The Fabulous Fuji X owners thread

Harlequin565 said:
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.
Click to expand...

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:
Raymond Lin said:
What do you mean by closer? Like you want to shoot up their nostrils?
Click to expand...

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.
 
Harlequin565 said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
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.
 
Jelster said:
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.
Click to expand...


Off on holiday next week but could be interested in the 80mm on our return (end of the month.)
 
Paulie-W said:
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.
Click to expand...

Welcome.

"Brief respite" rather than rest I suspect.
 
Harlequin565 said:
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.
Click to expand...
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.
 
Harlequin565 said:
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.
Click to expand...

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
 
Mr Perceptive said:
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
Click to expand...
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.
 
Paulie-W said:
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.
Click to expand...


"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.
 
G.K.Jnr. said:
"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.
Click to expand...

Thanks George (y)
 
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."
 
Mr Perceptive said:
You'll welcome to pop over and try out the 90mm if you want, just PM me
Click to expand...

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.
 
Harlequin565 said:
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.
Click to expand...

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 :)
 
I'm not sure about this one, not quite the look I was going for, but I left my Big Stopper at home :oops: :$ :rolleyes:

Taken at Riverside Park, Gillingham yesterday. T2 with the 10-24.

Beached by Steve Jelly, on Flickr

There's another one further along the estuary, which is a bit further out. Really needed a 50-140 for this one :D

Abandoned by Steve Jelly, on Flickr
 
Last edited:
Just a simple Fujigraph taken at London UK of me messing about with a snap of my shadow.
I'm also working on a personal project called Faceless and this will be one of the shots included.

X-T1, 10-24mm Lens, 1/140th @ F5.6, ISO-200 Handheld.
Me And My Shadow (2)-03237 by G.K.Jnr., on Flickr

:ty: for looking., (y):fuji:

George.
 
Jelster said:
I'm not sure about this one, not quite the look I was going for, but I left my Big Stopper at home :oops: :$ :rolleyes:

Taken at Riverside Park, Gillingham yesterday. T2 with the 10-24.

Beached by Steve Jelly, on Flickr

There's another one further along the estuary, which is a bit further out. Really needed a 50-140 for this one :D

Abandoned by Steve Jelly, on Flickr
Click to expand...

I like the top one. For me, the water adds interest as another texture. Don't think a long exposure would help the shot at all, unless you got so close as to lose the shoreline, which may of course be exactly what you intended! :)
 
dave.hallett said:
I like the top one. For me, the water adds interest as another texture. Don't think a long exposure would help the shot at all, unless you got so close as to lose the shoreline, which may of course be exactly what you intended! :)
Click to expand...

Thanks for the input Dave. My "theory" was that the moving water would look misty around the verticals. One of those things, if you don't try, you will never know...
 
12 Years with digital and i learned something new today, after transferring photos to computer from card, I put it back in camera switched on and got message write protected ,error reading file, thinking the card was shot ordered another from 7 day shop, whilst on the computer i googled write protected and found the cards have a switch on the side which ive never noticed before, reset it and all was fine, so spent twenty quid that i needn't have done feel kinda silly.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top