milandro

or not, since these lenses might simply be revitalized old lenses meant for film capture and not for digital capture.

ok, so ( despite the name which it will be given) this will be an anticlimactic X Pro 1 PLUS then rather than the so long awaited X Pro 2 with all the bells and whistles ? I mean, instead of the revolutionary obscure object of desire which has long been promised in the prophecies to come and change everything, the true and one and oly that many were ^ forecasting and waiting for?

well, as said in the other thread where you announce these new lenses, I wonder whether the world was holding its breath for, yet again, a new line of overpriced lenses excreted by a Sino-German company ( Made in China from an old German lens architecture) which are producing non autofocus, non automatic, not communicating with the camera in any way range of lenses ( also not specific to the APS-C format) sold at this inflated prices by the simple application of a Fuji bayonet to lenses that are originally made for FF film cameras.

irrespective of their performance, they ask a lot of money for whatever they sell. But as we’ve seen there are some born every day, and that’s what they are hoping to capitalize upon.

HandeVision : 24/F2.4 – 35/F2.4 – 50/F2.4 – 75/F2.4 – 90/F2.4 It looks like anyone who has a production line based on excreting overpriced manual focus lenses is jumping on the bandwagon of simply putting a Fuji bayonet on their otherwise non autofocus and non automatic, not communicating with the camera lenses which have been given a rejuvenation treatment. German Engineering ( read “ but made in China”) at its best.

But they failed to test it prior to releasing? Incredible! Well under my expectations. A bit like my X-E1 which was sent in( took forever to go to the German lab and back 8 weeks including 2 weeks at the shop repair facility, 1 week out, 1 week the way in ) for oil and dust on the sensor and came back with that cured but sporting a huge hair (that couldn’t be removed by me or the shop!) so big that you didn’t even have to see it on the computer screen, it was visible on the LCD screen of the camera! There was a report of all they had done but obviously nobody had looked at the camera before releasing it! Maybe from Belgium, they sent your lens to the same facility ( since The Netherlands don’t appear to have their own Fuji repair lab). The shop offer to refund me the buying price in order to buy another camera and I decided to upgrade to the X-T1.

the lens hood that I have and the filter are very light. Certainly not more that one or more Raynox lenses ( which others use) would weigh. In any case I have had it for a year, used it often, and no adverse effect has yet to show. I believe that the best protection against bumping your lens is being careful ( in 40 years it has never happened to me ...while I did once drop a camera, a Pentax 6 x7, from a studio tripod causing it to get a ding in the corner... but nothing else broke). The best way to evaluate the merits of something is doing it. I did it and I am happy to tell the the tale ( which is what a forum is about) and walk the walk.

I am saying that improving from 16 to 24 Mp , improved videos and better autofocus won’t give ME any reason to upgrade from the present model that I own. If that will sway others, I don’t know. Because any print that I might want to do with my camera would be large enough for my needs with the files that I can produce right now. I don’t film if not for some quick and dirty family things...which I don’t even edit...and I don’t take pictures which require any quicker autofocus than I have at present. Maybe better save MY money for something else ( I put some on the side for any gear acquisition syndrome attack ) But I could be pleasantly surprised, who knows? What’s done is done, no use in wish lists , in a few days we will know.

it all depends on when and where you are jumping on the bandwagon (or not). I jumped on the bandwagon with the X-E1 followed by the X-T1 when the first camera failed (long story) being repaired. The idea was, for me, at the time: “ I’buy the more advanced type NOW, ...chances are that will be having a good performance for many years to come anyway" Of course the X-T2 will show reasons to be an improvement over the X-T1 but if the improvement will be mostly limited to: 1) Pixel count 2) Movies 3) faster AF Then I think that I will stick with my X-T1 and maybe I will even buy a X-E2 second body if and when the prices come down and the firmware would be brought at least, for the most part, at par with the X-T1 or 10. Frankly I don’t anticipate anything “ revolutionary” ( by the way, I remember this film with Jean Reno , Leon, where he rays that a revolution means a 360 degrees turn which brings you where you were, while we all use this term as in "going forward! ") . Chances are that most “ improvements" will be minor, revolutionary staying more or less where we are already, but the press, bloggers and rumor sites will all play it as the X-T2 will be the best invention after sliced bread ( is sliced bread really such an improvement?). Until the X-T3 that is.

the aperture priority is my favorite automatism from the days the first AE ( automatic exposure) cameras appeared on the market offering automatism with aperture or shutter (only much later with program). I’ve always had cameras with AE with aperture priority although I remember a friend of mine had a Konica Autoreflex T when I had a Pentax ES

well, I suppose that the first time it came from the production and the second time came from a repair facility. But it is very unsettling that such an expensive and special lens ( I am talking of the 56mm APD not the 35mm ) would be released with any defects.

I don’t have a problem with setting it right, hence painting a reference dot, my problem is that I would like it not to move once it is set.

I an not so sure that I understand what you are asking. For general purposes, under good light conditions, you can leave the lens set on the aperture which gives you the best image quality and depth of field and focussed at the hyperfocal distance. Under these conditions the camera becomes virtually like what in the large format photography world is called an “ hobo camera”. A point and shoot camera. If you are in very poor light condition, or need to focus closer than you can by means of the hyperfocal method you would diverge from all of this but focussing, even with the best of eyes and focus peeking at he best magnification won’t be easy but you can do it. I use it this way and don’t find it difficult to compose. The EVF or electronic viewfinder is to this purpose also an image amplifier. The output image that you see inside is very similar under most light conditions, in other words if there is a lot of light or not so much light the image on the screen has more or less the same brightness. This is an essential difference with a reflex camera because there, the image you see (unless you are using live view) is the one made by the lens closed at a certain aperture through mirror and prism. But that’s not what happens with a mirrorless camera. That’s why being hung up about the maximum aperture is not particularly useful for anything other than the reaching of the magical bokeh ( Ah! The Bokeh!). Of course at some point of low light noise will increase and cloud the picture but composing is way better even under those circumstances.

Cheers, good luck!

these lens adapters which allow light in the camera to create flares on purpose must be one of the quickest way to get a bad quality ( though creative?) image with your expensive camera! Sometimes I can’t help asking myself if looking for unusual shots gets in the way of thinking.

Rotating the image to vertical of course gives you a much smaller image to view.

I have the 60mm macro, a lens that I consider one of the best I’ve ever owned. Although some folks argue that you need a 1:1 lens even most of the classic lenses didn’t give you this without an extension tube. Tubes are cheap. Close up lenses are cheap too and can be quickly screwed on or snapped on many lenses and give you macro performance very quickly. I also own a Pentax M42 100mm f 4 , great lens and it puts you at some distance from your subject. Other lenses which are often inexpensive are Vivitar and Tamron 90mm, you can find those with many mounts and very cheap. Adapters are generally cheap.

Well, China ( and maybe Hong Kong too) has been know to have a strange internet. In fact one could argue ( as many have done) that internet in China is a gigantic intranet only looks like internet but isn’t. But asking yourself these questions over there might get you in trouble. http://journal.probeinternational.org/2015/02/02/is-chinas-internet-becoming-an-intranet/

They are two completely different lenses with totally different characteristics. I don’t see them as alternative but as complementary lenses. Don’t swap, buy the 35mm and keep it together with the 23mm. That’s what I would do.

Your interpretation of what I am writing is erroneous. I don’t change anything in the focal plane to lens distance nor do I change anything in the lens itself. I simply use the filter mount to attach a lens hood instead of the lens hood bayonet, as all lenses have ben used for eons! Now, if I do this straight up, the lens cannot focus at infinity because the outer (outside of the filter ring) edge of the lend hits the lens hood, that’s why you need a spacer, a filter, with the same size as the filter thread, this moves the hood 3 mm further. I am rather experienced myself and as you can see from the picture of my lens with the lens hood “ in situ” the method is used for real and is not a theoretical one.

???? What are you talking about? My lens works perfectly from far to close! That is the whole point of using the filter in between as a spacer for the lens hood. You need sthe spacer exactly because otherwise the lens wouldn’t focus at infinite and that’s why , if you only put the lens hood with no spacer the camera goes into “ error”. I’ve obviously tried that. With the filter there is no issue. There is a filter than there is an thread adapter and then there is the lens hood. Several people used the same solution and I am certainly not the only person who came to this conclusion. Obviously the filter is not in the way otherwise one wouldn’t be able to use this lens with filters and what would be the purpose to have a filter thread otherwise?

actually the way that I have found is very simple and bypasses any problem by simply applying a filter in the filter screw mount ( which if it was more protruding by only a couple of threads would have created no problem at all!) and then screwing on this a moderately dimensioned lens hood which allows me to leave on and use the lens hood at all times. To me the lens hood of the 60mm is a textbook example of a lens designed by someone who has never used the lens and doesn’t realize how annoying and counterintuitive and conceptually wrong would be to have a compact lens to be used with a lens hood as big as the lens itself.

This is something that has surprised me a lot ever since I joined the ranks of the Fuji system. One would have thought that for a camera system with no previous history, practically starting anew, there would be the chance to start with one philosophy behind a range of lenses and that the range would express this in a way that the lenses have some sort of united look, feel, features... but they are really all very different to the point of being of some lenses being odd and incongruent. The weirdest ( to me, if you like the lens hood... good for you ) has to be the 60mm macro which has this enormously long and totally unnecessary ( the way it is) lens hood, simply because of the way the lens works and the front mount is. Requires a very strange work around too to bypass what has to be a design flaw (in my opinion, again I love the lens but find it odd) implying using a filter as spacer because otherwise the majority of screw in lens hoods would interfere with the autofocus operations sending the lens and camera to an error ( being there done that). Another thing that has puzzled me is the fact that all the footage shot at the lens plants, they show incredibly sterile conditions but there have been many reports (I had one too) of lenses new in the box ( and you know that it is almost impossible to open a fuji box without leaving some sort of trace that someone had been there) showing traces of particles inside the lens. How does it get there and when?

Such a minority group of of users simply form a market niche not large enough to absorb the cost of a dedicated production line. My guess is that is never going to happen.

I really don’t understand the point of developing something that you can do either with any AF fuji lens, if you wish to do, so or with any other lens by third party. If you want to save money buy a Samyang or something like that or adapt a manual focus lens to Fuji and you are in business. Why would Fuji invest into doing something of such a minority interest anyway?