The Fabulous Fuji X owners thread

stevewestern said:
I feel like a winner here. All I'm bringing home is some Thai food for dinner and a piece of paper with some figures on for me to ponder....!
Click to expand...
So have you pondered enough yet? ;)
 
Paulie-W said:
So have you pondered enough yet? ;)
Click to expand...

Mr Perceptive said:
Probably can't type, hands weighed down with all the bags :D
Click to expand...
It's more a case of my hands being full of chop sticks as I nosh away at the Thai food that was in the bag I was carrying while I try to work out what my existing gear is going to be worth and where the boxes are so I can get it ready to be posted on here.
Meanwhile if anyone has an XT5, a 75-300 and a 16-80 they may be thinking of selling soon let me know....!
 
One from a walking tour of Cardiff's victorian arcades yesterday, with my new 16-80, purchased from the camera shop you can see in the image.
SimonH said:
Morgan arcade by Simon Hiscocks, on Flickr
Click to expand...
How are you finding the 16-80? I have a 15-45 on a camera I use for light duties. It doesnt click onto the camera so has to be manoeuvred into place to get the contacts to sync. I have the 18-55 so toying with the 16-80 as an alternative. dont want th3 16-55 as it is too big and heavy
 
AgentOrange76 said:
One from a walking tour of Cardiff's victorian arcades yesterday, with my new 16-80, purchased from the camera shop you can see in the image.

How are you finding the 16-80? I have a 15-45 on a camera I use for light duties. It doesnt click onto the camera so has to be manoeuvred into place to get the contacts to sync. I have the 18-55 so toying with the 16-80 as an alternative. dont want th3 16-55 as it is too big and heavy
Click to expand...
I’ve only had it a couple of days, but I’d say
  1. Optically it’s fine. I’m not a pixel peeper, usually just looking at stuff on screen, but it certainly looks decent to me so far.
  2. It’s not that much bigger than the 18-55, and fine for a walk around lens (for me anyway)
  3. The extra couple of mm the wide spend and the extra reach over the 18-55 at the longer end are very welcome.
Mine was a white box unit, new, but separated from a kit, and so a bit cheaper than a fully boxed new unit.

I'm very pleased with it so far. There’s a few more from yesterdays outing on my Flickr page (link in signature)
 
Hi everyone, I've been out of the 'game' for about 18 months. Currently have an Xpro1 with 35 f2, the lens is spot on but I'm finding the old Xpro1 is starting to have some problems with shutting down and card corruption, and the AF is lacking sometimes. In short I think it is time to switch it out for something else.

My question is where the best value currently is for a used body, between say £600-800? I'm not particularly fussy about the form factor and have had XE's XT's in the past and happy to use any of them. I think it is probably an XT3?

Shooting a bit of everything, nothing requiring anything specialist.
 
An X-T3 sounds like a sensible choice to me.
 
Craigus said:
Hi everyone, I've been out of the 'game' for about 18 months. Currently have an Xpro1 with 35 f2, the lens is spot on but I'm finding the old Xpro1 is starting to have some problems with shutting down and card corruption, and the AF is lacking sometimes. In short I think it is time to switch it out for something else.

My question is where the best value currently is for a used body, between say £600-800? I'm not particularly fussy about the form factor and have had XE's XT's in the past and happy to use any of them. I think it is probably an XT3?

Shooting a bit of everything, nothing requiring anything specialist.
Click to expand...
If you like the XPro1 then the XPro2 would work well but an XT3 will be very good as well.
 
I decided to buy myself a little photography related treat this week. I've been on the fence about trying a manual focus lens for a while. This week I thought I'd give it a go and bought the TTartisan 25mm f/2 lens for £69. To say I didn't have high hopes is an understatement but I'm absolutely amazed by how good this little lens is. It's far from perfect but for such a small sum you can't go wrong. It flares massively when there's a bright light just outside theframe and it seems to be full of internal dust already, but I'll forgive it that for such a low price. Only managed a few test shots around the house so far, both wide open at f/2

DSCF4329.jpg
DSCF4333.jpg
 
Last edited:
How do you eat a dinosaur biscuit?

Well you start by biting off all the biscuit to leave the icing of course!

Blake03 by Steve Jelly, on Flickr

And then give Grandad a cheeky smile....

Blake04 by Steve Jelly, on Flickr

The 35 f1.4 is great for this sort of work. I just turn up with the T3 & 35mm, and shoot. IBIS could be useful, I'm leaning towards a T5 but lack of funds means that the T3 will be in service for a while yet!!
 
Jelster said:
How do you eat a dinosaur biscuit?

Well you start by biting off all the biscuit to leave the icing of course!

Blake03 by Steve Jelly, on Flickr

And then give Grandad a cheeky smile....

Blake04 by Steve Jelly, on Flickr

The 35 f1.4 is great for this sort of work. I just turn up with the T3 & 35mm, and shoot. IBIS could be useful, I'm leaning towards a T5 but lack of funds means that the T3 will be in service for a while yet!!
Click to expand...
It isn't quite as good once they start moving about more (don't ask me how I know). I mostly use the wide end on my 55-200 for portraits of my boys.
 
Craikeybaby said:
It isn't quite as good once they start moving about more (don't ask me how I know). I mostly use the wide end on my 55-200 for portraits of my boys.
Click to expand...

He's a quick little bu**** when he wants to be. I was trying to get a shot of him at the top of his slide but he was too quick and kept coming down on his belly, feet first.... I;m taking his two older brothers fishing in a couple of weeks, that'll be fun.

I was wondering if the 16-55 f2.8 would be a good option, my 50-150 is a bit on the heavy side.
 
Jelster said:
He's a quick little bu**** when he wants to be. I was trying to get a shot of him at the top of his slide but he was too quick and kept coming down on his belly, feet first.... I;m taking his two older brothers fishing in a couple of weeks, that'll be fun.

I was wondering if the 16-55 f2.8 would be a good option, my 50-150 is a bit on the heavy side.
Click to expand...

Steve, the 16-55 is heavy as well, IMO you'll be better off with the prime (and the XF35mm F1.4 has that lovely colour rendering of the early Fuji primes) - IBIS won't help if he is moving

Stick will the prime, as you keep using it the FOV will become natural, and you'll just know when to take the photo.
 
Mr Perceptive said:
Steve, the 16-55 is heavy as well, IMO you'll be better off with the prime (and the XF35mm F1.4 has that lovely colour rendering of the early Fuji primes) - IBIS won't help if he is moving

Stick will the prime, as you keep using it the FOV will become natural, and you'll just know when to take the photo.
Click to expand...

Thanks for the tip David. I do wonder if the 23 f1.4 will be better when I'm up close, but I love the reproduction from that 35mm. It's probably my favourite lens, and I bought it at the same time I got a new X-T1 all those years ago...
 
Anyone got or used the Tamron 17-70 f2.8 and compared it to the Fuji 16-55 f2.8 or the Fuji 18-55 f2.8 - f4
I have the Fuji 16-55 f2.8, am trying to lighten the weight of my gear and from the one review I've read so far the Tamron seems to be pretty good and is 130 grams lighter (525g vs 655g) while the Fuji 18-55 f2.8 -f4 weighs only 310g - I've not yet read anything about this one but given the price and variable max aperture I'd assume it's not as good as the others. There is also the 18 - 120 power zoom which I've only just this moment discovered - a great range but what does a power zoom bring to a stills-only user ?
What can you tell me ?
Edit - just seen that the 18-120 has internal zooming which I've always preferred, so despite it being f4 it's starting to look interesting!
 
Last edited:
stevewestern said:
Anyone got or used the Tamron 17-70 f2.8 and compared it to the Fuji 16-55 f2.8 or the Fuji 18-55 f2.8 - f4
I have the Fuji 16-55 f2.8, am trying to lighten the weight of my gear and from the one review I've read so far the Tamron seems to be pretty good and is 130 grams lighter (525g vs 655g) while the Fuji 18-55 f2.8 -f4 weighs only 310g - I've not yet read anything about this one but given the price and variable max aperture I'd assume it's not as good as the others.
What can you tell me ?
Click to expand...

Is WR important?
 
The 18-55 is a great kit lens, nice and light, but I am likely to upgrade to the 16-80 when I change body. I mainly use it for landscape work, and find that the extra few mm at the wide end would be helpful, as would the WR.

I have ruled out the Sigma/Tamron lenses as I want to keep an aperture ring.
 
stevewestern said:
Anyone got or used the Tamron 17-70 f2.8 and compared it to the Fuji 16-55 f2.8 or the Fuji 18-55 f2.8 - f4
I have the Fuji 16-55 f2.8, am trying to lighten the weight of my gear and from the one review I've read so far the Tamron seems to be pretty good and is 130 grams lighter (525g vs 655g) while the Fuji 18-55 f2.8 -f4 weighs only 310g - I've not yet read anything about this one but given the price and variable max aperture I'd assume it's not as good as the others. There is also the 18 - 120 power zoom which I've only just this moment discovered - a great range but what does a power zoom bring to a stills-only user ?
What can you tell me ?
Edit - just seen that the 18-120 has internal zooming which I've always preferred, so despite it being f4 it's starting to look interesting!
Click to expand...

I have both the Tamron and the 18-55mm. There's not much in it between the two except the size and WR.

I used the 18-55mm for over 5 years, and still think it's great. I only bought the Tamron for the WR (I was heading up to Scotland, and plan on some Rainy Tokyo stuff later this year). I kind hoped the constant 2.8 would be amazing too, but in reality, it's only one stop difference at the long end.

Speaking of the long end, past 60mm or so it is a little soft unless stopped down at least to f4. I also have the 70-300 so if I find myself at the long end I just switch to that. Don't get me wrong, it's still perfectly usable at that length, it's just something I noticed during my initial testing.

Build quality is great, and weather sealing has held up with some HEAVY rain without issues. The stabilisation and AF also seems a little better than the 18-55mm. There is no aperture ring, which I thought would be a big issue for me, but having it mapped to the front dial works. Within 5 minutes I didn't even think about it anymore, it's just muscle memory.

Basically, it's slightly better than the 18-55mm in almost every way, but it is MUCH bigger. As someone who takes my camera everywhere, I find the 18-55mm is on it 80% of the time. It's only if I anticipate bad weather that I'll bother to take the Tamron.
 
@stevewestern - I'll think you'll find a lot of love for the 18-55, its a cracking lens, and certainly meets your lightweight requirements, The 16-55 is better in that it goes wider, has constant F2.8 and WR but in terms of IQ there is very little in in it, and you'd have to do a lot of pixel peeping to say that the 16-55 is better. Personally I wouldn't swap the 16-55 for the Tamron as the weight saving isn't very much, it won't feel a whole lot lighter, wheras the 18-55 will.

I have had both the 18-55 and 16-55, I still have the 18-55, its on my wife's X-T20. IMO the 16-55 is nice but its over-rated and expensive if buying new (but lens prices certainly have crept up!)
 
Craikeybaby said:
The 18-55 is a great kit lens, nice and light, but I am likely to upgrade to the 16-80 when I change body. I mainly use it for landscape work, and find that the extra few mm at the wide end would be helpful, as would the WR.

I have ruled out the Sigma/Tamron lenses as I want to keep an aperture ring.
Click to expand...
jimmyjamjojo said:
I have both the Tamron and the 18-55mm. There's not much in it between the two except the size and WR.

I used the 18-55mm for over 5 years, and still think it's great. I only bought the Tamron for the WR (I was heading up to Scotland, and plan on some Rainy Tokyo stuff later this year). I kind hoped the constant 2.8 would be amazing too, but in reality, it's only one stop difference at the long end.

Speaking of the long end, past 60mm or so it is a little soft unless stopped down at least to f4. I also have the 70-300 so if I find myself at the long end I just switch to that. Don't get me wrong, it's still perfectly usable at that length, it's just something I noticed during my initial testing.

Build quality is great, and weather sealing has held up with some HEAVY rain without issues. The stabilisation and AF also seems a little better than the 18-55mm. There is no aperture ring, which I thought would be a big issue for me, but having it mapped to the front dial works. Within 5 minutes I didn't even think about it anymore, it's just muscle memory.

Basically, it's slightly better than the 18-55mm in almost every way, but it is MUCH bigger. As someone who takes my camera everywhere, I find the 18-55mm is on it 80% of the time. It's only if I anticipate bad weather that I'll bother to take the Tamron.
Click to expand...
Mr Perceptive said:
@stevewestern - I'll think you'll find a lot of love for the 18-55, its a cracking lens, and certainly meets your lightweight requirements, The 16-55 is better in that it goes wider, has constant F2.8 and WR but in terms of IQ there is very little in in it, and you'd have to do a lot of pixel peeping to say that the 16-55 is better. Personally I wouldn't swap the 16-55 for the Tamron as the weight saving isn't very much, it won't feel a whole lot lighter, wheras the 18-55 will.

I have had both the 18-55 and 16-55, I still have the 18-55, its on my wife's X-T20. IMO the 16-55 is nice but its over-rated and expensive if buying new (but lens prices certainly have crept up!)
Click to expand...
Thank you all. The more I read, the more I (try to) think, the more the 18 - 120 appeals in terms of range and simplicity. I'll need to compare it size-wise to the 18 - 55
Over the last couple of years (ie since covid hit me) I find that I rarely take anything other than my 18 - 135 or 55 -200 out with me, both of which may be traded in.
I don't have a 75 - 300 but plan to get one in exchange for my 100 - 400, but will keep the TC.
Your replies are very helpful and much appreciated!
 
I had (still have?) the 18-55, but my son "borrowed" it for his T1, that was some 3 years ago..... Maybe I fancy getting it back, it may be handy when shooting his toddler....
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top