milandro

When this lens was introduced I did say that I found strange that people were cheering so much a focal length with an angle very similar to what the 135mm had on 35mm cameras. At the time when this was the most common long lens (it was my first lens other than the 50mm when I bought my first reflex camera, together with the 28mm they were always the most affordable lenses and ended up being characterized, right or wrong, as the amateur triplet 28, 50, 135 ) the universal complaint was that this was was neither fish nor fowl , too long for portraits (although I took many with it) and too short to be used for wildlife or sport or other such things. (I wrote pretty much the same thing some time ago in this thread where others, also old dogs probably, agreed with me...) http://www.fuji-x-forum.com/topic/1887-90mm-best-prime-2015-“no-debate-a-one-horse-race-fujinon-xf-90mmf2-–-new-king-of-sharpness”-–-imaging-resource/ Back in the day, once you were a bit more advanced with photography, you generally went with a 85mm or 90mm ( which in aps-c terms would be the 56mm) for portraits and a minimum of 200mm if not 300mm (but the latter tended to be very poorly light efficient and contrast until some brands came up with low dispersion glass for their lenses) but these lenses came at a price and huge dimensions and weight so they were still not for everyone . But I never was long lens photographer and 300mm is the longest that I’ve ever really used. I have to say that I don’t dislike the 90mm focal length (under certain circumstances) and in fact I use a quite similar one (85mm) for the very specialized Petzval that I have. But that is its own kettle of fish and very different it is from the 90mm one! So, yes, it doesn’t surprise me at all that some people, past the honeymoon period with anything new, are finding out that this lens, sharp as it might be, is exactly, as the 135mm lens back in the day were, neither fish, nor fowl and you end up being too far from your subject, or never being able to get close enough (unless it is an animal confined in a cage).

well, all those things were precisely the reason we gave that particular assignment. But you know that

You are right. we certainly don’t want to undermine the fundaments of capitalism! You are what you eat (or buy) after all. Emo ergo sum ( I buy therefore I exist). Ahem! When I was still teaching one of the favorite assignments was to ask people to chose to shoot an entire reportage with a box camera ( Agfa click or clack preferred). Then evaluate the photographic eye beyond the camera.

I suppose they go by “ You can’t please everyone all the time , only someone sometimes”, you have cameras and the shoot the same quality pictures that they could shoot when you bought them, nothing else has changed aside from the color of the grass of your neighbor.

this lens seems to be able to do what you are asking of it (it will be very tough!) http://www.fuji-x-forum.com/topic/4511-zhongyi-mitakon-20mm-f2-45x-super-macro-lens…-also-for-fujifilm-x-mount/

would you say it does seen the pictures posted above?

never ever compare apples to oranges and even less to lemons

still,this is not apparent in any of my pictures. the variations that you propose are so minimal that can be attributed to any number of things. I don’t understand why switching on or off any function of the camera simply linked to a mechanical thing would produce any such effect and , most importantly, why this wouln’t be mentioned on any manual of any X camera published by themselves or other authors. THIS along wit my empirical observation (along with a pinch of good old skepticism) make absolutely unconvinced ot this supposed effect that Fuji never disclosed. Anyway, this that you show has absolutely nothing to do with the macroscopic complaint by OP, whose problems are much more evident .

there are all numbers of people asking all kinds of weird money for all kinds of weird things on internet. It is not made of gold nor it is an historical and legendary lens. I have bubbles and swirls for a lot less.

This is one area where thrift has never appealed me (other than not necessarily buying the most expensive model of anything that I don’t need to their outmost performance per se ). I have been using Apple products since 1986 ( you don’t want to know how much we spent back then for a professional system(). I find it weird that one would happily spend lots of cash for a camera body ( which is not the cheapest on the market and that is probably going to last you less than a computer which does many more things by the way than pictures) and then start having second thoughts on the computer system. If you want to do things on the cheap you can always get a MacMini and get a cheaper monitor ( why would this need to be a 27” Apple when you have plenty of alternatives?). Of course there will always be those who will buy a GFX (or declare they would) and then save a few bobs on the computer and I am in no doubt that they will chip in right after me. All the horses need courses too. If you ask me , there are people around with cameras and computers way better than they can do justice to. Most just buy the most expensive things out there just because they can, but there is nothing in their pictures of films to justify any of the “ power” that they are buying but yes, it is nice to know that you have the best on the desk or at your side, despite the pictures that some folks are capable to put under their belt. Anyway these discussions on apple stuff are common around the web. https://arstechnica.com/civis/viewtopic.php?f=6&t=1284771 https://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2401541,00.asp

I’ve checked very well before I published the pictures and it doesn’t the pictures do not differ anymore than any picture shot by hand and not on a tripod would from another, Anyway, what will be the theory behind your notion? It is a simple on off switch and nothing more. It doesn’t activate or disacrtivate anything else. Regardless of our difference of opinions on the impact this feature. It is absolutely clear that OP pictures have much more to them that it is wrong than mine! Haze , lack of contrast, perhaps a purple color shift too ( the color banding I suppose is due to resizing).

I am quite positive this was either an enlarging lens or a lens specifically made to be mounted on a macro bellows for reproductions. Anyway, regardless, the only way to use it is to get an adapter such as the one that I’ve suggested. This people might be able to shed light on this. https://www.westechoptical.com/blog/the-wollensak-optical-company

Isn’t this an enlarging lens? I’ve had a couple of Wollensak and they were enlarging lenses in origin. That explains why it has no way to focus it (and it is really corrected only for short distances and won’t have any color treatment). I’ve also had one on a view camera but it was many years ago. If, as I believ, this is an enlarging lens, the thread is most probably 39 x 1 adapters are available to bring it up to 42 x 1 and that would fit an helicoid adapter 42 x 1 > Fx. I have one and use it.

the entire left side of your picture doesn’t seem to be sharp and lacks contrast too. If my lens would perform like this I wouldn’t be as happy as I am with mine.

with and without

without option without lens

All X camera with interchangeable lenses have the option to shoot without lens but why would THAT have anything to do with sharpness? It doesn’t. Anyway, to debunk this before becomes a myth... here a few shots with and without shoot without lens, they look identically, sharp, to me!

yes

no

Mine is tack sharp, so, I’d say there is something not quite right about your lens.

and to the light source. of course this doesn’t happen if the shutter speed is long enough. One very important reason to stop thinking that shooting at 1.2 with depth of field paper thin would be a very good idea in a lot of situations

not really... follow the link that I gave, banding will persist, under certain circumstances, also with a mechanical shutter

op said this already

Despite the fact that I liked this camera, fuji has declared this chapter closed. It is not going to happen. They lost a ton of money and sensor smaller than aps-c are defunct, asking for it won’t bring it back or you anywhere http://www.fujirumors.com/trusted-japanese-source-says-no-fujifilm-x40-on-the-horizon-is-the-fuji-x30-the-last-of-the-line/

it really is just an inverted lens of limited use because it only shoots macro similar to this one http://www.fuji-x-forum.com/topic/4511-zhongyi-mitakon-20mm-f2-45x-super-macro-lens…-also-for-fujifilm-x-mount/