Fuji X mount lens announcements (June 2012)

[jonoslack]

I've always been a 50mm-ish shooter, too, but I finally broke down and bought an X100. I'm starting to get used to 35mm equiv., and it's been fun to have such a different vision. I'd love an X105 like you mention, though.

I just can't do 35 . . . I've been using an X2 for a few months, and I can't get to grips with that . . . and I keep nearly selling my 35 FLE summilux as well (because I just don't use it). I really don't know what the problem is, I love 28mm and 50 . . . and 24 . . and 75 . . . I just don't get on with 35mm

 

[GrahamWelland]

I just can't do 35 . . . I've been using an X2 for a few months, and I can't get to grips with that . . . and I keep nearly selling my 35 FLE summilux as well (because I just don't use it). I really don't know what the problem is, I love 28mm and 50 . . . and 24 . . and 75 . . . I just don't get on with 35mm

It's always interesting reading these discussions - I'm a 35mm person and just never quite get on with a 50mm! For me it's 21, 35, and 75/90. With the X-Pro1 I'm using the 18mm a lot but long for something wider ... ditto with the X100. (I bought a X10 just for the wider travel use!).

Different strokes for different folks!

 

[biglouis]

How many years does mft exist and what do they offer in terms of 35mm equivalent and f1,4, again?

I completely agree.

However, the 20/1.7 is close, sort-of as it could be argued is the 18/2 (in the other direction).

I keep banging on about how Leica should complete the trio with a 17/2.

I was not trolling. The Fuji line up looks superb. I am a great admirer of Fuji lens quality.

LouisB

 

[Shashin]

How many years does mft exist and what do they offer in terms of 35mm equivalent and f1,4, again?

But they do have an f/0.95 equivalent. And who has a 35mm equivalent at f/0.95?

 

[Landshark]

Really looking forward to the 14mm, once all of these show up< i might be selling some of y OM-D stuff

 

[Paratom]

But they do have an f/0.95 equivalent. And who has a 35mm equivalent at f/0.95?

A 35 equivalent with t0.95 for m4/3 is like a 24mm/1.4 for dx (offered by Nex for example) or like a 35mm/2.0 -offered by always each brand.

 

[Terry]

A 35 equivalent with t0.95 for m4/3 is like a 24mm/1.4 for dx (offered by Nex for example) or like a 35mm/2.0 -offered by always each brand.

This has been mashed around over and over again on DPReview over the past few weeks on the micro 4/3 forum. There are a couple of ways to look at it...from a DOF perspective or just the ability to use faster shutter speeds to actually capture a shot that you might not get with a slower lens.

 

[douglasf13]

...or just the ability to use faster shutter speeds to actually capture a shot that you might not get with a slower lens.

Howdy, Terry. It actually accounts for that, as well, because, with a larger sensor, you can raise the ISO to get the higher shutter speeds, and, since the sensor is larger, it is cleaner at higher ISO. Of course, this assumes pretty similar sensor technology, so it may not hold true with a old 5D vs. a new OM-D, but it's a pretty good guide, in general.

In other words, a 30mm f2 lens at ISO 200 and 1/500 on DX would perform similarly in terms of depth of field and noise to a 46mm f3.1 lens at ISO 500-ish and 1/500 on FX.

A larger sensor always gives more flexibility, if you need it, but I don't spend a lot of time at the extremes on my full frame cameras, so I've found crop sensors to do a good job for me much of the time.

 

[Terry]

Howdy, Terry. It actually accounts for that, as well, because, with a larger sensor, you can raise the ISO to get the higher shutter speeds, and, since the sensor is larger, it is cleaner at higher ISO. Of course, this assumes pretty similar sensor technology, so it may not hold true with a old 5D vs. a new OM-D, but it's a pretty good guide, in general.

In other words, a 30mm f2 lens at ISO 200 and 1/500 on DX would perform similarly in terms of depth of field and noise to a 46mm f3.1 lens at ISO 500-ish and 1/500.

A larger sensor always gives more flexibility, if you need it, but I don't spend a lot of time at the extremes on my full frame cameras, so I've found crop sensors to do a good job for me much of the time.

I get all of that...and yes it assumes you do have similar sensors. Not clear as you say if you actually get those two stops of difference.

However, I guess the reason it gets old is because people have bought into m4/3, NEX, etc because they want smaller and lighter and they are well aware of the tradeoff and there just getting faster lenses is important.

 

[Paratom]

I get all of that...and yes it assumes you do have similar sensors. Not clear as you say if you actually get those two stops of difference.

However, I guess the reason it gets old is because people have bought into m4/3, NEX, etc because they want smaller and lighter and they are well aware of the tradeoff and there just getting faster lenses is important.

Hi Terry,
I only meant to respond to the question "And who has a 35mm equivalent at f/0.95?" where I think most systems offer lenses which can do the same (even if the numbers are different due to different sensor formats)
Nothing against m4/3 and I do like the mod myself and there are fine lenses for the system.

 

[Shashin]

A 35 equivalent with t0.95 for m4/3 is like a 24mm/1.4 for dx (offered by Nex for example) or like a 35mm/2.0 -offered by always each brand.

If DoF was what I was talking about. In terms of exposure, an f/1.4 is not an f0.95.

 

[douglasf13]

If DoF was what I was talking about. In terms of exposure, an f/1.4 is not an f0.95.

Yeah, but therein lies the confusion. Which has a noisier image, a m4/3 sized sensor at f.95, 1/100 and ISO 100, or a 35mm sized sensor at f1.9, 1/100 and ISO 400?

Assuming similar sensor technology, they would be about equal, so there is no IQ advantage to using a f.95 lens on m4/3 over a f1.9 lens on 35mm. That's all that Paratom was getting at.

In terms of actual usage, an f.95 lens on m4/3 behaves like an f1.9 lens on 35mm in both DOF and image noise (assuming similar sensor tech.) Focal length is focal length, and aperture is aperture, but we're talking about usable equivalents, here.

I use crop sensors, too, but the above needs to be clear.

 

[Shashin]

but we're talking about usable equivalents, here.

No, we are not. A lens basically is broken down to focal length (angle of view) and aperture (exposure). Period. When I chose a format, I work in that format. I don't chose an 8x10 and then make all kinds of conversions to get it to work like my 35mm Nikon F.

Equivalency models are basically flawed. First, it assumes equal sensor response. Since when has that ever happened? Second, it really is not equivalent because it can never be--hence exposure is always different and focal length can only work at one object distance. Or in other words, the folks making the equivalency model are simply setting the biases based on a perceived process of interdependent variables whose relationships are fixed as somehow objective rather than realizing that variables are actually independent and can be combined in a large combinations of ways (and in ways that don't fit their model) determined by a photographer.

 

[jonoslack]

I use crop sensors, too, but the above needs to be clear.

Hi Douglas . . . I understand all of this stuff, but it seems so remote when one is lining up a stag at 6.30 am at 1600 ISO . . . . Actually, it seems pretty remote for me whenever I take pictures. It may be a fact, but I'm not sure that it needs to be clear.

 

[jonoslack]

Or in other words, the folks making the equivalency model are simply setting the biases based on a perceived process of interdependent variables whose relationships are fixed as somehow objective rather than realizing that variables are actually independent and can be combined in a large combinations of ways (and in ways that don't fit their model) determined by a photographer.

I tried pressing the like button twice - but it wouldn't, so I've had to say it again here!

 

[Paratom]

No, we are not. A lens basically is broken down to focal length (angle of view) and aperture (exposure). Period. When I chose a format, I work in that format. I don't chose an 8x10 and then make all kinds of conversions to get it to work like my 35mm Nikon F.

Equivalency models are basically flawed. First, it assumes equal sensor response. Since when has that ever happened? Second, it really is not equivalent because it can never be--hence exposure is always different and focal length can only work at one object distance. Or in other words, the folks making the equivalency model are simply setting the biases based on a perceived process of interdependent variables whose relationships are fixed as somehow objective rather than realizing that variables are actually independent and can be combined in a large combinations of ways (and in ways that don't fit their model) determined by a photographer.

When I take images for me FOV, DOF and noise behavior do count and not numbers written on a lens. But in the end I think the discussion doesn't lead us anywhere - everybody is free to choose the equipment based on the needs and own taste.

 

[Shashin]

When I take images for me FOV, DOF and noise behavior do count and not numbers written on a lens.

But the numbers on the lens are related to DOF/FOV, but not noise, which is not a product of the optics. The point which I think you missed was it is rather pointless to buy a format in the hopes that it works like a different format. Not only is it impossible, but it would take to much effect to do all the equivalency calculations. For example, if you need the fastest shutter speed from the system, then I would open the lens to the maximum aperture. If DoF is important, stop down. When you want to balance those two thing, find out the smallest aperture that will give you the shutter speed you need. All that can be done without reference to a different format and every photographer that I know does this.

 

[douglasf13]

Noise is a product of the sensor size, though. Shashin, you were the one who said, "But they do have an f/0.95 equivalent. And who has a 35mm equivalent at f/0.95?"

Maybe I'm wrong, but your statement implied that m4/3 having a f.95 lens is some kind of advantage over a larger format that doesn't have such a lens. The simple point that we're trying to make is that there isn't usable advantage to the .95 lens on a m4/3 camera over an f1.9 lens on a 35mm camera if the end result is the same.

I don't compare everything to 35mm. I use several formats, and, I'd imagine, like most photographers, I plan things in terms of field of view, DOF and the ability to enlarge (i.e. noise,) both of which are sliding scales amongst different formats, and both of which have general equivalents as the sensor sizes change.

A 6mm lens is still a 6mm lens on an iPhone and a 6x6 camera, and an f1.2 lens is still an f1.2 lens on an aps-c camera and a 35mm camera, but the results vary depending on the format, and it makes sense to understand that sliding scale as you move from format to format. It doesn't really matter to me what the lens says, as Paratom mentioned, but, rather, the final output. I think that's all we're trying to get at.

 

[Terry]

Voigtlander

Voigtlander M43 17mm f/0.95

 

[douglasf13]

Yeah, that's a sweet lens, Terry. I believe that Sashin was saying OTHER mounts don't have such a lens, which is true, as far as focal length and aperture numbers go.