X-T1 FW will make Video Button a FN-button + Internal Fuji Lens Roadmap with 8mm, 200mm and… 33mmF1.0!

Share

rurmoad

OK X-folks… after the latest announcements, I’ve updated my rumor ranking and saw that I’ve shared 87,27% correct rumors.

That’s waaaaay too high for a rumor site, and so I decided to take a little risk, and share a rumor I’ve just received from an anonymous source with nick-name (thanks a lot for sharing, btw :-) ).

The good thing is: it won’t take long to see if the information shared is correct or not… we just have to wait and see, if the X-T1 firmware will make the video button a function button.

But here is the whole story:

X-T1 FIRMWARE

FN

As you know, Fuji said there will be a new Firmware coming soon. Mostly it’s all about adding XF35mmF2 compatibility to current X-series cameras. However, there might be some extra tidbits, at least for X-T1 shooters.

In fact, the anonymous source says that:

A new firmware update for the X-T1 that will make the video button a function button… as well as some other unspecified updates!

LENS ROADMAP

The source also shares information about an Internal Fuji Roadmap.

there is an internal fujifilm lens roadmap that includes a 8mm, a 200mm and the 33mm.

Yep, it’s the 33mmF1.0. However, according to the source, Fuji is still working to fix issues like AF-speed, and at least this source says that it’s not sure that the XF33mmF1.0 will ever see the light of day! But I’m confident (read this rumor).

INSTAX WIDE

No plans for a wide instax printer at this stage.

Fuji X Forum, Facebook, Google+, RSS-feed and Twitter

Don't miss the Latest Rumors and News. Subscribe to our Newsletter!

*Please also check your spam folder if you don't get the confirmation mail. And mark the mail as "non-spam" to see the future newsletter.
Share
  • I really hope this is true! And I really hope they’ll make the fn buttons toggle like on the X-t10. I hate that pressing the fn buttons brings up a menu instead of just toggling the function on/off.

  • Dis

    My guess is that 8mm is a fisheye.

    • Peter

      Probably – but if it was a rectilinear design like the Arri Ultra Prime 8R (which is made by Zeiss as far as I know), that would be quite spectacular news.

      I’m not currently aware of any comparable still photo lenses. However, the Arri is a 2 kg monster, so they would probably have to make it slower (the Ultra Prime is a T2.8, which is probably equivalent to somewhere around f2 or f1.8).

      • The sigma 8-16 for aps-c, sigma 12-24 for 35mm and canon 11-24 all cover a similar FOV (the canon is even a bit wider). In my world an ultra wide angle lens without shift capabilities is useless but to each his own, having a lot of choices is good.

        Ps: Size should be ok if it’s not faster than f4.

      • Dave

        I looked-up the price of an Arri Ultra Prime 8R…its $27,000 US.

  • Günther Gruber

    That 200m sounds interesting, maybe a 2.8 for sports/wildlife?

    • Not likely, but we’ll see.

      • Why not Rico? Looking at canons 200mm 2.8, it weighs 765g @ 72mm filter size so it’s just a bit larger than the 90mm f2…

        • MJr

          Indeed, actually i think a F2.8 is more likely than anything slower, because that is the reason one would go for a prime rather than a zoom in that range isn’t it.

          • It’ll have to be something like f/2 or even f/1.8, because otherwise it’s directly competing with the current zoom lenses.

          • Which current Fujifilm lens offers f2.8 @ 200mm?

          • An aperture of f/2.8 is just one stop away from f/4 (XF50~140mm + 1.4X TC) and one and a half stop away from f/4.8 (XF55~200mm). For me that’s not enough to justify acquiring the lens, as moving (x) centimetres closer or further from the subject would create the same depth of field with the existing lenses as would a 200mm f/2.8 lens.

          • MJr

            One stop is a lot, it’s double. It would be fully optimized for that one specific focal length, meaning it can be used wide open without a problem, probably perfection just one stop down. So really usability could even be two stops difference. Not to mention Bokeh. Any zoom or especially a teleconverter would be no comparison at all.

            Might not be for you, and i doubt i’ll be buying any 200mm prime personally, but F2.8 is what i’m betting on, and imho the best thing for the most people. Balancing size, weight, price and performance.

          • True that one stop is double (or half) the light, but the difference in DoF for a 200mm lens at f/2.8 and at f/4 is at five metres focal distance only four centimetres and at fifteen metres roughly fifty centimetres (that’s total: front plus back).

          • James

            Robert,

            Thank you so much for actually understanding aperture. There was a really fascinating discussion re: aperture at theonlinephotographer site the other day. I am always surprised by the number of people on the internet who really misunderstand what the aperture of lens determines (I do have an MFA in photography so I had to learn this). I offer the below cut and paste because it explains it better than I could:

            The primary function of f-number has always been to describe the light gathering capability of the lens. Aperture x Time equals Exposure. That’s the fundamental and important characteristic. It is independent of format. For the same ISO, an f/4 lens is going to give you the same exposure time, regardless of the size of the format. Yes, a larger format lens gathers more photons, but they are distributed over a larger sensor/film area. It cancels out. That’s why f-number is the useful concept it is.

            This is very, very basic photography–– what you get taught in the first week in Photography 101 in school.

            A **secondary** consequence of aperture is depth of field. It depends on aperture, subject distance, focal length, and acceptable blur circle. VERY roughly, you can scale it with format size–– double the format size and you need to roughly and I mean ROUGHLY double the f-number to get comparable depth of field.That rule fails, like all depth of field rules of thumb, under quite a range of circumstances, but it’s a sometimes-useful starting point.

          • Yes, thanks. I tend to forget that most people are still on the first basic beginner level and thus have absolutely no idea about what actually causes depth of field and consequently cannot express the real world phenomenon in theoretical terms.

          • 1. Same thing can be said about a lot of other primes compared to a zoom (for example 90mm f2 vs 50-135).

            2. You can take as many steps as you want, but you won’t be able to create the same DOF with the other lenses, that would be only possible with for example a 135mm f2 and TC 1.4.

            3. A 200mm 2.8 is a 300mm f4 with the TC (could later be even used with a X1.7 TC), it has a much better optical performance than a zoom with TC (and even without it), it is lighter and thus easier to carry around and should be cheaper than the 50-135.

            4. On the X system I would always chose a prime over a zoom, if I need to use big heavy lenses I use my DSLR, but to each his own.

          • 1. Even though I’ll probably purchase the 90mm f/2 lens sometime in the future, personally I would have preferred if it had been a 135mm f/2 lens.

            2. One of the components of DoF is distance to subject, so steps do equalize between lenses of different specifications. The rub, however, lies in perspective.

            3. And a 300mm f/4 would be even better, as one could TC that to a 400mm f/5.6 lens.

            4. I would agree, but provided FUJIFILM started making things like a 24mm f/3.5 lens. The interesting thing about current zoom lenses are that the really good ones (like FUJIFILM’s and most of the Canon L’s) are better than the outstanding primes of a few years ago.

          • You buy long fast lenses because you can’t take the few extra steps or want a certain compression/FOV. But even if you just cared about Dof: the effects of Dof counter each other to some extent. A shorter subject distance also means a shorter focal length and therefor you need a faster lens if you want similar Dof.

      • umad?!

        more likely some UBER 200mm f/2.0 (or something like that) I guess.

        f/2.8 would be “fine” at 200mm but:
        300mm with 1.4xTC at f/4 and (and such an lens would need it)
        400mm with 2xTC at f/5.6 would be much to close to the 100-400 f/4.5-5.6

        Personally I think a 300mm f/2.8 could work too ;)

        Or am I so far off? ;)

  • Richard Silvius

    Frankly I’m annoyed. I’m an owner of an X-E2. It’s practically the same camera, yet it’s been left in the dust with the firmware upgrades.

    • Mike

      Whats wrong with your X-E2? What exactly do you want Fuji to do about your camera that gets you annoyed? X-T1 is Fujifilms Flagship at the moment and it might have a few internal differences than the X-E2… maybe some of the features from T1 and T10 will drain your battery quicker.. or cause it to over heat.. and then you will be annoyed again. Just go outside and take photos and not want something you don’t need.. or better yet.. buy an X-T1.

    • Vidar

      I’m also an owner of an X-E2. The camera works like a charme and do excately what I expect it to do as it did at the time I got it (nov.2013)!
      However I would love to get the AF system as in XT-10 but I’ll not be annoyed if I don’t.

      • Richard Silvius

        Sure, it’s a great camera! I LOVE it. There is not one interchangeable lens camera in the current X lineup that I would rather own. I shoot with it all the time. It just aggravates me that a very similar camera released only a few months later has gotten tons of great firmware upgrades, but not the E2. There are some very useful features in there and it’s just frustrating not to be able to get them on my camera, which I’ve said in the past — I consider to be a superior camera in many ways to the T1.

  • sir_c

    That sounds like a solid plan Fuji have. Especially if the 1.4x fits on the 200mm the tele focal-range is covered quite nicely.

  • Guest11

    33mm Jan. 2017? Too damn late. =)

  • J T

    WHY can’t the Fuji techs take 5 FRICKIN MINUTES to write the code allowing for +/-3 stop autobracketing???? FIVE FRICKIN MINUTES of code-writing, MAX!!! WTF WTF WTF WTF WTF WTF !!!!

    • MJr

      “… as well as some other unspecified updates!”

      He just named one ..

    • Not really, because they would also have to add a menu option so that the user can differentiate between 1-stop and 3-stop brackets, plus a new storage variable for the default, plus …

      • They rewrote the AF system, and added menu options for the various types of focusing. Nothing you listed is difficult compared to that. The real mystery is why Fuji ever thought 1 stop bracketing was sufficient when all their competitors offer better.

        • True, but all that did not take five (frickin) minutes to write.

          BTW, in defence of FUJIFILM I must say that in over thirty years of photography I’ve never used bracketing in normal photography. (The exception being when testing and learning new films and sensors.)

          • My experience is different. In my admittedly short 25 years of photography, I have used bracketing on many occasions. :-)

            I don’t use it daily, but when I need it, I need it. And I’m used to the bracketing options on a 5D MKIII or a 60D, which make my X-T1’s option look amateurish.

            Considering the competition, I find Fuji’s refusal to offer more extensive bracketing options inexplicable. Much as their decision to turn off the hot shoe during continuous drive shooting mode is completely inexplicable (and a sales depressant to boot).

          • Maybe they’re keeping the bracketing option amateurish in order to prevent the inevitable slide down to automatic 9-stop HDR processing, which is what people will be asking for two minutes after the firmware update is released.

  • MJr

    8mm, 33/1, and a 200mm ? Lol, sounds like the XF line has gotten so saturated they’re just experimenting at this point. Not a bad thing.

    • Sounds like the XF line has gotten so saturated they’re just experimenting at this point. Not a bad thing.

      So may the lens designers at FUJIFILM then please start experimenting with an AF 500mm catadioptric lens.

  • MJr

    By the way, the 120mm in July ? I knew it would be 2016, but July !? :-(
    Knowing Fuji that probably means in stores by September.

  • Tov_Daniele

    With an XF 8mm i can say bye bye to Sony a7ii and heliar 15! Finger crossing will be my new job.

    • Leon Freedman

      But wait…. there is now the Sony RX1 II. sounds very impressive but still I’m in hopes of a stellar X100 update

  • Mike

    The 8mm sounds interesting if it’s rectilinear. I don’t see a need for a FE, as the Samyang is already excellent and cheap. At this FL AF isn’t really needed.

    I see the point in introducing the 33mm F1, even if it’s only for bragging rights. But surely there are people who want one, as the F0.95 Voigtländers for m43 are quite popular.

    However what about that 200mm?! If it’s F4 there’s not much to differentiate it from the 55-200mm or 50-140mm with TC. If it’s F2.8 it’ll be huge and even with TC of limited range…

    I think there is room for a long prime, but it would be better served with a 333mm F4. Using Phrasnel optics (the thing in Nikon’s new 300/F4) it could be the size and weight of the 50-140mm, therefore manageable. It would offer a FF equivalent of 500mm bare or 700mm with TC. Now that would be a nature photogs dream. If they manage to price it below 2,000€, I’d buy it in a heartbeat!

    • Grappo

      Dont see why 200/2.8 has to be much larger than 300/4, if larger at all?
      Take eg Canons EF lenses for measure.

      • Grappo

        ..or the 200+300 twins Pentax released a few years ago.

        • Mike

          Right, I was thinking of the huge Nikon, but forgot it’s F2… Still the 200mm from Canon and Pentax aren’t small but quit dated and without OIS. A new Fuji version with all the gimmicks would come in 50-140mm size. And I still think, that a 200mm F2.8 would be offering not much over the zoom options – one stop faster but same size or 1.5 stop faster but almost twice as heavy.

          On the other hand, a 333mm would fill a big gap. If Fresnel (thanks Alan) it could probably be half the weight and much smaller than the 100-400mm and still around one stop faster. It would be a great add-on for 50-140mm and 55-200mm users (especially with TC), I think more obvious than a 200mm Fwhatever.

          Besides, I’m expressing my views here! And my view is, a 333mm F4 would be the perfect way to round out my 10-24mm + 50-140mm combo. A 200mm prime Just wouldn’t :-P

          • Grappo

            Ok, you like longer better. That’s fine, but Fujifilm has to think about what lenses everyone else like too.
            I think that they think that more people would find more use of a faster 200mm lens than a slower 300-something-mm lens. Perhaps I’m wrong or perhaps they’re wrong or perhaps we’re all wrong. Time will tell..

    • A 333mm doesn’t have the same magnification power as a 500mm lens, irrespective of the sensor-size.

      • Sebastian

        Magnification power?

        • Yes, magnification power. It’s the same as with binoculars, only there they had the savvy to incorporate the magnification power in the designation, e.g. 5X30 or 10X50. The first digit (before the X or times symbol) is the magnification power of the optics.

          • Sebastian

            I’m not sure that’s really applicable to imaging lenses. What would be the magnification power of a 500 mm lens, for example?

          • Let’s assume a distance to subject of 25 metres, thus the magnification power for various lenses would be:

            – 500mm = 0.020
            – 400mm = 0.016
            – 333mm = 0.013
            – 300mm = 0.012
            – 200mm = 0.008

            So even though a 333mm crop-frame lens would be “equivalent” to a 500mm full-frame lens in terms of field of view, it doesn’t have the same magnification power.

          • Sebastian

            I looked up how to calculate binocular or telescope magnification (telescope’s focal length divided by that of the eyepiece), but couldn’t find anything about lenses that doesn’t involve other parts of the system, like object distance or image size etc. So this leads me to think the reason why manufacturers don’t designate lenses by magnification is because it’s not possible to do so for the lens by itself.

          • The Wikipedia article on “magnification” provides an easy equation for photographic lenses: M = f / (d – f) … where M is the magnification factor, f is the focal length and d is the distance to the subject.

            For prime lenses it would be possible to include the magnification factor alongside the distance scale; zoom are a problem, although I have seen old Soligor and Vivitar “macro”-zooms with graph-style magnification scales.

          • Sebastian

            Sure if other dimensions of the imaging system are known, like object distance etc., a magnification an be calculated. But I’m not sure what single number would reflect this more usefully than focal length. Macro lenses usually have the magnification encoded next to the distance scale. But how should the manufacturer condense this to a single number, like in the case of binoculars?

          • Sebastian

            Coming to think of it, angle of view would be good. Much less tangible though.

          • They are currently using “angle of view”, which is why everyone thinks a 312mm or a 333mm lens on a crop-frame camera is the same as a 500mm lens on a full-frame lens.

          • Sebastian

            Well, in many respects it is. In others it’s not. I think what is expressed by the angle of view is how big an object would fill your frame for a given distance. That’s a reasonably practical piece of geometric information. Of course it doesn’t say anything about the photometric aspects, which are more involved.

          • Magnification factor at infinity, perhaps?

          • Sebastian

            Zero?

          • You can calculate the distance to infinity for a given lens. So, since we have distance and focal length, we can calculate magnification factor. The real problem are those lenses that can focus beyond infinity, like most catadioptrics and also the Nikon ED 300mm f/4.5 lens.

          • Sebastian

            Sounds philosophical, “the distance to infinity” :)
            Since magnification is image size divided by object size (or equivalently image to lens / lens to object), wouldn’t the magnification approach zero as the object distance approaches infinity, regardless of the focal length? This is why the image of a huge star is a point on the detector.

          • For true infinity the result would approach zero, but infinity of a lens is not true infinity. It is basically the point of focus where everything at that point and beyond is “in focus”, i.e. hyperfocal distance. As an example, for a 24mm f/2 lens infinity would be at 10 metres and consequently there is no need for this lens to be able to focus any further distances.

          • Sebastian

            Yes, that makes sense with respect to depth of field. But I don’t see how it’ll help us solve the original problem, at which distance to quote lens magnification.

          • You’re right! So how about stating it as magnification at minimum focus distance to magnification at hyperfocal distance for largest f-stop? For a 24mm f/2 lens with a minimum focus distance of 25cm it’ll be something like “1:0.1~0.002”.

    • Alan Paone

      I’m also really hoping the 8 isn’t a fisheye! i don’t care if it’s an F/4 I hope it’s as rectilinear as they can make it.
      Also the word you’re after is Fresnel

    • Alex

      I’m disappointed from my samyang 8mm. seeing pictures taken with this lens I’d never imagine that the body is fuji. Taking full 360 panoramic tours right now I can’t profit from the real fuji colors :(
      Wish 8mm alternative lens will come soon and that it will be fisheye too. Probably I’m too spoiled with dr and color rendering already ;)

    • justintime

      200mm f2.8 would not be huge. My old Nikon 180mm f2.8 AF was not much longer than fuji 90mm f2.0. It had 72mm filter ring if I recall correctly, which be OK for a Fuji IMO.

  • Thomas

    Adding a Tilt Shift lens to the roadmap would be nice

  • AceFlibble

    Wouldn’t surprise me, brings the FN button customisation on par with the X-T10.

    That button is useless as a FN button anyway, since it still only activates like it’s in movie mode. You have to hold it down for a moment to get it to count as a press, but hold it down for a fraction of a second too long and the camera thinks you want to reassign the function. Combined with the flush mount, the damn thing is useless.

  • Grappo

    Turn the video button to a red-eye reduction switch would make 110% sense.. ;)

    • So how would that work when FUJIFILM doesn’t even have a (decent) flash system with which to create red eyes?

      • Grappo

        You’re right. An instant ignore button would make more sense to have readily available.

  • Jón Ingólfur Hermannsson

    makes sense to make it an FN button as an option – as Fuji video is nothing to write home about – so just better to have some use for that button and I say never enough Fn buttons :) that is why I love the Panasonic GH4 and GX8 :) fantastic and they have even 5 soft Fn buttons on top –

  • airhead

    review of 35/2, but in Polish: http://www.optyczne.pl/373.1-Test_obiektywu-Fujifilm_Fujinon_XF_35_mm_f_2_R_WR.html you can translate by Google :)

  • airhead

    I wish more 23/2 pancake or 12/2 or metal zoom from 16-x :) but Fuji lenses portfolio is already great :)

  • How can the future be late?

  • Leon Freedman

    In the importal words of J Trotter “I knew it….. I knew it”

  • Daniel Holzer

    Agree with everything but the last clause. I love my X-T1, but if I had the X-E2 I’d be waiting for the X-T2 :-)

    • Richard Silvius

      E2 will become a 2nd body once the Pro 2 is out. I’m all about that HVF!

  • rouven miller

    I hope the Firmware will bring a focus bracketing mode. That would be great.

  • Luzid

    what about zoom? please give me a 16-70 4.0 WR

  • Zack

    A high-quality 16-80mm f/4 WR Lens sure would be nice (to replace the 18-55mm). I would think this would have a much greater market share than an 8mm fisheye…

    • ThePine

      16-80 F4 VR WR

  • Richard Silvius

    Nothing wrong with it. It’s great. I shoot with it all the time. But it’s deserving of the same great firmware being lavished upon its sibling. You may have a point. Maybe it would hurt battery life, or maybe it would overheat. But I doubt it. The two cameras are very, very alike. Maybe that’s what makes it so frustrating. And no — I’ll pass on the X-T1. I do not like its ergonomics.

  • Yes! Make it four and we’re done:). 11mm, 16mm, 30mm and 60mm

  • Andrei Frolov

    Oh Gods of Fujifilm! Please, please make that 8mm fast and corrected for coma! I would love 8/1.4 fisheye. Even if it is going to cost >$3k, I don’t care, I will buy it, just get it right! One word – astrophoto…

  • Dima135

    200 … 2.8 ?

  • ThorstenMUC

    Hope the “unspecified features” finally read like
    1) Class leading of the camera, multiple flash TTL-system
    2) +- up to 3 stops of bracketing

  • Raúl Martínez

    Why not improving double exposure features like the majority of the cameras now have and in RAW (not only JPG) please?

    • umad?!

      who really does it in Camera (RAW), when you can do it in Photoshop?

      I mean: all those features are for JPG Shooters (imo)

  • Dave

    OK I’ll play along…

    8mm (12mm 35) should be great for astro-photography, no coma, I had hoped the 16 f1.4 would have been this lens for astro.

    the 200mm should be F2 otherwise what would be the point, yes I know It would big and heavy and expensive, but I am back to what would be the point if it was, say f2.8, I would just use the 100-400 then, even if it is slower. I am not sure F/2.8 would make that big of a difference. If f/4.0, then I would really would not buy it..

    33 f/1.0, OK, I am holding out for this to be a great lens, without the old design of the f/1.4, the f/2.0 did not turn-out to be the lens I was looking for, I was looking for it it to be really much smaller, so maybe the f/1.0 will be the greatest and no issues, yes, the f/1.0 should be big, heavy and expensive, I get it.

    I am really looking for a studio portrait lens, in FF it would be 40mm to 135mm, so in Fuji XF it would be 25mm to 90mm all f/2.0. I am looking for one fast zoom lens to have on throughout a full portrait session, where I don’t have to change lenses or cameras.

    • Dave

      Maybe a 200 f/2.8 would work.

  • Grappo

    200/2 would likely end up costing somewher north of $4k. A good 200/2.8 could be priced more similarly to fuji’s other top-end primes, ie around $1k.
    How many would/could/should cough up the extra couple of grands for the extra stop you think..?

  • jojo

    The new lenses on the roadmap seem to show Fuji bidding to become a very
    serious player. Not only does the growing number of primes indicate they are
    pitching to serious photographers, but the lenses chosen are significant. The 2
    fast f2.8 zooms we already have are approximately equivalent to the popular
    24-70 and 70-200 lenses that are effectively an industry standard.
    Traditionally a 300/2.8 telephoto is another standard, so the new 200mm lens is
    likely a very high quality f2.8 version. The 33mm f1.0 is a similar idea to
    Canon’s old 50mm f1.0, very much a prestige offering with a significant
    following despite its faults. Perhaps with modern improvements in lens design
    Fuji’s version will be better and even more successful.

    Some posters have assumed the 8mm is a fisheye, and perhaps it will be, but
    has that been stated? A rectilinear 8mm would be a highly desirable lens, even
    if f2.8 or f4.

  • A 200 f/2.8 with OIS and sports optimized AF motors would be an excellent addition to the lineup. I used to own the Canon 200 f/2.8 L , and I can’t imagine an APS-C optimized 200 f/2.8 being much, if any, bigger than that. A lens that size would still be relatively light, (when compared to a full frame 300 f/2.8, it would be a featherweight) and still balance nicely on an X-T1. Given the option to match it with what appears to be the superb 1.4x tc, and it would really extend the Fuji lens range into wildlife, sports and performance territory, and add another portrait option.

    And yes, for me at least, that one stop of extra speed and DOF control makes a difference, vs using a 50-140 with a TC.

  • Sinjun

    a 16-70 f/2.8 (or a 16/80 f2.8) with IS would be great for ‘run and gun’ one camera shoots where there’s no time to change lenses

  • Dave

    Hey Patrick, the dates you show on the time line for the 200mm, 8mm and 33mm. Were those dates provided by the source? Are they announcement dates, or available dates.

  • @Fujirumor:disqus any chance to find out if the 8mm is going to be rect or fisheye? The latter would be a pity.

    • Patrick

      I’ll try to dig up more about it

  • Street Fuji

    Patrick, please poll the community if they want a compact, fast-focusing, budget-friendly 56mm f2 WR! I think there would be huge demand for this lens but it just hasn’t been talked about enough.

    Bokeh would be dreamy enough for most purposes at 56mm and f2.

    Lens would be smaller/lighter so as to balance better on small Fuji bodies–plus reduced size and weight fulfills the original promise of mirrorless in the first place.

    Reduced size would be easier to use with optical viewfinder bodies such as the forthcoming X-PRO2.

    Reduced size, weight, and complexity would also mean shorter focus throw, therefore, faster AF.

    Also, weather resistance would open up possibilities for portraiture in nature and the elements–something photographers may be loathe to try with the expensive f/1.2 lens.

    It would be a great cousin to the 56mm f/1.2, a great companion to the 35mm f2 WR, and an extra selling point for the X-PRO2 optical viewfinder (since many Fuji lenses block the viewfinder).

    Ask the community! If Fuji sees demand, this lens may show up on future roadmaps.

By continuing to use the site, you agree to the use of cookies. more information

The cookie settings on this website are set to "allow cookies" to give you the best browsing experience possible. If you continue to use this website without changing your cookie settings or you click "Accept" below then you are consenting to this.

What are Cookies?
A cookie is a small file of letters and numbers that is stored in a temporary location on your computer to allow our website to distinguish you from other users of the website. If you don't want to accept cookies, you'll still be able to browse the site and use it for research purposes. Most web browsers have cookies enabled, but at the bottom of this page you can see how to disable cookies. Please note that cookies can't harm your computer. We don't store personally identifiable information in the cookies, but we do use encrypted information gathered from them to help provide you with a good experience when you browse our website and also allow us to improve our site. You can watch a simple video from Google to find more information about cookies.

Cookies used by our Website
The Fujirumors website, Fujirumors.com, uses the following cookies for the collection of website usage statistics and to ensure that we can . These are anonymous and temporary. By using our website, you agree that we may place these types of cookies on your device.
Read how Google uses data when you use our partners' sites or apps: http://www.google.com/intl/en/policies/privacy/partners/
Google Analytics Cookie Usage on Websites: https://developers.google.com/analytics/devguides/collection/analyticsjs/cookie-usage?csw=1#cookiesSet Addthis cookies: http://www.addthis.com/privacy.
Disqus cookies: https://help.disqus.com/customer/portal/articles/466235-use-of-cookies.
Vimeo cookies: http://vimeo.com/privacy.
Youtube cookies: https://support.google.com/youtube/answer/171780?hl=en-GB

Disabling/Enabling Cookies
You have the ability to accept or decline cookies by modifying the settings in your browser. Please note however that by deleting our cookies or disabling future cookies you may not be able to access certain areas or features of our site. For information about how to disable cookies in your browser please visit the About Cookies website.

Close