milandro

the Iso turnable and easily accessible dial would be a deal breaker for me too. I use the camera always in aperture priority. If an when the selected aperture, which I have deemed necessary or useful to me at that point, might lead me to have to use a shutter speed that makes me feel uncomfortable, at that point I simply turn the ISO dial and give it a “ crank” to the sensitivity which makes me feel comfortable shooting at the aperture and shutter speed that I like better. So, quick access is important... to me.

I have been thinking of buying one of these lenses but the various sources on line ( with many examples) showing results achieved with these lenses ( many different brands available on line) showed ( although some talked about it in favorable terms) results which were VERY soft at best. Mind you I owned a 35 1.4 until few days ago and I was going to buy one of these simply for fun. Having seen the results of many people talking of these type of lenses on line I really think that this lens, especially used at 1.4 is simply too soft to offer any other practical use that wouldn’t be classed as a special effect or occasional photography On the other hand, some people spend good money buying soft lenses like the lensbaby soft...

I agree, the “ roadmap” has been and is still used mostly as a marketing instrument announcing, beforehand, the lens to come so that people could see that there was a system to come and buy into even before the lens found their way on the marketplace. With few exceptions ( such as the 56 APD and the two II versions of the 16-50 and the 50-230mm and maybe something else which escapes my mind right now) they have stuck to the program. Surprises are always possible but they should be limited to minor variation on lenses already on the map since the projecting of a new lens takes a long time of preparatory work. As for the 12mm. Well, I have recently sold the 10-24 ( which was the second lens that I’ve bought after the 35mm f1.4, which is also gone in favor of the 18-55mm which covers some of the focal lengths coved by the 10-24 before) since I used it mostly at 10mm and acquired the 12mm Samyang which has gone to replace the “ void” left by the the ultra-wide zoom. I am very happy about it and given its depth of field you can pretty much shoot as if the lens was an autofocus one ( which I guess, it is what JanH calls automatic sharpening?) Some recent shots made with this lens showed me that it indeed performs as well as the 10-24 did ( for me) and that I was right in including it into my lens panoply. Of course there are limits to what we can attach to the forums post but even at this size you can see the great performance of the 12mm.

I am extremely calm, but am an articulated writer who likes explaining his thoughts making them clear. Don’t confuse anger with the full expressing of someone's thoughts, experiences and ideas most of the times based on direct experience. I enjoy life to its fullest. A very good day to you too Sir. Buy your 90mm and be happy. I won’t comment on this lens ( the 90mm) despite having a little experience with it , having shot a few pictures in a shop, but, unlike you with no experience with the 50-230 but holding an opinion about this lesn, I consider it too little to give an informed opinion on it.

pretty clear. you never used this lens, have only read something about it , refuse to look at and comment on the pictures shown, and declare that it is not for you ( though saying is a great lens!) but have never used it or can say anything based on direct experience about its use and qualities. No further questions your honor, I rest my case.

so your ONLY contribution to a thread on the merits on this lens is that it is not for you. OK, thank you.

Well, yes, a lens definitely affected by Priapism!

and another video of a case

this is another underwater case @https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3Tuq62EjAyE&feature=youtu.be&a

A discussion on the 50-230mm and its diffraction qualities, sprouted me writing about diffraction affecting all lenses lenses but made me think again of this thread that I’ve started some time ago. In the meantime I have fallen prey to adaptive photography again ( due to having bought a Kipon Tilt adapter) and I have bought myself a few M42 lenses a 28mm f3.5 takumar, a 58mm f2 helios, a 100mm f 4 macro takumar and a 135mm f2.8 tokina. All these lenses ( also the Tokina) are perfectly working with the adapter for the intended purpose and perform well at relatively high aperture but their quality drops off dramatically if completely stopped down and more so that they would have done if used on a traditional film camera and way more so on wideangles then of tele lenses. So I had to think of Mr. Takashi Ueno and what he said. “...Firstly, the angle of light that film and imaging sensors can receive differ from each other. Film can receive light at the slanted angle of up to 45 degrees without any problem, but in case of the digital camera, the light needs to be as perpendicular to the sensor as possible. Slanted angle light causes mixed colors and therefore the real colors sometimes cannot be reproduced. In order to receive the light perpendicular to the sensor, it is important to make the rear glass element on each lens as big as possible to put the light beams parallel from the outlet of the light to the sensor. Finally, the back-focus distance should be shortened as much as possible to eliminate the degradation in image quality..." And this made me think of why the resolution drops so badly on a digital sensor when using a “ legacy” lens and not as much when using a lens made for the purpose. The grid of pixels in the sensor act , in fact, like a curtain with blades partially in front of a window. If you are standing right in front you can see the window behind the curtain but if you go all the way to the left, or to the right you can’t. Film was indeed more forgiving then sensors are.

I think you might be under a misconception that f11 is an absolute value universally applicable, irrespectively for all cameras and all lenses and all sensors, but have it your way if you so wish but that is not the case. The example above where given to show that the quality of the shot ( not the depth of field!) of the cheap 50-230 stopped down at 22 (plenty of diffraction according to your paradigm) at its maximum focal length was not far off the quality of the shot of the 55-200 at 200mm stopped down at ONLY f8 ( not yet any diffraction, always according to your paradigm). If the “ diffraction” riddled image of the 50-230mm going anywhere past f11 would have been so bad as you say it should get, at 22 should have been terrible and unusable. No?....No! Click on the pictures, they will expand even more and THEN you tell me if the 50-230mm at 230mm, f 22, produces an unusable image! Clearly, it isn’t! That is why I published for all to see the graphic and empiric examples given by the Fuji own entertaining lens evaluation system ( truthful, I hope, although one could suspect that fuji would naturally be interested in selling the more expensive of the two lenses) However, be happy! I don’t have anything to gain from convincing you if you don ’t want to be convinced. For the benefit of others who might want to ascertain whether this lens offers " enough playground” ( the only comparable lens the 55-200, would, however offer only one stop more “ playground”) or not. That’s how I understand the problem. What happens to a 8 or 15 a 28 or 50mm, where diffraction ( which by the way starts immediately as you start closing the aperture, which also controls some aberrations, will be affecting resolution reducing the quality of an image at some stage) might very well start reducing resolution at values next to F11 ( ore even 8 for that matter!) but that is not the same in a longer lens where it might start above that value ( or for a larger format where it might even start below that value!) Because diffraction is caused by physical size of the aperture which at some point becomes too small to transmit light in a straight line and bends parallel rays... but this is a relative phenomenon, not an absolute one. there are lenses which, because of their focal length, are not made to not have a maximum aperture higher than 8 or even higher but can be stopped down to values somewhat past f11 because they are long lenses. from wikipedia ( a little more scientific article than photozone) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diffraction-limited_system “ In a digital camera, diffraction effects interact with the effects of the regular pixel grid. The combined effect of the different parts of an optical system is determined by the convolution of the point spread functions (PSF). The point spread function of a diffraction limited lens is simply the Airy disc. The point spread function of the camera, otherwise called the instrument response function (IRF) can be approximated by a rectangle function, with a width equivalent to the pixel pitch. A more complete derivation of the modulation transfer function (derived from the PSF) of image sensors is given by Fliegel.[3] Whatever the exact instrument response function we may note that it is largely independent of the f-number of the lens. Thus at different f-numbers a camera may operate in three different regimes, as follows: in the case where the spread of the IRF is small with respect to the spread of the diffraction PSF, in which case the system may be said to be essentially diffraction limited (so long as the lens itself is diffraction limited). in the case where the spread of the diffraction PSF is small with respect to the IRF, in which case the system is instrument limited. in the case where the spread of the PSF and IRF are of the same order of magnitude, in which case both impact the available resolution of the system. The spread of the diffraction-limited PSF is approximated by the diameter of the first null of the Airy disk, where λ is the wavelength of the light and N is the f-number of the imaging optics. For f/8 and green (0.5 μm wavelength) light, d = 9.76 μm. This is of the same order of magnitude as the pixel size for the majority of commercially available 'full frame' (43mm sensor diagonal) cameras and so these will operate in regime 3 for f-numbers around 8 (few lenses are close to diffraction limited at f-numbers smaller than 8). Cameras with smaller sensors will tend to have smaller pixels, but their lenses will be designed for use at smaller f-numbers and it is likely that they will also operate in regime 3 for those f-numbers for which their lenses are diffraction limited...." So, certainly f8 or 11 are limits for most lenses but it is more likely to be 8 for a wideangle and perhaps 16 for a tele. But again, look at the picture at 230mm at 22, is it fuzzy? Click on the picture, it expands even more! Large format film cameras are a good example ( although their use on film was possible because film is more forgiving for curved rays of light not traveling in a “ straight” line than a sensor is, that has to be said!) At one time the majority of lenses ( starting at 135mm to way above 480mm) had a maximum aperture of 5.6 but some, apochromatic lenses had values of f 9 , their best operating values always exceeded f11 because they were long lenses with relative large apertures ( remember the F number is not an absolute dimension but it is a ratio you change one part of the ratio the other part has to change too, longer focal length at the same F value means a wider diameter ). This lens 480mm, had a starting aperture number at 8.4 and closed until f66, do you really thing that couldn’t give diffraction acceptable images past F11?

it very much depends how thick your laptops are. If you have two MacBook Air certainly. I would also venture saying that it would even take a “ normal” laptop and a MacBook air but I am not sure it would take two very old and thick laptop. It might. However this bag has in fact two compartments one is zipped ( and can contain two MacBook Air) and the other one has a zip at the bottom and velcro at the top ( can be used to slide onto the handle of a rolling cabin case or trolley) where you could put the second laptop Unfortunately these bags aren’t everywhere to be found so you can’t just walk in a shop and check it out. I am very happy with this bag anyway.

diffraction takes its toll after F11 in all lenses? Regardless of focal length? Are you sure that you can say this “ tout court”? F11 in a the 10-24mm is not the same F11 in a 50- 230mm....... The F number is a ratio between focal length and the diameter of the aperture and it is a simple number but F 11 in one lens is not F11 in another with regards to diffraction. If at f11 you have a lot of diffraction in a wide angle you won’t have the same amount of resolution loss due to diffraction in a tele because it is a much larger opening. You can be biased and it is your right to be but your facts are not right. You can easily close you aperture way more with this lens than with any other shorter lens! And, have you ever used it? If you, as I suspect, didn’t, do yourself a favor and check this out. http://fujifilmxmount.com/comparison/en/test-our-lenses/ 50-230mm at 230 at f22 ( lots of diffraction?) 55-200 at 200 f8 ( No diffraction?)

What is it that you don’t get? Could you please be more specific? I find this : “ creative “playground” and “ creative tool” that this lens is not offering or missing extremely vague.

the Jill.E Jack Large (not the small) Messenger, is very large indeed ( which is why I like and many dislike it) stylish ( won’t make you look weird in your business attire but it won’t attract too much attention either looking like a piece of normal luggage) and can easily take two laptops (including some clothes a monopod and many other things). http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/651200-REG/Jill_E_Designs_144744_Jack_Messenger_Camera_Bag.html

I suppose at some stage I might sell the original which I haven’t lost. Unfortunately this would only reasonably worth doing in the NL where I live because sending it abroad wouldn’t make any sense, due to the low cost of the item. Yet, if someone wants to preserve the absolute camera originality, and has lost the original eycup... drop me a line

good idea, the X-A2 is a nice little camera

the version II is best bought in a kit ( and then you sell the rest of the kit) with the X-A2 and the 16-50 II since on its own would probably cost you nearly as much as 2/3 of the whole kit. Here in the Netherlands the kit costs €649 while the lens, stand alone, is €449 ( making camera and the other lens cost only €200 more!). the kit with the camera and 16-50 is €499, while the 16-50 II standalone costs again €449. So it should be easy to sell camera and lens 16-50 II for €400. If you don’t want to go through the fuss of buying and re-selling, version one is available for €199 or €249 at some other places, less if secondhand.

Yes, this minor upgrade of the lens was released, some time ago already, together with the new II version for the 16-50mm and the X-A2. This camera was ( in a hurry) brought to the market attempting to bank on the “ selfie” craze featuring a upward tilt-able screen for selfies http://www.fujifilm.com/products/digital_cameras/x/fujifilm_x_a2/ Because of this “ improved” selfie attitude, the lenses for the “ new” model had to be slightly changed so this lens focusses a little closer and has an improved OIS performance to 3 to 3.5 stops http://www.fujifilm.com/products/digital_cameras/x/fujinon_lens_xc50_230mmf45_67_ois_2/ http://www.fujifilm.com/products/digital_cameras/x/fujinon_lens_xc50_230mmf45_67_ois/ Compare here the two lenses

Temperate Weather Resistant. ........

That’s because, in all probability, that is the X-T1 eyecup. Is there are a X-10? Never heard of it.

yes, but nobody is saying that the 55-200 is bad ... or that they are identical ( they are not). But if someone is considering buying the 55-200 I would definitely recommend trying the50-230 and THAT advise, should you go for the cheaper lens, is worth WAY MORE than 2 cents...

can’t wait to see it

Well, I am quite sure that, give the level of problems that we are seeing, Fuji will be clement even ig some folks have done repairs of their own as long as they didn’t destroy a camera while trying to repair it. But if all the X-T1 will shed their skin... Oh Boy! They will have a nasty “ situation” to deal with!

Thanks Aswald for your perspective on this matter, If I am going to buy an adapter it will probably be this one. Call me overcautious but once bitten twice shy