Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Fujinon XF 200mm f/2 R LM OIS WR announced
#1
http://www.fujifilm.com/products/digital...lm_ois_wr/
Chief Editor - opticallimits.com

Doing all things Canon, MFT, Sony and Fuji
#2
Only 6000.-

take half a dozen...

The focus limiter is just the same bs as the one from 100-400: Full or 5-∞. Apparently close range is nothing Fuji wants to deal with.
#3
Cheaper than Canon's Wink
#4
And same as Nikon's... FF, that is...
#5
Uhmm, no. The Canon EF 300mm f2.8 IS USM II is less expensive. Canon has no 200m f2 APS-C lens...
#6
It's not impossible to use either Canon or Nikon 200/2 on an APS-C body...
#7
I actually meant Canon's 300/2.8L IS USM II. Same focal length and equialent aperture and is cheaper.
#8
Honestly, I think at this point in time, the 200mm f/2 is a lighthouse project. They showcase that they can but there's essentially no market for this. To me it seems as if Fuji isn't used by "full pros".

As mentioned I'm currently testing the Sony 70-200mm f/2.8 GM. Honestly speaking, even that combo is a bit bizarre already (having a large, heavy lens on a tiny camera).
In that sense, the 200mm f/2 is probably more meaningful because the X-H1 is fairly large and as such more balanced.

Of course, Sony could easily come up with a bigger camera - and I believe they will - featuring more battery and processing power. This would make sense to me regarding the big lenses that they already released.

But that's just me ... you may think differently about camera-lens balance.
#9
Just to illustrate the bizarreness in terms of the size of a big lens on a small body - see the attachment.

To left: Fuji X-H1 w/100-400mm (sorry but they don't have the 200mm f/2 on camerasize.com yet).
Center: Sony A9 w/400mm f/2.8
Right: Pana G9 w/200mm f/2.8

The Fuji and Pana are alright ... but the Sony ... I mean ... hey ...


Attached Files
.png   big.png (Size: 393.6 KB / Downloads: 13)
Chief Editor - opticallimits.com

Doing all things Canon, MFT, Sony and Fuji
#10
The big lens on small body never bothered me because I always hold the system by the lens (if the lens is tiny then I hold the body but typically with any moderate size lens such as 55-200 I hold the lens and so it doesn't matter on the camera size - please understand i've always used small camera starting with olympus om-1; then contax aria and these days olympus om-d or fuji t-20 (though i would like an x-e3).
-
Having said that this I agree this 200f2 is mostly just a show piece and I certainly would never buy it though I suspect it is optically quite good. From my perspective it is too heavy; too short for distant subject (eagles in trees) and too long for casual stuff.
-
My biggest problem with fuji/olympus is finding a good combo for birds such as hearings and eagles - these are frequently quite far and most people with full frame cameras (nikon/canon) are using lenses in the 400mm to 500mm range - i tend to see a lot of sigmas - i think 200-500. 4/3 and fuji just doens't have good optics in this range. The new panasonic 55-200 might be interesting - looking forward to your test but even there the 200 (400 equiv) end is on the short range.
  


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread:
1 Guest(s)