factor to obtain the effective f-number on full frame as well. Basically, if the effective focal length increases by 1.5, so must the f-number. Also, this is true for both depth of field and light gathering ability.
The key thing to understand here is that equivalent focal lengths and apertures on full frame are obtained so that we can understand how to create the same or similar pictures with cameras of different sensor sizes. When looking at the depth of field that can be achieved, you have to consider how the narrower field of view of a crop sensor requires you to be further away from your subject to frame/compose the shot in the same way you would be able to on a full frame camera with the same lens. That crop factor essentially forces you to significantly increase the working distance from your subject because you are working with a narrower field of view than you would with a full frame camera. This results in a longer focus distance and in turn lengthens the depth of field, similar to shooting with a full frame lens with the aperture stopped down. So it really is quite intuitive that the full frame equivalent f-number of this lens is 4.2 when you are talking about depth of field. I figure that you probably already knew this but it should be said anyway for others who don’t yet understand this.
Interestingly enough, the effective full frame equivalent f-number of this lens when you consider its light gathering ability is also 4.2. The reason for this has to do with the total amount of light that a sensor can gather to produce a particular image. For example, lets say I use this 50-140 2.8 lens on a cropped camera (i.e. XT-1) to frame a particular shot, and lets also say I take a similar picture with a 76-213mm 2.8 lens on a full frame camera so that I get the same framing/composition as I did on the cropped camera. Although the intensity of light (light per unit area) falling onto both sensors are equal since they are both 2.8 lenses, the full frame camera has twice the area to gather light to make the same picture as the cropped sensor camera. As a result, the exposures of both cameras would in fact differ by roughly 1 full stop because the full frame sensor is gathering twice as much light. Ultimately, what this means is that if you look at the 50-140 2.8 lens on its own, it is a 2.8 lens, no doubt about that. But when you pit it against a 70-200 2.8 full frame lens as the author of the article did above, you realize that it can gather only about half as much light and therefore its effective f-number relative to full frame is in fact 4.2 and not 2.8. This is due to the image circle of the 50-140 2.8 lens being designed for aps-c sensors and therefore producing an image circle half as big as the image circle produced by a 70-200 2.8 full frame lens. This is the reason why many pros still use the full frame 70-200 2.8’s for their work. This 50-140 2.8 lens really is very similar to a 70-200 f4 lens on full frame, just as the previous poster had suggested. Nothing wrong with that though, just a fact.
All I really wanted to get across is that these lenses are not the great bargains that many think they are. They in no way stand toe-to-toe with full frame lens offerings from Nikon, Canon or others. The same arguments were brought up when the 56 1.2 lens came out and many people thought it was a much cheaper equivalent to the 85 1.2 L II lens which it was certainly not, for the same reasons I gave above. However, that is not to say that these lenses are bad in any way. Quite the contrary and worthy of their prices since they are optically excellent (I own Fuji gear myself). I just think companies like Fuji, Olympus, Sony and others are deliberately overpricing some of these lenses. They are banking on the general market’s misunderstanding of focal length and aperture as they push headline features that people are familiar with but perhaps don’t fully understand, like f2.8 aperture.
Sorry, Jonathan, but you are digging a little too deep. If you take the size of the image area into consideration whilst judging the actual aperture of a lens, why are you comparing it to 35mm sensor? Why not large format film?
That lens is f/2.8. Period. It gathers less light only because it produces a smaller image circle, but then the sensor it is designed for is smaller. Yet the lens gathers the same light per square unit as any other f/2.8 lens. If I said this is an f/4.2 lens, I would be lying, because that would effectively mean one would have to use one stop slower shutter speeds, or one stop higher ISO values wide open, with an APS-C camera for which this lens was designed to achieve the same exposure as another would whilst using a full-frame f/2.8 lens. And that is not true. If I am using an X-T1 in a dark church with the XF 56mm f/1.2 lens, and a friend of mine is using 5D MkIII with the 85mm f/1.2L lens, our exposure setting wide open would be the same for the same luminance, true? True. If he shot at f/1.2, ISO 400 and 1/160th of a second, I could use the very same settings and end up with the very same luminance, and to hell with different sensor sizes and different image circles. That is not what matters when you are in that sort of situation. Depth of field and general look of the image is an entirely different matter.
When calculating equivalence, I convert focal length (which, too, is not actually accurate, since focal length does not change), not the aperture when it comes to light gathering and exposure. But I will every now and then mention the depth of field equivalence when that’s relevant (with really fast prime lenses, for example).
Comparing depth of field and sensor sizes and all that, it’s all good, but first and foremost aperture defines exposure settings. If someone picks up an iPhone and thinks they will get the same sort of look a 35mm f/2 lens would give on a full-frame camera, it’s merely lack of knowledge that is showing. That, on the other hand, means we need an article on the subject. But in terms of exposure and reach, this Fujinon is an equivalent of 75-210mm f/2.8 lens. In terms of depth of field, it is closer to f/4 lenses when the latter is used on a full-frame camera and the same composition. Simple as that.
I am not going to deep at all. The rest of the commenters here I don’t think are going deep enough. Explaining why the author of the article was wrong requires a through explanation so that others can understand. For the record though, I am not trying to put down the Fuji system, I just want people to be aware of the fact that their costomers are not getting what is advertised because I think Fuji is taking advantage of people’s misunderstanding.
Any ways, the reason why I am comparing to full frame format is because the author of the article chose to do that. Nothing to do with me. All I am doing is showing how 70-200 2.8 is not the full frame equivalent of the 50-140mm 2.8 Fuji. What you need to understand is that I am not suggesting that the 50-140 2.8 lens is somehow mechanically different than what it is. But when you take into account the size of the sensor that it was designed for (i.e. APS-C), you cannot simply compare it to full frame directly with out applying the crop factor to the focal length and the aperture to get and idea of how it actually compares to full frame lenses. For every lens there is an equivalent effective focal length and aperture for a different format that such that you are able to produce the same image with that format. In this article we are talking about full frame equivalence, not medium format equivalence. So let’s stay on topic.
I did say in my post that the lens is in fact a 2.8 from a purely mechanical perspective. I am not disputing that. But if you want to put it against a full frame 2.8 lens, then you have to take into account that the lens was designed for aps-c, not full frame and has an image circle that is half the size of full frame. What you are missing which I specifically mentioned in my previous post is that equivalence is all about how we can take the SAME PICTURE but on different formats, not taking different pictures. This is key. If I am taking the same picture with both an aps-c camera and a full frame camera (same framing/composition), then the full frame sensor has twice as much light to work with to make the same image. The intensity for both is the same at 2.8 but there is twice as much light for the full frame sensor to make the same image. I am really quite surprised that you don’t understand this because this is a fundamental reason why pound-for-pound full frame cameras are better in low light. Seriously, try it for yourself before replying.
The fundamental problem I see is that you and others are somehow trying to say that the lens is equivalent to a 4.2 lens on full frame but a 2.8 on full frame also in light gathering ability. The reality is there is do difference in the effective aperture of the lens regardless of what you look at (i.e. depth of field and light gathering ability). Picking and choosing in this way violates the definition of aperture and is in fact incorrect, both in a mathematical and practical sense. There is no way of getting around this.
I think the issue at hand here is that there seems to be some confusion between the actual optical characteristics of the lens and the effective characteristics of an equivalent lens that would produce the same image on a full frame sensor. No one here is saying the focal length changes or even the aperture and both of these metrics are perfectly accurate and relevant IF YOU ARE LOOKING AT THE LENS ON ITS OWN IN THE APS-C WORLD. When you starting comparing it with full frame, you need a “common denominator” to make an accurate and meaningful comparison to understand the ability of this lens to render images when compared to a full frame lens. This is the fundamental idea of full frame equivalence and can actually be applied to any sensor format.
Like I said in my first post, I still think this an awesome lens but is a little overpriced for what it actually delivers.
Again, Jonathan – you really are digging too deep. I understand what you are saying, but I think you are confused. Mostly because what you are saying has no real world relevance. If we, for equivalence purposes, somehow “transform” this particular lens to cover a full-frame sensor by somehow “spreading out” it’s image circle, and thus “diluting” the light gathered across a larger area in the exact opposite way Speedbooster concentrates light, even then I would not agree with you, because we would not be following our own rules very well. If you want to “transform” this lens into a full-frame one in such a way, be so kind as to imagine it’d have corresponding optics, too.
This lens is designed for APS-C sensors, not full-frame, and you would not be able to use it on full-frame. You can only use it on APS-C. We are not “mounting” this lens on full-frame cameras. We are comparing it to an equivalent lens on a different format and evaluate each lens when used on its native format.
Bottom line is, what you are saying has absolutely no real world relevance. It is purely theoretical. Not even that, it’s bordering on philosophical. Yes, it gathers less light, because it only covers a smaller image circle than full-frame lenses. But that’s not how equivalence works. It only *needs* to gather light for a smaller image circle, because it is meant for APS-C cameras. When comparing different format lenses, you use them on their corresponding formats and look for similarities there. So if I mount this lens on an X-T1 and the 70-200mm f/2.8 IS L II on a Canon 5D III, what are the similarities and differences? The focal length (or, more precisely, “reach”) will be very similar, and both lenses will work well in lower light thanks to that wide aperture of f/2.8. However, because it’s the reach and not focal length, at comparable focal length and distance the Fujinon will deliver broader depth of field. That is all there is to it.
And a side note. Full-frame cameras are not better in low light because they have a larger sensor. They are better, because their pixels are larger than those of APS-C sensors with the same pixel count. I will not do any accurate calculations here to determine of what resolution full-frame and APS-C sensor cameras have the same pixel size, but as an example – at pixel level, a 15 or thereabout megapixel APS-C sensor in low light is potentially comparable to a 36 megapixel full-frame sensor.
This is my comment on your last post:
“And a side note. Full-frame cameras are not better in low light because they have a larger sensor. They are better, because their pixels are larger than those of APS-C sensors with the same pixel count.”
This completely validates what I said about larger sensors and their advantages in low light. The larger sensor size is what allows the pixels to be bigger. I don’t think I really need to say any more than this.
I just want to point out that the physical characteristics of say for example fuji’s 56mm 1.2 are exactly that, it is a 56mm f1.2 lens and that is not determined by any format and is that very reason why we cannot say these companies are lying to us. Do the math 56mm focal length divided by 46mm opening is as close as you get to f1.2, and that is what the lens is rated at. Why are we multiplying focal length and aperture when changing formats, the lens properties remain the same. The format used changes the characteristics of the image produced by that particular lens, like field of view and depth of field, but you cannot go (like Tony) and just rename the lens and say grossly misleading statements like these companies are ripping us off. Its your responsibility as a photographer to know what the image characteristics of the lens will be on a particular format. A medium format has different characteristics to a 35mm or full frame format in field of view and depth of field as it does with APS-C. For that simple reason companies feel they should let you know what the equvilent focal length would be if you where using a 35mm, as that is the most widely used and well known format, is not to try and trick you. Look at what the lens offers you on the format you use, don’t run around feeling aggrieved or ripped off because it behaves differently to another format you don’t own. By saying the xf50-140 f2.8 is actually a 76-213 f4.2 is wrong, it hasn’t magically morphed into anything else. If someone wants to know, how does this system and lens compare on a 35mm or full frame format or what the equivalency would be, rather say, do this sum which will give you an idea of the difference in field of view and depth of field equivalency. If you want to get into more technical detail, you could go into the sensor characteristics. I own both the canon 85mm 1.2 and the fuji 56mm 1.2 and my personal opinion is that Fuji have made outstandingly good lenses for the size they are and the quality they produce, highly commended and they can charge what they like because they are producing something others can’t or haven’t, lots of respect. Cheers
Hi Romanas, thanks for the info. I think the problem with Rishio point of view with all due respect is that he is getting confused between equivalent focal length and equivalent field of view The field of view becomes 76-213mm, not the focal length, that remains 50-140. Focal length is not defined by format, its actually its physical properties,. Tony Northup’s math is correct, but he is presuming a change in actual focal length which there is not, which in turn keeps the aperture constant, only the depth of field changes as well as the field of view. Looking forward to holding this lens in person, cheers.
Oh stop fussing and go out and shot some images :)
I completely agree with you. I’m perfectly happy shooting my X100 and my X-E1! I use an old Minolta 55mm 1.7 on the X-E1 and the results are wonderful.
I have to say, that photo at the top of this page with the XT1, battery grip and new lens looks good =)
It reminds me of my old Olympus OM10, my first SLR that had a built in light meter. At the time, I thought it couldn’t get any better than that lol. That was when the biggest decision I had to make was whether I was going to load 12, 24 or 36 exposure Kodachrome. Those were the days =)
I might have to trade in my XE2
Best Regards
Rob
Again we agree to disagree. My main point is that the writing style communicates that the Fuji lens will perform similarly to a full frame 70-200mm f/2.8 which I think we both agree that it won’t. The frustration is coming from folks who don’t understand why their “35mm f/2.0 lens” on their iPhone doesn’t seem to produce equivalent results as a 35mm f/2.0 lens on a full frame.
And Neill, I don’t just talk and debate. I go out and shoot everyday: www.rishio.com.
Just for the record, I agree with you.
A separate issue altogether, that interests me a lot: Did anyone catch word if this lens has “true” manual focus override like for exampe the 70-200 IS II, or by-wire like the XF56? By-wire would be a dealbreaker for me, unfortunately.
“And a side note. Full-frame cameras are not better in low light because they have a larger sensor. They are better, because their pixels are larger than those of APS-C sensors with the same pixel count.”
This completely validates what I said about larger sensors and their advantages in low light. The larger sensor size is what allows the pixels to be bigger. I don’t think I really need to say any more than this.
Thank you all for the illuminating comments on the aperture/focal length/sensor issue – they have given me very helpful insight into this complex subject and I am now much more aware as I ponder moving to the Fuji system from Nikon APS-C.
I’ve done a test with a canon 5D and 35mm 1.4 and xt1 and 23 1.4
5D 35mm ss 1/100 f1.4 iso 800
xt1 23mm ss 1/100 f1.4 iso 800
the results?
the exposure of the images were almost identical. (very slight variation but that can happen with 2 of the exact same lens)
If this lens wasn’t really 1.4 the image SHOULD have been under exposed BUT IT WAS NOT! (the depth of field was different.)