[Klaus]

https://www.fujirumors.com/leaked-fujino...less-lens/

Took em a while

[Rover]

Pity that the 33/1 had to get the axe.

[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).

[Brightcolours]

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).

They (Fuji) started out with the idea of 33mm f1. Apparently they found it impossible to design such a lens, so they switched to 50mm f1. Pretty silly process. 

So now you get a 75mm f1.5 FF equivalent, next to the 56mm f1.2. Pretty unique focal length for APS-C only, and pretty nonsensical. At least it will be a lot heavier, and sharper, than my 55mm f1.2 lenses.

[Rover]

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.

[obican]

Need a 35/1.4 Mark II. Better AF and slightly better optics in a package not much larger.

[you2]

They did it because they could.

[Brightcolours]

They did it because they could.

They did (50mm f1) because they could not (33mm)

[Klaus]

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).

[Rover]

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).