The Fabulous Fuji X owners thread

Dave70D said:
Whenever I am in town I always shoot it.

West Pier Ruins by Dave, on Flickr
Click to expand...
antonroland said:
This screams for a loooong exposure!
Click to expand...

And posting in the non brand specific areas of the forum! (As do the other shots.)

Just my opinion but a good photo is a good photo - we all know how good the Fuji X cameras and lenses are so only posting them here in the mutual admiration thread is in effect hiding them from the non-believers! The advice in this thread about the equipment can be lost among the myriad of excellent shots.




yamahatdm900 said:
So how good optically is the cheap 50-200 or the 50-230? Would be just used for landscapes so mainly at f8 ish.

I have the 50-140 which I do like but a lighter telephoto would be nice for when Im planning to do a lot of walking/hiking. The other option would be the 55-200 but I cant really justify having both the 50-140 and the 55-200 and for some other stuff I do I find the f2.8 on the 55-140 is really handy.
Click to expand...
yamahatdm900 said:
Cheers David I am very tempted would I notice that much difference between them and either the 50-140 or the 55-200 at the f8/f11 mark in your opinion?
Click to expand...

The extra reach of the 50-230 prompted me to buy a 2nd hand one but I found that it was just enough below the 55-200 that it's stayed in the cupboard since its day out with it's classier (but significantly more expensive) cousin. TBH, if I didn't have the 55-200, I'd probably be happy with the cheaper lens but I do so I'm not!
I probably shouldn't point out that the obvious partner to the 50-140 would be the 100-400... ;)
 
I’m planning to buy the 55-200, as if I get the 50-230, I’ll always wonder how much better the 55-200 would be, then probably end up buying it anyway.
 
yamahatdm900 said:
So how good optically is the cheap 50-200 or the 50-230? Would be just used for landscapes so mainly at f8 ish.

I have the 50-140 which I do like but a lighter telephoto would be nice for when Im planning to do a lot of walking/hiking. The other option would be the 55-200 but I cant really justify having both the 50-140 and the 55-200 and for some other stuff I do I find the f2.8 on the 55-140 is really handy.
Click to expand...


I received my XC 50-230 today, here is a series of 5 images, SOOC, at 50mm, 70mm, 100mm, 135mm and 230mm (the focal length markings on the zoom ring). Taken on an X-Pro1, at f11 ISO 200 auto WB, on a tripod (focus point was the numbers on the Santa toy). The lens does feel a bit more solid that the XC16-55 I must say, focus ring is smooth and it isn't hugely slow to auto-focus (this won't be a problem for me as i'm predominately a landscape photographer - i'm not sure how good it would be for sports)

Not the most scientific of tests but i'm happy with the results:









 
Nod said:
The extra reach of the 50-230 prompted me to buy a 2nd hand one but I found that it was just enough below the 55-200 that it's stayed in the cupboard since its day out with it's classier (but significantly more expensive) cousin. TBH, if I didn't have the 55-200, I'd probably be happy with the cheaper lens but I do so I'm not!
I probably shouldn't point out that the obvious partner to the 50-140 would be the 100-400... ;)
Click to expand...

Yes it is but I am after a lightweight telephoto for when I plan to do a lot of walking so I can leave the 50-140 at home.
 
FlyPhot said:
I received my XC 50-230 today, here is a series of 5 images, SOOC, at 50mm, 70mm, 100mm, 135mm and 230mm (the focal length markings on the zoom ring). Taken on an X-Pro1, at f11 ISO 200 auto WB, on a tripod (focus point was the numbers on the Santa toy). The lens does feel a bit more solid that the XC16-55 I must say, focus ring is smooth and it isn't hugely slow to auto-focus (this won't be a problem for me as i'm predominately a landscape photographer - i'm not sure how good it would be for sports)

Not the most scientific of tests but i'm happy with the results:









Click to expand...


Thanks Jim it would be used for purely landscapes, just wanted a lighter option to take than the 50-140.
 
Nod said:
And posting in the non brand specific areas of the forum! (As do the other shots.)

Just my opinion but a good photo is a good photo - we all know how good the Fuji X cameras and lenses are so only posting them here in the mutual admiration thread is in effect hiding them from the non-believers! The advice in this thread about the equipment can be lost among the myriad of excellent shots.







The extra reach of the 50-230 prompted me to buy a 2nd hand one but I found that it was just enough below the 55-200 that it's stayed in the cupboard since its day out with it's classier (but significantly more expensive) cousin. TBH, if I didn't have the 55-200, I'd probably be happy with the cheaper lens but I do so I'm not!
I probably shouldn't point out that the obvious partner to the 50-140 would be the 100-400... ;)
Click to expand...


I have to say the X-H1 helped me that day, as it was blowing a gale.
 
yamahatdm900 said:
Thanks Jim it would be used for purely landscapes, just wanted a lighter option to take than the 50-140.
Click to expand...

It is very light and at first glance, from just playing with it in the house, i'm really pleased with it. I also looked at a few reviews online and DPReview gave it a glowing report. I'll try to get out at the weekend with it and see what I can do. To be honest I didnt want to spend a fortune on a zoom lens as i'll probably not use it all that much, it's just handy to have that 'reach' at hand in the bag for when I want to compress a background or isolate something a bit more.
 
Last edited:
yamahatdm900 said:
Yes it is but I am after a lightweight telephoto for when I plan to do a lot of walking so I can leave the 50-140 at home.
Click to expand...

Shame you're up in Oxon rather than closer, I'd be happy to let you have a play with both options (and the 100-400, even though I fully understand that it's a bit of a lump!)
 
Dave70D said:
I use to use the 50-230mm at our local airshow, and I came away with many great shots.
Click to expand...
FlyPhot said:
It is very light and at first glance, from just playing with it in the house, i'm really pleased with it. I also looked at a few reviews online and DPReview gave it a glowing report. I'll try to get out at the weekend with it and see what I can do. To be honest I didnt want to spend a fortune on a zoom lens as i'll probably not use it all that much, it's just handy to have that 'reach' at hand in the bag for when I want to compress a background or isolate something a bit more.
Click to expand...

Be very interested in your views if you dont get chance to get out the weekend.

Dave70D said:
I use to use the 50-230mm at our local airshow, and I came away with many great shots.
Click to expand...

Thats nice to know Dave.
 
Is there anyone local to Cambridge that has the X-Pro2 that I can try a few shots with, I know I can handle one at WEX etc but I want to take a few photos and then check them out on my computer....
 
I'm starting to dabble again in astro/night photography - something I used to do more of when I had all my heavier Nikon gear, including f/2.8 glass. Now that I am just using the X-T3 (and/or the Nikon Z6), I find that I am missing the faster lenses when available light is at a premium. I love my Fujifilm XF10-24 - by far my favourite Fuji lens, but I could really do with something faster, and I don't want to go back to heavy stuff (previously owned the Fujifilm 16-55mm).

Anyone here using the 14mm or 16mm primes for night photography? They would be a light option for the bag. Very interested to see any results and hear feedback.

I was going to post one I took with the 10-24 last night but I can't seem to access my Flickr account anymore....
 
psybear said:
I'm starting to dabble again in astro/night photography - something I used to do more of when I had all my heavier Nikon gear, including f/2.8 glass. Now that I am just using the X-T3 (and/or the Nikon Z6), I find that I am missing the faster lenses when available light is at a premium. I love my Fujifilm XF10-24 - by far my favourite Fuji lens, but I could really do with something faster, and I don't want to go back to heavy stuff (previously owned the Fujifilm 16-55mm).

Anyone here using the 14mm or 16mm primes for night photography? They would be a light option for the bag. Very interested to see any results and hear feedback.
Click to expand...

Have you thought about the Samyang 12mm f2 lens? It's manual focus but a very sharp little lens and seems widely used for astro/night images. I'm only at the very early 'dabbling' stage myself and I'm sure there are far better examples, but this was my first attempt at a night sky with that lens on an X-T3:


Heavens Above by Andrea Thrussell, on Flickr
 
There are so many Samyangs out there that they confuse me! That looks like a decent capture of the MW alright. There was one of these for sale recently on the Classifieds, but I thought that I'd heard mixed reports as to the quality of this one.
 
DSCF6822.jpg

Just remembered that I can post images directly here, don't need Flickr.

Not exactly an astro image, but it kind of demonstrates the issue - this was a 60 second exposure (f/9 as I needed some depth of field), which has led to the stars streaking. A faster lens would have captured this in less time.
 
psybear said:
Just remembered that I can post images directly here, don't need Flickr.

Not exactly an astro image, but it kind of demonstrates the issue - this was a 60 second exposure (f/9 as I needed some depth of field), which has led to the stars streaking. A faster lens would have captured this in less time.
Click to expand...

Great image (how do you post images direct, without a 3rd party host?)
 
psybear said:
View attachment 263115

Just remembered that I can post images directly here, don't need Flickr.

Not exactly an astro image, but it kind of demonstrates the issue - this was a 60 second exposure (f/9 as I needed some depth of field), which has led to the stars streaking. A faster lens would have captured this in less time.
Click to expand...
How so? Shooting at F9 means it doesn't matter what the lens max aperture is, unless I am missing something?
 
FlyPhot said:
It is very light and at first glance, from just playing with it in the house, i'm really pleased with it. I also looked at a few reviews online and DPReview gave it a glowing report. I'll try to get out at the weekend with it and see what I can do. To be honest I didnt want to spend a fortune on a zoom lens as i'll probably not use it all that much, it's just handy to have that 'reach' at hand in the bag for when I want to compress a background or isolate something a bit more.
Click to expand...
Same reason I bought mine, dont need L quality (or weight) for the odd time I need that reach.
 
FlyPhot said:
Great image (how do you post images direct, without a 3rd party host?)
Click to expand...

There is a little picture icon on the menu bar in the new post windoe - between the hyperlink symbol and the smiley emoji - just click it.

MatBin said:
How so? Shooting at F9 means it doesn't matter what the lens max aperture is, unless I am missing something?
Click to expand...

Yeah it mattered less for this shot as given the foreground interest I needed that DoF. Had it not been for the trees thought I could have shot this at (say) f/2.8 with focus at infinity and would still have the mountain in focus but the stars would have been cleaner and (at 30 seconds or under) would not have been trailing.
 
psybear said:
I'm starting to dabble again in astro/night photography - something I used to do more of when I had all my heavier Nikon gear, including f/2.8 glass. Now that I am just using the X-T3 (and/or the Nikon Z6), I find that I am missing the faster lenses when available light is at a premium. I love my Fujifilm XF10-24 - by far my favourite Fuji lens, but I could really do with something faster, and I don't want to go back to heavy stuff (previously owned the Fujifilm 16-55mm).

Anyone here using the 14mm or 16mm primes for night photography? They would be a light option for the bag. Very interested to see any results and hear feedback.

I was going to post one I took with the 10-24 last night but I can't seem to access my Flickr account anymore....
Click to expand...

The 16 f1.4 HAS to be the main contender here... Wish I still had mine......
 
@Dave70D ....... What ya gone and bought now.........
 
antonroland said:
Would love to hear your impressions about this lens...this and the 14/2.8 will be my first want-to-have lenses after the basics are covered...
Click to expand...

I came OH so close to getting the 14mm, but changed my mind as too wide for me just just treated my self to a Xmas gift and now maxed out on my card :D
 
@Dave70D ....

Didn’t you let the 16mm 1.4 go?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top