The Fabulous Fuji X owners thread

dave.hallett said:
I would say only two things about top-quality lenses: very few photographers have the technique to make the differences between them signify anything in practice, and unless you need a specialised tool for a particular job, the differences rapidly blur into questions of taste - whether you like this or that kind of bokeh, whether you value saturation and micro-contrast over brute resolving power, etc. I think it's uncontroversial to say that in most situations, Fuji lenses are more than good enough for most photographers. If you have the chops to actually get the most out of a Leica 50mm, more power to you. For my part, I've been considering buying a C/Y or QBM 50mm Zeiss Planar 1.4, but I hesitate to do so, because I have a feeling that in the low light, high ISO situations where I currently use my SMC Pentax 1.4, they will actually be indistinguishable, particularly when combined with a focal reducer.
Click to expand...

I've shot extensively with the C/Y Zeiss Planar 50/1.4 and it's my favourite lens of all time once stopped down to f/2.8. At wider apertures, the Fuji 35/1.4 kills it on crop :eek:
 
BacktotheFuji said:
That's lovely :)
Click to expand...
Aw, thanks! They were lovely conditions, albeit a bit nippy and rather darker than shown :)

BacktotheFuji said:
I've shot extensively with the C/Y Zeiss Planar 50/1.4 and it's my favourite lens of all time once stopped down to f/2.8. At wider apertures, the Fuji 35/1.4 kills it on crop :eek:
Click to expand...
Interesting, thanks for the insight. I would probably be using it at f/2 (on the lens) with a focal reducer, so it would be pairing off against the fuji wide open in terms of light (more or less). I hear good things about that lens wide open though. So would probably be better off looking for one second hand, even though it's possible to pick up the Zeiss for rather less. To what extent it's worth buying the original Carl Zeiss vs one of the Rollei/Voigtlander version (which go for far less) is also a question that gets different answers from different parties, even when they own both :) The world of the nifty fifty is by no means an easy one to optimise, and it doesn't surprise me that some people end up with rather a lot of them!
 
Cagey75 said:
Well they were an idiot. I'm talking same exact settings, subject, lighting, everything ... You'll see little to know difference between 2 already proven sharp lenses.

I think even if I won the lotto I'd have limits on what I would splash on any lens. I wouldn't like to go beyond the 2K mark for ANY lens. Unless you're shooting something very intricate, specific, and absoloutely depend on the sharpest of the sharp ... I always think it's just merely for show when people splurge on such things.
Click to expand...
I can't justify any lens over £2k with my current income etc (well any over £500 atm ;)) but I have found myself wanting a prime 500/600mm more and more lately for my wildlife, but not because I'm disappointed with the sharpness of my lens but more to be able to keep the ISO down to show more fur/feather detail. I was at YWP yesterday shooting a robin of all things and was at ISO 6400 :( There were numerous folk with their f2.8's and f4's and I was sure getting lens envy ;)

I don't get the comment about people spending money just for show though. Sure there might be the odd one or two, but for most I'm sure they've done it for themselves and get enjoyment from it, in which case I wish them well.
 
For me a 35mm on a crop will never equal a 50mm on a FF just because of the focal length. I like the look of a 50mm lens over a 35mm lens better. I use both on FF but always pickup the 50mm first if I know I'll have the space to use it. That's just a personal preference thing, as many obviously like the 35mm or 28mm better etc. Also whilst I like the 35mm on FF and crop, I have never really liked the 24mm focal length on FF and I think that is why sometimes I am left cold by the 23mm on crop (with regards to lens characteristics). I don't particularly want a soft lens but having an ultra-sharp lens isn't the be all and end all for me. I just like how a lens looks, be that the quality of the out of focus areas, how the transition from focus to out of focus looks or the micro-contrast etc. It's really this FF vs crop dilemma I am having in deciding which setup of mine to keep, although Fuji is edging it at the moment...

I think it's really sad when I show someone a photo on my phone\tablet and the first thing they do is zoom in... I always think I have failed in the shot when people do that, but have also come to realise that some people just do that no matter what because technology lets them.
 
I can't justify any lens over £2k with my current income etc (well any over £500 atm ;)) but I have found myself wanting a prime 500/600mm more and more lately for my wildlife
Click to expand...

Came to the conclusion that to be satisfied with small birds/mammals I needed a 500mm or 600mm stabilized prime, couldn't afford it so left it at that, can't have everything.

Yes you do see the odd very good photo taken with cheaper lenses, but vast majority aren't so great and many have been oversharpened to within an inch of their lives.
 
For anyone who made purchases on Black Friday, it's an ideal time to get your cash back claims in (if anyone needed a reminder) :)
 
tijuana taxi said:
Came to the conclusion that to be satisfied with small birds/mammals I needed a 500mm or 600mm stabilized prime, couldn't afford it so left it at that, can't have everything.

Yes you do see the odd very good photo taken with cheaper lenses, but vast majority aren't so great and many have been oversharpened to within an inch of their lives.
Click to expand...

+1

I was out yesterday at the local country park and took my x70 and xt2 and 55-200. There are various bird hides around and there were lots of togs with there huge 500 600mm lenses and I didn't have enough reach.

When I came home I was a bit disappointed and at one stage thought should I sell the XT2 and get an XT1 and buy something like a sigma 150-500 and dslr. Then after thinking it through properly I realised how much would I use it. I would rather have the smaller XT2 and keep my 23 and 56 as these are the focal lengths I would use the most.

One
 
snerkler said:
I'm not sure I completely agree with this as I can tell a difference in sharpness across my lenses most of the time. But also as you say, some of the price is bokeh, micro contrast etc. The issue for me is you get to a point and you pay a hell of a lot more money for very little improvement.
Click to expand...
That's the same with anything you get to a point where you are then paying for refinedness or tuned, same with high end stereos as well as cars it gets to a point where you are paying for the extra sexyness that it can do.
Think of cars you can get a Daewoo Matiz it's gets you from a to b then you could pay more get a focus more again for a BMW then more again for a Bentley they all do the same but it's the little things the Bentley will offer over the BMW that you pay for so much more
 
Ian W said:
For anyone who made purchases on Black Friday, it's an ideal time to get your cash back claims in (if anyone needed a reminder) :)
Click to expand...

Cheers for the heads up, already done mine and it's been validated.
Got my single cash back on my 50-140mm f2.8 + 1.4x TC paid last week @ £125
Got a nice £570 coming within the next 14 days for my epic Black Friday spend.
Epic savings whoop whoop :D looking forward to the next double cash back GAS attack.
 
snerkler said:
I don't get the comment about people spending money just for show though. Sure there might be the odd one or two, but for most I'm sure they've done it for themselves and get enjoyment from it, in which case I wish them well.
Click to expand...



What's not to get? It's just my view, you don't have to get' it. I've seen it a few times, people spending multiple thousands on lenses and then not really using them all that much. They become more like trophies. But, it is their money and that's nice for them to have it to spare. But then they'll go on about how amazing this lens is, how superior, how luxurious ... and their images might not really suggest this.

Now, an expensive tele lens I can understand. If you're a wildlife lover, have a car, and like to hike a lot. The lens will see use, it'll get dirty, it'll pay for itself .... eventually :D
 
Last edited:
db247 said:
Fujifilm XF 1.4x TC WR Review

Click to expand...

Fuji have confirmed that their new 80mm f2.8 OIS WR Macro (1:1) will also be compatible with this 1.4x TC.
That's one lens I'm looking forward to and most definitely going to buy.
There aren't many other lenses that my GAS is pushing me towards, perhaps the 100-400mm.
 
Last edited:
dave.hallett said:
Aw, thanks! They were lovely conditions, albeit a bit nippy and rather darker than shown :)

Interesting, thanks for the insight. I would probably be using it at f/2 (on the lens) with a focal reducer, so it would be pairing off against the fuji wide open in terms of light (more or less). I hear good things about that lens wide open though. So would probably be better off looking for one second hand, even though it's possible to pick up the Zeiss for rather less. To what extent it's worth buying the original Carl Zeiss vs one of the Rollei/Voigtlander version (which go for far less) is also a question that gets different answers from different parties, even when they own both :) The world of the nifty fifty is by no means an easy one to optimise, and it doesn't surprise me that some people end up with rather a lot of them!
Click to expand...

If I get a chance tonight, I will compare the 50/1.4 Planar @ f/2 on my Lens Turbo II to the Fuji 35/1.4 @ f/1.4 and post some pics :)
 
Fuguru said:
Fuji have confirmed that their new 80mm f2.8 OIS WR Macro (1:1) will also be compatible with this 1.4x TC.
That's one lens I'm looking forward to and most definitely going to buy.
There aren't many other lenses that my GAS is pushing me towards, perhaps the 100-400mm.
Click to expand...
Hmm the 100-400mm is tempting me as I plan to do a lot of motorsport shoots next year, the spending has to stop somewhere though, would probably let my 16-55mm go to part fund it, then again i'd probably regret that !!!
 
Fuguru said:
Fuji have confirmed that their new 80mm f2.8 OIS WR Macro (1:1) will also be compatible with this 1.4x TC.
That's one lens I'm looking forward to and most definitely going to buy.
There aren't many other lenses that my GAS is pushing me towards, perhaps the 100-400mm.
Click to expand...
The 80 is on my list as well :) lenses I would like to see in the future are 300mm f4 or 200mm f2 that would work with both TCs
 
Here's a foggy one from this morning. A stitch of five images, so the EXIF is slightly misleading.

Oddly, when I made it into town, ten minutes away by bus, there was almost no fog at all. There was however a great deal of frost on Christchurch Meadow, and now I have a full SD card to work through...


Hinksey Stream, December by David Hallett, on Flickr
 
Last edited:
imattersuk said:
Some interesting skies this winter, November in particular, couple of shots testing new lenses, first one is the 16-55mm, second one is the 90mm


Sky_2 by ImageMaker, on Flickr


Sky_3 by ImageMaker, on Flickr
Click to expand...

I don't normally take much notice of cloud formations, but there's been some stunners this winter. Well captured
 
dave.hallett said:
Aw, thanks! They were lovely conditions, albeit a bit nippy and rather darker than shown :)

Interesting, thanks for the insight. I would probably be using it at f/2 (on the lens) with a focal reducer, so it would be pairing off against the fuji wide open in terms of light (more or less). I hear good things about that lens wide open though. So would probably be better off looking for one second hand, even though it's possible to pick up the Zeiss for rather less. To what extent it's worth buying the original Carl Zeiss vs one of the Rollei/Voigtlander version (which go for far less) is also a question that gets different answers from different parties, even when they own both :) The world of the nifty fifty is by no means an easy one to optimise, and it doesn't surprise me that some people end up with rather a lot of them!
Click to expand...

OK, not a great test, but I guess we're all most likely to be using a wide aperture lens indoors in funny light at some point.

Firstly, the entire scene at 1024px:

Fuji 35/1.4 @F/1.4

DSCF5959.jpg

Carl Zeiss Planar 50/1.4 MM with Lens Turbo II @f/2.8

DSCF5962.jpg

Next the Fuji 35/1.4 @ f/2

DSCF5970.jpg

Finally. the Planar 50/1.4 @ f/2.8 (its sweet spot IMO)

DSCF5967.jpg
 
And now for the crops...

Fuji 35/1.4 @ f/1.4

DSCF5959-2_crop.jpg

Planar 50/1.4 @ f/2

DSCF5962-2_crop.jpg

Fuji 35/1.4 @ f/2

DSCF5970-2_crop.jpg

Planar 50/1.4 @ f/2.8

DSCF5967-2_crop.jpg

We shouldn't forget that the Planar is optimised for infinity, but I reckon the Fooj will best it there as well. Incredible really.
 
Last edited:
BacktotheFuji said:
OK, not a great test, but I guess we're all most likely to be using a wide aperture lens indoors in funny light at some point.

Firstly, the entire scene at 1024px:

Fuji 35/1.4 @F/1.4

View attachment 92477

Carl Zeiss Planar 50/1.4 MM with Lens Turbo II @f/2.8

View attachment 92478

Next the Fuji 35/1.4 @ f/2

View attachment 92479

Finally. the Planar 50/1.4 @ f/2.8 (its sweet spot IMO)

View attachment 92480
Click to expand...

BacktotheFuji said:
And now for the crops...

Fuji 35/1.4 @ f/1.4

View attachment 92481

Planar 50/1.4 @ f/2

View attachment 92482

Fuji 35/1.4 @ f/2

View attachment 92483

Planar 50/1.4 @ f/2.8

View attachment 92484

We shouldn't forget that the Planar is optimised for infinity, but I reckon the Fooj will best it there as well. Incredible really.
Click to expand...
How much is the lens turbo affecting IQ though?
 
BacktotheFuji said:
I don't normally take much notice of cloud formations, but there's been some stunners this winter. Well captured
Click to expand...
Thanks very much, great to get positive feedback from your peers. I still have much to learn, getting there slowly.
 
snerkler said:
How much is the lens turbo affecting IQ though?
Click to expand...

It's not really to be honest (at that distance). I shot four good copies of the 50/1.4 for five years on full frame :) It has tremendous pop and renders backgrounds beautifully. Landscapes are brilliant from f/2.8 as well, but it's just not very good at wider apertures.
 
twist said:
@Fuguru how are you finding the system change? Besides the bags of extra money in your pockets?
Click to expand...

Very impressed, without deep crazy unrealistic pixel peeping I'm not finding the Fuji files lacking at all and some areas prefer them, the film simulations are great.
The colours seem better straight out of the camera so less post work the better and I'm even considering using more SOOC JPEGs.
The IQ/ISO/DR seems very similar to my old A7/A7II files which is great as I never needed more in reality.
Working with smaller files is also such a liberating experience as the 42.2mp Sony files were big!
I've not pushed the XT-2 and my lenses to their limits yet but I can already state that I'm not missing the A7RII with G Master lenses.
The Fuji is for me a cheaper, lighter and smaller system which is great.
 
BacktotheFuji said:
OK, not a great test, but I guess we're all most likely to be using a wide aperture lens indoors in funny light at some point.

Firstly, the entire scene at 1024px:

Fuji 35/1.4 @F/1.4

View attachment 92477

Carl Zeiss Planar 50/1.4 MM with Lens Turbo II @f/2.8

View attachment 92478

Next the Fuji 35/1.4 @ f/2

View attachment 92479

Finally. the Planar 50/1.4 @ f/2.8 (its sweet spot IMO)

View attachment 92480
Click to expand...
Sorry I'm only on my phone at the mo but the With the CZ at f2 there looks to be more background blur than the Fuji at F1.4, similarly with the CZ at f2.8 vs f2 on the Fuji, why is this? Does the adapter affect DOF?
 
Fuguru said:
Very impressed, without deep crazy unrealistic pixel peeping I'm not finding the Fuji files lacking at all and some areas prefer them, the film simulations are great.
The colours seem better straight out of the camera so less post work the better and I'm even considering using more SOOC JPEGs.
The IQ/ISO/DR seems very similar to my old A7/A7II files which is great as I never needed more in reality.
Working with smaller files is also such a liberating experience as the 42.2mp Sony files were big!
I've not pushed the XT-2 and my lenses to their limits yet but I can already state that I'm not missing the A7RII with G Master lenses.
The Fuji is for me a cheaper, lighter and smaller system which is great.
Click to expand...

Did tell you to try fuji, its a nice system.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top