[Klaus]

Kinda nice if you are into small things at least

[Kodachrome 25]

Maybe a replacement for the 16-50 now better fitted (and with sufficient image quality) for video?

I would rather prefer an XF-non-pancake version more akin to the 18-55 for still images - a wider, not too fast, variable aperture and not to big standard zoom with good or better image quality as most popular systems (alas Sony...) offer. IMHO that is still an omission in the Fujifilm lens line-up.

[JJ_SO]

What do you really miss with the exisiting 18-55 / 16-50 / 16-55 /18-135 offerings? I keep on reading about the outstanding quality of the 18-55/2.8-4 (which I got cheap as 2nd hand) and the less so quality of the 16-55/2.8 but zoom lenses always have downsides and the Fujinon is pretty usable, I'd say. And the range is really overly populated by lenses, hence we still wait for a decent 300 mm, reasonably fast.

[thxbb12]

I welcome this new addition. I'm one of these guys who like small lenses :-)

I particularly like the 15mm at the wide-end which is rather unique et much more useful than the longer usual 55mm range IMO.

 

This being said, I fear that being an XC lens, it won't be that great IQ-wise. Plus, it will probably feature a plastic mount and no aperture ring.

If only it had it was a high quality XF lens :-(

[thxbb12]

What do you really miss with the exisiting 18-55 / 16-50 / 16-55 /18-135 offerings? I keep on reading about the outstanding quality of the 18-55/2.8-4 (which I got cheap as 2nd hand) and the less so quality of the 16-55/2.8 but zoom lenses always have downsides and the Fujinon is pretty usable, I'd say. And the range is really overly populated by lenses, hence we still wait for a decent 300 mm, reasonably fast.

 

• The 18-55 has indeed great IQ. However, it has 2 drawbacks for me: only 18mm at the wide-end. I'd like 16mm instead. Also, it suffers from AF issue (I wonder if it's unique to my copy or not). Sometimes, it doesn't AF where it says it does leading to slightly blurry images. It's the only lens I have that does this. Are you encountering this with yours, Joju ?
  
• 16-50: about the same size as the 18-55 despite being much slower throughout the range. Good thing is that it starts at 16mm, but the overall IQ is not as good as the 18-55 and it has no aperture ring and a plastic mount. I had one and sold it.
  
• 18-135: It only starts at 18mm, is quite a large for its specs and not so hot IQ-wise. 
  

Personally, I'd love to see a 13-40 "standard" lens for APS-C (20-60mm FF equivalent).

When I analyze which focal lengths I use the most when using standard zooms, it's mostly towards the wide-end. The long end is rarely used. A wider albeit shorter lens would make a lot more sense to me. I know there are options like 10-24 and so, but these are too specialty lenses.

I wonder why no manufacturer has ever tried to release such a lens 20-60 equivalent lens?

Is it too difficult to design? I would think given the limited range, it would be doable.

[JJ_SO]

thxbb12, my copy occupies only space in a drawer and ocassionally sees daylight. That happens when I want to travel very light, in daylight conditions. I'm not the best reference about it's AF capabilities, but there was a firmware 3.22 update coming out in October 2017 with the promise "Fix for wrong focal length display and shaking in peripheral part of images." - doesn't it do what it should?

 

As for IQ of any Fuji lens, I'm simply spoilt by Nikon/Sigma combinations and don't expect Fuji to work miracles. In low light the quality differences become massive. As in all kind of lights the weight difference is also pretty massive. I remember the Sigma 18-35/1.8 also as rather huge - and imagine that on a tiny Fuji body. That 13-40 sounds cool, but since the first number in superstition is an unlucky one, I'd opt for 12-40

[Klaus]

It's not super small it seems 

http://www.nokishita-camera.com/2018/01/x-a5.html

[chrismiller]

mtfs actually look a bit better compared to the 18-55:

 

15-45 

 

18-55

 

Of course its a stop slower...

[thxbb12]

Three very annoying things about it :

1. Powerzoom : I hate this crap : it's mega slow, inaccurate and uses energy for nothing. For videography it's a different story, but who buys Fuji for shooting movies?
   
2. No aperture ring (probably) given it's an XC lens.
   
3. Plastic mount (probably again)
   

I suspect QC is probably worse too?

 

If it had been a regular XF lens without powerzoom, an aperture ring and a metal mount, it would sit high on my top lenses for travelling.

As it stands, not a chance. What a bummer 

[JJ_SO]

I wonder what I would do with a 22.5-67.5 FL which is so slow that in "tele"-range you click one stop down and are already entering the land of diffraction. But then, I'm not used to 24-70 lenses and the closest to that (the pretty mediocre Nikon 24-85 with tons of distortion) I sold rather quick.

 

thxbb12, the lack of an aperture ring would bring the otherwise useless front-dial back to life. But this is something I feel very confusing, the whole lens line-up is a big collection of different concept: some have an aperture ring, some don't. The aperture rings sometimes have numbers on it and an "A" position, sometimes not - so no display of f-number. Some have distance rings with a clutch and a distance scale, others are without, all are focus by wire. But the clutched ones behave differently in override situation. With the AF-switch on M and an assigned AF-ON button I can accidentally initialize AF - although I thought to set the camera to manual mode.

 

Really the only consitency I could discover is that there's a collection of functions and Fuji uses them with not much of a plan.  I'm very grateful that Nikon at least here is very straightforward.