1. scottduffy

    scottduffy

    Messages:
    3,706
    Name:
    Scott
    Edit My Images:
    Yes
    I've never used the grip but even using my xt2 and 50-140 I don't feel I need it. I just hold the lens. Did rotate the tripod collar though to get it out my way.
     
    rick448 likes this.
  2. ianmarsh

    ianmarsh

    Messages:
    4,836
    Edit My Images:
    Yes
    Low tide on the Thames this afternoon:

    [​IMG]IY by Ian, on Flickr
     
    AdamNZ, Phiggys, niko and 9 others like this.
  3. macvisual

    macvisual

    Messages:
    5,198
    Name:
    Peter
    Edit My Images:
    No
    wOOw Ian, superb composition/content. Which lens was used?

    Regards;
    Peter
     
    jamiewednesday and ianmarsh like this.
  4. ianmarsh

    ianmarsh

    Messages:
    4,836
    Edit My Images:
    Yes
    That was the 14mm Peter. I knew the tide was going to be low and I thought I'd be shooting from the other bank. But we went down for a mooch and this view of the Shard leapt out at me. Shame the light wasn't nicer but I know what to look for next time.
     
  5. Rosedalelad

    Rosedalelad

    Messages:
    1,174
    Name:
    Andrew
    Edit My Images:
    Yes
    Phiggys, the black fox and ianmarsh like this.
  6. Raymond Lin

    Raymond Lin

    Messages:
    5,589
    Name:
    Raymond
    Edit My Images:
    No
  7. Ian W

    Ian W

    Messages:
    3,092
    Name:
    Ian
    Edit My Images:
    Yes
    OMG I'm so hungry now
     
  8. addicknchips

    addicknchips

    Messages:
    5,789
    Name:
    Jonathan
    Edit My Images:
    Yes
    Food porn
     
  9. Raymond Lin

    Raymond Lin

    Messages:
    5,589
    Name:
    Raymond
    Edit My Images:
    No
    Clean off the bone.

    [​IMG]

    [​IMG]

    [​IMG]
     
    Phiggys, scottduffy and dave.hallett like this.
  10. Harlequin565

    Harlequin565

    Messages:
    2,761
    Name:
    Ian
    Edit My Images:
    No
    So, Fuji owners...

    I've had a 55-200 & the 56 for a while and the 55-200 has hardly been used because I don't do long range stuff. However, recently I've been turning to it for portraits and removing the 56 because it feels like all the 56 will do is head & shoulders. Try and get any closer and it won't focus. Sometimes I like to get in really close which the 55-200 allows me to do (stay back & zoom). However sometimes it won't focus (too close) and most of the time it's slow to focus.

    Had a bit of a windfall and I'm thinking of picking up the 50-140 (I'll chop in the 55-200 at least). Question is - do I get rid of the 56 too? All I use it for is portraits and I rarely go below f2.8 as most of my portraits are window/flash lit. I find the 16, 23 & 35 much more suitable for walkabout & general use.

    Anyone else stopped using the 56 and switched to something else for portraits? I did think about the 90, but I would lose some flexibility indoors.
     
  11. Ian W

    Ian W

    Messages:
    3,092
    Name:
    Ian
    Edit My Images:
    Yes
    If I were you, I'd certainly chop in both the 56mm and 55-200mm for the 50-140mm (provided you don't mind the extra bulk that is!).
     
    Harlequin565 likes this.
  12. Harlequin565

    Harlequin565

    Messages:
    2,761
    Name:
    Ian
    Edit My Images:
    No
    It'll be a car-to-bar lens :) Gave up pretending I went Fuji for weight many years ago.It's a bit like dieting. When I got down to where I wanted, I just piled it all on again :)
     
  13. jamiewednesday

    jamiewednesday

    Messages:
    994
    Edit My Images:
    No
  14. Ian W

    Ian W

    Messages:
    3,092
    Name:
    Ian
    Edit My Images:
    Yes
    Haha I gotcha. After a year wi th the X-T10, I now have an X-T2 which I refuse to use without the grip
     
  15. Raymond Lin

    Raymond Lin

    Messages:
    5,589
    Name:
    Raymond
    Edit My Images:
    No
  16. Raymond Lin

    Raymond Lin

    Messages:
    5,589
    Name:
    Raymond
    Edit My Images:
    No

    What do you mean by closer? Like you want to shoot up their nostrils?

    Or

    Do you want by closer like macro work?
     
  17. jamiewednesday

    jamiewednesday

    Messages:
    994
    Edit My Images:
    No
  18. jj_glos

    jj_glos

    Messages:
    1,477
    Name:
    Julian
    Edit My Images:
    Yes
    Is that a nice smoke ring, or result of marinating? Looks yummy!
     
  19. jj_glos

    jj_glos

    Messages:
    1,477
    Name:
    Julian
    Edit My Images:
    Yes
    No! The 56mm is a lovely lens that just does what it does, if you can ,keep it alongside the 50-140, I did and have zero regrets :)

    Although, if you never shoot it below f2.8 then I guess you might not need it. I can't remember if I have ever used mine other than wide open! :D
     
    Last edited: Jun 9, 2018
    Harlequin565 likes this.
  20. Raymond Lin

    Raymond Lin

    Messages:
    5,589
    Name:
    Raymond
    Edit My Images:
    No
    Marinade.
     
  21. Harlequin565

    Harlequin565

    Messages:
    2,761
    Name:
    Ian
    Edit My Images:
    No
    Like half-face maybe? My wife does make-up and likes to illustrate the eye. It's not macro level, but it's closer than the 56 can focus.
     
    Phiggys likes this.
  22. Jelster

    Jelster

    Messages:
    4,978
    Name:
    Steve
    Edit My Images:
    Yes
    One of the best lenses I've ever used, simply as... I really, really need to move on my 80mm so I can get my hands on one. I've never used the 56, but that 50-140 is what I would use for portraits.
     
    Harlequin565 likes this.
  23. Paulie-W

    Paulie-W

    Messages:
    5,090
    Name:
    Paul
    Edit My Images:
    Yes
    Hiya Fuji peeps :wave:
    I have today (after having a lengthy play with an X-T2) decided to bite the bullet and shift from Nikon :) Looking forward to getting my new toys, and giving my back a bit of a rest.
     
    DroidSkin, Phiggys, G.K.Jnr. and 3 others like this.
  24. Nod

    Nod Kronus

    Messages:
    30,146
    Name:
    Nod (NOT Ethel!!!)
    Edit My Images:
    No

    Off on holiday next week but could be interested in the 80mm on our return (end of the month.)
     
  25. Dave70D

    Dave70D

    Messages:
    6,837
    Name:
    FujiDaveXX
    Edit My Images:
    Yes
    After a very stressful day it was nice to get on the beach, X-T20 + XF 35mm f2


    Bass Man.jpg

    DSCF2871.jpg
     
    Phiggys, d00d, trevorbray and 2 others like this.
  26. Harlequin565

    Harlequin565

    Messages:
    2,761
    Name:
    Ian
    Edit My Images:
    No
    Welcome.

    "Brief respite" rather than rest I suspect.
     
  27. dave.hallett

    dave.hallett

    Messages:
    1,105
    Name:
    Dave
    Edit My Images:
    Yes
    Bit more Harris. I reckoned the mists in the distance suited a mystic subject, so I headed out to the McLeod Stone - and then got photobombed by a gang of cows! Not complaining though :)

    [​IMG]
    Summoning
    by David Hallett, on Flickr
     
    Phiggys, macvisual, Stephen L and 2 others like this.
  28. Paulie-W

    Paulie-W

    Messages:
    5,090
    Name:
    Paul
    Edit My Images:
    Yes
    Thanks Ian
    Haha yeah you`re probably right there ;)
     
  29. rick448

    rick448

    Messages:
    927
    Name:
    Rick
    Edit My Images:
    No
    Well it's got the better of me, ordered! :D
     
  30. scottduffy

    scottduffy

    Messages:
    3,706
    Name:
    Scott
    Edit My Images:
    Yes
    I'm in mourning for my 56 still. Can't believe I've parted with it. I have bought the 50-140 but have only used it once so can't say whether it compares as it was only snaps of my son in the park. I am however quite sure that I'll go back to my primes when I return from my holiday. I absolutely love the 56. It's easily my most used lens.
     
    Phiggys likes this.
  31. Mr Perceptive

    Mr Perceptive

    Messages:
    3,753
    Name:
    David
    Edit My Images:
    Yes
    Ian, if you want the flexibility then the 50-140 is a good shout, added to the fact that the TCs will work with it, you can get your telephoto range back if required.

    I don't do many portraits, and I had the 56, (at the time I had 14/23/35/56/90 and a bunch of other stuff), I much prefer the 90, for me its quite a special lens with beautiful rendering and very snappy AF (the 56 AF was always a little pedestrian in comparison). I love the 90 and find it a surprisingly versatile lens (and that's coming from someone who is predominately a wide shooter, I'm actually now down to 12/16/23,18-55/90 and happy with my selection)

    Disadvantages of 50-140 are weight (at nearly 1kg its no lightweight) and the min focusing distance of 1m (the 90 is 0.6m and the 56 0.7m)

    You'll welcome to pop over and try out the 90mm if you want, just PM me
     
    AdamNZ and Harlequin565 like this.
  32. scottduffy

    scottduffy

    Messages:
    3,706
    Name:
    Scott
    Edit My Images:
    Yes
    The 90 is indeed a cracker of a lens. Until recently I had the 16,56 and 90 and all three were amazing. I just used the 90 least. It's a stunner though.
     
  33. Rosedalelad

    Rosedalelad

    Messages:
    1,174
    Name:
    Andrew
    Edit My Images:
    Yes
  34. G.K.Jnr.

    G.K.Jnr.

    Messages:
    11,918
    Name:
    George.
    Edit My Images:
    No

    "Congrat's" Sir, that's a positive result in my book. Looking forward to seeing some of your work with the new gear. "ENJOY". (y)

    George.
     
    Paulie-W likes this.
  35. Paulie-W

    Paulie-W

    Messages:
    5,090
    Name:
    Paul
    Edit My Images:
    Yes
    Thanks George (y)
     
    G.K.Jnr. likes this.
  36. Jelster

    Jelster

    Messages:
    4,978
    Name:
    Steve
    Edit My Images:
    Yes
    Bugger, bugger, bugger.... Got home and I can't find the lens hood to my 10-24...... That means I will have to go to the Fuji store and order one.... "Must keep the GAS under control."
     
    Phiggys and trevorbray like this.
  37. macvisual

    macvisual

    Messages:
    5,198
    Name:
    Peter
    Edit My Images:
    No
    Out for a three mile walk today with our loyal collie dog, I so love the combo of the XT1 with the XF55-200mm lens attached shot wide open at the 200mm end...!

    Happiness





    [​IMG]Happiness by APM Photography, on Flickr

    iso 400 - captured @ f/4.8
     
    Earley Man, Steve2, nog and 7 others like this.
  38. Harlequin565

    Harlequin565

    Messages:
    2,761
    Name:
    Ian
    Edit My Images:
    No
    Thanks David. I may just take you up on that! Although I've just been browsing through the stuff I've done for my wife for Instagram and the majority of the "head & shoulders" stuff is either with the 56, or the 55-200 in the 55-70 range. I think I've got 2 around 90. The close up stuff is all 140-200. I may just keep everything and put up with the 'pedestrian' (heh) AF on the 56 and the 'plodding' AF on the 55-200

    Thanks again for the offer though. Very kind.
     
    Mr Perceptive likes this.
  39. NickTB

    NickTB

    Messages:
    2,205
    Name:
    Nick
    Edit My Images:
    Yes
    Shot a 40th birthday on Saturday. I was asked to provide details as well as candids. I found this bench hidden away at the back of their garden

    [​IMG]DSCF7932 by Nick Brennan, on Flickr

    And this at the front of their garden...

    [​IMG]DSCF8049 by Nick Brennan, on Flickr
     
  40. Phiggys

    Phiggys

    Messages:
    2,629
    Name:
    Phil aka Phiggys
    Edit My Images:
    No
    Have you tried using a extension tube with the 56mm it will certainly get you closer and the same with the XF 55-200mm .
    Third party tubes are cheap enough on eBay :)
     

Share This Page

  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
    Dismiss Notice