Posts: 8,042
Threads: 1,865
Joined: Apr 2010
Reputation:
49
08-28-2020, 11:33 PM
(This post was last modified: 09-03-2020, 06:52 AM by Klaus.)
Chief Editor - opticallimits.com
Doing all things Canon, MFT, Sony and Fuji
Posts: 3,158
Threads: 36
Joined: Oct 2011
Reputation:
22
Pity that the 33/1 had to get the axe.
Posts: 1,254
Threads: 112
Joined: Apr 2010
Reputation:
18
08-29-2020, 12:08 PM
(This post was last modified: 08-29-2020, 12:09 PM by thxbb12.)
If someone needs this monster of a lens for its blurring ability, they would be much better served with a FF system.
Also the 50mm APS-C focal length is odd to say the last. It's neither normal (33mm) nor portrait (56mm).
Posts: 3,158
Threads: 36
Joined: Oct 2011
Reputation:
22
Yeah, not much of a differentiation between this and the 56/1.2, and of course the 33 would've made vastly more sense. If I'd been assembling a Fuji system (and I yet may), I'd go for the 16/56/100-400 and the rest is not decided so far (18-55? Touit 12?) Not this one, even though I applaud Fuji for doing this, after all.
Posts: 558
Threads: 4
Joined: Jun 2016
Reputation:
6
Need a 35/1.4 Mark II. Better AF and slightly better optics in a package not much larger.
Posts: 214
Threads: 5
Joined: Apr 2010
Reputation:
3
They did it because they could.
Posts: 8,042
Threads: 1,865
Joined: Apr 2010
Reputation:
49
So here it is ...
https://fujifilm-x.com/en-au/products/lenses/xf50mmf1-r-wr/
Still not sure what to think of this (vs the 56mm f/1.2).
Chief Editor - opticallimits.com
Doing all things Canon, MFT, Sony and Fuji
Posts: 3,158
Threads: 36
Joined: Oct 2011
Reputation:
22
People have been pointing out elsewhere (DPReview...) that the 50 is supposed to have a much better AF motor. Since I've never handled the 56, I don't know how bad (or how good) it really is, though that lens was on my radar for the possible switch to Fuji (that I never pulled the trigger on, however).
