Comments on: HOT! New Fuji X lens pictures!!!

By: Laurent

Laurent — Mon, 08 Apr 2013 01:59:23 +0000

I think R is for short backfocus distance

By: Rich

Rich — Thu, 20 Sep 2012 13:25:05 +0000

What does the ‘R’ denote?

By: daymon

daymon — Thu, 20 Sep 2012 09:43:49 +0000

You still have the 14mm wide angle which takes 58mm filters. As for the 52mm primes, you can use step rings assuming you don’t own already loads of 52mm filters (if you’re a new customer and intend to go Fuji X like me for instance).
Furthermore you cannot compare APS-C lenses with MFT ones, the latest will always be smaller, if you prefer MFT lenses then go MFT. The sony comparison is much fair and indeed the sony 10-18 is smaller with 62mm diameter but less versatile. It’s always a matter of compromises… Just choose the sytem that best suits your needs.

By: David

David — Thu, 20 Sep 2012 03:37:15 +0000

Personally, I am not that impressed. Why are we using 58mm filters? The 18 and 35mm have 52mm. Why couldn’t Fuji keep it at 52? Or release the original lenses at 58mm? And that 10-24…it looks HUGE. I mean, it has a 72mm filter. 72 feakin’ millimeters. I thought one of the advantages of removing the mirror was that you could make much smaller wide angle lenses. Look at what Panasonic did with the 7-14mm. An Sony’s 10-18mm looks much smaller too (I know it’s not the same focal range, but my god, I don’t need that 27-36mm focal range that badly). I really hope the final design is a lot smaller, because otherwise it’s Sony for me and someone can buy my Fuji gear cheap.

By: Mat

Mat — Wed, 19 Sep 2012 21:04:42 +0000

I too am excited about the 27mm. Its going to be a nice street lens….almost pocketable but not quite.

By: Spiny Norman

Spiny Norman — Wed, 19 Sep 2012 20:27:42 +0000

Total nonsense. For example, in Leica M mount the single best prime lens I’ve ever used is the ZM C-Biogon 35/2.8. It’s the most well-corrected and consistent optic I’ve ever used — a considerably better lens than the 35/1.4 Summilux ASPH that I owned and used for a decade.

By: PS

PS — Wed, 19 Sep 2012 18:40:35 +0000

Nice that all but one of those prototypes have 58mm filter diameter. Nice for customers to have a single set of filters that carries across multiple lenses.

By: MD

MD — Wed, 19 Sep 2012 17:41:30 +0000

Does anyone know why 35/2 (23/2 in this case) lenses are some of the most compact lenses out there, while 35/1.4 lenses are invariably huge by comparison? The Canikon versions are the same way, so it’s not surprising that the Fuji is; I’ve just never been clear on why there’s such a discrepancy. 50/2 and 50/1.4 lenses rarely differ so much. (This said, I don’t believe the Leica 35′s differ much at all).

By: Daymon

Daymon — Wed, 19 Sep 2012 17:16:55 +0000

I guess that 58mm filter size is the way to go then. At least if you don’t plan using either the fuji 10-24 or zeiss 12mm.
Already dreamin about the 23 1.4…

By: Ragnarok

Ragnarok — Wed, 19 Sep 2012 16:23:24 +0000

This is amazing! With these and the Zeiss lenses I couldn’t ask more (well, maybe a tele and, I’m dreaming here, a tilt/shift wide lens). I’m personally excited about the Fuji 10-24 and the Zeiss 18, I love wide lenses.

Between the Fuji and the NEX systems (too bad Samsung is unable to get more love for their also fairly complete system), I declare M43 dead…

http://i.imgur.com/fMu4z.jpg