Your Custom Text Here
PhotoRumors just upped product specifications and the above image for Fujifilm's forthcoming fast telephoto lens.
Meanwhile, forum runners at digicame speculate that given the lens's 62mm filter size, apparent length, and fast glass, it could weigh around 500g, or roughly equivalent to the lovely Leica Summicron 90.
Source: Photorums via digicame.info
This thread is raging at DPReview right now, precisely because Canon's second-tier 370$ USD F/1,8 85mm lens from 1992 draws very similarly, and certainly with less DOF than Fujifilm's top-of-the-line 1000$ USD F/1,2 56mm XF lens.
OP Stoneh Ray's camera settings are problematic, but the basic draw styles tell what needs to be told: unless cost, size, weight, and generational misalignment are ignored, equivalence never favours smaller formats.
I picked up the Nikkor 105mm f/2,5 F-mount lens sometime in 2010. I was told that it was glass made for portraits. I was told that it had buttery bokeh, and sharpness and colour out the wazzoo. Cool beans I said.
Read more
Press Releases agree: Fujifilm's new fast wide-angle will go for 999,95$ USD. It will be compared to lenses that cover larger image circles with the same apertures. Equivalists and optic-speed-or-deathist will argue till blue in the face.
Read more
And speaking of Summicrons, Thorsten Overgaard has a wonderful (and long) interview with Leica lens designer, Peter Karbe, that is well worth the read.
Thorsten Overgaard: Leica 50mm APO-Summicron-M ASPH f/2.0
Summicron-M 90 (pre-ASPH)
I always miss sakura season. But this year, my wife and I spent two meals under the cherry blossoms, once with knäckebrot and cheese and wine, once with Japanese fried chicken and rice noodles and beer.
Read more
DPReview member oracle82 writes:
“I know this is a frequent issue, the 35 1.4 vs 23 1.4... but I’ve been wondering about the issue of subject separation with the two. I know that the 35 will have more of a compression factor given the longer focal length. But, I seem to have gone from a 50mm equivalent shooter to more of a 35/40mm equivalent shooter recently. I just prefer the slightly wider view now, and find the 35 to be a little too narrow these days - even though it was the first prime that I bought with my XT-1.
As such, I don’t use the 35 all that much now, and when I do, I find myself backing up for a bit wider view. Of course, then I start to lose some of the blurred background because my subject ends up being further away from me.
I’m not trying to blur out the backgrounds completely, I have other lenses for that. But I do like a slightly blurred graduation when I am shooting certain things at wider focal lengths. Not portraits, just everyday type of photos.
I’ve been toying for awhile with the idea of selling my 35 for the 23, since I don’t use it a lot. It’s a fantastic lens, I just hate having expensive equipment around that I don’t use much.
I’m wondering if the subject separation from f/1.4-2 would be adequate enough with the 23, especially since I can get closer? As I said, with the 35 I find myself backing off to get more in the frame, so I lose a lot of that shallow depth of field. (I really hope this makes sense). If I want more serious subject separation, I have a legacy 58mm that I can use.”
And the award for most confusing answer goes to Christof21 who supplied the link to a website called How Much Blur, which compares the theoretical percentage of blur captured by both lenses at similar distances.
But the question specifically addressed the separation of subject and background at different camera to subject distances. In other words, supplying a link, no matter how erudite it may seem, isn't enough. Relevance is key.
The best response from the same thread attempts to answer the question asked, which distilled simply is this:
I like to shoot [people or other objects] at wider angles. Because of this I have to move farther from my subject when using the 35mm 1,4, which reduces the amount of separation between the subject and the background. Which lens, the 23mm 1,4 or the 35mm 1,4, would return more separation between the subject and the background?
The answer lies in the oracle82's own question: Of course, then I start to lose some of the blurred background because my subject ends up being further away from me.
Any answer concerned with the amount to which a background is blurred and not the degree to which the subject and the background are delineated one from another, is pointless. And so becomes the 35mm's f/1,4 aperture when the subject is moved closer to the background in order to capture a wider view.
The answer is: no, you are not.
The 23mm 1,4 lens will more keenly separate the background from the subject.
Here is the thread: Am I wrong in thinking I could get MORE subject separation with 23 vs 35?
Some of us are into sharpness. Some of us are into OOF rendering. Some of us are into bokeh. Others, are into radiation.
Update: I have written more about this lens here: Nagano, Japan: through the Summicron 50.
Formerly I owned the V4 and V5 50mm Summicrons. Both lenses were slightly sharper than the V3 and better built. But both also showed harsher OOF highlights, which grinned my gears. Despite being more compact, the V3 similar focus ergonomics to the V5, but it is light like the V4.
For some reason it is less popular than the V4. My wallet is glad.
Being an older lens, I didn't expect so much contrast and quick falloffs to black, but the V3 surprises. It is also extremely quick to focus. I am able to focus it almost as quickly as I can the 50/2 Nikon Ai lens on a large-viewfinder SLR camera. I suspect the slight delays inherent in focusing the M240 and V3 Summicron and the D800 or FM and 50/2 Ai are down to my prescription.
I must upgrade that.
The Schneider-Kreuznach logo, which can be found on many lens systems for digital cameras, is difficult for some to pronounce.
For the past half year, I've been using a single lens for about 99% of my work. That lens is 100mm and has an f-stop of f/5,6. It's from the tongue-twisting company in this video.
Thanks Thomas Tsai Photography.
Tsukuba, Japan