XF 10-24 announced! Press-release and price $1000 (new hand grip announced too)


 photo asd_zps601911db.png

 photo on_zpsbab48549.jpg

PR-ORDER (and support FR)

XF 10-24 pre-orders: USA: AmazonUS / BHphoto / Adorama / Pictureline / DigitalRev / EUROPE: DigitalRev / PCHstore / AmazonDE / AmazonUK / wexphotographic


– Press release at digitalcamerareview: “available in March 2014 for $999.95.”

ephotozine press release here: “The lens will be available from March 2014 in the UK, at an SRP of £849.99.”

dslrmagazine press release (Spanish) here.

photoscala press release (Geman) here. The price will be of €999.

hand grip: “Fujifilm Corporation (President: Shigehiro Nakajima) has announced that it will release two new hand grips, the MHG-XPRO and MHG-XE, which provide enhanced grip and hold for the X-Pro1 and X-E1/E2, plus allow access to the battery and memory card slot without removing the grip.” Press release here.

Press release at Fujifillm‘s global website here.

FUJIFILM Corporation (President: Shigehiro Nakajima) is proud to announce the launch of the FUJINON XF10-24mmF4 R OIS lens compatible with all Fujifilm X mount compact system cameras.

The new FUJINON XF lens is a 2.4x zoom lens — equivalent to 15-36mm in 35mm format. Its ultra wide to standard focal length capabilities make it the perfect choice for shooting dynamic, high impact landscapes images with maximum detail from the foreground to the far distance. It also comes into its own when shooting interiors, making small rooms look more impressive, while the maximum F4.0 aperture that is available throughout the zoom range, enables handheld shooting even in low light conditions.

Fujifilm’s introduction of the FUJINON XF10-24mmF4 R OIS means its X mount series can now boast (in 35mm equivalent) focal length options ranging from 15mm to 350mm.

Key features on the FUJINON XF10-24mm lens

  • Newly designed optical system with 4 high-precision aspherical lenses and 3 extra low dispersion glass lenses which maximize performance of the X-Trans sensor.
  • A powerful Optical Image Stabilization function which boosts the ability to work handheld when shooting in low light.
  • Ghosting is minimized by Fujifilm’s unique HT-EBC* multi-layer coating that is applied to all sides of FUJINON lenses.
  • An additional newly developed coating has been added to the reverse side of the front lens in the XF10-24mm lens composition to further reduce the ghosting that typically occurs when using deep concave lenses.
  • Enhanced resolving power at all apertures when used in-conjunction with an X-series camera** that incorporates a Lens Modulation Optimizer (LMO) function.
  • Seven-blade aperture diaphragm that helps to create smooth and round bokeh effects.
  • The ability to shoot at an aperture of F4.0 from the lens’ ultra-wide 15mm focal length to its longest at 36mm.
  • A minimum working distance of 24cm means that with macro photography you can capture both the small foreground detail and the wider surroundings to give your subject greater context.
  • Its high-speed AF is achieved via its inner focusing system which drives smaller lenses in the middle or rear lens groups without moving the larger lenses in the front lens groups
  • Thanks to light weight internal lenses and the addition of a stepping motor, the XF10-24mm lens is also very quiet to use.
  • With its precision-made, responsive, and finely-tuned metal aperture and focus rings, you are ensured a superb handling experience.
Type XF10-24mmF4 R OIS
Lens configuration 14 elements in 10 groups (includes 4 aspherical and 3 extra low dispersion elements)
Focal length
(35mm format equivalent)
f=10 – 24mm
(15 – 36mm)
Angle of view 110° – 61.2°
Max. aperture F4
Min. aperture F22
Aperture control
  • Number of blades : 7(rounded diaphragm opening)
  • Step size : 1/3EV (16 steps)
Focus range
0.5m – ∞
24cm – 3m
Max. magnification 0.16x (Telephoto)
External dimensions : Diameter x Length* (approx.)
* distance from camera lens mount flange
ø78.0mm x 87mm(Wide) / 87mm(Telephoto)
Weight* (approx.)
*excluding caps and hoods
Filter size ø72mm
  • While I’d love to buy this lens Fuji…looks like no focus scale for zone focus on the lens. I must go with Samyang’s 10mm. If I was a landscape shooter OK. But I shoot street and doc work and zone focus is a must Fuji.

    • Flavio

      What about the DOF scale on the rear screen/EVF/Ovf?

      • Zachery

        It’s incredibly inaccurate and unreliable.

        Of course, so is Zone focusing for images of any substantial final output size on any existing lens on any system. So I guess it doesn’t matter all that much.

        • It’s just as accurate and reliable as an engraved scale. Actually, it’s more reliable than the external scale due to a smaller CoC that warrants pixel-sharp results at 100% on-screen magnification. If you want a more old-fashioned CoC, stop the lens down 1 or 2 stops, set the zone or hyperfocal distance, then open the lens up again.

  • David B

    $999….the most expensive X lens so far….. that is kind of pricey. I can’t remember any CROP UWA from any other manufacturer (like Canon/Nikon) that expensive. I am sure it will be good based on specs. But at that price ….. …I’ll probably pass

    • why, the similar alternative in the Canon sphere is the 17-40mm L f/4 and that costs $849.

      The Fujinon XF range is equivalent to the Canon L series and if optically quality is just as good (as I’m sure it is bound to be looking at what they have released so far) and I’m going to say they are not overwhelmingly priced.

      This APS-C vs FF argument is bull – good lens optics is good lens optics, just because one is made for APS_C vs FF doesn’t automatically make one less expensive than the other.

      • Halen

        “….. just because one is made for APS_C vs FF doesn’t automatically make one less expensive than the other….”

        Absolutely True…

        The size of sensor should not be the factor to determine the price of lens. Even m4/3, superb IBELUX 40mm/f0.85 is recently introduced to market at $2000.

        • MJr

          The Ibelux is for APSC mirrorless though, just also available for MFT. :)

          And indeed, aside from equivalent apertures and difficulties of certain angles etc. optics simply cost as much as they need to for whatever quality standard they aim for. The difference is that while mostly it is assumed that apsc users are not willing to spend as much – Fuji assumes this to be a high-end alternative for even FF cameras.

      • David B

        that comment does not make sense. 17-40/4 is a weather-proof lens that covers full frame circle. As we know from the Fuji Manager interview published on this site yesterday, X lenses do not over full frame circle. I think it would be more proper to compare it to a lens like Canon 10-22 which is a very good lens in its own and is designed for a crop lens.

        • Adrian

          I agree that the APS-C lenses should be cheaper than FF lenses, all else being equal, since there is a distinct advantage in having to cover a smaller circle. On the other hand, the Canon 17-40 is merely adequate, has never been described as great, and starts at 17mm rather than 15, which is a difference. Weatherproofing does not add much to the price and, again, in the case of the 17-40 is merely ok, not great.

          I hope the high price pays off and I think that the IQ will blow the 17-40 away – if it doesn’t I’ll be greatly disappointed.

        • Vlad

          The Canon is not that cheap and not that great. I bet this Fuji will be better. The problem is that you are comparing to DSLR lenses, where there’s plenty of competition already. Just looking at the SIgma 8-16 and the Tokina 11-16, I am not sure why anyone would buy anything else.
          On the other hand, if you compare to mirrorless offerings, it suddenly doesn’t look that bad. My Sony 10-18, while significantly lighter and smaller, does not have the same range and is probably not as good as the Fuji, yet its price at launch was 850$.
          In the end, it is not about production costs. They will price as high as people would pay for it.

        • Renato S.

          OIS accounts much more to the price than weather sealing and optical quality accounts even more than just pure size.

      • MJr

        Exactly, sensor size doesn’t have any effect on the difficulty of lens design, the choice between price and compromise remains the same, and reaching a certain standard comes at whatever cost they need or are willing to put into it, it’s as simple as that.

        Take the new Sony RX10 for example, it’s a mere Bridge camera but it’s mega expensive, why? Because they decided to go with a high quality lens and body. It could be cheap, it could be even more expensive, they simply decided to do more, sensor size had nothing to do with it except for the size of it, those optics are quite awesome and it shows.

      • “This APS-C vs FF argument is bull – good lens optics is good lens optics, just because one is made for APS_C vs FF doesn’t automatically make one less expensive than the other.”

        I’m a big fan of the Fuji lenses, but lets not be silly here. It is obviously true that designing lenses to cover a larger sensor adds some complexity to the task, and this will effect the cost. This is offset by the fact that Canon has an economy of scale that Fuji cannot yet match.

        It’s also worth mentioning that when Canon releases new lens designs, the price generally doubles or triples compared to the previous design. Over time the price reduces, and the same thing will surely happen with the Fuji lenses as well.

        • MJr

          “I’m a big fan of the Fuji lenses, but lets not be silly here. It is obviously true that designing lenses to cover a larger sensor adds some complexity to the task, and this will effect the cost.”

          That is assuming the aperture will stay F4, meaning that it will require more light for the same angle of view, as it is at a longer focal length. That increase in physical aperture size (and size of all elements) is what adds the complexity, it is not the sensor size (or projected image circle size) per se, which is simply a matter of lens configuration.

          So, as the Nikkor 16-35mm F4 VR was indeed more expensive at $1259.95/€1199.00/£1049.99 in 2010, it makes sense that this one costs €999, even without counting inflation and the low volume production of Fujinon lenses. ;)

        • MJr

          Of course, in the end it has to reach the same amount of detail as any other lens and still perform when inevitably a 24mp or more fuji x camera arrives. Look at the Panasonic 7-14mm for example, it’s the same price, but doesn’t even have the same range or stabilization. In the end it’s all down to detail and resolution with as few aberrations as possible, it’s making the thing that’s expensive not so much the amount of glass it needs. Like building a rocket. ;)

      • Scott

        Has OIS Canons don’t

      • Gab

        The cannot 17-40L is a great budget solution for Canon, but its not an excellent lens, I would bet you more than a penny that this lens will be much better in its more limited range. Also bear in mind that 15mm is much wider than 17mm…

    • Goerge

      So true.. Wide-angle lens from APS-C Nikon/Canon are cheapter indeed with specular result.

      If XF lens need to be that pricy, I must be consider other alternatives. Maybe A7 or m4/3.

    • Alan W

      the Lumix 7-14 is still about $900 street price—I think MSRP is about $1100. And it’s m43, not even crop. I’ve owned that, and also had the 17-40L. The Lumix was a considerably better lens, in every regard (except for lack of weatherproofing). Based on the bulk of Fuji’s X lenses, this should be a great lens at a fair price. I’m eagerly waiting for it.

    • leocat

      I have a Nikkor 12-24 DX lens and the original price was $ 1,200 US and that was several years ago.

    • Renato S.

      This mentality got to stop, even more when it comes to optics, optics quality is expensive regardless of the size of the sensor. But the biggest point there, it’s barely announced, without a proper test how can one claim anything, really, I don’t get.

      • Well, having seen how well Fuji’s other premium XF lenses perform, chances are good that this one will fulfil expectations too, so I don’t think it’s silly to discuss it assuming that it’s going to be a very good lens.

    • Aswang

      You should probably start thinking about another hobby

    • Ten years ago or so Nikon came out with a DX 12-24mm f/4 it cost at the time $900.00.

    • Brasty

      Sure there are more expensive super high quality ultra wideangle zooms for crop sensor.

      Olympus Zuiko Digital ED 7-14mm f4.0 – reference quality for 1728€ :)

  • Good news… but considering Fuji’s commitment to deadlines, March 2014 might very well be June 2014.

  • Richard

    I have both Fuji and FF DSLR. This Fuji lens is expensive and quite huge. At this price tag, therefore, the expectation must be very high. Overall performance must blow away both XF14 and my existing FF wide-angle lens; otherwise, I see no point why I should invest in this lens.

    • Kyle


      I will hold my trigger until see the full review which I expect it must be stellar at this price.

    • Adrian

      ‘Overall performance must blow away XF14’ – well yes, because a zoom will ALWAYS blow away a prime. If that’s your standard relax, your cash is safe :)

      • Zachery

        The Nikon 14-24mm f/2.8 lens blows away nearly all primes at all settings and only one prime beats it wide open, then is no longer the winner after stopping down one stop. That prime is the even-more-expensive Carl Zeiss 15mm f/2.8 btw.

        Of course, this is a rare example, but, it is a valid one.

        • Adrian

          Well, yes, but the Nikkor 14-24 2.8 is a) twice as expensive, b)an outlier – even Canon users use it on their cameras with an adapter, giving up AF and c)heavy and impractical – good luck using a filter on that. Last but not least, it beats out mainly older-design primes, not a state-of-the-art modern prime like the 14mm Fuji XF.

          Consequently, just because it CAN be done does not mean you should expect it. Be reasonable :)

  • Martin

    While I agree that this lens is loosely comparable to the Canon 17-40 L/f4, I cannot see why it should cost as much or even more.
    The Canon is FF, so for the same aperture the optics must be significantly larger than APS-C optics. And lens cost increases exponentially with size.
    I guess the optics of the Canon FF will cost almost double than the optics of Fuji’s APS-C lens.
    Of course, the Canon is an all plastic lens and not the built quality we can expect from Fuji. So that adds to the price. Nevertheless, 1000$ seems unreasonable to me. 750…800$ would be more justified.

    • Ethan

      If I’m not mistaken, 17-40L is also “made in Japan”

      • Thomas

        Given XF lens standard, I’m sure that this XF10-24 will blow away both Canon 10-22 and even 17-40.

        • Adrian

          While the 17-40 was not optically great, the 10-22 is a plastic-made, variable aperture (3.5-4.5) optically awesome lens. Having used one for over 6 years I can say that it cannot be ‘blown away’ by any f4 zoom. An 2.8 zoom, which would conceivably get better closed down, might have a shot.

    • tim

      It could be they don’t expect to sell the same volume as Canon, since there are less X bodies in the market, so the price has to be higher to make it worth their while? They need to make money somewhere …

      • Huw

        At last, someone speaking some sense!

        Fuji’s total addressable market is much smaller than Canon’s- hence a broadly equivalent product is always going to be more expensive other things being equal – like being made in Japan

        With so much money being invested in lenses and bodies, are you really going to baulk over $150?

    • Herve

      I used to own a Canon 17-40 f4L lens (in fact I still have it in a box and still have to sell it along with other Canon stuff). What a crappy lens it is optically! I owned several other lenses that were MUCH sharper (70-200 f4L, tamron 28-75 f2.8…). I am certain that Fuji’s lens will be better optically + it has stabilizer which the Canon had not.

      • Pete

        Agreed. I don’t understand why both 10-22 and 17-40 are raised to compare with this 10-24. Both are plastic crap.

        • Adrian

          While the 17-40 was not optically great, the 10-22 is a plastic-made, variable aperture (3.5-4.5) optically awesome lens. Having used one for over 6 years I can say that it cannot be ‘blown away’ by any f4 zoom. An 2.8 zoom, which would conceivably get better closed down, might have a shot.

    • Vlad

      “lens cost increases exponentially with size”
      I wouldn’t be so confident about that, but even if that is the case you are simply talking about the production and/or material costs. I hope you don’t think that prices are only based on those.

    • Scott

      The Canon was likely made 6 years ago in one run, The new lens that come out are lot higher now, By everyone. Bitching about the price? Don’t get it or save longer.

    • phil

      Canon 17-40mm is terrible when it comes to distortion. I had it for 4+ yrs as I cannot afford a twice expensive 16-35mm f/2.8. Yes, $1000 is a bit steep for this Fuji but let’s wait to see the test data. In 1-2 year, price should come down to $850-900 range. If I don’t want a 16mm wide, the 14mm f/2.8 is a much better choice.

  • DTB

    All people do on this site is complain. And, if it is comparable to Canon’s 17-40L, which I highly doubt, that would be disappointing. The 17-40L is not a great ultra-wide angle lens. Based on Fuji’s lenses so far, I bet the XF10-24 will be far better than the EF17-40L. The XF14mm blows Canon’s 17-40L away ~ there is no comparison. So, hopefully, the XF10-24mm will follow suit.

  • Mike

    This lens looks promising. It’s obviously quite large but at 410g not that heavy for a UWA. I just hope that underlining of the LMO compatibility doesn’t mean it is ‘under-corrected’…

    The price is high, but I actually think it’s not excessive. Both Nikon DX UWA zooms cost more at introduction and both are inferior: one is not as wide and one has a variable aperture. Sony’s 10-18mm zoom for NEX offers only 66% of the range and was only 15% cheaper at introduction. If the new Fuji is IQ-wise somewhere between the 18-55mm and the 14mm than I think it will be worth the cost!

    The one complain I have is, why aren’t there aperture values on the aperture ring?! All the previous zooms didn’t offer them because they had variable max apertures – this was official Fuji reasoning AFAIK. What’s the excuse this time?!

    • Benneth

      “…Both Nikon DX UWA zooms cost more at introduction and both are inferior…”

      Which one are you referring to? I used AF-S 10-24 for over five years with D90, D300, and D7000″. The IQ from this lens is very impressive, not only to me but also to all of my customers too.

      • Mike

        I’m not comparing IQ, as we don’t know how good or bad the new Fuji is. I’m reffering strictly to the tech specs – just like I pointed out in my first comment!

        The Nikkor 12-24mm F4 has the same max apperture but isn’t as wiede as the Fuji. The Nikkor 10-24mm F3.5-4.5 covers the same focal lenghts but has an variable apperture. I won’t argue about the merrits of 1/3 stop difference, especially as you win some (wide end) loose some (tele end). But generally speaking, lenses with variable apperture are considered worse…

    • I was also wondering about the lack of aperture values. Maybe they’ll only put them on primes :-)

    • Antonio G

      You’ve to revise your info on Nikon zooms as the one that cover the same vocals is the one with variable apertures while the 12-24 is F:4 fixed just like the announced Fuji.

      On the other end, how can you compare IQ if one of the side is just being announced and nobody outside Fujifilm and beta tester have used it?

      I never used the Nikon 10-24 but I owned the 12-24 and used it for a while even after moving to FX and before buying the 16-35 because it covers the FF image circle in the area 18/20 to 24 mm. Price wise, at introduction the price of the DX was higher than the one asked for the FX lens.

      And there must be a reason why Nikon keeps this lens in their product line with a price above 1K.

      However, this has nothing to do with IQ of the announced Fuji lens and the price the company will ask for it.

      Quality has a price and some companies may ask a premium on that, some justifiable other just for the brand.

      Let’s see what is this zoom’s case but if you there are other manufacturers producing lenses for the X series that show prices even higher – just have a look at the Zeiss Touit 12 mm.

      • Mike

        Actually, you’re wrong about the appertures. Check http://imaging.nikon.com/lineup/lens/list.htm#zoom for reference.

        I didn’t have the pleasure of using the 12-24mm but I did own the 10-24mm and I’m not saying it’s a bad lens! I also never sayed the Fuji will be better IQ-wise. There is no proof as of yet how good or bad it is.

        My point is that both Nikkors are worse SPEC-WISE and both cost more than the Fuji, therefor it is too early to critisize Fuji’s price policy on this one.

        If it performs like the early Tamron 10-24mm and costs $1.000 that would be outrages.

        If it performs at least on par with the Nikkor 12-24mm, with its built-in IS and the (probably) better built – the price is more than justified!

        • Mike,
          I misread your initial post to a certain extent but I’ve no doubt about the Nikon lenses apertures, the 12-24 being fixed and the other variable.

          When you said “Both Nikon DX UWA zooms cost more at introduction and both are inferior” I took it in terms of qualities not the specs (focal distances and/or apertures) and that’s the reason why I said we’ve to wait and see what this lens can do, and when I say this is because I expect it to be good enough to justify the price as Fujifilm has all the know-how and conditions to produce an excellent zoom that will add to the prestige they want to be associated to their X system.

          And you’re right about the advantage of stabilization. Besides I think the Nikon 12-24 has an excellent construction we can’t forget that it was announced in 2003 and if it was revised today Nikon would certainly introduce some changes as nano coating and probably also VR. As the Nikon will never offer autofocus in a Fuji body we should not compare them other than in respect to the relative value of two pieces of gear meant for different systems.

          The only thing I can add is that if decide to buy a Fuji X series body (after using the X100 for more than 2 years it will be most probable) this zoom will be part of the lenses I will get…unless it proves to be an unlikely disaster.

          • Mike

            Looks like we both misread our posts, but it seems we’re on the same page now ;-)

            Now we just need the reviews to pop up!

  • Calking

    I don’t see any point or relevance whatsoever comparing a FF DSLR lens or m43 to this Fuji offering. This is what forum spec heads do — compare this to that constantly. There’s more to a lens than focal length and price. Leica, Zeiss, Voigtlander all know this. If all that matters is equivalent focal distance at xxx.xx price, then you can invest in any system that offers more “value” at an affordable price.

    When you buy a lens like this, you’re investing in the build quality, handling, performance, and aesthetics of Fuji glass mated to a Fuji x-body. It’s not about comparing some other brand and focal length to see if Fuji is “justified” in their price. You can buy a cheaper 35mm f/1.4 lens in Nikon and Canon formats too — that doesn’t make the Fuji lens any less desirable for those who can afford it.

    The 18-55 and 55-200 are superb zooms. For $2400 retail U.S. you can own the equivalent of 15-300mm of fine Fuji glass and not have to worry about lenses again. That averages to $800 per lens — less, actually, if you invest in a body + lens combo at some point.

    If you don’t need 10-13mm, then spend a little less and buy the 14mm and use your legs. I think the 14mm + 18-55 + 60mm is the dream kit for “most” situations and not at all overly expensive. Substitute the 60mm for the 55-200 if you need longer consistently. Done.

    • Markus Worsdorfer

      Absolutely to the point!

    • Adrian

      ‘ You can buy a cheaper 35mm f/1.4 lens in Nikon and Canon formats too’ – no you can’t actually :D

      • Correction. 35mm f/1.8 is what I meant. Excellent lens for APS-c and $190 us.

    • Vlad

      Of course people would compare and this has nothing to do with spec heads. And your point about lens being more than focal length, while being true, doesn’t change that whatsoever. In the end, we all give a certain value to all the aspects you mentioned, handling, aesthetics etc. and compare it to the final price.

  • XE11

    hmm interesting. might go well with my leica tri-elmar which goes to 28mm.

  • X guy

    It starts with 15mm which is pretty wide. My 14-24 is huge and heavy, and it is more than $1600.

  • Nobody yet has commented on optical formula, it has 4 aspherical elements and 3 low dispersion elements. 7 of 14 elements are quite expensive and probably give this lens very good optical performance. Anyway that will be shown in a test.

    • deng

      It’s even more shocking.
      4 apsh elements and 4 low dispersion elements.
      Are there lenses that are even close to that on the market? :O

      It ups the price astronomically.

      • Vlad

        The Sigma 8-16, for example. 3 asp elements and 5 ld elements.

  • Markus Worsdorfer

    This lens will always be to expensive for some, but that simply means this lens is not for you.
    I think this one is very much in line with other Fuji offerings which means we will get top notch build and image quality. Lets not forget it is image stabilised as well, which non of the competitors offer. All of this comes at a prize.
    The size is something nobody can change if you want to offer a filter thread. Nikon’s offerings in this range have both 77mm.

  • Anthony

    I have no issue about high price lens as long as it deserves it. And it’s unfair to judge the lens with only datasheet and price. We should hold our judgement until trustable reviews come out.

  • rearranged

    I wonder what Fuji was thinking by not writting the aperture values on the aperture Ring of a constant aperture lens. I See this as a big Design incosistency.

  • rexxy

    am i the only one interested in the new grip? haha

    • Chris

      I am too. Wish there was a release date listed for it. I’d buy it tomorrow.

    • Flavio

      Nope, I am in love with Fuji: they are just great!!
      Here I was looking for an alternative to their grip, allowing me to change the battery and card while tripod mounted and not having to remove the grip to do the same…and voilà, there you go with the new grip! What other company does make a brand new, better accessory for an old model? I have an X-Pro 1, I’ so happy with it and I’m getting more excited all the time about the constant improvements.

  • MJr

    Well then, the performance must we awesome!

    Also, it has OIS, no other superwide zoom has this i believe? (part of the high price i guess)

    ps. New grip for the X-Pro1? Either they are showing their customer loyalty once again or it means that the successor will have the same body shape.

    • Adrian

      A third interpretation would be that the X-Pro2 is one or two years away :)

      • Not necessarily and it maybe a very convenient pice for the existing X-Pro! user that find it inconvenient the present model not allowing battery and card change without removing it.

        But there is also a grip for the X-Ex models and nobody referred it yet…

    • Vlad

      My superwide zoom has it :)

    • Zachery

      I can think of two ultra wide zooms off the top of my head with stabilization: Sony’s E mount 10-18mm f/4 lens (which is pretty good, smaller lighter and cheaper) and Nikon’s 16-35mm f/4 which has a similar angle of view range (but the effective aperture is one stop faster).

      There are probably others.

    • peevee

      “Also, it has OIS, no other superwide zoom has this i believe?”

      Sony E 10-18/4 has OIS too. m43 lenses do not need that inferior technology on Oly cameras.

    • MJr

      Ah yes indeed. That Nikkor isn’t particularly cheap either at €1200 MSRP in 2010(mind the inflation), and that Sony is about one of the worst lenses on the planet sadly, or maybe it’s a good thing for Fuji at least. ;) Good point about the Olympus’s but of course that doesn’t matter much for the cost of this lens. :)

      • Vlad

        I beg to differ. The Sony is hardly the best wide-angle lens, but is well above average.

  • perfect…but I need it now :-(

    • I also need it now. Just sold my sigma 10-20 ..
      Hopefully 10-24 will be lovely lens with exceptional performance. Expensive or not, I’ll go for it.
      Luckily, architecture does not require huge body to impress the people around as it is on events, so I would rely on this wide lens for my x-e1

  • Markus Worsdorfer

    Let’s not forget, tomorrow we’ll get another firmware upgrade :)

  • Steeevyo

    For UK residents it means buying it in the US for an equivalent of 613 GBP.
    849 GBP is a joke.

  • Jo

    How much will the grip cost?

  • Cazert

    Is it weather-sealed?

  • Irresistable

    Excuse me…but Fujifilm may forget the real concept of mirrorless system. The lenses of mirrorless system should be as compact or small as possible, rather than huge like military weapon.

    • Scott

      The lens is small for a F4 if you want smaller F5.6 would be smaller but then someone would bitch about that. There are optical laws one can’t change and F stop is one.

      • Vlad

        True. But then Fuji could’ve made it shorter.

        • miniTO

          How exactly?

          • Vlad

            I meant the FL range. 10-18, for example.

      • Who would bitch about that? Who uses ultra wide lens not on tripod and wider than f8? Hope this lens is addressed to only to street photographers again..

    • Yuri

      Absolutely agree. This lens may be nice, but it’s bulk size and heavy weight are ridiculous for mirrorless system.

      • rr98

        How is 410g is heavy?

        • Henneing

          yes…extremely heavy, according to mirrorless standard.

          m4/3 is for examle how light it is.

    • DTB

      Then get the 14mm, which is an exceptional ultra-wide angle lens. If you want a high-quality zoom with image stabilization, it is going to be larger than a prime without it.

      • ph

        In my opinion the 14mm is huge too and the 23mm as well.

        • Have you held either of them in your hand?

          • ph

            Yes, I own the 14mm. I never touched the 23mm, but that one is even bigger.

          • ph, then I have to ask, have you held FF equivalents and compared them to the Fuji versions? Say, the Samyang 10mm f/2.8 compared to the Fuji 14mm f/2.8? The Fuji is puny by comparison.

            Not trying to be insulting here, it’s that the thing that amazed me most about the Fuji lenses was how compact they were for their optical characteristics and IQ compared to APS-C DSLR lenses, let alone FF DSLR lenses.

            And at 5’8″, I’m no giant, so it’s not like any lens looks small to me :D

          • ph

            If the 14mm Fujinon was the same size as the FOV equivalent Nikkor 20mm AF-D, I would have been very happy.

    • Ray

      You must be getting Fujifilm confused with Sony : )

  • Mel

    This lens isn’t on my wish list, but personally I don’t think the price is overly excessive, I’ve never paid the full RRP on any fuji lens I’ve bought anyway, and I don’t buy from cheap sources, the price will drop within three to four months and, most importantly, it will be value for money in terms of quality, both image and build. So far I’ve neither been disappointed by any XF lens I’ve bought, except perhaps for the 18mm, but that’s only because I hardly ever use it.

  • peevee

    Nice range. Can even be a walkabout standard lens. Price is not so nice though (43% more than 55-200/3.5-4.8! they must be crazy!), and neither is size and weight.

    • Scott

      SWZ’s Are a lot harder to make then a 55-200 and harder to make sharp wide open and thats why the cost is more. 23 to 55 primes are the cheapest to make SWA and lenses longer then 200 cost the most to correct them and make them APO ( all colors sharp ) in the same place.

  • peevee

    And it is not weather-sealed again. So much for the hopes of a decent weather-sealed system. Even if they release X-Pro2 with some seals, it would not make sense just like Canon “weather-sealed” 7D/70D with zero weather-sealed EF-S lenses or Nikon D7100/D300s with zero weather-sealed DX lenses.

  • Henneing

    If it is not weather-sealed, I have to let it pass. Without weather-sealed, it will be dust-collector inside it.

    • G_J

      This lens is NOT weather sealed – at least according to the description and press release. If there really WAS a new weather sealed Fujica-style camera to be released soon, I would think this lens would have been weather sealed. This does not bode well for a new weather sealed camera.

      : (

  • Cool… some day I’ll have to make a decision between this and the 14mm… but I don’t shoot a lot of wide angle, so it’s not a rush.

    Really want the 56mm f1.2, though. Hope it’s announced at CES or something. :P

  • Antoine

    What’s that new grip you mention in the title?
    For what model?
    Do you have any info?

  • Wally

    Yeah, while this is a nice wide zoom where is my much needed 56 1.2? C’mon man.

  • so aperture ring is there just no markings? (shakes head)

    • MJr

      Indeed, this is quite weird for a constant aperture lens. I guess they decided the zoom and manual focus ring needed a decent width and still display focal length more than it needed aperture numbers.

      Darn it Fuji, that rules out setting the aperture while turning on the camera at the same time.

      • MJr

        Oh well, still prefer the 14mm anyway. =D

        • Vlad

          So, you like the 14mm, but you think the Sony 10-18 is “one of the worst lenses on the planet”? :) Talk about bias.

          • MJr

            Yes ?

          • Vlad

            Yes, you are biased? :)

          • Vlad
          • I don’t understand your comment Vlad

          • DTB

            The 14mm is a high-quality, ultra-wide angle lens – one of the best to date. The Sony doesn’t even compare, so I don’t understand what you are trying to say.

          • Vlad

            I posted two links to Photozone (for the Fuji 14mm and the 10-18mm). Still waiting for the comment to get through mod, but you can check them. The Sony performs very well, not far off the Fuji actually, so I am wondering why MJr loves one, but thinks the other is one of the worst lenses on the planet.

          • A lot of CA from what I can tell by looking at photozone articles, resolution is a bit hard to tell since one was tested on 24mp camera the other one on 16mp camera.

          • Vlad

            @hexx Well, I am not saying that the Sony is better. And it shouldn’t be, given what it is and how much it costs. But there’s always someone to explain how Sony lenses are crap for some reason.
            If you want, go check how the 10-18 (mounted on a NEX7) compares to the Tokina 11-16 (on A77) and Sigma 8-16 (on A77). These are both very good wide-angle lenses.

          • Vlad

            Forgot to say: on DXO. Unfortunately, they don’t have the Fuji listed.

          • I know the Tokina, have used it for some time, it’s very good lens

  • Jamesm

    No mention of its weight. It will probably have its own gravitational field. That said, I’m sure it will be a stunning optic!

  • Viezevure

    To bad its not a fast lens. Would love to have a F2.8 for that kind of money.

    • Scott

      That wide 10mm at F 2.8 you’re talking about a front lens being 85mm wide or bigger and twice the price.

      • Scott

        A non Zoom can be made smaller as it doesn’t have as much glass to push light thru. But a F 4 zoom with OIS and it holds F 4 thru out to! My guess was higher before I seen it. Good job FUJI!

    • MJr

      It isn’t a slow lens …

      And F2.8 for this kind of money, keep dreaming. Not even physically possible at this size, and it is big enough (as it needs to be for decent performance) thanks. You should be using F11 anyway !

      • MJr

        I forgot the :). Otherwise i might have sounded rude. ;)

      • Viezevure

        Mjr…not possible? Look at some Tokina or Sigma wide angle zoom F2.8 lenses please.

  • nwcs

    Interestingly, I’m more excited by the new grip than the lens. I think they took a huge chunk out of the RRS market with the new grip.

    • Scott

      Yea to bad I got 2 of the RRS ones LOL so I don’t need it ether brand will be good. Haven’t tested the RRS to see if it blocks the WIFI yet thats something to worry about.

    • Depending upon the pricing, you might be right. RRS has priced its components at $135, while the Chinese knock-offs are around $70. $99 for the Fuji grip would be right, imo.

      RRS engineering better pay attention to the clearance issue (Fuji added 8mm in their design) for using the 23mm and 55-200mm. There’s likely the same clearance issue with the 10-24mm as well, since it appears to be even wider next to camera.

    • Eric

      I’d still go with RRS since theirs is an L-Bracket.

  • $999 is too much of f4. It should be 10-24/f2.8 for this price tag!!!

  • Mel

    I hope Patrick will forgive me adding a URL to another blog, but for those who are curious about the new grips, take a look here:


  • Rap

    Finally! :)
    I had Canon’s 10-22mm before and like it a lot. The Fuji has OIS as an extra, but the $1000 price tag is still significantly higher, so the IQ better justify it.
    Really looking forward to it!

    • Rap

      The MTF suggest another jack pod design, could be even better than the 14mm. Of course, the factor of distortion, etc. won’t be known until test comes out.

  • Alex

    the most amazing feature of the new grip is arca swiss plate integrated on the base

    • Rap

      Agreed! It is the first of this kind from camera manufacture. It will set a great trend!

    • DTB

      Agreed…Perfect for using a panoramic tripod head. I bought a plate to centre the tripod mount for my Nodal Ninja 4, but this is better.

    • Yes indeed. For me it’s definitely a big deal (and also a deal breaker for RRS)). Gonna get one as soon as I can.

      PS: Patrick, why registration?!

  • ste787

    awesome , take my money. so all the zoom in x series rocks.

  • Little Monster

    A good quality lens I bet, but too big for mirrorless. Glad that i didn’t wait and went for the 14mm a year ago.

  • Please, oh please have a marked Aperture ring!!!! Pretty Please.

  • I’ve been waiting for this lens since seeing it on the Fuji roadmap. I’ve come close to ordering the 14mm but glad I waited a little while longer. Now, At almost $1000.00 it needs to be a stellar performer; I will wait a bit to see the reviews and tests, then decide between it or the 14mm….
    I’m really hoping this lens is a kick-butt performer.

  • So when will the base plate/grips be available?

    • Alex

      Not known yet, at least fuji said to me. But i asked them to keep one for me

  • George Maciver

    I’m really looking forward to reading a few reviews on this one, Good job Fuji :)

  • Roger

    Now posted for pre-order at Amazon USA. Release date March 14.

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.