The Fabulous Fuji X owners thread

manualfocus-g said:
I suspect youre right, remember as well that I was testing on landscapes...for portraits the 16-55 is clearly sharper.

Edit: at least that's the case with my copies.
Click to expand...

i find the 16-55 absolutely superb on the xt2. the 18-55 does seem like the perfect all rounder though. so dinky.
 
^
Yep, exactly what I would take if travelling. These plus a table top or travel tripod make a relatively small and portable set up for seeing different places, long exposures, landscapes etc
 
Mr Perceptive said:
IMO the 18-55 and 14 make a nice travel set, covering wide angle and 'normal' shooting, both small and compact, and take same size filters, share hoods, etc
Click to expand...
It's OK as long as it doesn't rain :p
 
Thats lovely... hmn, surely theres not yet another lens I "need" ;)
 
Mr Perceptive said:
IMO the 18-55 and 14 make a nice travel set, covering wide angle and 'normal' shooting, both small and compact, and take same size filters, share hoods, etc
Click to expand...
Been swithering about what prime to add to my 18-55 and was considering this or the 23mm f2.

Makes sense to go for the 14mm rather than duplicating a FL covered already by the 18-55 [emoji106]
 
Last edited:
yamahatdm900 said:
Round up off my visit to the last round of the BSB championship at Brands.

I must say I was impressed with how the Fuji XT-2 and 100-400 combo performed while imho it not as good as the D500 & 300mm f2.8 but for the amount of motorsport Im planning to
do in the future its more than good enough.

1.

Brands Oct (6 of 9) by Graham Norton, on Flickr

2.

Brands Oct (2 of 9) by Graham Norton, on Flickr

3.

Brands Oct (9 of 9) by Graham Norton, on Flickr

4.

Brands Oct (4 of 9) by Graham Norton, on Flickr

5.

Brands Oct (7 of 9) by Graham Norton, on Flickr

6.

Brands Oct (1 of 9) by Graham Norton, on Flickr

Thanks for taking the time to look please feel free to say whatever :)
Click to expand...

LOVE that last shot...how the track is bending up into the corner. Fantastic!
 
chrism_scotland said:
Anyone using the 60mm? Appreciate its an older lens now and not seen as "cool" but ditching the 16-55 so would like to cover off the long end, 56mm is obviously amazing but don't really "need" the f1.2
Click to expand...
I have one, I don't use it a lot but it's a cracking lens, very sharp and the focusing isn't anywhere as slow as people say. It's not true macro but I've got some good shots on the couple of occasions I've tried (pseudo) macro. For the money I think it's incredible value.
 
I have both the 16-55 and the 18-55 and I have no doubt the 16-55 is a lot sharper, better micro contrast. It sits well on the X-T2 not as well balanced on the X Pro 2. It's big though and I do miss the ois, but when I owned my Canon 5D3 one of my favourite lenses was the 17-40 and lack of is was never an issue. I use the 18-55 for 4K video as the ois really helps.
 
jimgallaher said:
I have both the 16-55 and the 18-55 and I have no doubt the 16-55 is a lot sharper, better micro contrast. It sits well on the X-T2 not as well balanced on the X Pro 2. It's big though and I do miss the ois, but when I owned my Canon 5D3 one of my favourite lenses was the 17-40 and lack of is was never an issue. I use the 18-55 for 4K video as the ois really helps.
Click to expand...
Aaaarrrrggghhh, I didn't need to read this :LOL:
 
Pop down to your local camera shop and try one on your camera, then decide. You can read all the reviews in the world, but nothing beats trying it out.
 
Ian W said:
Been swithering about what prime to add to my 18-55 and was considering this or the 23mm f2.

Makes sense to go for the 14mm rather than duplicating a FL covered already by the 18-55 [emoji106]
Click to expand...
That said, I'd love the 10-24mm. Just a shame it'd be far too big for the more diminutive X-T10.
 
manualfocus-g said:
Just out of interest, I tested my 16-55/2.8 up against my 18-55/2.8-4 at various focal lengths and apertures yesterday (just shooting the houses in my estate). To my surprise, the 18-55mm was sharper at the edges at all focal lengths, whilst the 16-55 was on a par on the middle until 35mm when it showed an advantage. At 55mm, the central portion of the image was significantly sharper on the 16-55. Was a bit disappointed by the edges though, looks like the auto-correction has removed a lot of CA.
Click to expand...

Ian W said:
That said, I'd love the 10-24mm. Just a shame it'd be far too big for the more diminutive X-T10.
Click to expand...
Is the T10 that much smaller ? I've never seen one in the flesh.
 
Ian W said:
If you're comparing sizes, it might not appear so but visually (with a larger lens) and in hand I think it would be much more apparent.
Click to expand...
Hmm. I've never considered not getting the 10-24 because I have an X-T10. Maybe it wouldn't look quite right, but I'm sure it would be usable, and I wouldn't be taking selfies :)
 
dave.hallett said:
Hmm. I've never considered not getting the 10-24 because I have an X-T10. Maybe it wouldn't look quite right, but I'm sure it would be usable, and I wouldn't be taking selfies :)
Click to expand...
I want to believe you've a serious point to make, Dave. I just can't see it [emoji1]
 
jimgallaher said:
I have both the 16-55 and the 18-55 and I have no doubt the 16-55 is a lot sharper, better micro contrast. It sits well on the X-T2 not as well balanced on the X Pro 2. It's big though and I do miss the ois, but when I owned my Canon 5D3 one of my favourite lenses was the 17-40 and lack of is was never an issue. I use the 18-55 for 4K video as the ois really helps.
Click to expand...

Do you find yours sharp at the edges? My 18-55 blows my 16-55 away in that sense.
 
Yeah it's sharp at edges. I had in Barcelona, took a lot of shots, but because it was bright I assume it would've been well stopped down. To be honest I've not done a comparison, I must try it when I get the time, just out of curiosity.
 
jimgallaher said:
Yeah it's sharp at edges. I had in Barcelona, took a lot of shots, but because it was bright I assume it would've been well stopped down. To be honest I've not done a comparison, I must try it when I get the time, just out of curiosity.
Click to expand...

Will be interested to hear your results :) My 16-55mm is definitely the better lens for portraits, sharper and as you say, with more micro-contrast.
 
Info for Scottish shooters;

Calumet Open Day tomorrow Wednesday 19th Oct at the Glasgow branch from 10am - 4pm. I'll be there about noon myself.


I've just found out about this, sorry for delay in posting this.

Pete
 
Last edited:
macvisual said:
Info for Scottish shooters;

Calumet Open Day tomorrow Wednesday 19th Oct at the Glasgow branch from 10am - 4pm.


I've just found out about this, sorry for delay in posting this.

Pete
Click to expand...
Oooh. May pop along at some point if I can get out the office.
 
Maggie52 said:
Well my first outing with the XT! in-between showers. Still trying to get to grips with all the settings etc.
Shame the background wasn't better but getting her to stay in one place for a few seconds is a trial in itself.

Roxy by Bykerlass, on Flickr
Click to expand...
She's a beaut... Different coloured eyes?
 
Ian W said:
I want to believe you've a serious point to make, Dave. I just can't see it [emoji1]
Click to expand...
I thought I was very restrained, considering you were talking about comparing sizes, and how much bigger it seems when you have it your hand. ;)

But my point was that I can't get too up tight about whether the 10-24 will look a bit big on the X-T10. So long as I can use it, so what? And I can't believe it's unusable. For proper landscape work I'd probably have the whole shebang on a tripod anyway.
 
dave.hallett said:
I thought I was very restrained, considering you were talking about comparing sizes, and how much bigger it seems when you have it your hand. ;)

But my point was that I can't get too up tight about whether the 10-24 will look a bit big on the X-T10. So long as I can use it, so what? And I can't believe it's unusable. For proper landscape work I'd probably have the whole shebang on a tripod anyway.
Click to expand...
I know Dave, I know. Gonna head along to Calumet and see for myself I think :)
 
jimgallaher said:
Pop down to your local camera shop and try one on your camera, then decide. You can read all the reviews in the world, but nothing beats trying it out.
Click to expand...

Don't do it.:eek: I was quite satisfied with my 18-55 until my local camera shop loaned me a 16-55 for a couple of hours.

On a serious note there have been some reports of 16-55's with centring problems, so it's worth checking for it. That could also be the reason for some users not being happy with the optical performance.
 
Indeed, ignorance is bliss, next you'll be looking at TVs or heading to a Bang and Olefson (or whatever it's called)
 
Earley Man said:
Don't do it.:eek: I was quite satisfied with my 18-55 until my local camera shop loaned me a 16-55 for a couple of hours.

On a serious note there have been some reports of 16-55's with centring problems, so it's worth checking for it. That could also be the reason for some users not being happy with the optical performance.
Click to expand...
That's why you should buy your lenses from the Fuji refurb store, any faults should be fixed and lens tested before sale.
 
macvisual said:
Info for Scottish shooters;

Calumet Open Day tomorrow Wednesday 19th Oct at the Glasgow branch from 10am - 4pm. I'll be there about noon myself.


I've just found out about this, sorry for delay in posting this.

Pete
Click to expand...
Don't forget to bring any cameras with dirty sensors Calumet always offer a free sensor clean on their open days.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top