Steve Spencer
Offline
• • • • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
|
 p.2 #18 · What Fuji GF lenses would you like to see? | |
gdanmitchell wrote:
There has been, for quite a while, a belief that Fujifilm can’t make a GFX zoom lens with much more than a 2:1 focal length range. If that’s the case, the 35-100mm idea, as interesting as it sounds, is probably not in the cards. some would make the same point about a 30-75 lens.
(The miniMF sensor is obviously bigger than the FF sensor, but not that much larger. So I think this 2:1 “rule” — which sort of dates to lenses designed for hte larger 645 format — is potentially open to violation. But if os, then that would change all of the other options in a zoom lens iine-up, too.)
I think that a very useful wide lens might be something like 16-35 or 1735, which only slightly violates that 2:1 objective. 16mm is quite wide on miniMF It is equivalent to something between 12 and 13mm on FF, so its coverage is very close to that of the wide 12-24 lenses found on some FF systems.
I don’t think a zoom with a maximum focal length of 350mm is going to cut it. The larger format gives is a larger angle of view than we get from the same focale lengths on FF, so 400mm already falls a bit short of what FF shooters really on — that’s why making such a lens both 40mm at the long end and compatible with the 1.4x TC would make it far more useful. If such a lens needs to decrease its focal length coverage, probably better to do that by increasing the focal length at the short end. I’d rather have a 200-400 than a 150-350, though I think that a 350-400 is likely quite possible in a longer lens, given that the Canon EF 100-400 already comes close to working well on miniMF, and with the larger format it would be fine to have a slighlty smaller focal length range and a slighlty smaller maximum aperture at the long end.
As for apertures, I think that Fujifilm could afford to do two things with such zooms in general.First, I don’t think that extra large apertures are necessary, since there are primes that provide that when needed and the costs of making larger aperture zooms of the larger format could be significant. In addition, the weight and size of such lenses, especially at longer focal lengths would be significant. I also think that going with variable aperture zooms is just fine, especially with that longest lens.While that might not be ideal for things like event photography (which generally doesn’t really require miniMF) it would be fine for things like landscape, and even benediction from the costs, size, and weight perspectives.
...Show more →
Hi Dan,
Thanks for your comments. With range of the zooms it was clear to me that people wanted the range to be expanded a bit. We already have the 45-100 f/4, which is a good performer so it is clear that a 2X focal length range is not a hard limit. I tried not to push much beyond the 2X ratio, however, and stuck to 2.5X as a max except for the 35-100, which is still less than 3X and it seemed to me not too much of an extension beyond the 45-100 that we already have. In addition, Leica made a quite good 30-90 f/3.5-5.6 for their 45 X 30mm medium format system (this has basically the same image circle as the GFX) so proposing a 35-100 f/5.6 for the GFX seems doable.
The 35-100 also solved two problems in that it eliminates the gap between 35 and 45 and it provides a slower midrange alternative. If 35-100 is too much of a stretch on focal length range then perhaps it could be a 35-90 f/5.6 (or maybe even a 30-90 like Leica made) and when the 100-200 becomes a version II it could start at 90 instead of 100. That would give a 4 lens set of 20-35, 35-90, 90-200, and 15-350 that I think many landscape photographers would like.
I am not sure if the long telephoto should end with 350 or 400. Keeping it at 350 keeps the focal length range below 2.5X and 400 extends it just beyond that. A 350 with a 1.4X TC, however, does get you damn close to a 400mm FF equivalent falling just short at 390mm or so depending on how you round. Perhaps split the difference and make it a 375? This gives us exactly a 2.5X focal length ratio and just over a 400mm FF equivalent with the 1.4X TC. I think if they made a lens that was really 375, then they would just call it a 400 (manufacturers tend to aggressively round in this way) but if people really think it has to get to a 400mm FF equivalent then they can just make it 360mm and call it 350mm. I think we are talking minutiae here and the 150-350 with a TC gets us to very close to a 400mm FF equivalent and a zoom lens with that focal length on FF would be labelled as 400mm on FF. Really we aren't talking about substance at this point but rather what to label the lens. While we are talking about this lens I listed the aperture as f/6.3, but it might be better and probably wouldn't make the lens any bigger or harder to make if it has a variable aperture of something like f/5-6.3. I also think for people like you who want a long lens for landscapes they should eventually make a 200-500 and that could be a f/5.6-7.1. Then the 4 lens set could be 20-35, 35-90, 90-200, and 200-500 and you would have a 16mm to 400mm FF equivalent.
I think a 16-35 even if it is f/5.6 makes very little sense as they already have a 20-35 f/4 (just because it doesn't make sense doesn't mean they won't do it, however). I think the more natural lens to make is a 15-30 f/5.6 which is about as close to a 12-24 on FF as you can get. One of the issues that Fuji has with the GFX is that the registration distance is 26.7mm and as you get shorter than the registration distance the lens has to become more retrofocal and bigger (at least that is what I understand and why 35mm lenses for DSLRs had to be so big as that focal length is shorter than the registration distance). I think that is why they kept the 20-35 at 20mm on the wide end, so a 15-30 I think will be a pretty big lens, but I think they need to go to 15mm on the wide end to differentiate it from the 20-35 and I think they will make this lens an f/5.6 to keep it a bit smaller. Those are just my views, however. This lens with the lenses described above give the option of a four lens set with 15-30, 30-75, 75-150, and 150-350, about a range with a FF equivalent of about 12-280, which would serve a lot people quite well.
Personally, given my preferences and these lenses, my kit would be a trinity of the 20-35 f/4, 30-75 f/4, and 75-150 f/4. I would live with the 32-64 in place of the 30-75, but I would prefer an update with a longer range and what is really missing is something like a 75-150 or 70-150 and I would like that to be an f/4 lens and to have OIS. This lens--or something like it--is what I would most like to see and it seems a number of other people would too. I do think Fuji will make such a lens before too long.
|
