The Fabulous Fuji X owners thread

Sootchucker said:
HI all, just purchased a mint X-T2 with 18-55 F2.8-4 and Grip from Greenninja67 (thanks a lot Terry) in these very classifieds. It's my second time with the X-T2, with me having purchased one last year but then sending it back for refund shortly afterwards, as I had buyers remorse (or is that guilt) as I had way too much equipment as it was. However I since lightened my equipment considerably (mainly getting rid of all my Nikon FF gear - D810, D750 and about 6 lenses). So I thought i'd give it another go alongside my Olympus M43 gear.

Having persevered for a few days with the X-T2's idiosyncrasies (especially after being a Nikon user for 35 or more years), I'm starting to really warm to it, and am liking what I'm seeing come off my printer. I don't plan on building a huge system around it (famous last words), but have already found that just having one lens (the 18-55), severely limits my options. I'm therefore looking for some advice. My thinking for vacations and general shooting, is getting focal lengths at least around the 15-200mm range (in 35mm terms) or thereabouts. I'm therefore considering one of two lens line-ups and would appreciate peoples comments who have them. Note I'm not a massive prime sort of guy (although I might add a 35 or 50mm equivalent in the future), so am just for the time being considering these zoom packages.

Option 1
Keep the 18-55 F2.8-4 and add the Fujifilm 55-200mm f3.5-4.8 R LM OIS and the Fujifilm 10-24mm f4 R OIS XF - this would give me a 15-300mm equivalent.

Option 2
Sell the 18-55 F2.8-4 and instead, purchase the Fujifilm 18-135mm f3.5-5.6 WR LM R OIS, and compliment it with the Fujifilm 10-24mm f4 R OIS XF - this would give me a 15-205mm equivalent.

Anyone have any thoughts on the above please ?
Click to expand...

Both options you suggest would be very good, the 10-24 is a great lens and I've never used it but the 18-135 is many peoples all rounder, I'd personally go for number 1, as you get that extra bit of length with the 55-200.
 
Sootchucker said:
HI all, just purchased a mint X-T2 with 18-55 F2.8-4 and Grip from Greenninja67 (thanks a lot Terry) in these very classifieds. It's my second time with the X-T2, with me having purchased one last year but then sending it back for refund shortly afterwards, as I had buyers remorse (or is that guilt) as I had way too much equipment as it was. However I since lightened my equipment considerably (mainly getting rid of all my Nikon FF gear - D810, D750 and about 6 lenses). So I thought i'd give it another go alongside my Olympus M43 gear.

Having persevered for a few days with the X-T2's idiosyncrasies (especially after being a Nikon user for 35 or more years), I'm starting to really warm to it, and am liking what I'm seeing come off my printer. I don't plan on building a huge system around it (famous last words), but have already found that just having one lens (the 18-55), severely limits my options. I'm therefore looking for some advice. My thinking for vacations and general shooting, is getting focal lengths at least around the 15-200mm range (in 35mm terms) or thereabouts. I'm therefore considering one of two lens line-ups and would appreciate peoples comments who have them. Note I'm not a massive prime sort of guy (although I might add a 35 or 50mm equivalent in the future), so am just for the time being considering these zoom packages.

Option 1
Keep the 18-55 F2.8-4 and add the Fujifilm 55-200mm f3.5-4.8 R LM OIS and the Fujifilm 10-24mm f4 R OIS XF - this would give me a 15-300mm equivalent.

Option 2
Sell the 18-55 F2.8-4 and instead, purchase the Fujifilm 18-135mm f3.5-5.6 WR LM R OIS, and compliment it with the Fujifilm 10-24mm f4 R OIS XF - this would give me a 15-205mm equivalent in a simpler two lens package (albeit the 18-135 would be a slower aperture lens).

Anyone have any thoughts on the above please ?
Click to expand...
I would go with option one purely from a image quality point of view, the Fujinon 18-135mm is a great lens but doubt its optically better than the 18-55mm and 55-200mm lenses.
Welcome back to the Fuji clan..... I am already looking towards my next GAS fueled Fuji shopping spree! :D lol
 
Last edited:
Sootchucker said:
HI all, just purchased a mint X-T2 with 18-55 F2.8-4 and Grip from Greenninja67 (thanks a lot Terry) in these very classifieds. It's my second time with the X-T2, with me having purchased one last year but then sending it back for refund shortly afterwards, as I had buyers remorse (or is that guilt) as I had way too much equipment as it was. However I since lightened my equipment considerably (mainly getting rid of all my Nikon FF gear - D810, D750 and about 6 lenses). So I thought i'd give it another go alongside my Olympus M43 gear.

Having persevered for a few days with the X-T2's idiosyncrasies (especially after being a Nikon user for 35 or more years), I'm starting to really warm to it, and am liking what I'm seeing come off my printer. I don't plan on building a huge system around it (famous last words), but have already found that just having one lens (the 18-55), severely limits my options. I'm therefore looking for some advice. My thinking for vacations and general shooting, is getting focal lengths at least around the 15-200mm range (in 35mm terms) or thereabouts. I'm therefore considering one of two lens line-ups and would appreciate peoples comments who have them. Note I'm not a massive prime sort of guy (although I might add a 35 or 50mm equivalent in the future), so am just for the time being considering these zoom packages.

Option 1
Keep the 18-55 F2.8-4 and add the Fujifilm 55-200mm f3.5-4.8 R LM OIS and the Fujifilm 10-24mm f4 R OIS XF - this would give me a 15-300mm equivalent.

Option 2
Sell the 18-55 F2.8-4 and instead, purchase the Fujifilm 18-135mm f3.5-5.6 WR LM R OIS, and compliment it with the Fujifilm 10-24mm f4 R OIS XF - this would give me a 15-205mm equivalent in a simpler two lens package (albeit the 18-135 would be a slower aperture lens).

Anyone have any thoughts on the above please ?
Click to expand...
I too would go option 1. The 18-135 is an excellent lens IQ-wise - I own one - and it's slightly lighter than the 55-200, but the latter lens has the longer reach, is slightly faster, and somehow handles nicer.
 
Sootchucker said:
HI all, just purchased a mint X-T2 with 18-55 F2.8-4 and Grip from Greenninja67 (thanks a lot Terry) in these very classifieds. It's my second time with the X-T2, with me having purchased one last year but then sending it back for refund shortly afterwards, as I had buyers remorse (or is that guilt) as I had way too much equipment as it was. However I since lightened my equipment considerably (mainly getting rid of all my Nikon FF gear - D810, D750 and about 6 lenses). So I thought i'd give it another go alongside my Olympus M43 gear.
Click to expand...

I did what you did not long ago, sold all my Nikon FF gear like D3, 70-200, 24-70, 85 1.4 etc etc. I already had a XT1 at that time but only got the 18mm f2 and 35mm f2. Decided to lighten up the gear and go all Fuji and I really like what I see coming out the camera. I enjoy shooting again rather then hating to take heavy equipment out. I miss lots of shots in the past because I don't want to take heavy stuff out. Now I'm really enjoying it again. With all the cash I got from my Nikon system, I've added the 56mm f1.2 and 55-200 OIS to my list and keep the rest of cash in my bank. I purposely didn't buy any mid zoom or even mega big zoom like 50-140 or 100-400 because I want to focus on prime lens.
 
Last edited:
Sootchucker said:
HI all, just purchased a mint X-T2 with 18-55 F2.8-4 and Grip from Greenninja67 (thanks a lot Terry) in these very classifieds. It's my second time with the X-T2, with me having purchased one last year but then sending it back for refund shortly afterwards, as I had buyers remorse (or is that guilt) as I had way too much equipment as it was. However I since lightened my equipment considerably (mainly getting rid of all my Nikon FF gear - D810, D750 and about 6 lenses). So I thought i'd give it another go alongside my Olympus M43 gear.

Having persevered for a few days with the X-T2's idiosyncrasies (especially after being a Nikon user for 35 or more years), I'm starting to really warm to it, and am liking what I'm seeing come off my printer. I don't plan on building a huge system around it (famous last words), but have already found that just having one lens (the 18-55), severely limits my options. I'm therefore looking for some advice. My thinking for vacations and general shooting, is getting focal lengths at least around the 15-200mm range (in 35mm terms) or thereabouts. I'm therefore considering one of two lens line-ups and would appreciate peoples comments who have them. Note I'm not a massive prime sort of guy (although I might add a 35 or 50mm equivalent in the future), so am just for the time being considering these zoom packages.

Option 1
Keep the 18-55 F2.8-4 and add the Fujifilm 55-200mm f3.5-4.8 R LM OIS and the Fujifilm 10-24mm f4 R OIS XF - this would give me a 15-300mm equivalent.

Option 2
Sell the 18-55 F2.8-4 and instead, purchase the Fujifilm 18-135mm f3.5-5.6 WR LM R OIS, and compliment it with the Fujifilm 10-24mm f4 R OIS XF - this would give me a 15-205mm equivalent in a simpler two lens package (albeit the 18-135 would be a slower aperture lens).

Anyone have any thoughts on the above please ?
Click to expand...
I'd keep the 18-55, it's a great kit lens.
 
In IQ terms the 18-55 edges the 18-135, it's also a lot smaller, Is go for the 55-200 or if you wanted a lightweight option for occasional use consider the 50-230, build quality not as good as 55-200 though.

IMO the only benefits of the 18-135 are:-
WR
Better OIS
Or you want a zoom that works well with IR
 
The 55-200 is wonderful lens to use and handle. I admit I dismiss this lens when I bought a XT1. The name "55-200" reminds me of those cheap telephone lens that nikon/canon/sigma/tamron makes. I finally bought one last week and I was amaze with the lens build quality and optic quality. The lens is metal instead of plastic so it feels high quality and everything handle nicely. The optic from 55mm to 200mm is superb, the OIS is also very useful as well.
 
Terrywoodenpic said:
It is interesting how the balance has changed. Canon and Nikon use to dominate these events, now they are distinctly on the wane.... CSC''s of various sorts and sizes have come to dominate new developments and the prize lists.
Click to expand...

I think the key to success is "light weight", "compact" , "build quality" and "image quality". Fuji does everything what most consumer want so it is a no brainer to switch. I don't think I will shoot with DSLR again to behonest.
 
badboy1984 said:
I think the key to success is "light weight", "compact" , "build quality" and "image quality". Fuji does everything what most consumer want so it is a no brainer to switch. I don't think I will shoot with DSLR again to behonest.
Click to expand...
I agree, I don't think I could every go back to a DSLR. :D
 
Canon and Nikon have become synonymous. with the DSLR.
They certainly are maintaining a large share of the Total photographic market.
But that is not surprising, considering their track record, good will, and the effect of continuous marketing awareness and media exposure.
However....
They are way behind the curve on CSC awareness.

The switch in the public mind will be almost as swift as that seen when Digital became a reality.
I do not know what the tipping point will be. But I expect the financial aspect to be quite dramatic in its consequences.
The bottom will suddenly drop out of the Amateur DSLR market, Prices will tumble and there will be some very nice bargains around for a while.
The question might well arise, as to the ability of Nikon and Canon to both survive on the Professional specialist market for high end DSLR's.

I do not understand why both have underestimated CSC technology. Perhaps they did not want to compete with their own leading products as the new technology developed,
but it has left them in a very vulnerable position.
 
I went back to dslr from Fuji. I see others processing their Fuji raws nicely but I couldn't do it. Also I don't like the painterly artifacts I sometimes got in foliage and waxy skin on people. I've checked the raws and I see the artifacts in them so it's not just jpegs.

My camera bag is now bloody heavy again.

A shame as I love most of what the xt2 can do and there's no denying the lenses are top notch
 
GreenNinja67 said:
I went back to dslr from Fuji. I see others processing their Fuji raws nicely but I couldn't do it. Also I don't like the painterly artifacts I sometimes got in foliage and waxy skin on people. I've checked the raws and I see the artifacts in them so it's not just jpegs.

My camera bag is now bloody heavy again.

A shame as I love most of what the xt2 can do and there's no denying the lenses are top notch
Click to expand...
Did you finish up with Chris 's gear?
 
Terrywoodenpic said:
Canon and Nikon have become synonymous. with the DSLR.
They certainly are maintaining a large share of the Total photographic market.
But that is not surprising, considering their track record, good will, and the effect of continuous marketing awareness and media exposure.
However....
They are way behind the curve on CSC awareness.

The switch in the public mind will be almost as swift as that seen when Digital became a reality.
I do not know what the tipping point will be. But I expect the financial aspect to be quite dramatic in its consequences.
The bottom will suddenly drop out of the Amateur DSLR market, Prices will tumble and there will be some very nice bargains around for a while.
The question might well arise, as to the ability of Nikon and Canon to both survive on the Professional specialist market for high end DSLR's.

I do not understand why both have underestimated CSC technology. Perhaps they did not want to compete with their own leading products as the new technology developed,
but it has left them in a very vulnerable position.
Click to expand...

I think the difference with Canon and Nikon is that as you say they're still making a fair amount off the low-mid level DSLR's and aren't willing to cannibalise those sales yet and for the most part I don't think CSC's are as of yet quite on a level to fully replace a top end DSLR (depends what your using it for).

Additionally Canon and Nikon have the financial resources that they could launch a mirrorless system and knock it out of the park on the first attempt, they will eventually throw money and resource at it and I fully expect that some concepts are at advanced stages in their design workshops.

Currently as well aside from perhaps the new Sony A9 there isn't anything out there which is going directly for their high end 5D, 1D, D810 and D5 bodies which makes it easy for them to stay out of the way so far.

GreenNinja67 said:
I went back to dslr from Fuji. I see others processing their Fuji raws nicely but I couldn't do it. Also I don't like the painterly artifacts I sometimes got in foliage and waxy skin on people. I've checked the raws and I see the artifacts in them so it's not just jpegs.

My camera bag is now bloody heavy again.

A shame as I love most of what the xt2 can do and there's no denying the lenses are top notch
Click to expand...

Echo's my thoughts, really loved using the XT2 and X-Pro 2 but struggle with the RAW files from time to time.
 
mickledore said:
Did you finish up with Chris 's gear?
Click to expand...


I did Frank,

and very happy I am too.

Need to see if I can deal with the lack of DR on the 5DMK2 but if not I'll go for the MK3 at some stage.

The 70-200 F2.8 L was delivered from him today as well.

What a sharp lens that is and looks as though it's come straight out of the factory. Date code says 2005!!!

Amazing.
 
GreenNinja67 said:
I did Frank,

and very happy I am too.

Need to see if I can deal with the lack of DR on the 5DMK2 but if not I'll go for the MK3 at some stage.

The 70-200 F2.8 L was delivered from him today as well.

What a sharp lens that is and looks as though it's come straight out of the factory. Date code says 2005!!!

Amazing.
Click to expand...
Told you he had OCD with his gear!!!
 
Mk1 isn't it? Prices are pretty reasonable for those these days, and didn't he say there was a slight fault with a screw head broken off? If I see him tomorrow I'll bend his ear for you!!!
 
Gadget-Guy said:
Re editing stuff taken on the X-T1 with the 10-24mm from a set of three images blended together,really looking forward to the fact i can now get a wider range of shots now i can bracket more than three exposures when im on holiday later in the year.

i-BhD7RNs-X2.jpg
Click to expand...


"Excellent" work Sir, nothing more to be said.(y)

George.
 
chrism_scotland said:
I think the difference with Canon and Nikon is that as you say they're still making a fair amount off the low-mid level DSLR's and aren't willing to cannibalise those sales yet and for the most part I don't think CSC's are as of yet quite on a level to fully replace a top end DSLR (depends what your using it for).

Additionally Canon and Nikon have the financial resources that they could launch a mirrorless system and knock it out of the park on the first attempt, they will eventually throw money and resource at it and I fully expect that some concepts are at advanced stages in their design workshops.

Currently as well aside from perhaps the new Sony A9 there isn't anything out there which is going directly for their high end 5D, 1D, D810 and D5 bodies which makes it easy for them to stay out of the way so far.
Click to expand...

Canon and Nikon definitely have the financial power to launch a new camera to compete. If they launch a new CSC camera with new range of lens, you might as well consider another system like Fuji. They can always make a new CSC size camera with full frame sensor but you still have to mount the massive heavy lens? To me it is kind of defeat the purpose.
 
badboy1984 said:
Canon and Nikon definitely have the financial power to launch a new camera to compete. If they launch a new CSC camera with new range of lens, you might as well consider another system like Fuji. They can always make a new CSC size camera with full frame sensor but you still have to mount the massive heavy lens? To me it is kind of defeat the purpose.
Click to expand...
You're correct, the only real weight/size advantages on the Sony FE system are in the bodies, most of, if not all of the professional FE lenses are just as big as the DSLR variants.
Until somebody makes a ground breaking step forwards in how photographs are taken (new lens / sensor tech) the DSLR manufacturers will probably only build bodies similar in size as the Sony A9, the lenses will remain big, heavy and expensive for full-frame.
 
badboy1984 said:
Canon and Nikon definitely have the financial power to launch a new camera to compete. If they launch a new CSC camera with new range of lens, you might as well consider another system like Fuji. They can always make a new CSC size camera with full frame sensor but you still have to mount the massive heavy lens? To me it is kind of defeat the purpose.
Click to expand...

The advantage that Canon and Nikon have (and I'm talking Full Frame v Sony here) is that millions of existing users already have EF and D/G lenses which they use on their DSLR's, given that broadly fast zoom lenses on the Sony E mount are very similar size wise to the existing Canon and Nikon lenses theres millions of people there who could make a cheaper move across to mirrorless using their existing glass.
 
chrism_scotland said:
The advantage that Canon and Nikon have (and I'm talking Full Frame v Sony here) is that millions of existing users already have EF and D/G lenses which they use on their DSLR's, given that broadly fast zoom lenses on the Sony E mount are very similar size wise to the existing Canon and Nikon lenses theres millions of people there who could make a cheaper move across to mirrorless using their existing glass.
Click to expand...
Yes but will the Nikon/Canon lenses work like the Native FE lenses? For example on the new Sony A9 I believe that you only get the full 20fps functions via native Sony lenses? What about AF performance?
If I was Sony, I would leave the ability to use Nikon/Canon lenses on their bodies as they are, in that they work good but not as good as native Sony lenses, after all Sony need to money from the FE system and selling their own lenses is a must.
 
chrism_scotland said:
The advantage that Canon and Nikon have (and I'm talking Full Frame v Sony here) is that millions of existing users already have EF and D/G lenses which they use on their DSLR's, given that broadly fast zoom lenses on the Sony E mount are very similar size wise to the existing Canon and Nikon lenses theres millions of people there who could make a cheaper move across to mirrorless using their existing glass.
Click to expand...

Yes, I can see your point and I fully agree with that. In my opinion if I want to go for smaller size and weight body, I would like to user lighter and smaller lens too. Mounting a big 70-200 f2.8 or 300mm prime on a smaller body is crazy. I might as well not change the body to balance thing.
 
Well 10-24 and 55-200 lenses purchased, based upon this forum's advice (hope you lot weren't pulling my leg :D)

That will do me for now - 15-300mm FL covered. Maybe in the months to come prime in the 35 or 50mm range but that will be it.
 
Fuguru said:
Yes but will the Nikon/Canon lenses work like the Native FE lenses? For example on the new Sony A9 I believe that you only get the full 20fps functions via native Sony lenses? What about AF performance?
If I was Sony, I would leave the ability to use Nikon/Canon lenses on their bodies as they are, in that they work good but not as good as native Sony lenses, after all Sony need to money from the FE system and selling their own lenses is a must.
Click to expand...

Sorry what I meant was that a Nikon or Canon Full-Frame CSC would already have access to a huge number of DSLR lenses which are already out there meaning that Canon/Nikon wouldn't have to start from scratch with a lens lineup like Fuji, Olympus and Sony have had to do, I'd assume they would work as natively as they do on any DSLR.

Fair enough it would mean the primes might be a bit big (Although the Nikon G line are a nice size) but the zooms are similar size to the Sony ones and particularly Canon have a good line of F4 zooms that would be great on a CSC (16-35, 24-70)
 
Sootchucker said:
Well 10-24 and 55-200 lenses purchased, based upon this forum's advice (hope you lot weren't pulling my leg :D)

That will do me for now - 15-300mm FL covered. Maybe in the months to come prime in the 35 or 50mm range but that will be it.
Click to expand...
You'll be delighted at that I'm certain. I currently have the 10-24mm, 18-55mm and the 35mm 1.4. Like yourself, my only addition to come will likely be the 55-200mm and that'll be me (honest guv!).
 
badboy1984 said:
Yes, I can see your point and I fully agree with that. In my opinion if I want to go for smaller size and weight body, I would like to user lighter and smaller lens too. Mounting a big 70-200 f2.8 or 300mm prime on a smaller body is crazy. I might as well not change the body to balance thing.
Click to expand...
And this is the advantage of going down from FF to APS-C or M4/3, but as the expense of IQ etc.
Until somebody develops a new sensor which can be 1" in size yet deliver FF results we are stuck with big lenses for higher IQ.
The technology is possible, just needs somebody to do it.
 
chrism_scotland said:
Sorry what I meant was that a Nikon or Canon Full-Frame CSC would already have access to a huge number of DSLR lenses which are already out there meaning that Canon/Nikon wouldn't have to start from scratch with a lens lineup like Fuji, Olympus and Sony have had to do, I'd assume they would work as natively as they do on any DSLR.

Fair enough it would mean the primes might be a bit big (Although the Nikon G line are a nice size) but the zooms are similar size to the Sony ones and particularly Canon have a good line of F4 zooms that would be great on a CSC (16-35, 24-70)
Click to expand...
Or Canon/Nikon keep their mirrorless bodies at a similar size to their DSLR's, remove the mirror systems and bingo...... MDSLR :D lol
the Sony FE bodies are creeping up in size slowly.... won't be long before professionals want ergonomic bodies shaped like the old DSLR's.
 
I also think that Canon and Nikon are miles behind the curve on CSC's and would be very surprised if both companies didn't have something in late stages of R&D (as Chris said). Problem for me would be (I can only speak about Nikon), is the lack of focus in recent years for APC-C pro lenses. For instance, I think the last dedicated F2.8 DX zoom lens was the 17-55 F2.8 which was well over a decade ago. I think for these companies to hit the ground running, they need to have the bread and butter F2.8 DX lenses i.e. UWA, Standard and Telephoto zoom lenses available (say 15-24, 24-70 & 70-200 equivalent) to lever the most out of the more compact APS-C format, Using full frame lenses on an APS-C body doesn't really make sense unless the body is designed as FF like the new Sony ?
 
Last edited:
Sootchucker said:
I also think that Canon and Nikon are miles behind the curve on CSC's and would be very surprised if both companies didn't have something in late stages of R&D (as Chris said). Problem for me would be (I can only speak about Nikon), is the lack of focus in recent years for APC-C pro lenses. For instance, I think the last dedicated F2.8 DX zoom lens was the 17-55 F2.8 which was well over a decade ago. I think for these companies to hit the ground running, they need to have the bread and butter F2.8 DX lenses i.e. UWA, Standard and Telephoto zoom lenses available (say 15-24, 24-70 & 70-200 equivalent) to lever the most out of the more compact APS-C format, Using full frame lenses on an APS-C body doesn't really make sense unless the body is designed as FF like the new Sony ?
Click to expand...
Correct, this is why I didn't really give the Sony Axxxx much consideration when I decided to leave the A7RII, yes I could have kept the 55 1.8 and 35mm 2.8 lenses due to their surprisingly small size, but what does Sony have in the APS-C line-up? the Sony 16-70mm interested me but that's about it.
Fuji as done well with their APS-C system... can't complain really.....
Once they bring out their Pro XT body and Prime Zoom lenses, more professionals may adopt instead of FF due to the weight, cost and size gains.
 
Fuguru said:
Correct, this is why I didn't really give the Sony Axxxx much consideration when I decided to leave the A7RII, yes I could have kept the 55 1.8 and 35mm 2.8 lenses due to their surprisingly small size, but what does Sony have in the APS-C line-up? the Sony 16-70mm interested me but that's about it.
Fuji as done well with their APS-C system... can't complain really.....
Once they bring out their Pro XT body and Prime Zoom lenses, more professionals may adopt instead of FF due to the weight, cost and size gains.
Click to expand...

I still don't get why fuji are developing a pro apsc line. Surely it will just devalue the x-t line. And it'll still be behind full frame in terms of shallow dof and ISO performance and "That full frame look" that some can see.

IMO they should go full frame mirrorless. Go after Sony. They'll smash them out the water in terms or ergonomics, style and consistent fm updates. Then they would have apsc, ff and medium format. Domination!! Lol
 
Last edited:
I fancy having a play with legacy lenses, so quick question, do all lenses designated M42 work with the correct adapter on XT1.
 
mickledore said:
I've used both M42 and Nikon fit lenses on my X-T1. Just used cheapo E-bay adaptors with no problem.
Click to expand...
Out of choice I try to get K&F Concept as they seem to be a uniform standard and are still cheaply priced. When you get an M42 make sure it's one where you can adjust the rotational alignment because of the screw thread.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top