Fuji Confirms 50mm f/1.0 Lens Is Coming This Year

You might remember Fujifilm's announcement of the development of an ultra-fast 50mm f/1.0 lens. Good news for those who have been waiting for it to arrive: the company has confirmed that we will see it later this year.

Fuji confirmed the news at a recent event in India. You might remember that the lens originally started as a design for a 33mm f/1.0. However, the company eventually scrapped the lens after the design became too large and heavy, eventually tipping the scales at 45.8 oz (1,300 g) and requiring a tripod foot for stability. However, the company also announced that instead, a 50mm f/1.0 lens would be created, coming in at 31.7 oz (900 g), a hefty but reasonable weight for what will be a premium level portrait lens. When it hits shelves, it will be the fastest autofocus lens in production in the world. It will not be the first f/1.0 autofocus lens, as Canon released their own 50mm f/1.0 autofocus lens in 1989 (and that was full frame)! However, the Canon lens was meant more for bragging rights than extreme performance, whereas we are likely to see more practical usage from the Fuji optic. It should certainly be an exciting lens! 

Log in or register to post comments

33 Comments

M M's picture

I am afraid this will be another commercial disappointment for Fuji like the 200/2. I don't really see many people needing such a lens.

Luca Santirocco's picture

2 of my 3 friends with Fujy geras have bought the 200/2

M M's picture

Seems you have very wealthy friends :-)

Johan Doornenbal's picture

It's effectively a 75/1.5 in full-frame terms. Not that impressive considering that 85/1.4 lenses for full-frame cameras are ubiquitous.

In regards to the Canon 50/1.0, if Fuji wanted to match it they would have to release a 33/0.67.

Lawrence S's picture

The fact that they had a 56 F1.2 for years is not helping either. Sure, F1.2 is not F1.0, but if they only had F1.8 primes and they went straight to a 50mm F1.0, the Fuji part of the internet would break. But they don't. There is already a 56 F1.2.

A 35 or 40mm F1.0 would have been a better option, if they wanted to go for the wow-factor.

Christian Durand's picture

I am not sure why you care since you only use Nikon ?

Lawrence S's picture

Seriously? Please point out the banner that says "only Fuji owners can comment".

I have a Nikon set and lots of gear, film and digital, including a Fujifilm X-E3 kit. Why would you even think you know what I have or don't have? Why would you think it is a smart idea to actually typ and post that question? Why would my opinion be less than yours, even if I didn't have any Fuji gear? Don't you realise how ridiculously childish and defensive your comment is?

Christian Durand's picture

I looked at your gear bag ! no fuji listed ........

Lawrence S's picture

And? Do you really think I would list every single photo gear item I own? I just added some gear recently. Before that, I did not list anything ... to prevent getting stupid reactions, like yours.

So you really don't deny that you believe my opinion would be less relevant if I did not have any Fuji gear. That's just ridiculous. People are commenting on everything on Fstoppers. Without owning or even experiencing the lenses or cameras discussed in an article. Which is how it should be.

But you believe you have to own a brand to say anything about a brand.

The article wasn't even about owning and using Fuji gear, but merely about the current line-up.

You make all Fuji users look bad.

Ryan Luna's picture

I've always been curious how you do the math conversion on the aperture to FF equiv?

Johan Doornenbal's picture

A 50/1.0 has a 50mm entrance pupil. Take the 50mm focal length, multiply it by the crop factor of 1.5, and you get 75mm field of view equivalent (although still with a 50mm compression, which is will still render out-of-focus elements as smaller, but I will discuss that in the next paragraph.) A 50mm entrance pupil on a 75mm lens is equivalent to 75/50 or 1.5. Thus it's effectively a 75/1.5.

Being that the shorter focal length will not compress scenes as effectively and does not magnify the background details as much, it can also take longer for the background to appear out of focus due to COC. If the pixel pitch is the same, the 50/1.0 will have a significantly deeper effective depth of field, thanks to COC. If both the full-frame and crop bodies have the same resolution, the effect will not be as noticeable but will still exist. This is in comparison to a theoretical 75/1.5 on full-frame.

Utilizing the DOF calculator from PhotoPills (https://www.photopills.com/calculators/dof), I notice they don't offer an f/1.5 option, and when switching between f/1.4 and f/1.6 with full-frame and 75mm selected, the near and far DOF limits do not change, so I'm concerned that their calculator may be somewhat broken. f/1.4 is listed as having a DOF at 2 meters of 0.06m, and at f/1.6 the DOF 0.07m, so I would say that's well within the tolerances for stating that it would be 0.06 at the full-frame equivalent of f/1.5 as well. The 50/1.0 is listed as having a 0.06 DOF at f1.0.

Sorry if this reads as being somewhat disjointed; I don't have to explain this often and usually my friends (who I subject to this information) don't care.

Edit: one more note, is that each stop of aperture difference is a multiplied or divided by 1.4 to get to the next stop. e.g. f/0.7, 1.0, 1.4, 2.0, 2.8, 4, 5.6, 8, 11, 16, 22 etc. This means that each time a circle's diameter increases by 1.4x, it effectively doubles in area (see next paragraph). If the APS-C sensor crop was 1.4x times, it would be much easier to calculate FF equivalent apertures, but it would also be significantly more difficult to calculate FF equivalent focal lengths. Being that people in general care more about being able to calculate focal lengths and generally find aperture to be a more confusing topic, going with a crop of 1.5x over 1.4x was a good move on manufacturer's part. For example, the Fuji 200/2 is has an effective full-frame equivalent focal length of 300mm. It has as an entrance pupil of 100mm (or thereabouts; they always round up or down slightly), which would mean that in full-frame equivalent terms it's a 300/3. A full-frame 300/2.8 will present an entrance pupil of 107mm, which is roughly a quarter stop more light (2.8*1.1=3.08, 2.8*1.2=3.36, 2.8*1.3=3.64, 2.8*1.4=3.92 AKA f/4 the math is a bit more nuanced than this, but not worth going into the details here). Olympus is the worst offender here, or at least were in years past, bragging about how their 300mm f/5.6 zooms had equivalent reach to a 600mm supertelephoto, but neglecting to mention that they're effectively an f/11 zoom (entrance pupil of 53.6mm in comparison to the 107mm entrance pupil on a 600/5.6, or 150mm entrance pupil on a 600/4).

Utilizing this calculator, I will demonstrate that multiplying a diameter by 1.4x effectively doubles the area of a circle. Remember that the smaller diameters actually represent smaller apertures/higher aperture numbers, so these results will be read in inverse of aperture values. And again, apertures are rounded up and down slightly, so these results won't be extremely precise. https://www.mathsisfun.com/geometry/circle-area.html
Diameter: 1 Area: 0.7853981634 (for example, f/4)
Diameter 1.4 Area: 1.539380400 (for example, f/2.8)
Diameter: 2 Area: 3.141592654 (for example, f/2)

Edit 2: I feel like Tony would be proud of me.

Johan Doornenbal's picture

Two addendums to my comment above: The PhotoPills DOF calculator is definitely broken. If you switch between Canon full-frame cameras and Canon crop-sensor cameras without changing anything else, the DOF values change, but it's not based on CoC as it seems to be a consistent error with a variety of different cameras I've tried.

Secondly, to provide proof for my statement that "if the pixel pitch is the same, the 50/1.0 will have a significantly deeper effective depth of field [compared to a 75/1.5 on full-frame], thanks to COC. If both the full-frame and crop bodies have the same resolution, the effect will not be as noticeable but will still exist.", please visit http://www.dofmaster.com/dofjs.html

This site allows us to select a COC, which in this case will correlate to Pixel Pitch. I'd select 1/1500th of an inch for this exercise. Actual sensor resolutions that we are dealing with today are much higher than this, (technically the COC is closer to 1/7000th per inch in the case of the Fuji XT3). Then punch in 50mm and f/1.0, and 10 feet. The total depth of field will be 0.41 feet. Now punch in 75mm and f/1.4, leaving COC and distance the same. The total DOF will be 0.25 feet. At f/1.6, the total DOF is 0.28 feet. From that we can estimate that a 75/1.5 would have a DOF of 0.265 feet. This is, however, assuming that the pixel pitch is the same between the full-frame and crop bodies. So on a full-frame and crop bodies with similar pixel pitch, although the framing and effective aperture are the same between the two lenses, there will be a relatively significant amount less DOF in the full-frame image.

Let's say that instead, both bodies have a similar resolution. For this exercise I looked up the horizontal resolution of the Fuji XT3, which is 6277 pixels across a 23.5mm sensor. A full-frame sensor is 36mm across. We will take the horizontal resolution and divide it by sensor width to determine the number of pixels per millimeter. For the Fuji, 6277/23.5=267; for the full-frame, 6377/36=174. Using the earlier COC setting of 1500 as a baseline for the fuji, we can take the Fuji's 267 pixels/mm and divide it by the full-frame 174 pixels/mm to get a result of 1.53 (1.53x is Fuji's actual crop factor). Doing some quick math, we can determine that now we can use a COC setting of 1/1000th of an inch for the full-frame camera to compare DOF results to that of our Fuji camera. To get the results for our similar-resolution full-frame camera, change the COC to 1/1000th of a inch, and leave the settings of 75mm and ten feet. At f/1.4 we get 0.38 and at f/1.6 we get 0.43, resulting in an f/1.5 DOF of 0.405. Although the difference in depth of field is mathematically neutralized at this point, the bokeh on the 75mm with the full-frame will still appear significantly larger due to magnification.

Johan Doornenbal's picture

TLDR: math is fun, I'm horrible at explaining it, go shoot.

g coll's picture

Mate, you gotta get out more!

Johan Doornenbal's picture

Quarantine, bro.

Pierre Dasnoy's picture

I don't believe anybody read more than the 10 first lines...
Also, "compression" is dependant on the field of view, whatever the focal length and the sensor size. You'll get the same with a 50mm on fuji, or with a 75mm on a FF camera.

VINICIUS YUZO ZUCARELI's picture

I not only read everything but kept noding in approval the whole time

Ryan Luna's picture

holy crap dude! that explaination is too smart for me. I'll just trust your answer of 75 F/1.5 equiv.

Dale Karnegie's picture

I'd like clarification here too

where'd you get 1.5? DOF Calculator says that it'd be equivalent to 75mm F1.4 if equality is on the basis of depth of field when matching for field of view...

Johan Doornenbal's picture

Please see my explanation on Ryan's comment above. :)

Les Sucettes's picture

Who cares. What I really need is Technical lenses - specifically shift lenses for the GFX. That would be a real breakthrough into the Architecture / Interiors / Landscape markets.

As for f1.0... if the lenses are sharp to the edges at 2.8 (3.5; 4; 4.5 is where I end up shooting 90% of all portraits) and the “bokeh” is great, no one needs anything wider than... f2 and the 56mm is already f1.2.... who cares except for reviewers and amateurs who have no self confidence and therefore just buy the latest and greatest without really having an application for it.

Dale Karnegie's picture

Fuji is making a massive mistake with this lens imo; APS-C is not going to out shallow-depth-of-field a full-frame camera. This massive beast will be dead on arrival. It's more convenient and cost-effective to pick up a used A7III and an 85mm F1.4.

I think they should focus on creating value by offering something that the full-frame brothers can't (or won't) do better. for example:

1) create zooms that other companies don't consider, like one that ranges from ultra wide-angle to short telephoto for one-lens travelers.

2) go all in on leaf-shutter lenses so that flash sync speed can be exceeded

3) offer a variety of sharp pancake lenses

etc.

Thinking outside the box is what will make fuji different -- and a worthy second system every photographer must own

Pierre Dasnoy's picture

With that way of thinking, why do f/1.2 full frame lenses when you can have a shallower depth of field on medium format ?
You can find extreme compactness in micro four thirds, and extreme zooms with the P1000.
Fuji makes good quality cameras, let them put great lenses on it.
Though I agree, the 50mm f/1 price tag won't move crowds...

Dale Karnegie's picture

I think the 56mm F1.2 (85mm F1.8 DOF equivalent) is just about creating relative feature parity with competitors. I agree with the decision to release that lens...

it's not obscenely expensive or heavy....but, it's also not lighter, less expensive, or better performing than the FF equivalent. Because its absence would be noticeable, it makes sense to produce it...

However, if they want to build their market share -- they need to offer something that the competitors can't or wont do better

Les Sucettes's picture

I wouldn’t call it a massive mistake before it’s on the market. If they’re leaking it perhaps they are achieving just what you think is impossible.

Personally I think it would be better to focus on other things like a shift lenses on the GFX side of things. The camera does an amazing job with old lenses... would be amazing to see what a Fuji Shift lens would do.

Peter Jones's picture

For me an expensive paperweight however I can understand that some studio or street photographers may relish the lens, I shall struggle on with my 56mm f/1.2.

Leon Dafonte Fernandez's picture

Fastes lens in the world? 50mm f/1.0 apsc = 75mm f/1.5 ff .. i will stack with my 56mm f/1.2

Ieuan Flowers's picture

Although you are right that it is subject to the crop factor, the lens itself would still technically be the fastest available.

Ryan Luna's picture

If i'm not mistaken 50mm F/1.0 being called the fastest refers to the amount of light it can gather, not bokeh rendition. I think...again, not sure, but a Fuji 50mm F/1.0 will allow for faster shutter speeds than a Full Frame 75mm F/1.5; hence, the "fastest" moniker.

Dale Karnegie's picture

However, full-frame cameras offer equivalent dynamic range and noise control at one stop higher ISOs; consequently, on a FF camera you can bump your ISO by one stop and achieve the same shutter speed

Ryan Luna's picture

ISO in relation to lens speed is irrelevant...I think.

Leon Dafonte Fernandez's picture

Why paying with a probably overpriced 50mm f/1.2 Lens if there is already a 56mm f/1.2 with similar optic?

Deleted Account's picture

This sounds like an impressive lens. The negative comments appear unwarranted. Fujifilm have a well developed lens line-up, so exotic lenses like these are a wonderful challenge for their engineers, and while I don't typically go for faster lenses because of size and weight, you can still appreciate this announcement.