It was a very slow time for product introductions for quite a while (we hadn’t seen anything except inexpensive manual focus lenses since the OM-1 and GH6). Recent weeks have seen a surprising revival of interest in APS-C, while full-frame and larger have been quiet since last fall, although quite a few cameras and lenses nobody’s been able to get are beginning to appear. Sony A1 and Fujifilm GFX 100S bodies are generally in stock at major dealers, and finding either one shouldn’t be hard at this point. Even Nikon Z9s are trickling into photographers’ hands, although still on long backorders.

Perhaps the most interesting of the APS-C introductions are a body and two lenses from Fujifilm, all innovative, which doesn’t surprise me since they’ve been committed to APS-C while everyone else has been ignoring it. They just released the X-H2S, indisputably the most capable APS-C camera ever built, although also the most expensive (outside of Leica) we’ve seen in many years, selling for $2500. With a brand-new stacked sensor that allows stills up to 40 fps, along with video modes that range from 4K120P to 6K “open gate” recording to 14-bit Log to very high quality versions of ProRes raw video (although certainly not all at once – don’t expect to record 6K, 14 bit raw at 120 fps- at least not on ANY camera short of a RED)), the XH2S is an extremely capable camera. Astonishingly, it is significantly smaller and lighter than Panasonic’s GH6, the only other cropped-sensor camera with similar video specs, despite using a much higher-quality sensor nearly twice the size of the one on the GH6. Is it a baby Sony A1 or Nikon Z9?

One controversial feature for Fujifilm fans is that the X-H2S does NOT use the controls we think of as typically Fujifilm, or that most of the X-series use. It uses a “standard DSLR” control scheme that we first saw on the X-H1, and that is now used on almost all of Fujifilm’s GFX cameras (the rangefinder-type GFX 50R is the only exception). Fujifilm is good at standard DSLR-type controls – I used an X-H1 extensively some years ago, and my primary camera now is a GFX 100S. Both handle very well, and are great cameras to use, so I have a lot of hope for the X-H2S in that department. The first picture of an X-H2S I saw caused me to do a double take – I thought “why does that GFX 100S have a much smaller lens mount?”. Oh, it’s an X camera in a somewhat smaller version of a modern GFX body…

In addition to accommodating switchers from other brands, another reason why Fujifilm may be using GFX style controls on the X-H2S is to make life easier on X/GFX combo shooters. A superfast X-H2S is a logical companion to a GFX 100S, and Fujifilm has increasingly realized that they need to play into that with their unusual APS-C/medium format lineup. Relatively few X shooters will also own GFX gear, but a very high percentage of GFX shooters WILL need a second system, and the X-H2S is built to be especially easy for a GFX shooter to pick up and use. The more Fujifilm can make the argument that X is there for what GFX doesn’t do, the better GFX looks for photographers whose primary needs are met by medium format, but who need something else as well.

A verdict will have to await a chance to put one through its paces, but it sure looks like a viable competitor for much of what the full-frame flagships can do for half the price. One preview notes that it appears to have MORE dynamic range than an X-T4, despite the fact that stacked sensors tend to lose a little bit of DR in return for their speed. Any increase in image quality is probably slight, but stacked sensors tend to bring a slight DECREASE, so a slight increase is welcome. Will the autofocus and image stabilization be where they need to be to take advantage of this kind of performance? Again, that will require an extensive look at a production camera. Assuming that it actually performs anywhere NEAR its spec sheet, it is probably the final nail in the coffin for Micro 43, offering essentially the combined advantages of the fast OM-1 and video-focused GH6, with MUCH higher quality still images than either and far better autofocus than the Panasonic, all for only a couple of hundred dollars more than those cameras cost.

No, the X-H2S (probably, we haven’t seen full production firmware yet) doesn’t offer the range of video exposure tools the Panasonic does, but if you’re THAT serious about video, what about a Blackmagic camera? The combination of Fujifilm and Blackmagic (and other low-end to midrange dedicated video cameras) leaves Panasonic in an awfully narrow market, trapped between the Fujifilm that’s a much better hybrid and the various Blackmagics that lose stills capability but offer even more on the video side, both with larger and better sensors. This is true even of the X-T4, and the X-H2S narrows Panasonic’s market significantly further. Want more? There’s always the Nikon Z9 (or the Sony A1) , offering similar performance and features to the X-H2S with a much higher-resolution full-frame sensor (although not as high a still frame rate at full resolution) and 8K video, albeit for twice the price. If the X-H2S is really 90% of a Z9 in a compact, (more) affordable body, the world will likely beat a path to Fujifilm’s door, assuming they can make enough cameras to meet demand.

While everybody else is offering one or two APS-C bodies (or three minor variations on one camera – looking at you, Nikon), Fujifilm has five (soon to be six) bodies with quite a bit of differentiation, offering something for everyone outside the extreme entry level. Starting with the inexpensive, rangefinder-styled X-E4, a hundred dollars more buys an X-S10 with image stabilization and a “tiny DSLR” body. Above these capable entry bodies sit the image-stabilized, ruggedized X-T4 with excellent video and the street photographer’s special, the X-Pro3 with a true optical finder hybridized with its EVF. At the top of the line, the X-H2S looks like it will perform like nothing else except the full-frame flagships (for half their price). In a few months, Fujifilm is promising a 40 MP X-H2 that sets a resolution record for a smaller than full-frame camera (image quality very much TBD since the sensor is extremely dense and seems to be unrelated to anything on the market now, but Fujifilm generally pulls off what they set out to do). The last time I’ve been disappointed with a Fujifilm camera’s image quality is when they let the old 16 MP sensor linger too long in 2015 and 2016 – everything since then has been at least extremely competitive for what it is, and often class-leading.

Oddly, Fujifilm’s lenses, long their greatest strength, don’t match the X-H2S perfectly, at least not in its many video modes. Many older designs don’t have video-friendly, high performance AF motors, although they tend to be optically excellent. Some of them exhibit focus breathing or clicky aperture changes that matter little to the still photographer, but are not ideal for video. Fujifilm’s new 18-120mm f4, released with the X-H2S, is a video-centric, power zoom lens (although designed so still photographers will also be comfortable with the controls), and I would expect to see quite a few more such lenses coming in the next months and years. They claim it was designed in collaboration with their cinema lens design team.

Fujifilm’s other new lens is the 150-600mm f5.6-8 XF supertele zoom. It’s the longest lens in the X-system (by quite a bit), and it is the second longest production lens from any major brand by effective focal length (beaten by the brand-new, $20,000, Canon 1200mm f8). Of course, any full-frame 600mm lens on an APS-C body is also 900mm effective – but there’s no combination as appealing. The most obvious possibility is the Sony 200-600mm f5.6-6.3 on an a6600 (or any other Sony APS-C body, but the a6600 is the most logical choice).

The Sony lens is around the same price as the Fujifilm, and it is the only other internally-zooming lens of its kind. I own the Sony lens and love it (it was Lens of the Year here a couple of years ago). I use it on an A7r IV, often cropping it to somewhere around APS-C for wildlife images. I prefer the A7r IV to using it on an APS-C body, because I have more control over the crop – if I need a 1.3x crop for an image instead of 1.5x, that’s easy to do. The A7r IV also puts more pixels in an APS-C area than any Sony APS-C body, and it is a more capable camera to boot. The other obvious choice is to crop an A1 – it’s a tiny bit lower-resolution than the APS-C bodies if you crop all the way in to APS-C, but its performance is especially useful with a very long lens.

Of course, there’s one way to go even longer (without paying $20,000 for Canon’s 1200mm f8) if cropping a full-frame body counts – crop a Nikon Z9 (or Z7 series body – but a Z9 will perform best) with the 800mm f6.3 on it! That’s a 1200mm equivalent, and only a little heavier than the A7r IV or A1 and 200-600mm combo. It’s twice the price, and it STARTS at 800mm (by controlling the crop from full-frame to APS-C, you can go from 800-1200mm with good APS-C or better quality).

Both the Sony and Fujifilm options have useful compositional zooms, which the Nikon lacks. Yes, super-telephoto zooms are OFTEN used at the long end of their range, but probably 1/3 of my shots with the Sony 200-600mm are NOT at or near 600mm – often flocks of birds when I’m picking out individuals or small groups at the long end. I’d say I use it about 1/3 below 500mm, 1/3 between 500 and 600mm, but using the full 61mp frame, and 1/3 at 600mm, then cropping to somewhere between full-frame and APS-C, sometimes with unusual aspect ratios (I have both long, skinny shots and squares in my portfolio with that lens).

Fujifilm made a design choice I’m not sure about with the 150-600mm (which I’ve never used or even seen). It’s somewhat lighter than the Sony 200-600mm, and, while it’s almost the same physical length, it’s significantly narrower at the front, taking standard 82mm filters instead of 95mm oddities. Those savings, however, are NOT because it’s an APS-C lens, they are because it’s f8 at the long end. Fujifilm mentioned in an interview that a f6.3 version would have been 400 grams heavier – the Sony is 500 grams heavier…Personally, I’d rather have the extra 2/3 of a stop and near-constant aperture of the Sony lens. Since the Sony lens is f6.3 by 300mm, it’s really a constant-aperture lens over the range it is most useful in (there are a LOT of other ways of getting at the 200-300mm range, most of them lighter and faster).

I’m actually surprised Fujifilm saved as little bulk and weight as they did by accepting f8. The Sony only barely fits within its 95mm filter size – it’s not QUITE a true f6.3 (or it’s not quite 600mm – I don’t have the gear to measure which one), since 600/6.3 is actually 95.2mm. The Fujifilm actually could have used 77mm filters – 600/8 is 75mm. The Sony lens is admitting around 1.6x as much light at maximum aperture and focal length, yet it’s only 1.3x the weight. If Fujifilm had achieved proportional savings, their lens could have been more like the size and weight of a typical 100-400mm, although perhaps longer and skinnier. As it stands, it’s in between the 100-400mm and 150 or 200-600mm classes (it’s significantly heavier than Canon’s full-frame 100-500mm f4.5-7.1, which also saves weight by accepting a somewhat dim long end).F8 might have been worth it if they’d achieved a 100-400mm sized lens, especially with internal zooming, but I’d rather have Sony’s faster maximum aperture given what the actual savings were. I haven’t used the Fujifilm lens, and it could very well be optically superb, but I would find performance much better than the Sony lens (which punches way above its weight) hard to believe, since the Sony already performs close to exotic-tele levels.

Canon just released their first two APS-C mirrorless bodies with a reasonable lens mount – every previous mirrorless APS-C Canon has used the dead-end EF-M mount, with only low-end lenses available, and no adapter to RF lenses (adapters to use older EF lenses DO exist, including one from Canon themselves, but Canon is rapidly discontinuing EF glass). The EOS-R10 is similar in feature set to a Fujifilm X-E4, a Sony a6400 or a Nikon Z50, perhaps with more advanced AF algorithms. Like most lower-end APS-C cameras, it uses a tiny battery and has other cost-cutting compromises. Other than having 4K60P video and newer AF algorithms, nothing we haven’t seen before from Canon’s competitors (no in-body image stabilization, which tends to be missing from lower-end cameras from most makes).

The EOS-R10 is a competent $1000 camera, but I see no reason to prefer it over Fujifilm’s X-S10 (which has image stabilization and a much broader line of APS-C lenses) unless you really want 4K60P video or the RF lens mount, and are willing to put up with the execrable EF-M derived kit lens (or use a full-frame lens instead) to get it.

The higher-end EOS-R7 is more comparable to something like a Fujifilm X-T4 or a Sony A6600, with a somewhat higher-resolution sensor than any of them. According to the latest Photons to Photos data, it has almost entirely ameliorated Canon’s historic dynamic range disadvantage (and with an unprecedentedly high-resolution sensor, too). Depending on the ISO, it’s only about ¼ to ½ stop behind the class-leading sensor in the X-T4 – a far cry from the days (not so long ago) when Canons were known for wonderful skin tones, but were often lagging the industry leaders by a stop or more in dynamic range. It is a very fast camera for its resolution, and, while I haven’t seen either an EOS-R7 or an EOS-R10, the R7 seems to check all the boxes for an upper-midrange mirrorless camera (with the obligatory huge number of video modes). It features in-body image stabilization, perhaps related to the truly excellent system in the EOS-R5 and EOS-R3. It doesn’t have the speed of the brand-new and much more expensive X-H2S, but it seems to be a very, very solid X-T4 or A6600 type camera, and much more modern than the A6600 (which is heavily based on the very old A6000).

This lens looks a little too familiar – especially to those of us who’ve been criticizing the EF-M lens lineup for focusing on cheap kit zooms. You can actually see that it is a smaller EF-M diameter barrel that flares out at the back to cover the larger RF mount.

The fly in the ointment is that the initial APS-C RF (RF-S in Canonish) lenses are extremely underwhelming, especially for the more expensive EOS-R7. The major complaint about the EF-M line has been the low-end, dead-end lenses – and both initial RF-S lenses are almost certainly EF-M remounts. Of the next five rumored lenses, two are very welcome new designs – a 16-55mm f2.8 and an 11-55mm f4-4.5. If that 11mm (18mm full-frame equivalent) figure is correct, it’s by far the widest wide end on any standard zoom in any format, and will drastically reduce the need for a separate wide zoom. Two seem to be EF-M remounts, a very low-end 22mm f2 and a 32mm f1.4 – the latter being the best lens in the EF-M line. The last is a 55-250mm f4.5-7.1. While this isn’t a direct match for any EF-M lens, it may be related to the 55-200mm f4.5-6.3. A very similar lens (maybe even an optically identical one with a bit more zoom extension?) could pick up the extra 50mm at the long end, and the maximum aperture would change just as it has. We haven’t seen any specifications on any of these upcoming lenses yet, unlike the two initial lenses, which are clearly EF-M remounts from announced specs – identical element counts and nearly identical dimensions and weights. It is possible, although perhaps unlikely, that the RF-S 22mm f2 (for example) will be a modern, highly corrected design with little in common with the $200 double-Gauss EF-M lens.

Assuming that the next five lenses are correctly rumored, and that anything that looks EF-M related actually is, what are we left with? Three low-end EF-M kit zooms – a standard, travel/all-in-one and telephoto, with maximum apertures of f6.3 and f7.1 at the long end. Two primes, a cheap double-Gauss moderate wide angle and a modern normal lens. Two better specified zooms, both in the standard range, one with an interesting extra bit of range at the wide end, and the other a 16-55mm f2.8, a common upper-end zoom on APS-C. The four sub-$400 (at least in their EF-M versions) lenses, with two of them under $200, among the initial seven, are disappointing. We haven’t seen the two better zooms, and they don’t seem to be related to anything Canon makes now. The 32mm f1.4 is about the only well-liked lens in the EF-M range, so the RF-S version is also likely to be a nice lens. There are only three lenses coming (none here yet) that might suit the EOS-R7, and all three are in the same focal length range. Most R7 shooters will probably pick up either the 11-55mm and perhaps the 32mm f1.4 or else the 16-55mm alone.

Of course, the other option, especially on the EOS-R7, is full-frame RF lenses. If the 11-55mm proves to be a very good lens, it could pair nicely with the compact 70-200mm f4 or even the 100-500mm. The latter is actually an intriguing pairing – 18-800 mm equivalent in two lenses. From what I’ve heard, the 100-500mm is an exceptional lens. If the 11-55mm proves to be similar (and Canon has made a lot of relatively slow but high-quality lenses with unusual ranges lately), that could be a two-lens kit that takes three lenses in any other system, and has a bit of extra range at the long end over most three-lens kits, even those using a long third lens.

What?!?! Sony released three APS-C lenses on the same day, after not having released a single one since 2019, and with their only APS-C body newer than 2019 being the heavily vlogger-focused, viewfinderless ZV-E10. All of their non ZV-E10 bodies are derivatives of All of the new lenses (a 10-20mm power zoom and 11mm and 15mm primes) are aimed explicitly at vloggers, the same audience Sony aimed their only recent APS-C body at. Still, three new lenses at once, after none for three years…

Sony APS-C effectively doesn’t exist as of mid-2022, with every model having recently been on production hiatus. A few models may have just restarted production, but dealers don’t have any back yet, except for a few ZV-E10 configurations. The ZV-E10 with the terrible 16-50mm power zoom lens is just becoming available, but that’s a viewfinderless body with what just may be the single worst major-manufacturer lens in current production. Some EF-M lenses are stiff competition for the Worst Lens Award, and Lensbabies and other “deliberately lousy” lenses can, of course, get even worse, as can off-brand manual focus cheapies. According to DxOmark ,the 16-50mm is worse than the usual 18-55mm DSLR kit zoom, and that’s quite a feat. B&H will not even accept backorders for any Sony APS-C camera other than the ZV-E10!

The ONLY rumors of a new model are focused on a second vlogger-centric body above or below the ZV-E10, quite possibly viewfinderless. There is not much reason to believe that Sony is interested in APS-C for photographers. They haven’t even bothered to put their own 26 MP sensor (that Fujifilm has used for years) into one of their own bodies, with all evidence pointing to a vlogger-centric future for the format in the Sony line. Sony full-frame is, of course, a different and much brighter story!

The future of APS-C outside of Fujifilm in general is an interesting question. Nikon has a trio of very similar bodies, with the real difference between the brand-new Z30, Z50 and the Z fc being in the viewing and control setup. The Z50 uses a standard DSLR-style control arrangement, while the Z Fc uses a layout heavily borrowed from the old Nikon FM2 film SLR. The Z30 is basically just a Z50 minus the viewfinder. The Z50 and Z fc are lower-midrange bodies that replace the D5x00 DSLRs, with a few D7x00-style features, while the Z30 is a vlogger special.

There are only a few Z DX lenses, although they are relatively well-chosen at a similar level to the bodies, and they tend to be decent lenses, especially for their prices. The 16-50mm f3.5-6.3 Nikkor is by far the nicest kit lens to come with any lower-end APS-C body (assuming that Canon’s RF-S lens IS in fact the EF-M lens it looks like). Its 50-250mm f4.5-6.3 companion is also a very good lens for the price and size. That’s a substantial advantage over Sony and Canon, since Sony’s little 16-50mm power zoom is a serious contender for “worst lens in current production” and the cheap EF-M zooms aren’t much better. The RF-S lenses look VERY suspiciously like EF-M remounts, which would put them in the same category. Sony does offer a few much better APS-C lenses as options, and you occasionally see them kitted with the A6600 in particular. While both announced Canon RF-S lenses look like EF-M lenses, there is a world of full-frame RF lenses. Fujifilm, of course, has a full line with many excellent choices (and often kits much better lenses with upper-end bodies at a significant increase in cost). Nikon’s are almost certainly the best of the “cheap kit lens” bunch, excluding Fujifilm’s much more expensive “super kit lenses”.

The Z-mount line also has the advantage of quite a few relatively compact full-frame lenses that could make sense on DX (Nikonese for APS-C) bodies. The disadvantage of using the excellent, compact full-frame lenses is that the bodies aren’t image stabilized, and most of the lenses aren’t either (since all the full-frame bodies ARE).

There has been talk for quite a while about both a lower-end and a higher-end APS-C Z-mount body from Nikon. The low-end Z30 was just released, and it is another vlogger’s dream, photographer’s nightmare camera like the Sony ZV-E10. Just like the ZV-E10, it is essentially an existing camera with the viewfinder sawed off and a couple of minor video-specific features added. The biggest feature gain from the Z50 to the Z30 is that the new camera has a fully articulating screen. For serious photographers (perhaps other than Cindy Sherman), losing the viewfinder for an articulating screen is not a worthwhile trade. Unless you are photographing yourself, a viewfinder is far more useful.

Rather than the small number of serious artists whose work is self-portraiture, though, Nikon is aiming at vloggers, influencers and their ilk. Other than trading a viewfinder for a fully articulating screen (the Z fc has both, by the way, and is appealing for its versatility) and adding a tally lamp, it’s the third version of the Z50 we’ve seen, since the Z fc is basically a retro Z 50. Same sensor, very similar AF, performance, etc. Disappointingly for a video-focused camera, it has the same old single UHS-I SD Card slot. By now, that really should be a UHS-II slot. Dual slots would be nice, but are not expected on a low-end camera like this, and CFExpress would actually be a drawback because of the expensive cards.

Since it is so closely related to the Z50, it also picked up some good points. Unlike the D3x00 DSLR line, it has a full set of controls, essentially the Z50’s layout. It, of course, takes the same lenses and accessories. A much-needed higher-end (Z70?) body would gain speed, (probably) resolution and in-body image stabilization. It could be speed-focused like the D500, especially since Nikon now has excellent telephotos – they’re not APS-C specific, but telephotos are where there are the fewest benefits to APS-C lenses. A Z70 or Z90 body could even serve as a “mini Z9”, as the D300 and D500 both held similar places in respect to the D3 and D5. Any image-stabilized DX body makes the full-frame lenses much more attractive – especially the telephotos, where a very dense cropped sensor could offer a second field of view from the same expensive lens. The Z50 offers a very similar number of pixels on the subject as cropping a Z7,Z7II or Z9 to the same dimensions, but a higher resolution cropped sensor could offer more pixel density. The sensor would have to be 30 MP or above for the difference to be meaningful, but that’s certainly not impossible.

Right now, none of Sony, Nikon nor Canon have compelling APS-C offerings, although any of the three could get there with some effort, and all are showing more interest than a few months ago. Sony (and perhaps Nikon) appear to be diving deeper and deeper into vlogger-land – there is a very real question of what APS-C Sony bodies other than the ZV-E10 (if anything) are still in production, and whether we will ever see a new photography-centered body. Sony’s APS-C lens lineup is extensive, but much of it is older and of modest quality, and the newer lenses tend to be vlogger-focused. They need a new enthusiast to pro-grade body and some revamps of older lenses. They do, of course, have an excellent full-frame lens lineup, some of which double nicely on APS-C.

Canon just released two modern bodies, with the higher-end of the pair being one of the more intriguing of recent APS-C offerings, but their initial APS-C lenses are very disappointing, and full-frame RF lenses don’t include a huge range that would do well on APS-C. Lenses are Canon’s key, both dedicated lenses that don’t come from EF-M and full-frame lenses that have crossover appeal. Nikon also has very limited dedicated APS-C lens choices, although the few existing lenses are higher quality than EF-M glass and they have more appealing crossover full-frame options due to the large number of high-quality compact lenses in the full-frame line. The 20-85mm f1.8 lens set becomes 30-130mm equivalent on APS-C. What Nikon lacks is a capable, fast (focus and frame rate), high-resolution APS-C body, ideally with image stabilization.

There is a reason why I have stuck primarily to APS-C this time around – full-frame has been quieter than at any point since the launch of the original Sony A7 and A7r way back in 2013. The last full-frame camera (or larger – we haven’t seen GFX bodies or lenses, either) of note was the Nikon Z9, way back in October of last year. There have been a couple of specialized introductions – the rangefinder Leica M11 and cinema-focused Canon EOS-R5C – but nothing in the core of the market.

Lenses have been similarly scarce – Sony has had the long-awaited refresh of the 24-70mm f2.8 G-Master, plus a video-focused 16-35 f4 power zoom. Opticallimits, perhaps the best technical lens testers around, got their hands on the new Sony 24-70mm and declared it the best lens in its class. Sigma is responsible for the only other full-frame lens of 2022 that isn’t an exotic telephoto – a 16-28mm f2.8 (Contemporary, so an economy plus lens, not one of their high end Art lenses). Nikon has released three brand new exotic superteles (400mm f2.8 and f4.5, plus 800mm f6.3), while Canon has remounted existing 400mm f2.8 and 600mm f4 lenses in RF mount and released new (although they may actually be the 400mm and 600mm lenses with permanent teleconverters – see discussion in The Telephoto Conundrum, appearing soon) 800mm f5.6 (!!) and 1200mm (!!!!!) f8 lenses. That’s it through midyear- three lenses below 400mm and five new lenses plus two remounts above! When most of the lens releases are 400mm and longer, you know there hasn’t been a lot going on. Sony’s 24-70mm and the Nikon 400mm f4.5 (maybe the 800mm f6.3 as well) are the lenses in this group I might eventually try to get for review – although big telephotos are the hardest lenses to borrow, so the Sony may be the only realistic one. I suspect the entry-level Sigma, which could well be a very nice lens, will get a lot of coverage on other sites.

In July, Canon released two new low-end full-frame lenses that baffle me nearly as much as the three Sony APS-C lenses on the same day. One is a 24mm f1.8 full-frame macro (well, really near-macro – it’s 1:2, not 1:1) lens. If it didn’t claim loudly to be a macro lens (24mm is about the worst possible focal length for a macro lens – it has a very short working distance, but is not QUITE wide enough to be a special effects lens), it would be a worthwhile wide angle lens – maybe it still is, and the macro title is just window dressing.

Canon has been positioning most of their primes below Nikon and Sony equivalents, in price, but also in image quality. Nobody’s seen this lens yet, but it’s a $600 lens with one aspherical and one ED element that Canon makes no special claims about. Nikon’s near equivalent is an S-Line lens (roughly equivalent to Canon’s L series) with four aspherical elements plus one ED element for $1000. That lens has been reviewed in various places, and is excellent. Sony’s closest equivalent is half a stop faster at f1.4, it’s a G-Master, and it has two extreme aspherical and three ED elements- It’s much more expensive at $1298, as the maximum aperture would indicate. While the 24mm has not been reviewed anywhere, most of the inexpensive Canon primes have not been of the quality level of an S-Line or G-Master lens. At 50mm and 85mm, Canon shooters have a second option – there is an inexpensive lens and an L-series lens with a f1.2 maximum aperture and world-class image quality, but nothing in between. Canon badly needs excellent, mid-priced primes, and this probably isn’t one of them (unless Canon’s optical engineers are much better than Nikon’s or Sony’s, I can’t see why the competition would have used five costly exotic elements if only two were needed).

The other lens is a similarly inexpensive 15-30mm f4.5-6.3 zoom. Canon already has two ultrawide zooms, both of which are excellent L-series lenses and a number of other holes to fill in their lineup. Unless there’s a low-end full-frame body around the corner, all the low-cost lenses make little sense. The current lower-end bodies are older and not especially well reviewed, while most owners of a more expensive EOS-R5 or EOS-R6 are more likely to choose one of the two L lenses. When all Canon had was the two original lower-end bodies, all they were releasing was expensive L lenses. Now that their strength in bodies is at the upper end, they are releasing all sorts of inexpensive lenses.

Since there’s only one of me, I tend to review mostly Art lenses from Sigma unless a Contemporary or Sport lens has a very unusual focal length or some other odd feature. Right now, I’d be most interested in a Contemporary lens if it had any of three characteristics. I’d jump at one wider than 12mm (full-frame), since the only major brand lens wider than that is Canon’s older EF 11-24mm zoom. There are a couple of off-brand lenses that go really wide, some of them in DSLR mounts, suggesting that it IS possible (and should be easier) to make one for some mirrorless mount. Any camera-brand, Sigma or upper-end Tamron lens wider than 12mm is interesting.

Another place where I’d be interested in a Contemporary lens is if it were REALLY long (longer than 600mm). There are now quite a few ways to 600mm, but vanishingly few lenses longer than that, all of which are either extremely expensive (Nikon’s 800mm f6.3 is a relative bargain at $6500 – Nikon’s and Canon’s DSLR versions are both 1/3 stop faster, but more than twice the price, while Canon’s new RF lens is close to three times the price) or very slow – Canon’s 800mm f11 collapsible and a bunch of off-brand lenses of around the same speed.

The third feature that would cause me to be interested in a Contemporary lens would be if it were medium format. There are a few off-brand manual focus lenses for GFX, but I’m not aware of any major third-party lens for medium format – ever. Apart from the current off-brand lenses, the only other third-party medium format lenses I know of are a vague memory that some of the Kiev and Pentacon “Hasselbladski” lenses got remounted for actual Hasselblads (and maybe Bronicas or Mamiyas as well) in the film era. I don’t think any of them ever came out of the Eastern-bloc factories in major Western mounts (?) but I am pretty sure the importers remounted some.

GFX gear hasn’t just been scarce – there’s been none at all introduced since last September. They seem to have been catching up to demand, and just about everything including the GFX 100S is generally in stock, which certainly wasn’t the case even a few months ago. As far as bodies are concerned, they really have no place to go. The only possibility I can see (beyond some wild modular design – unlikely despite prototypes circulating a few years back, but they’ve surprised us all before) is a GFX 100R. Would there be enough demand for it? What if it had to sacrifice the excellent image stabilizer in the 100S? Anything else would require a brand-new sensor, and I have neither heard rumors of such a sensor nor seen hints (like a smaller sensor that would use the same pixel size). Even if there WAS a sensor available, how much need or demand would there be given the image quality of the existing GFX 100 and 100S? When the 100 MP full-frame cameras come out, Fujifilm may have to up their resolution to keep their image quality lead – or they may not – I wouldn’t be surprised to see the first generation of 100 MP full-frame bodies have significant compromises in color or dynamic range. What we ARE waiting for is lenses. Next in line is probably the GF 20-35mm, and I’m very interested to see it. After that, the roadmapped lenses include a tilt-shift lens and a 55mm f1.7. The tilt-shift lens will be a first from any major maker for any mirrorless mount, and the 20-35mm will be one of the widest medium format lenses ever made, and certainly the widest medium format zoom. More GFX coverage coming soon, in an article with an extensive review of the 120mm GF Macro lens and a year of impressions of the camera, based on 12,000+ images.

Dan Wells

July 2022

Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum.

Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum.

Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum.

Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum.

Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum.

Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum.

Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum.

Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum.

Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum.

Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum.

Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum.

Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum.

Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum.

Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum.

Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum.

Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum.

Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum.

Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum.

Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum.

Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum.

Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum.

Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum.