The Fabulous Fuji X owners thread

swiftowl51 said:
Hello Fabulous People:)

Simple Question: If you’d come into £700 (maybe £800) unexpectedly, would you trade in your XT-4 for an XT-5?

:)

(Or XH-2?)
Click to expand...
For some of the photography I do, 40MP is an active turn off so personally no, I'd spend the money on a new lens. The 40MP sensor brings some downsides along with it's frankly crazy resolution for the sensor size. I still don't know why Fuji went down that road, I just hope there's always a lower resolution camera like the X-H2S in the range for when I want to upgrade my X-T4 in a few years.

What difference is an X-T5 going to make to your photography over an X-T4? Is the better AF going to make a difference? Obviously if it's just GAS and you want a nice shiny new camera then go for it, that's perfectly valid and we all like new things to play with.
 
skullfunkerry said:
I had the 18-55 and loved it, but I swapped to the 16-80 last summer and haven't regretted it at all. It's very good, and even if you don't need the telephoto for Rome, the extra 2mm at the wide end is very useful. The IS is excellent, and the weather sealing has already proved handy a couple of times.
Click to expand...
This is what I'm thinking, if I'm getting basically the same optical performance with a wider focal range and weather sealing then it's got to be worth trading my 18-55 for. There are so many used 16-80s for not much money. I'll see, I do love my 18-55, I must have a good copy as I really like the images I get from it.
 
RichardC27 said:
For some of the photography I do, 40MP is an active turn off so personally no, I'd spend the money on a new lens. The 40MP sensor brings some downsides along with it's frankly crazy resolution for the sensor size. I still don't know why Fuji went down that road, I just hope there's always a lower resolution camera like the X-H2S in the range for when I want to upgrade my X-T4 in a few years.

What difference is an X-T5 going to make to your photography over an X-T4? Is the better AF going to make a difference? Obviously if it's just GAS and you want a nice shiny new camera then go for it, that's perfectly valid and we all like new things to play with.
Click to expand...
Thank you all!!

It probably was GAS…..so I need to remember just to get out there and take pictures rather than staying in and dreaming about new equipment!

Although, liking the talk about the 16-80mm……;)
 
RichardC27 said:
Obviously the 16-55mm f2.8 is the best out of this range of zooms but it's also twice the price and out of my budget at the moment. Dunno, maybe I just keep the 18-55. I am happy with the images I get from it, it's a great little lens.
Click to expand...

I would be tempted to look at the Viltrox 13mm F1.4.

I bought a 16mm F1.4 a few years back and would carry it along side the 18-55. I do like the 16mm F1.4 but my inclination is towards going wider and had the Viltrox been available then I would have bought it instead at the time. If you have a stabilised body then the prime would stabilised providing additional handheld low light / night options.
 
Any opinions on the XC 50-230 vs the XF 55-200? The XF 70-300mm is out of my price range I think; am looking for something for a bit of wildlife whilst on holiday.

Aperture is better on the 55-200 (3.5 vs 4.5) but other than that they seem quite similar in price on the second hand market. Obviously one is XF and one is XC but that's a build quality thing - the XF isn't water resistant.

Any real-world experiences with either/both?
 
I have the 55-200, it is a good allrounder, and it is the lens I used most on my X-T2. I particularly liked it for portraits at the wider end. I did find it a bit too short for wildlife though, but it really depends on the wildlife you will be shooting.

I haven't looked at values, but need to get mine sold/traded in, as I have replaced it with the 50-140.
 
Craikeybaby said:
I have the 55-200, it is a good allrounder, and it is the lens I used most on my X-T2. I particularly liked it for portraits at the wider end. I did find it a bit too short for wildlife though, but it really depends on the wildlife you will be shooting.

I haven't looked at values, but need to get mine sold/traded in, as I have replaced it with the 50-140.
Click to expand...
That's quite a bit shorter again! Think the extra 30mm would make that much difference on the 50-230mm? Shame about the aperture on it. Its very cheap though
 
colourofsound said:
Any opinions on the XC 50-230 vs the XF 55-200? The XF 70-300mm is out of my price range I think; am looking for something for a bit of wildlife whilst on holiday.

Aperture is better on the 55-200 (3.5 vs 4.5) but other than that they seem quite similar in price on the second hand market. Obviously one is XF and one is XC but that's a build quality thing - the XF isn't water resistant.

Any real-world experiences with either/both?
Click to expand...

I've had both, optically they are both good, the XC50-230mm though feels very lightweight and certainly doesn' have the build quality of the 55-200 - unless you can get close to the wildlife, you'll be cropping a lot with either.

I'm not a wildlife shooter nor particularly a telephoto shooter so ultimately neither were for me. That said with either of these lenses if you bought them for shooting some wildlife whilst on holiday I can't help to think that you are in for a world of disappointment.
 
Mr Perceptive said:
I've had both, optically they are both good, the XC50-230mm though feels very lightweight and certainly doesn' have the build quality of the 55-200 - unless you can get close to the wildlife, you'll be cropping a lot with either.

I'm not a wildlife shooter nor particularly a telephoto shooter so ultimately neither were for me. That said with either of these lenses if you bought them for shooting some wildlife whilst on holiday I can't help to think that you are in for a world of disappointment.
Click to expand...
Still better than the 18-55mm though....I will temper my expectations accordingly
 
colourofsound said:
Still better than the 18-55mm though....I will temper my expectations accordingly
Click to expand...

Puffins with an original X100 - quite a heavy crop (4MP final image) - involved a lot of stitting very still :)

The board meeting didn't go to plan by David Yeoman, on Flickr

Personally I wouldn't buy either the 50-230 or 55-200 for wildlife on one holiday, if you have other applications for them - then great, But you'll think you have the gear and the images will be meh, your exptations will be too high, whereas if you took the picture with teh 18-55 and its still meh, you'll be happier as your expectations will have been a lot lower :D
 
swiftowl51 said:
Thank you all!!

It probably was GAS…..so I need to remember just to get out there and take pictures rather than staying in and dreaming about new equipment!

Although, liking the talk about the 16-80mm……;)
Click to expand...
What lenses do you currently have? You could buy the Viltrox 27mm f1.2 or 75mm f1.2 and still have a good chunk of your cash left over. Both of those are amazing lenses.
 
Mr Perceptive said:
Puffins with an original X100 - quite a heavy crop (4MP final image) - involved a lot of stitting very still :)

The board meeting didn't go to plan by David Yeoman, on Flickr

Personally I wouldn't buy either the 50-230 or 55-200 for wildlife on one holiday, if you have other applications for them - then great, But you'll think you have the gear and the images will be meh, your exptations will be too high, whereas if you took the picture with teh 18-55 and its still meh, you'll be happier as your expectations will have been a lot lower :D
Click to expand...
I think I went to a similar board meeting :D

Puffin on Staffa by Chris Walker, on Flickr

This was with the 18-55mm. But as you well know, those puffins are not fussed at all. I was thinking more like garden birds, deer 200m away; that sort of thing
 
colourofsound said:
Still better than the 18-55mm though....I will temper my expectations accordingly
Click to expand...
As many on here know, I have shot a lot of wildlife with my Fuji system. Puffins don't need a lot of reach (generally), somewhere like Skoma, Farne Islands or the Trenish Isles, they'll be within 2-3m of you. To shoot birds you ideally need at least 400mm, I tend to use the 100-400 with and without the 1.4TC that will give you 560mm @ f5.6 (so you need a bit of light to help you).

I am seriously considering selling the X-T3 & 100-400, and replacing it with a T5 & 150-600 for my wildlife stuff. However, my existing set up does give good results, as long as you have a bit of patience and maybe a decent tripod.

Barn Owl2 by Steve Jelly, on Flickr

Bully by Steve Jelly, on Flickr

This was shot at 560mm with a shutter speed of 1/40th, so you can see why a tripod is useful.

Mallard by Steve Jelly, on Flickr
 
Jelster said:
As many on here know, I have shot a lot of wildlife with my Fuji system. Puffins don't need a lot of reach (generally), somewhere like Skoma, Farne Islands or the Trenish Isles, they'll be within 2-3m of you. To shoot birds you ideally need at least 400mm, I tend to use the 100-400 with and without the 1.4TC that will give you 560mm @ f5.6 (so you need a bit of light to help you).

I am seriously considering selling the X-T3 & 100-400, and replacing it with a T5 & 150-600 for my wildlife stuff. However, my existing set up does give good results, as long as you have a bit of patience and maybe a decent tripod.

Barn Owl2 by Steve Jelly, on Flickr

Bully by Steve Jelly, on Flickr

This was shot at 560mm with a shutter speed of 1/40th, so you can see why a tripod is useful.

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

"Excellent" set of wildlife style captures Steve, liking all of these very much.
 
G.K.Jnr. said:
"Excellent" set of wildlife style captures Steve, liking all of these very much.
Click to expand...
Thanks George. I prefer to shoot wildlife more than anything else but with my current state of health getting around with the gear is not easy.
 
Jelster said:
As many on here know, I have shot a lot of wildlife with my Fuji system. Puffins don't need a lot of reach (generally), somewhere like Skoma, Farne Islands or the Trenish Isles, they'll be within 2-3m of you. To shoot birds you ideally need at least 400mm, I tend to use the 100-400 with and without the 1.4TC that will give you 560mm @ f5.6 (so you need a bit of light to help you).

I am seriously considering selling the X-T3 & 100-400, and replacing it with a T5 & 150-600 for my wildlife stuff. However, my existing set up does give good results, as long as you have a bit of patience and maybe a decent tripod.
Click to expand...
Duly noted; but we're talking £600+ of lens and I'm talking about lenses at £200 on the second hand market.

Basically, is it worth getting a 200mm (or thereabouts) lens for casual wildlife shooting; and if so which of Fuji's offerings in that department is the better bet?
 
colourofsound said:
Duly noted; but we're talking £600+ of lens and I'm talking about lenses at £200 on the second hand market.

Basically, is it worth getting a 200mm (or thereabouts) lens for casual wildlife shooting; and if so which of Fuji's offerings in that department is the better bet?
Click to expand...

Quite honestly, no. Why not hire something more up to the task? Pretty sure lensesforhire.com have the 100-400 and 150-600....
 
colourofsound said:
Duly noted; but we're talking £600+ of lens and I'm talking about lenses at £200 on the second hand market.

Basically, is it worth getting a 200mm (or thereabouts) lens for casual wildlife shooting; and if so which of Fuji's offerings in that department is the better bet?
Click to expand...
Personally I think you're going to be disappointed with 200mm for any wildlife. Unless you're a ninja and can get really close ;)
I had a 55-200 for about a month... Just wasn't long enough.
Not sure if adaptors might work well enough for another brand longer lens. Might be an option if they do.
 
colourofsound said:
Duly noted; but we're talking £600+ of lens and I'm talking about lenses at £200 on the second hand market.

Basically, is it worth getting a 200mm (or thereabouts) lens for casual wildlife shooting; and if so which of Fuji's offerings in that department is the better bet?
Click to expand...
200mm isn't long enough, even for casual wildlife shooting on APS-C. It would be a wasted £200 as you're going to be very disappointed with the results, and then have to sell the lens you've bought for something longer. There are several lenses in the 400 to 600mm range for Fuji now, but they all cost more than £200 unfortunately
 
colourofsound said:
Looks like you've all saved me £200 in the short term then!

What is even the point of these lenses then haha. I suppose the 70-300mm isn't much use either? Unless your wildlife is very friendly...
Click to expand...
People need a short telephoto for all sorts of things. Travel, portraits, some sports photography could all be done with a 50-200. The 70-300 would be better, you're at the equivalent of 105-450mm in full frame so you're getting significantly more reach there.

For big wildlife, say something like red deer at a deer park then yes 200mm might be enough, as they are so used to people that you can get close. But for birds or anything like that it's going to be too short
 
colourofsound said:
Looks like you've all saved me £200 in the short term then!

What is even the point of these lenses then haha. I suppose the 70-300mm isn't much use either? Unless your wildlife is very friendly...

Very much appreciate all the advice :)
Click to expand...
As an illustration, I took this out of my home office window. The distance is no more than 8 to 10 metres, if that (the tree is at the end of our very short front lawn), this was shot at 400mm and it's heavily cropped to get the bird anything like big enough in the frame. At 200mm it would be unusable

1000026249.jpg

Here's the uncropped image
1000026250.jpg
 
Last edited:
colourofsound said:
Looks like you've all saved me £200 in the short term then!

What is even the point of these lenses then haha. I suppose the 70-300mm isn't much use either? Unless your wildlife is very friendly...

Very much appreciate all the advice :)
Click to expand...
Some people use a 55-200 for mountain landscapes etc

The problem with long zooms, is usually at the long end, where sharpness falls off. I have to be careful with my 100-400.

Regarding the 70-300. You can use a 1.4 extender with that at least.
 
Yeah I was being a bit sarcy. I can see a short tele being used at gigs; bike races (both of which I attend) so a lens of that type wouldn't be a waste to me.

RichardC27 said:
As an illustration, I took this out of my home office window. The distance is no more than 8 to 10 metres, if that (the tree is at the end of our very short front lawn), this was shot at 400mm and it's heavily cropped to get the bird anything like big enough in the frame. At 200mm it would be unusable

View attachment 411630

Here's the uncropped image
View attachment 411631
Click to expand...
Even uncropped I think thats pretty good to be honest; but I understand that outdoors it could get frustrating at larger distances and with wilder...life.

Just looking through my pics of the bird table with my 18-55mm and yeah, its probably 2m from the window and I still needed to crop a lot to get something useable.

Food for thought!
 
Last edited:
Paulie-W said:
Some people use a 55-200 for mountain landscapes etc

The problem with long zooms, is usually at the long end, where sharpness falls off. I have to be careful with my 100-400.

Regarding the 70-300. You can use a 1.4 extender with that at least.
Click to expand...

Another issue with landscapes is depth of field, they are fine if everything is in the distance, but if there is something nearby that forms part of your scene, often you have to stop the lens down a long way (into the diffraction zone) to get acceptable DOF, or you are into a world of focus stacking. For my typical shooting, I've found carrying a mid range telephoto is a waste of time, its just dead weight in the bag! There really aren't (IMO) general purpose lenses.

I have the GF100-200mm for the GFX, but I bought it for a particular reason, and unless I'm shooting that genre, it usually stays in the house/car.
 
jimmyjamjojo said:
All of the following were shot below 200mm. Yeah the reach can make things easier, and you might not get magazine worthy shots, but it's certainly not impossible to do on a 55-200mm as an enthusiast.

Black Kites by Jamie Moulton, on Flickr

Barn Owl by Jamie Moulton, on Flickr

Robin by Jamie Moulton, on Flickr

Field by Jamie Moulton, on Flickr

Egret by Jamie Moulton, on Flickr
Click to expand...
Lovely shots there mate, you've really put the cat amongst the pigeons now...how much cropping are we talking here?
 
Last edited:
Good afternoon everyone, I've just took delivery of a XT4 and 70-300 lens and curious as to what kit bags everyone uses? I'll be doing mainly landscape and Motorsport so sumthing rugged and waterproof would be perfect. Cheers
 
colourofsound said:
Looks like you've all saved me £200 in the short term then!

What is even the point of these lenses then haha. I suppose the 70-300mm isn't much use either? Unless your wildlife is very friendly...

Very much appreciate all the advice :)
Click to expand...
Until I bought the 50-140 it was my most used lens: bike races, portraits, motorsport (longer would be better though) and landscapes mainly.
geordiecraig101 said:
Good afternoon everyone, I've just took delivery of a XT4 and 70-300 lens and curious as to what kit bags everyone uses? I'll be doing mainly landscape and Motorsport so sumthing rugged and waterproof would be perfect. Cheers
Click to expand...
I use an Evoc Stage Capture. I found that a lot of bags available when I was looking a few years back, especially the ones geared to outdoor photography, were sizes for DSLRs, with bigger lenses, so my kit would rattle around inside them - not ideal when mountain biking.
 
colourofsound said:
Lovely shots there mate, you've really put the cat amongst the pigeons now...how much cropping are we talking here?
Click to expand...
Honestly can't remember, but nothing too crazy. I think the older ones were shot on my X-T1, so can't have been cropped much!

One more for good measure, at 300mm -

Deer 2 by Jamie Moulton, on Flickr
 
Last edited:
RichardC27 said:
This is what I'm thinking, if I'm getting basically the same optical performance with a wider focal range and weather sealing then it's got to be worth trading my 18-55 for. There are so many used 16-80s for not much money. I'll see, I do love my 18-55, I must have a good copy as I really like the images I get from it.
Click to expand...
Is there much variation with the 18-55? I've only heard good things about it tbh.

Dryce said:
I would be tempted to look at the Viltrox 13mm F1.4.

I bought a 16mm F1.4 a few years back and would carry it along side the 18-55. I do like the 16mm F1.4 but my inclination is towards going wider and had the Viltrox been available then I would have bought it instead at the time. If you have a stabilised body then the prime would stabilised providing additional handheld low light / night options.
Click to expand...
I have the Viltrox 13mm and it's excellent. I was thinking about this thread while driving yesterday and was going to suggest it to @RichardC27 :)

colourofsound said:
Any opinions on the XC 50-230 vs the XF 55-200? The XF 70-300mm is out of my price range I think; am looking for something for a bit of wildlife whilst on holiday.

Aperture is better on the 55-200 (3.5 vs 4.5) but other than that they seem quite similar in price on the second hand market. Obviously one is XF and one is XC but that's a build quality thing - the XF isn't water resistant.

Any real-world experiences with either/both?
Click to expand...
I think this question has pretty much been answered now, but i just thought I'd pop a quick defence of the 50-230 on here. It's definitely not long enough for a lot of wildlife (I took it to Dagnam Park in Romford before I got my 100-400 to shoot deer & I couldn't get close enough most of the time), but the quality is pretty good. These were taken with it (the deer shots are pretty heavily cropped; most of the other shots I got were unusable. The swan and the squirrel came very close to me though).

DSCF2561.jpeg

DSCF2569.jpeg

DSCF2553.jpeg

DSCF2785.jpeg
 
Last edited:
skullfunkerry said:
Is there much variation with the 18-55? I've only heard good things about it tbh.
Click to expand...
Apparently, same as there apparently is with the 16-80mm. How much of it is true and how much is internet nonsense who knows?
 
RichardC27 said:
Apparently, same as there apparently is with the 16-80mm. How much of it is true and how much is internet nonsense who knows?
Click to expand...
I did read about that with the 16-80 - I bought one rated as good from MPB, thinking that if it wasn't great then at least it was cheap. I'm very happy with it. These were all taken with it on my X-T30.

DSCF6588.jpeg

DSCF6590.jpeg

DSCF6687.jpeg

DSCF6792.jpeg

DSCF8333.jpeg

DSCF8321.jpeg

Lll
 
Last edited:
skullfunkerry said:
I did read about that with the 16-80 - I bought one rated as good from MPB, thinking that if it wasn't great then at least it was cheap. I'm very happy with it. These were all taken with it on my X-T30.

View attachment 411670

View attachment 411671

View attachment 411672

View attachment 411673

View attachment 411674

View attachment 411675

Lll
Click to expand...
Really nice set of images. If I could sell my 18-55 for about £240 then it's only a small outlay to get the 16-80mm, and if the optical performance is the same then it's a more rounded lens overall. The only downsides are its bigger and a stop slower at the short end.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top