XF 120-400mm: is this the super telephoto zoom lens in Fuji’s roadmap?


 photo pic_02_zps3ebd9e00.jpg

First off: this rumor comes from a new source.

According to this source, the mysterious „super telephoto zoom lens“ in Fuji’s roadmap will be an 120-400!

No details about the aperture.

It’s a new source, so you should take it with a grain of salt.

NOTE: Rico started a 10-24 sample set (full size SOOC, including X-T1 RAF’s converted with Iridient) on Flickr here… stay tuned for his first look soon.

For more images of the 3 weather sealed lenses check out dc.watch here.

facebook, google+ and twitter

 photo lenses_zps0c061833.jpg

X-T1 body only ($1,299): USA: AmazonUS / BHphoto / Adorama / Pictureline / EU: wexDE / wexUK / PCHstore /

X-T1 with 18-55 ($1,699): USA: AmazonUS / BHphoto / Adorama / Pictureline / EU: wexDE / wexUK / PCHstore /

X-T1 Vertical Battery Grip ($ 249,99): USA: AmazonUS / BHphoto / Adorama / EU: wexDE / wexUK /

X-T1 Hand Grip ($129.95): USA: AmazonUS / Bhphoto / EU: wexUk / wexDE


X-E2: save $100 on the kit ($1,299) and also on the body ($899) at BHphoto and Adorama (body only $100 off at AmazonUS)
X-E1: get the kit for $799 (save $300) or the body for $599 (save $200) at AmazonUS and Adorama (+6% reward on kit, 4% reward on body).
X-M1: Save $200 (price $599) on the kit and $200 on the body (price $499) at AmazonUS, BHphoto (+4%reward) and Adorama.
X-A1: get it for $499 with kit lens (save $100) at AmazonUS, BHphoto and Adorama.
X-PRO1: get the body for $999!! (save $200) at AmazonUSAdorama (+4%reward) and BHphoto (+4%reward).

Surprise. The Zeiss-deals didn’t end on January 31th on all stores. While Pictureline is now selling the 32 for $900 and the 12 for $1,250 again, you can still purchase the 12mm for $999 and the 32mm for $720 at AmazonUS,  BHphoto and Adorama.

  • Al Downie

    Would have preferred a good fast prime telephoto myself…

    • Me too, can help but think that 140-400mm zooms isn’t their target audience…

      • scott

        Im ready for long. Zoom’s will come first. 120-400 would be great. I would rather have an F4 but 5.6 is more likely to save cost and size.

        • How about 120-400mm f/4.5-5.6? Would make sense.

          I’m afraid of how big this lens might be; I have a Tokina 400mm f/5.6, and even though it’s considered small amongst lenses of this focal length, it’s still sizeable. A 120-400mm might be as large as Sigma’s:


          Even more than the size, I’m worried about autofocus. The Fuji 55-200mm is reeeaaaaly slow AF’ing, at least on the X-E2. I haven’t taken it birding yet, but I’m afraid it won’t be able to keep up.

          In short, Fuji seem to be creating the best prime lens line-up of the moment, so why not just release an excellent, compact (relatively speaking) 400mm f/5.6? Add a 200mm f/2.8 and a 1.4x TC (all weather-sealed) and they might find themselves with wildlife photographers coming onboard the X system (assuming the AF on the X-T1 is as good as they’re boasting about).

    • codeNsnap

      Ditto. I was hoping it was atleast 300mm f/4 OIS :(

  • And i want a 16mm f1.4 the last one trinity lens for me (24/35/85)

    • Hopefully that’s the “high speed wide angle lens” shown for middle of the year?

    • 16 is the likely size thats whats missing from the map.

    • You might have to start going to the gym to be able to lift that lens ;-)

  • Sqweezy

    Weather sealed?
    Planning one day to invest in the Fuji X system, but only with weather sealed options. For now, it’s the X-T series and their pro-level zooms. Hoping we will eventually see some weather sealed primes in the future as well.

  • uray

    I still waiting for 300/4… but i hope this one will be faster than 5,6@400… maybe 120-400 3,5-4,5 :-)

    • Im hoping for fast but thinking f5.6 Just look at Canons FF 100-400 5.6 and made for a 1.5 camera It will be a still big lens at 120-400.

      • At these focal lengths it doesn’t make much difference whether it’s made for FF or APS-C; it’s going to be large either way.

  • I feel that such lens doesn’t fit with the branding of the X series lineup. Small, portable, discret.

    I would rather see an 90mm f1.2 or f1.4 lens.

    • Rasmus

      In many ways the branding is small, portable, discreet but I think there will be a whole lot more to the X-system in a few years. There are already quite a few small and portable lenses, primes mostly but also adding some (large/larger) lenses will add to the entire system and make it possible for photographers to use only one system. Currently for the X-system, if you want anything longer then 300mm equivalent you need another system as well, or you need to use legacy glass.

      I can see many situations where a long or very long telephoto lens will be used by X-photographers, especially if they really succeeded in giving the tracking AF a big boost.

      • Lefred

        For me the main question is : will Fuji continue to follow a pure portability philosophy or will they change for a DSLR-like philosophy ?
        In the first case, while long refractive telelenses are obviously too bulky to be the main lenses of a portable mirrorless system, they can compliment its lineup as speciality lenses.
        In the second case, I think they will have to compete with the compact true DSLRs made by Pentax.
        Maybe they will follow both approaches at the same time…

    • Luzid

      A small, portable 90mm f1.2 or f1.4 ??? Maybe 2.0

      • MJr

        Indeed, and yes please, a 135mm equivalent compact prime is the only thing missing in the line-up for me. Sure the upcoming fast wide (probably 16mm) and stuff like that would be nice, but i could do without. A long prime is just not there at all. :(

        For the time being of course there are adapters, but that’s just not anything like a true XF lens is it.

        • Agreed! I’m making do (what an understatement) with an adapted Pentax 77mm f/1.8 Ltd, but would love to have a native 85mm or 90mm Fuji lens, no slower than f/2. It’s puzzling to me that they’ve left this important hole in an otherwise well thought out prime lens line up. Maybe it’s going to be a surprise release sometime in 2014?

          • TJM

            I recon you’re right – these zooms seem to make marketing sense for the larger grip, wider appeal form factor of the X-T1.

            A nice bright tele prime would be a lovely launch lense of the classic ideals of the Pro line – but that would put it a year away.

        • Peter

          Yup, I would love to see a reasonably compact 90mm f/3.5 that does 1:2 macro (or is that 2:1? what I mean is 50% less magnification than 1:1)

          Alternative would be a f/2.8 non-macro; that can be compact too (still have a 90mm f/2.8 Contax G that is compact and awesome).

    • Jonas

      No, they aren’t really known for large lenses but I’d rather have a deviation like this than nothing at all for birders, sports photography and the like.

    • nwcs

      I don’t think their branding is small, portable, and discrete. That’s a street photographer’s point of view. I think their branding is small bodies, quality lenses, quality images and they are slowly filling that in.

  • Chris

    I like it how Fujifilm keeps introducing new lenses, their line-up has become quite impressive. It’s only a shame those lenses are so expensive. My XF 18-55 is still my only lens since I just can’t spend 800 euro’s or more for a single lens which I won’t use as often.

    • They are not cheep but costly no all lenses worth much are costly. Do what I did to get the glass I want save for it. Just stick some away every time you have some. For me it was the only way.

      • Whoa careful now, you’ll start a revolution with those sorts of ideas :)

        @ Chris: Check around online for some used lenses, i’m starting to see quite a few 35’s and 18’s popping up for nearly half what they cost new… and you know they can’t be too beaten around as the system is only a few years old :)

        All the best

    • Carl

      I’ve managed to pick up a cheap 18mm, 35mm and 18-55mm lens off eBay and Amazon. The only thing to be careful of is if anything goes wrong with them (like mine have) as it’s a nightmare to chase up and fix and could even end up costing as much as a new lens!

      • Geoff

        I wish I had a time machine to buy these marvels used…

        I loved my professional Nikon grade gear but switched to Fuji as I do not shoot pro anymore and wanted lighter / cheaper stuff…
        And now, the focal lengths I love the most (Full-frame: 28/35mm f1.8 and 85mm f1.8) would cost twice as much as the stuff I owned :-(

    • You’ve to take into consideration the number of lenses they sell for each one the R&D and manufacture expenses account much more to the final price than for mass producers

  • Dorkington

    I’m glad that Fuji is developing a complete system, personally. It allows me to travel light when I want, but also have the lenses I need for certain situations. I’d fully welcome a 400mm lens, as long as focusing speed is there.

  • Avantia

    I fail to see how it’s not small, portable and discreet anymore. An XT-1 + 100-400 f/3,5-4,5 would probably weight AT LEAST half less than a Canikon equivalent.

    I’m not interested in shooting wildlife, but I can see the point of a system who can do 80-90 of what a DSLR one would for 1/2 the weight and 1/3 the cost. Fuji is definitely on the right track.

    • Avantia


    • Right the right camera and lenses to fit the needs what ever you shoot. This isn’t the end but a start of system.

    • Peter

      Canon 70D = 755 gram, Canon 100-400mm f/4-5.6 = 1380 gram -> total 2135 gram

      You claim that X-T1 + 120-400 f/3.5-4.5 would be less than 1070 gram

      Given that the X-T1 (440 gram) + 50-200 f/3.5-4.8 (580 gram) is already 1020 grams your claim seems very unlikely indeed.

      Keep in mind that if you want f/4.5 at 400mm the lens would need a front element of _at_least_ 89mm. That is a lot of heavy glass…

      I really like the X-T1 with all its dials, but I don’t identify myself at all with the direction Fuji seems to be heading (judging its roadmap).

      • Well, let’s try an interesting experiment.

        Canon’s 70-200 f/4 is 760g. Fuji’s 55-200 f/3.5-4.8 is 580g. Let’s assume Fuji can build a lens that’s roughly proportionate in specs to the difference between 70-200 and 100-400.

        So 1380g/760g is 1.81. Multiply 580g x 1.81 and we get a decent estimate of the weight of the Fuji lens. We come up with 1050g.

        Looks to me, then, like this just might be doable. Remember two things in Fuji’s favor. First, the lens is smaller because the image capture zone is smaller. We are creating these lenses for DX (crop sensor) format, not full frame, while both the Canon lenses we are referring to are full frame. Second, the aperture is a bit narrower (f/4.8 instead of f/4.5, and I’m pretty sure even a lens with f/5.6 at the telephoto end would sell well).

        What’s going to be crucial is autofocus. I have definitely found my 55-200 lens’s autofocus to be flaky. So much so that I’ve frequently used manual focus with the lens, much more than I use manual in my trusty 70-200 f/2.8 Nikkor. Unfortunately, birds fly too fast for manual focus in many situations. We obsessed bird people, sports photographers and others really need good autofocus.

        My working theory is that the Fuji market is people who love photography and are willing to pay a premium price for higher quality and a responsive company. I don’t think they care whether we are street photographers, birders or whatever. Good autofocus is going to improve street photography too. To a point, what strengthens one type of photographer will strengthen the others.

        I am a high-speed photographer for the most part, and I use a Nikon D4 for crucial assignments. I want something I can lift without constantly straining myself, thus my interest in a mirrorless system. I don’t like the high price of Nikon’s 80-400, so I would certainly be interested in an equivalent for the Fuji system that’s not as pricey, as long as they keep on working on the autofocus.


        • It doesn’t work like that. First off, the 55-200 is a half stop slower than the 70-200 f/4L IS. You can say ‘it’s only a half a stop’, but the difference in the full stop weight of the 70-200/4L IS and the 70-200/2.8L IS is huge: 760g vs 1,490g…nearly a doubling of weight for the full stop. Since the 70-200 is only 30% heavier than the Fuji, it’s actually right in line, if not LIGHTER than the FUJI for comparable aperture.

          Second, the longer the focal length the less impact the short register distance and smaller sensor have on lens size. At 400mm, there’s literally no weight savings to be had. A 120-400mm f/4.5 would likely be in the range of 5 to 6 lbs. The Canon 200-400 f/4L IS is 8lbs….it’s a monster. An f/4.5 would be smaller, but not astronomically smaller.

          Heck, my Canon FD 50-300mm f/4.5L is 4 pounds and huge, and it’s a manual focus lens that doesn’t need any weight for focus motors or IS mechanisms. This 120-400mm will be f/5.6 max, if not slightly slower….and that’s an OK thing, since even at f/5.6 it’ll be a big lens.

          • Ah… Common sense, like a fresh breeze coming through the window of a sumo wrestling changing room after a 6 hour training session in the Summer heat.

  • Justintime

    120-400mm would suit me fine. Weather sealing would be essential I think. f5.6 aperture at 400mm would be OK as that would keep weight / size down. There is a lot of talk about lenses being smaller as its APS-C / mirrorless, but the front element size is driven by aperture / focal length so I would expect it to be similar size/weight to Nikon 80-400G / Canon 100-400.

    • Edubyatx

      Except that the other lenses you mention are designed for 24×36 sensors.

      • It doesn’t make much difference at these focal lengths because the image circle can be made large enough for FF for free, essentially. There’s little, if any, size reduction by making these APS-C vs FF. In fact, most allegedly APS-C only 200mm and 300mm lenses cover FF without discernible drop in IQ.

  • Renato S.

    Rico has said that the 20 lenses that Fuji promissed to have by the end of 2014 doesn’t include those 3 Zeiss, but is it really going to have 3 more lenses? I do feel a lack of primes but why didn’t Fuji talk about these 3 extra lenses that are not on the roadmap?

    • Fuzzy Duck

      perhaps the designs are at a less advanced stage, or maybe there is some strategic reason they want to hold them back? or possibly they want to make an big attention grabbing announcement at one of the trade shows?

  • Fuzzy Duck

    120-400mm seems like a very broad range and overlaps the 55-200mm* by quite a bit, so out of idle curiosity I’m wondering why the lens designer(s) would choose this range? would a lens be slightly lighter and more compact if it was 200-400mm? or is the extra 80mm on the short end unlikely to add much to the design?

    *on the roadmap it looks like the new zoom would follow the 18-55mm and 55-200mm, but it would make as much sense if it’s supposed to overlap with the 18-135mm or 50-140mm. It doesn’t matter either way, I’m just wondering if a narrower range would be noticeably lighter or more compact.

    • No, At 400 mm it will be the f stop that sets the size and stopping at 200 instead of 120 will only make it harder to shoot by having to change lenses more.

    • Justintime

      I would use a 50-140 f2.8 on 1 camera along with 120-400 on another for wildlife photography / safari.

  • Jonas

    It makes sense since it’s a missing piece of the puzzle.

  • S.P

    Really tempting rumor! If X-T1 AF and performance would be enough fast, and this 120-400mm would be released, I’ll stop to consider switch to m4/3 for birding and wildlife.

  • MikePrince

    Please Fuji give us a 90mm ish at anything faster than 2.8.

  • Ryan

    Any speculation about cost?

    • Macintosh Sauce

      $1499.99 :D

    • MJr

      Anything above 1K is possible really, depending on built and max aperture of course, or even AF speed. But anything above 1999 would be unlikely for a first of its kind.

    • Well, Canon’s 100-400 f/4 is $1,699 right now at B&H.

      Nikon’s 80-400 f/4.5-4.6 is $2,696.95 at B&H.

      Nikon’s 200-400 f/4 is (gulp) $6,749 at B&H. (It is also extraordinarily big and heavy – you may not want it even if you think you do.)

      My camera store friend doesn’t want to stock the Nikon 80-400 because of its high price, and he normally bleeds Nikon yellow. So I’m going to guess Fuji is unlikely to join Nikon in the stratosphere. I think they will want to undercut Canon by a bit. So I would expect the lens to be f/4.5-f/5.6 (and thus be smaller and lighter than the competition), and cost somewhere between $999 and $1,500. (with a wave to Macintosh Sauce for his earlier prediction).

  • tim

    Kind of a shame Fuji does not bring out a reasonably compact 23mm (35eq), perhaps f2 like the x100 but with the latest lens features from the 56 etal. Something you can put on the camera that looks good and does the job.

    • 27mm?

      • tim

        Nope, a real lens with real optics!

    • dave


      f2.0 is good enough and size matters…

      Nice small body with oversized f1.4 lenses go against the idea of a small combo. But since everybody is crazy for f1.4/1.2/0.95… For portraiture I still get nice bokeh @f2.8.

  • If this is true, then it will be a variable aperture lens. Probably f4-5.6. Otherwise it will be huge and will not balance well with the small Fuji bodies….

    I also think it will be weather sealed.

  • Macintosh Sauce

    This is a good option for people that want a longer reach. :)

  • The mists are starting to clear. Looks like an X-T1 with a 10-24mm, an X-T1 with the 18-135mm, and an X-pro 2 with a 120-400mm, plus a compact and I’m good to go.

    Regarding speed with long zooms, I do a lot of wildlife and birds, but I don’t really tend do them in bad light as I like to see clarity and bright colour in them. If there’s bad light, I usually do something else instead. Sports shooters however, which I don’t do, need speed, so perhaps a 5.6 zoom and a fast telephoto prime for the sports shooters is the way forward.

  • nwcs

    A great quality 120-400 that has its strength at the long end instead of the short end would really give me the telephoto I’ve been looking for with my Fuji. Make it internally focused, f5.6 max on long end and good sturdy tripod mount then sold!

    • Valentino

      Agreed. Having owned the Nikon 80-400 and Sigma 150-500 which was f/6.3 at the long end, I know a 120-400 f/5.6 OIS would do the trick for me. Just make a better tripod collar than Nikon did.

      • Justintime

        It would be difficult to make a worse tripod collar than Nikon did on 80-400D (old one). Sorry Nikon manage to make 80-400G (new one) tripod collar worse IMO.

  • fmNYC

    400mm on APS-C is long indeed. I’d never really see a need for it in my own shooting, but some might. It just seems to me that if you’re shooting wildlife or sports, you’re not really going to be using a Fuji system in the first place. For that kind of shooting, you may as well take a full-sized Canikon kit with the tremendous autofocus such systems offer. Unless, I guess, you’re an enthusiast with lots of $ to spend on long zooms.

    • S.P

      Long tele for FF-Canon or Nikon cost an arm or leg, and weights a ton.
      I would prefer lighter and less expensive gear, I often do an “urban birding”, and miss that long end (400-600 equiv.) with Fuji.
      Even with 55-200 attached kit is way more light and discreet, then my FF-Canon with 70-200 + TC, or 100-400.
      Agreed about AF-speed though, I hope Fuji made a homework with X-T1 release,

    • justintime

      I do wildlife every now and again as an enfusiast. Current I have Fuji X kit which is used for most photography plus Nikon D800/80-400G for wildlife. If Fuji X-T1 & 120-400mm are OK ish for wildlife then I can sell my Nikon gear (& have more to spend on Fuji gear or photo holiday). That means a mixed wildlife / visiting foreign cultures trip is easier as I can only take 1 system (I now hate using the D800 for street camera as its just so heavy/big.

    • DaveCC

      Fuji is answering the AF problem with the X-T1, now you don’t need a full size Canikon kit.

      I know I could use a 200-400 f/4 with 1.4 extender to give me 300-600 at f/4 and 840 at f/5.6.

      Think how light your sports/safari/wildlife/compressed background kit just became.

  • peter

    Another vote here for a light compact 90mm prime. F2 or 2.8 would be perfect.
    Aim for maximum weight of 250 gms.
    These large lenses need large bodies to attach to.

  • Bob

    A supertele like a 120-400 and Fuji X do not match?
    I prefer a 300/f4 with an excellent tripod holder.

  • Jerome

    Personally, I expect a sharp 18-200 mm F4 for travels.

  • Sunglass

    Look at those announced lenses. They’re HUGE. If Fuji was to become the new Leica (small, discreet, portable), as opposed to the big, bulky, heavy DSLR crowd, that has, apparently, ceased to be. It’s alright if Fuji wants/needs to expand its spectrum of avalable focal lengths and apertures. It just seems to me that the idea behind the pioneering X100 – X10 is no more.

    • Jon Ingram

      Fuji also announced some XC lenses relatively recently. I, too, and interested mostly in the light and compact lenses. However, it doesn’t seem that Fuji is losing focus on light-weight and compact. Instead, they seem to be rounding out the system to appeal to a wider audience. I’m all for it. If the new 18-55 2.8 doesn’t weigh too much, I’ll get it for sure.

    • justintime

      Nobody is forcing you to buy / use the bigger lenses Fuji is releasing. If you need small / discreet then stick to 18mm / 35mm primes. But you can’t really do wildlife properly without a big indiscreet lens!

    • DaveCC

      The 16-55 2.8 and 50-200 2.8 are not huge lenses. They just look huge compared to the Fuji bodies. If a Canon 5D3 with a 24-70 2.8 II mounted was next to a X-T1 and the 16-55 mounted, you be saying “look how small they are”.

      Or a Nikon D800 with a 70-200 2.8, vs a X-T1 and 50-200 2.8 mounted.

      Get a grip on yourself, they are small lenses.

  • Jon Ingram

    It seems that it’s difficult to make high quality telephotos with such a large zoom range. I would much rather see a 300, 400, or 500mm prime. Or, if it has to be a zoom, make it a very high IQ 200-400. The best quality telephotos always seem to feature a limited zoom range or be prime lenses.

    • justintime

      Latest Nikon 80-400G lens has very good IQ. Whilst it is not upto a Nikon AF-S 300mm f4.0 prime at 300mm the consensus is that the 80-400 is as good if not better than 300mm AF-S f4.0 plus TC-14.
      Given that I expect X-T1 AF to be OK but nowhere near good enough for a wildlife/sports pro then I think Fuji would be far better targeting the enthusiast market with a zoom initially. When the X-T3 is released that may match current DSLR AF (D800/D4/D7100 on Nikon) then a 400mm / 500mm prime might sell.

  • DaveCC

    I was hoping for a 200-400 f/4 OIS with built-in 1.4 extender, with 1.5 crop it would become a 300-600-840 (just like the Canon version) only for x mount it would be 1/3 shorter, and 1/2 the weight.

    That would be perfect with a X-T1

    • nwcs

      No, it wouldn’t be any lighter and would cost more than the Canon lens.

    • ageha

      Nobody needs such a lens.

  • Steve

    You know, given that Fuji’s lens line up is based around 35mm equivalents (ie 56mm -> 85mm, 50-140mm -> 70-200mm, 23mm -> 35mm, etc) its entirely possible that the super telephoto will be a 120-400mm equivalent, like 80-275 or something similar. If they go that route, its possible to get wider apertures and/or smaller size and weight while still claiming 400mm of reach at the long end.

    • ageha


  • Jonavin

    Sigma makes a 120-400 F4.5-5.6 ASP-C lens and it’s huge, weighing about 4lb.

    • Steve

      Nope, the Sigma is a full frame DG. I don’t think anyone makes a super tele for APS-C only.

      • nwcs

        The closest is probably Nikon with the 55-300 DX. After a certain focal length, though, there is not a great deal of size saved by making it APS-C optimized. The weight will come down to the materials used mostly.

        • Adam Maas

          Pentax makes a 560mm for APS-C, although like their 200 and 300 DA*’s and 60-250mm it actually does cover FF. They also do a 50-300 which truly is APS-C only (due to physical deisgn at the mount).

    • ageha

      lol, of course it isn’t an APS-C lens.

  • Tankerman

    Having read all the posts there is another possible alternative which has not been mentioned, a 140-350, This would give 210-525 with the crop sensor and the focal length would start where the planned 50-140 finishes. It would have a 2.5 zoom ratio and hence much easier to design for excellent optical performance, and slightly exceed the 500 mm (equivalent) mark which is necessary for birding photography. If it were made variable aperture, either f3.5-4.5 or f4-5.6, it could also be kept relatively small in size.

  • vwking

    I am now using a 180mm w/ and wo/ 2X tele-extender. Neither auto-focus, nor image stabilization. A 120-400mm tele-zoom with AF and IS will be most welcomed.

  • dynastes

    Is that a 120-400 full-frame equivalent, or 180-600 full-frame equivalent?

    • ageha

      It’s the obvious, 180-600mm.

  • Rnewal


  • Ali

    i think 85 mm macro lens is more urgent .

    • ageha

      Please no more macro lenses, one is enough even though it can’t even do 1:1.

      • steve

        Oy, feeding the trolls, but what are you saying? Because there’s already a 60mm 1:2 macro there shouldn’t be another macro option? The only true macro option is the 50mm touit. It would be fantastic to have a longer macro. My biggest concern going into Fuji was a lack of telephoto and macro options. Fuji wants to compete.

        • ageha

          No. There are more important gaps to fill.

  • I’ve read through the comments so far and the two biggest gripes appear to be size and price.
    Well, with this focal length size is unimportant, as this lens has little use as a portable lens. It is a lens that has special application, just like a macro lens, and will be greatly fondled by those of us who are still using other brands for this particular lack in the X-System line-up.
    Price? Who cares, as long as the lens is exceptionally good in all departments.
    Oh, f/5.6 at 400mm is A-OK.

    • Scouser57

      The people who can’t afford it cares.
      Though it is not for Full Frame it would be possible to make it smaller an lighter than existing lenses made for Full Frame.
      If Fuji keep the qualitylevel from their other lenses I will be satisfied.

  • Denkerfoto.com

    It would be most welcome, and for me a deal breaker to move over from Nikon to Fuji as i dont do high speed sports, although other sports where a tele is needed but not af speed…

  • Note: ALL zoom lenses are OIS

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.