Steve Spencer
Offline
• • • • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
|
 p.1 #9 · What Fuji GF lenses would you like to see? | |
gdanmitchell wrote:
Lenses that I (and quite a few others) rely on for landscape photography on full-frame cameras include those with focal lengths of the following or close equivalents:
16-35mm (some prefer a wider 12-24 range)
24-70mm
70-200mm
100-400mm (or newer equivalents that go to 500mm)
These lenses cover a very full range of focal length requirements without any gaps.
Given that one potential market for GFX miniMF systems is landscape photographers and similar, it would make sense for Fujifilm to come much closer to covering miniMF equivalents of this range of FFlenses.
Different aspect ratios complicate determining equivalent angle-of-view focal lengths for the two formats, I’ll use a compromise 1.27x “crop factor” for FF compared to miniMF to come up with rough equivalents:
20- 44mm (or 18-30mm)
30-89mm
89-254mm
127-508mm
We know that the slighlty larger size of miniMF sensors compared to FF sensors will require somewhat wider coverage by lense designed for the larger system. (Though not nearly as much so as with traditional 645 or even more so the “six by…” formats like 6x7 and so forth.) This means that it is harder (and/or larger and more expensive) to actually equal the focal length coverage of FF zooms, though it should be possible to come closer than we could with the 6cm formats. Some compromises would be necessary, though a company like Fujifilm or other optical designer should be able to come relatively close. So how about:
Existing GFX zoom lenses
20-35mm
32-64mm
35-70mm
45-100mm
100mm-200mm
There are a few problems with this existing lineup. First, it is jam-packed with overlapping (and narrow) focal length ranges among the middle three lenses — it is difficult if not impossible to come up with a rational selection among them that has no gaps or which doesn’t include excessive overlaps. Secondly, there is nothing longer than 200mm, which falls considerably short of the core 70-200mm lens coverage on FF.
Where to begin?
If we start with the existing 20-35mm and 35mm-70mm lenses, then something like a 70-150mm and 150mm-400mm lens would make a fine set of four lenses, especially if at least the longer one would work with a 1.4x TC.
20-35mm
35-70mm
70-150mm
150-400mm
(If a 100-500 is possible on FF — which it clearly is — then a 150-400 is possible on miniMF.)
It is also demonstrably possible to build lenses with at least a bit more than a 1:2 ration between shortest/longest focal lengths. Another alternative would be to leave small gaps (say 5mm) between zoom ranges.
There’s a huge market out there waiting for Fujifilm, who could offer a solution to those of us who shoot (among other things) landscape subjects using lenses covering either 14mm or 16mm to 400mm or so on FF, and who would be fine with the slightly larger (and more expensive) miniMF gear in exchange for an increment of IQ improvement that FF would not be able to quite match.
The lens issue is 90-95% or more of why I have not moved to miniMF. Solve that and I’d be there. My existing Canon FF high-res system is starting to get a bit long in the tooth and I know that I’ll have to replace it before too long — body, lenses, everything. Anticipating this I have enough cash squirreled away to buy such a system from, most likely, Sony at this point. I’d gladly spend it on GFX… if it could do what I need it to do. Currently it cannot.
There are quite a few others like me. (From what I see in posts above, I’m not alone.)
...Show more →
Hi Dan,
I was thinking along very much the same lines with my original proposal. I was thinking of breaking the traditional 16-400mm on FF into 5 lenses instead of 4(20-35 f/4, 32-64 f/4, 63-125 f/4, 125-250 f/5.6, and 250-500 f/7.1) This in my way of thinking is the high quality/fast lens set a bit like 16-35 f/2.8, 24-70 f/2.8, 70-200 f/2.8 and 200-400 f/4 that was available from Canon and Nikon for DSLRs. I purposely went slower at longer focal lengths, however, because I thought there would be less need for action oriented lenses on Fuji GFX.
The other set I was interested in creating was like a 25-400 or 20-320mm on FF with 4 lenses while keeping the focal length ranges shorter but allowing slower and variable apertures. This set could be especially useful for landscape photographer. The 45-100 f/4 already exist and gives a faster aperture where it is probably most needed. Fuji also already has a 100-200 f/5.6. To this they could add a 25-45 f/5.6 wide angle zoom, and a 200-400 f/6.3-8 longer zoom that ideally would take a 1.4X teleconverter. Your revision could simply be to make that long zoom a 200-500 instead of 200-400.
Given the other comments, I think Fuji should also make a 14-25 or 15-28 f/5.6 lens for ultra wide angle shooters.
With regard to the glut from slightly wide angle to slightly telephoto, I think that is typical for every system that has very many zooms at all. Those just tend to be the best sellers. Fuji having 3 GF lenses like this, one wider and not as long, one longer and not as wide, and one smaller with a variable and a bit slower aperture is totally not surprising. These types of zooms always seem to come first and there are always a lot of them in almost every system. Sony for example has the 24-50 f/2.8G, the 24-70 f/2.8 GM, the 20-70 f/4 G, the 28-70 f/2 GM, the 24-105 f/4 G, and the 28-60 f/3.5-4.5 and I might be missing one or two. Canon and Nikon have almost as many as well for RF and Z mounts. If we even look to Fuji for X mount they have the 16-55 f/2.8, the 16-80 f/4, the 18-55 f/2.8-4.0, and the 16-50 f/3.5-5.6. So, yes there is a glut of these lenses, but that is just what manufacturers seem to do and exactly what Fuji has done with the X mount as well.
|
