Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Fuji roadmap 2017
I'd consider the Touit too but it's much more expensive than a used 14/2.8 or 16/1.4 where I live.

I was disappointed about the lenshood quality. Looking fancy, but working poorly  <_< also, the apterure ring is even easier to move than the Fujinon's - and I wished they had put in some better resistance for the click-stops. Zeiss was always low-resisting. But two Planars and a Distagon I owned 1/4 century ago, were much better in this aspect.


A colleague got himself the Batis 18mm for his A7RII. I have to agree with him. Poor design for this kind of price-tag

It's the only native option on the A7 at 25mm so I had to buy it. However, I'm using the 16-35/4 much more often than I was expecting me to so that might lead me to sell the Batis eventually. I'll give it a good photowalk/trip/weekend before deciding though. Haven't been shooting a lot since I got it.


Btw, mind you: A used Batis 25 is easily more than twice as expensive as the Fuji 16/1.4.

Are those mk lenses anything special optically ?

According to an interview with Fuji managers at CP + 2017 they are fully manual lenses with constant T-stop over the full range of FL. At least, it's one of the longest 18-55 zooms I've seen so far  ^_^


Oh, and the C-mount will come later. At the moment they are E-mount only.

There's a YouTube clip from CameraStore about this 18-55 T2.9 lens:


First the guys try a bit hard to act like actors, but it's about a great working video glass at around ¼ of the costs of a normal parfocal zoom.

Well if there's a camera with a severe lack of lenses it fuji GFX, can't understand all the enthusiasm about it, everyone criticizes Pentax for the lack of lenses, here we got worse

Quote:Well if there's a camera with a severe lack of lenses it fuji GFX, can't understand all the enthusiasm about it, everyone criticizes Pentax for the lack of lenses, here we got worse
Indeed, and also without any advantage, those lenses. Equivalence rules tell us there is nothing that can't be done with FF, there.

Rightout "not thought through", sorry, Toni.


Are you talking about Pentax' MF attempt or FF or APS-C DSLRs, or their attempt of a mirrorless (because "there's maybe some money involved there" as Pentax' managers appeared to have thought)


Fuji started from scratch with a new system, new mount, will be providing two adapters, one of it for Hasselblad (=more lenses) another 5 adapters will come from Fotodiox (much more lenses, although all manually and from Nikon and Canon only the longer ones will have enough image circle to cover the sensor) and announced another 3 lenses. There are still gaps in the lineup, but much less important - nobody buys an MF to succeed in Sports or Birds. The high quality subjects - portrait, makro, architecture, industrial, weddings - are covered by the current lineup from the beginning. That's where the money comes in for pro-photographers, no newspaper-work.


And as it's a well thought mirrorless camera, it avoids a lot problems coming from a mirror box. You think, Sony cameras are attractive because of their expensive and heavy genuine lenses? Which, btw. give the mount and tripod threads of the body hard times.


The GFX, with 100MB uncompressed RAW/picture is not made for everyone - but it comes at a bargain compared to competition in it's class.


If you haven't looked into sample pictures - no wonder you don't understand the enthusiasm.

If you have looked into sample pictures, but don't recognize their quality - no wonder you don't understand the enthusiasm.

If you never shot MF (or in this case, baby-MF  Smile ) - no wonder you don't understand the enthusiasm.


To me, it would be the travel cam with very decent quality I would not leave at home because it's too heavy. Although I might not have any money left to travel  Sad


Big Grin


Edit: I just forgot to add: It's fine to not understand the enthusiasm - I also don't understand every other enthusiasm.

The "ultra wide zoom lens" look interesting, could it be even wider than the 10-24? (which is about as wide as it gets if you intend to use screw-on filters). Or are we going to see a more economic alternative, like a variable aperture 10-18 to mesh with their standard zoom better?


Forum Jump:

Users browsing this thread:
1 Guest(s)