milandro

interesting, someone else has complained about having to clean his sensor very often and says he’s found metal particles ( shavings) on his sensor.

I am quite happy with my “ not so smart” phone and I am not even aware of any Samsung camera, just a slip of the keyboard I suppose.

Not yet, although it has been asked already a couple of times.

oops yes I have no Idea how that went wrong.....

the only Chinese lenses should be the 16-50 and the 50-230. The rest of the lenses should be made in Japan. I currently have a X-T1 I have a 10-24mm, a 35mm, a 60mm all clearly identified (on the box , body and inside the documents) as being Made in Japan. I also own a 50-230mm clearly identified on the box, body and all the papers as “ made in China”. All Japanese lenses are oft he outmost quality and I have no complaint whatsoever. I also briefly owned a X-E1 and used the 10-24mm, the 35mm and the 60mm on it without any complaint in looks of the lenses on the camera or functionality. The only complaint I have had, had something to do with the X-E1 camera body and, seen what you are saying, might have been the problem which caused me so much aggravation. When I had that camera, particles on the sensor became a problem very very soon after I bought the 10-24mm ( which made them very visible once closing the aperture past f5,6 !). At the same time though I had taken to use an adapter for old manual lenses so, I thought, this could have been playing a role too. But, if the X-E1 was fitting the bayonet not too well, it is perfectly possible that dust found its way on the sensor. Frankly speaking, Fuji has a very serious operation and nothing AT ALL looks sloppy to me ( but of course this is their own video). But, No, frankly speaking I think that if anything they are built better than most lenses. The Chinese made Fujifilm lens ( 50-230mm) is also, well made. Of course it has a plastic bayonet but I don’t see anything wrong with it. for comparison look at the Korean Samyang lens production operation What a difference!

I am sure this is a combination of culprits, ultimately this is an extreme wide-angle zoom with many elements in a complex array it has all the compromises of being an extreme wide angle and a zoom put together. In that picture which you have shot, the sun falls practically orthogonally into the lens. This is bound to cause internal reflections but also causing dispersion, breaking the light into the spectral wavelengths components, plus the tiny aperture takes care of increasing the lens diffraction causing the milky appearance, loss of contrast and resolution. I have terrible weather over here ( and will stay like that for days) but I am sure that mine would show similar results under similar circumstances. I have decided to sell this lens, not on account of any of this “ problems” but the fact that I use it, practically, only at its 10 to 12 mm setting. So, I might as well buy a Samsung ( which is credited to have the same sort of problem, so don’t run to conclusions) 12mm and employ the considerable difference to buy other lenses that I might equally well use. Having said this, the 10-24mm has given me immense pleasure in using it and I have no complaints at all.

I am not defensive in the least. I am simply explaining myself better making my point clearer. With all due respect, whether anyone agrees with me or not is not the point. I can carry on doing my thing and anyone doing his thing and be perfectly happy. The point of a forum is not winning arguments but take part to discussions, to do that you need to elaborate. Frank asked a comparison, I told him where to make it and provided extra food for thought. That’s all.

life is tough

you can of course “ test” Fuji lenses side by side here http://fujifilmxmount.com/comparison/en/test-our-lenses/?o=XC50-230 http://fujifilmxmount.com/comparison/en/test-our-lenses/?o=XF55-200 Your consideration about not using the longer focal-lengths often enough is very important. The majority of the modern photographers, unless involved in sport or animal photography, make a relatively sparing use of long focal lengths and, generally,to get things that aren’t easy to reach a little closer or, if they are aware of this, to compress perspective. I am not saying that the 50-230mm is the photographic panacea but the slight ( really slight) aperture advantage ( offset by the slight longer reach) is in no comparison with the huge price difference. As I wrote before, this is of real little consequence on a camera equipped with a EVF . On a reflex camera, if you are going to focus manually, there is a real advantage in having a lens that has an aperture that is even minimally larger because your capability to focus might depend upon how bright the image is because you are looking at an image formed directly from whatever light comes through the lens. But this is NOT the case with an EVF camera. What you see is the electronic and amplified rendition of the image coming through the lens. Up to a certain extent, when noise begins to appear, there is little to no difference in your EVF whether you use a 2.8 lens or a 5.6 ( or more). Don’t just listen to me, try it on your camera. Put an adapted lens stopped down at 8 on it do you really see, if you point it toward a normally lit subject, any difference than a lens at 2.8? Unless we are talking of shooting in near darkness there will be no difference in your EVF. The would be a difference in shooting, for example, in theaters, with little and coloured light, if the 55-200 would be seriously more light efficient. Would the 55-200 be a f2.8 throughout the whole range, it would be a completely different story... but it isn’t! Quality-wise... look at the shots! Is there something really wrong with any shot made by the cheap lens? Which brings me to people dissing the cheaper lens but actually never used one. There is a lot of perception bias due to the fact that a cheap(er) lens “ has” to be bad! I’d like to hear the argument based on quality. Yes the cheap lens is slower than the more expensive one but by how much? After the last firmware it performs more than decently even with moving subjects and offers a decent OIS ( which one switches on and of in-camera). Apparently the version II of this lens offers a better performance and closer focus too. My point is that, side by side, in the majority of the shots that one is likely to shoot, the 50-230mm performs equally well to the hugely more expensive 55-200. There is little doubt that the 100-400mm to come will offer a better lens to those who need a really long lens. However: 1) You will have to wait at least until the 2016 Photokina 2) It will cost a pretty penny 3) It will be a massive lens So, if one does moderate or little use of a long focal lens on a Fuji camera you can buy a secondhand or a discarded from kit 50-230mm go do your thing, and then keep it or sell it. Currently I can find this lens in the Netherlands for less than €200 even in a shop ( Kamera-Express Rotterdam I don’t know why only in Rotterdam of all their branches) and even less if secondhand. Even if you re-sell it after using, how much are you going to lose? It won’t make a dent into the budget that you might be saving for the 100-400 which santa will bring you in more than one year from now.

do you, @BarwickGreen use any adapter? Many of those are made of soft aluminum and their manufacture might not always be of the highest standards, producing minute pieces of metal when inserting them on the camera bayonet receiver (made of steel) and when putting the adapted lens on the adapter. I had a similar issue with my X-E1, leading me to get rid of that camera, and now I am convinced that the adapters which I used at the time might have been the culprits. Look at this fotodiox the bayonet part is made of Stainless Steel. It is unlikely that using one of these would ever result into any pieces of metal ( that are unlikely to have been blown around the air although everything is possible) On this other adapter, the bayonet made of the same aluminum of the body. It is possible that inserting it in the receiver on the camera some metal shavings can become the metal parts that you have noticed. Are they magnetic? If they are not they are very likely aluminum from something like this.

well, that only means that you chose the widest of the focal range that you have been experimenting with. It doesn’t mean to say that the 18 is, per se, the lens par excellence. What would have happened if you had the 16-50? You don’t know what 16mm would have been for you because you never had it to your avail.

I love and own both. When I bought my first fuji ( X-E1) I owned for quite some time the 35mm alone and I was very happy with it. If I had one lens alone on these cameras it will be the 35mm. Having said this, my second lens would be the 60mm. I simply love it for portraits and close up photography. When I bought it I had the cash in my pocket and two lenses in front of me ( the 56mm and the 60 ) and decided to go for the 60. Having said this, both lenses are probably among the weakest in terms of autofocus performance within the system. If this is very important to you then wait. Usque tandem? Until when? This is a different matter! One can wait and wait and wait for the “ better” product to come ( or for the discounts of the old products when the new products will come) or decide to bite the bullet right now and buy the lens and produce pictures with it while others wait, wait and wait.

The 14mm has a filter size of 58mm, there are bags of wideangle screw-in lens hoods even collapsible which would fit this

I have the 60mm and like it a lot. I am convinced that there is a public for the 90mm (especially for macro, but not for portrait ) but again when 135mm ( equivalent to the 90mm) were around on classical 35mm cameras they were considered to be of an awkward focal length and now, all of a sudden and for no good reason, the 90 Fuji is considered to be the best thing after sliced bread. Incomprehensible to me.

I bought it secondhand in the NL although one or two shops here have then in stock so, at least in theory, one could go there and try it out ( if you already have the lenses to adapt). I really think that I am going to be using this for the purpose of portraits alone. The “ miniature” effect with anything else is nice but you grow weary with it very quickly ( at least I know that I would). In another thread http://www.fuji-x-fo...-for-portraits/ I spoke of the built-in “ miniature” effect contained in the advanced modes of the camera. That does offer a similar effect but with many limitations. Of course whatever it is, that is absolutely free. This, on the contrary, has the defect of being something that you have to buy but if you enjoy fiddling around with old lenses and looking for them at street markets this might be your thing. One thing has to be clear there is no way to use this particular implement for any serious architectonic photography, maybe you can do that with the even more expensive tilt -shift adapter ( which possibly is way more awkward to use due to being operated by the use of two levers). Of course others will find that none of this is needed since they can do this with their software while comfortably sitting at home. There is is more than one way to skin a cat! Adaptive photography has many limitations and it is not for everyone. It is, in a way, the opposite that any of the modern cameras are about. The bulk of the innovation of the last software for the X-T1 was about the autofocus and this goes in the complete opposite direction. Having said this it is fun. the mechanism is really very simple and doesn’t operate with great precision but this gives the fun to shoot things on the fly.

a greasy finger on a filter wouldn’t be far off this effect and cost way less.

Not the same thing. A lens is not really a status symbol, a silver spoon is.

this lensbaby contraption costs €500 in my neck of the woods and spending that amount of money to get those results would be absurd.

You and Op can do whatever each of you wants, of course, it is your money after all. But it is not wise denying the fact that you are looking at perfectly good pictures and hearing good stories told by real life users about a lens which one might dismiss without even have tried it! You have the right to your opinions but if you have never used this lens, what are they based on?

QED listen to what real users say.

nothing wrong with hearsay, but, here you are, lots of perfectly good examples published here! This is evidence of the contrary! One thing to ponder is that none of us, owners of the 50-230mm, will profit form you deciding one way or other.

...based on hearsay or concrete results? Be happy!

the XC has OIS too, the faster aperture of the XF is really very little more ( It is not that it is 2.8 through its whole range!) , but, if you use a zoom this long at the maximum aperture... it might be giving you a very slight edge. For every other use, I don’t think I would ever need anything else.

anyway, some more tests with the Helios, very little tilt, about 2º is all you need really

Pascal, test the lens yourself, don’t go by people whom you don’t know ! I haven’t tested both lenses BUT for the money it costs I found that the results were very good indeed! I couldn’t possibly say that the two lenses are identical though. Read here ( there are already several open threads on this lens!) http://www.fuji-x-forum.com/topic/292-the-humble-though-honorable-xc-50-230mm-f-45-67/