Fuji Plastic Fantastic '50'

Fuji's new "plastic-fantastic" XC prime

Sorry about the three Fuji posts in a row—it's not all Fuji all the time here—but if the theme is "threes" it kinda fits.

Canikon have long had in their lineups "nifty fifties" or "plastic fantastic 50s"—inexpensive but competent normal lenses made mostly of plastic. I was interested to learn that Fuji will soon have a "plastic fantastic 50" of its own. You will soon have the choice of three 35mm (~50mm-e) primes at three distinct pricing tiers. There's the original XF 35mm ƒ/1.4 R that I've written about several times, for $600; the weather-sealed (that's B&H's term), snout-nosed XF 35mm ƒ/2 so-called "Fujicron" at $400; and now the new XC 35mm ƒ/2 plastic-fantastic at only $200 brand new.

The new lens supposedly has the exact same optical formulation and construction as the Fujicron, but features a mostly plastic barrel construction and lensmount, doesn't have an aperture ring, and isn't weather-resistant. On the plus side, the new lens weighs even less than the Fujicron version, at 4.6 ounces (130g) vs. 6 oz. (170g). I suspect the coatings might be more basic on the cheaper lens as well, as the Fujicron specs lists "Super EBC coating," Fuji's longtime term for its best multicoating, among its features, and the new XC lens doesn't.

Announced on January 23rd and set to ship on February 27th, it's the fourth lens in the XC series and the first prime.

Mike
(Thanks to Kevin Ford)

Original contents copyright 2020 by Michael C. Johnston and/or the bylined author. All Rights Reserved. Links in this post may be to our affiliates; sales through affiliate links may benefit this site.

Please help support The Online Photographer through Patreon

(To see all the comments, click on the "Comments" link below.)
Featured Comments from:

Arg: "For an instant there, I thought I was looking at a photo of my PanaLeica 25mm ƒ/1.4!"

Comments

[Daniel]

Fuji lenses come in Threes?
Why not next Bakers Dozen being images of Threes?

[Steve]

Don't forget they are also releasing their own beer can lens. A 50mm F1.0 that is so huge it dwarves the camera bodies. Apparently it was originally going to be a 33 F1.0 but it was even bigger. That one I'll be taking a pass on.

[Jeff1000]

Hey Mike, the photography thing. If you have compelling subject matter that absolutely needs to be photographed, all the consternation about the current state of photography falls away. Plus, having that subject, you will strive to equip yourself with tools that render the best image quality possible, like full frame, for example, instead of debating whether APS-C is good enough. Whatever is the state of photography becomes irrelevant. The subject takes front and center--everything else evaporates.

[What you say is true. --Mike]

[s.wolters]

So Huey, Dewey and Louie got a little brother!
Less pretty but not an ugly duckling either.
https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1338126-REG/fujifilm_xf_50mm_35mm_and.html/BI/2144/KBID/2882

[Zack Schindler]

Mike why not go back and go over photos in you LR or PS library and see what you have overlooked. You might be surprised with what you find. I went back today and found two gems that I had not looked at since I shot them in 2017.
https://www.flickr.com/photos/10025089@N05/49506395548/in/dateposted-public/
https://www.flickr.com/photos/10025089@N05/49506395183/in/dateposted-public/

[Trevor Johnson]

Am I the only TOP reader who doesn't use a Fuji digital system?

In mitigation, I did have a 6x7 GW70II.

But, I've been looking closely at the GFX series, as my Canon TSE lenses, with wide image circles will cover the frame, albeit with less T&S. Any recommendations, please as I am about to embark on a project of Northern England Brutalist Architecture?

[Stephen Scharf]

The XC series of Fujinon lenses are optically excellent, and they are indeed affordable. I had for a while the XC16-50 (?) that was bundled with the first gen Fuji XA-1 (which was a great little camera, BTW. Excellent image quality).

The issue I had with this lens was not its optical performance, which was very good, it was its durability. It uses a plastic (my guess is polycarbonate) lens mount which is not very strong or robust. My XA-1 with the XC16-50 mounted rolled off the lower portion of my zero gravity chair's footrest just a few inches onto a carpet, and the lens mount factured right at the point where the barrel of the mount meets the flange; it split right there. This meant that the lens could not communicate with the camera and the camera could not see the lens was mounted. Had to send it back to Fujfilm to be repaired.

So, yes, these lenses are great optically but not as robust or durable as a standard XF Fujinon lens with a metal lens mount.

Just so ya know...

[Moose]

"—it's not all Fuji all the time here—"

Even though it sometimes seems to be so?

[Sorry! (Rueful grin.) --Mike]

[hugh crawford]

Re Jeff1000’s comment:
I think I have at least a half dozen cameras sitting around that aren’t worth the bother of selling that could produce professionally acceptable results.
One of them cost $7000 new and my fourth best iPhone from two years ago makes better photos in most situations. After all, no one complains about how 15 year old photos are too low quality to look at. My 1996 digital photos are pretty awful, but if you have a compelling story to tell, any camera from the last ten years should be fine.