• 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Forums > Back > Fujinon XF 200mm f/2 R LM OIS WR announced
#11
(07-21-2018, 04:42 AM)you2 Wrote: 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.

Well, the Oly 300mm f/4 PRO IS is certainly awesome ...
Chief Editor - opticallimits.com

Doing all things Canon, MFT, Sony and Fuji
  Reply
#12
It's interesting why we don't see longer lenses beyond the 100-400 zoom of Fuji. Or why Tamron/Sony don't adapt their offerings to ML - at least Sigma is already in the process to transfer the selection to Sony mount.

And Klaus, by putting an X-H1 behind it, it looks fairly balanced - but that's the most massive Fuji body. Try the other X-mounts and it looks also kinda tiny (same goes for some DSLRs behind a 600/4) For Fuji I can say, they needed a couple of FW updates of the X-T2 to come in the region of "usable with AF-C" , but a D850 in DX mode with Tamron's G2 telezooms will still leave the Fuji behind. And as for "forum" who ever hides behind that alias: It depends on your definition of "Pro" (fanboys have a very different one, I'm sure), but I cannot imagine a Pro relying on bodies which occasionally will stop shooting. It doesn't happen often to me, but I'm no pro. The two times it did, I thought "bugger, at least nobody asked me to get these pictures"....
  Reply
#13
(07-21-2018, 05:58 AM)Klaus Wrote:
(07-21-2018, 04:42 AM)you2 Wrote: 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.

Well, the Oly 300mm f/4 PRO IS is certainly awesome ...
It has very high resolution; but (a) i would prefer a zoom and (b) better bokeh would be appreciated. Also I don't require a long zoom like 200-500 but perhaps a 250-350f4 ? The reason for the zoom is frequently I have little control in distance to subject so if the lens is too long... or not long enough .....
  Reply
#14
Two things I saw in the pictures: The foot appears to have Arca-Swiss type dovetail. But not along the whole foot, which makes it pointless to try to connect it with a Gimbal? Alright, CaNikon first need to discover there's something like Arca-Swiss type dovetails, but still.... Already again not thought til the end (of the foot).

And this pesty aperture ring diameter, still less than ΒΌ mile and still with only an A and no C option; I'm curious which part of the Fuji lens designer brain comes up with these magic ideas? Maybe that part which is afraid the front dial suddenly could become useful? And worse, the fanboys discover it and start questions like "can we have firmware updates to have that on all lenses, please". One must know ""Kaizen" and firmware update" are used in the same curse...

@you2, the latest 180/200-400/4 FF zooms are around 11.000-12.400 $. Are you saying you would buy one, even if Fuji surprisingly manages to make it half price? I thought so...
  Reply
#15
Forum = me using another account (because I forgot to logoff). ;-)
Chief Editor - opticallimits.com

Doing all things Canon, MFT, Sony and Fuji
  Reply
#16
(07-23-2018, 04:45 AM)JJ_SO Wrote: @you2, the latest 180/200-400/4 FF zooms are around 11.000-12.400 $. Are you saying you would buy one, even if Fuji surprisingly manages to make it half price? I thought so...
Well what does $1200 get me ?
  Reply
#17
a nice case for the 180-400...
  Reply


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)