Jump to content

ArtPage

Members
  • Posts

    10
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by ArtPage

  1. ArtPage, it sounds very much like that you don't trust Fuji to offer continuos support to the X-T2, going by Fuji's past history with their products, I think you are mistaken. In fact past history of Fuji support would suggest that they will indeed support the X-T2, there is no reasonable reason to not purchase an X-T2 if you will want to buy one in the future!

     

    I still suspect that there is not a camera made that is without some teething troubles, nowadays that is not so much of a problem as the majority can be solved with a firmware update!

     

    thank you Mike for your comment. actually i do support xt2 (that is why i am opening this topic discussion here!) to talk about professional reasons, features, techniques, etc not only the marketing and sales issues.

    However, as you said according the history of fujifilm, everything would be alright through updating firmware's versions, since every product is the result of the previous one with years and years trails and errors.

    on the other hand, i believe if somebody is not completely familiar to xt1, buying xt2 will be confusing for beginning X photography. it means xt1 atleast is the best entry for professional Photography rather than xt2 for the first step.

    also if somebody doesn't need to photograph for sport (and its related required features like variations of AF-C and Focus points group, etc.) i don't think needs to shift from xt1 to xt2 immediately (it means still i am supporting good enough xt1 for professional Photography with holy triangle lenses of 10-24, 16-55, 50-140). 

    it is just about the right time-plan of buying xt2.

    what do you think? 

  2. dear X-friends .. To be honest I believe xt2 is made for coverting sport photography as well as videography. Although 24 mp sensor is better that 16 but not much different on result if you know how to set your camera, high quality double A2 size or even lorger print is possible with xt1. On the other hand since fuji on xt1 presenting features of photography and videography together with some new ones like touchscreen after x70 of course, seems xt1 after years corrections and developed system, personally i cannot trust xt2 atleast for 6 to 12 months, to upgrade all possible bugs and confusions. what do you think?

  3. To be honest I'm thinking the same! I belive xt2 is made for coverting sport photography as well as videography. Although 24 mp sensor is better that 16 but not much different on result if you know how to set your camera! High quality on doboul A2 or even lorger print is possible with xt1. On the other hand since fuji on xt1 presenting features of photography and videography together with some new ones like touchscreen after x70, vs xt1 after years corrections and developing system, personally i cannot trust xt2 atleast for 6 to 12 months, to upgrade all possible bugs and confusions.

  4. Hmpf. Let's take a look at that as I can't agree with much of what is in this post.

     

     

    XF27 f/2.8

     

    It is very sharp across the frame. It used to be my second sharpest lens after the Zeiss Touit 50mm f/2.8. Mine is about as good across the frame as the XF23 f/1.4, only beaten clearly by the XF90 and the Zeiss. Other lenses might be better at a certain aperture or certain characteristic but as an average of apertures from f/2.8 to f/8 the 27 is one of the best lenses I have tested from the Fuji line up. It does drop of significantly from f/11 on though.

     

    It has a light barrel distortion which is well corrected in software, either in camera or Lightroom and also some coma but both aren't really problematic. 

     

    There seems to be some significant spread between various XF27 lenses, I tested two of them and both were very close together, but there are other results on the net to be found which show weak edge performance which I can't reproduce with the lens I have here. So be aware and test the one you receive.

     

    XF35 f/1.4 and f/2

     

    Between these two lenses there are reviews that show one or the other being stronger optically, I own both and can say that without a doubt the old f/1.4 beats the new f/2 lens easily in optical performance from f/4 on. Contrast, micro-contrast, center resolution, resolution across the frame, distortion are better on my f/1.4 than they are on my f/2. I have seen tests stating otherwise even though when looking closely at their examples, it shows that they actually get same results as myself. 

     

    The f/2 is clearly a newer lens from Fuji, more solid barrel design, faster AF motor, nearly completely silent operation, tight aperture ring and the WR badge show this fairly clearly. Optically, the XF35 f/2 beats the old f/1.4 only at it's own wide open aperture and only in the wide corner area (not really close to the corner where the f/2 falls off pretty badly), which is kind of surprising – at f/2 the new lens shows more contrast in all parts of the except the center. 

     

    The new XF35 f/2 is unfortunately absolutely terrible in terms of optical distortion correction. The barrel distortion is extreme. 

     

    For landscapes between my two copies of the XF35 lenses the f/1.4 is better as it recovers much better over the whole frame from f/2.8 on where the two are comparable but from f/4 on the old lens shows clearly more details and more micro-contrast across the frame.

     

    Regarding AF performance, the new lens IS slightly better, but only slightly. The old lens makes a lot more "fuss" about focussing with a noisy motor and some squeaks here and there though making it "sound" slower. 

     

    You also have to be REALLY careful when looking at reviews of the lenses as all Fuji lenses seem to have variations between individual samples. So, you might get a really good XF35 f/2 or a really bad XF27 and your results can vary.

     

    Also, one more word of caution with regard to reviews: some reviews use dcraw to develop the raw which used to be absolutely terrible in de-mosaicing x-trans files which means the resulting resolution graphs were really bad for the simple reason that the software was crap and not the lens.

     

    Conclusion from above

     

    If you are looking for best optical performance, the surprise here is that if you get a good copy of the XF27 it is optically better on average over the respective full range of apertures of each lens than either of the XF35 lenses. 

     

    Now, that needs to be qualified though because if you take all three lenses and compare them from f/2.8 to f/8 only, the optically best I have here (and have tested personally) is the XF35 f/1.4. 

     

    No matter though, if it is really the only lens used for a while then I would HIGHLY recommend the XF35 f/1.4 for the following reasons:

    • ​It recovers optically better from f/2.8 on than the newer f/2 lens.
    • It delivers one stop more light which results in more creative options shooting wide open as well as more exposure options shooting in dark areas AND it lets in twice (compared to f/2) or even four times (compared to f/2.8) as much light onto an auto focus system so can be more precise.
    • It is optically better corrected than the two other lenses.
    • The XF27 does not have an aperture ring which I personally find a downside but others might disagree here.
    • While f/2.8 is not really slow, it is two stops slower than f/1.4 with all the creative disadvantages and exposure downsides.

    The field of few is actually quite a bit different between the 27 and the 35s. 

     

    If the only viable financial option is between XF35 f/2 and the XF27 I'd go with the one that is closer to the preferred focal length. 

     

    Waiting for 23 f/2?

     

    Why on earth would someone wait for a lens that isn't even on the Fujifilm lens roadmap yet? The rumors stem from an interview where a Fuji executive said that "people have asked for more compact slightly slower lenses" and that they'll likely develop some of them. Really, you're going to wait because of a rumor? 

     

    XF27 vs. any of the XF35s

     

    I have not used the XF27 much in the last year since I bought the XF23. I basically pack it in my bag when I take the X-T1 on a longer trip to have an option to remove the ArcaSwiss plate from the camera, mount the XF27 and have a very compact system. But mostly I just take a bag with me and pack the 14, maybe the 23, definitely a 35 and maybe if I'm after portraits the 56 or 90. 

     

    The XF27 is an okay "only lens" for me, but the XF23 and either of the XF35s are better "only lenses". I'm more a 35 than a 23 fan, but that's personal. 

     

    thank you for your good statement.

    rather than all issues about 27 f2.8 such as good quality (if not better than 35 f2 but not less), weight, etc. would you let me know bout AF system? i mean is 27 f2.8 is enough safe auto focusing on XT1?

    regards

×
×
  • Create New...