Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

1 Follower

About Ektachrome

  • Rank
    Advanced Member

Recent Profile Visitors

907 profile views
  • SCN

  1. Thank you for the detailed reply. Lovely place, lovely shot!
  2. Beautiful! Whereabouts was this taken?
  3. Thanks, that’s interesting you preferred your f/2 even optically. Yes, I think it sounds like you were a bit unlucky though, as my 1.4 is very nice. It does have a little CA wide open at high contrast edges, but I’ve never noticed any more than a tiny amount (and nothing which ruined any good shots) and it’s super sharp. I think in every respect I would get the f/2, except that I have had some nice environmental grab portraits at f/1.4 and I’m not sure if they would have been as nice with the f/2 - hard to tell, or course, without having shot the same photo side by side! Having said that,
  4. Sebastian, You don't say whether it has to be a prime, but the native Fujifilm XF 55-200mm f/3.5-4.8 OIS is superb for landscapes. It's also not too heavy, or expensive - might be worth a look? James
  5. This is a lovely shot! I've been considering the Zeiss 12mm as my ultra-wide, but not seen many examples, or heard of many users. I had the Fuji 14mm, which is stellar optically, but sometimes not quite wide enough, which is irritating, and I wonder if 18mm (equiv.) would be a sweet spot for me...
  6. Would anyone who's up on such things care to list the differences between the above cameras with the current and announced firmwares, please? Most of the spec. lists and comparisons online are with outdated/original FW and we all know Fuji tends to give 'new cameras' every so often E.g., I know the X-T2 got a recent update to match some of the video features of the X-H1, but I don't know what still makes the X-H1 unique after this (apart from the obvious IBIS), and I don't know if the X-Pro 2 is now on a part with the X-T2 with video features, focus stacking, etc. Does/will the X-T2 have
  7. Having trouble deciding between the good old 23mm f/1.4 and the newer 23 f/2 for my new Fuji setup. I've owned the 1.4 before, and found it nothing short of stellar optically. I did notice the AF speed and noise occasionally, though, and it used to annoy me sometimes. The f/2, when I tried it in a shop, had much, much better AF speed/silence and smoother MF. It's also a fair bit smaller and lighter of course. I heard some reports that it can be a little soft wide-open on closer subjects, but not sure how true this is in real-world use(?). I'm tempted by the f/2 in that my other lenses
  8. I too am in a similar boat to the OP. I was considering either an X-T2 or X-Pro 2. Then I made the mistake of picking up an X-H1 yesterday, while trying out lenses for the former two. My pros and cons after just trying it for a few minutes: Pros: - IBIS. It's cool, I don't often need it in the conditions in which I shoot, but yes, it will be useful sometimes. But it's adding a lot of bulk to the camera (see cons). - Viewfinder. Wow. Very very nice. And I thought the X-T2 was nice, but this is nicer. Definitely a reason to consider the X-H1. - Shutter/shutter release. Holy lords of Fujic
  9. Thanks for confirming, yeah next to an 85mm micro Nikkor, a road digger would sound like a peaceful day at the beach! To be clear, though, there are TWO issues here: 1. The noise. This is strange behaviour (especially when it apparently didn’t do this pre-firmware 1.01), but simply an irritation in stills shooting. For video, no noise is good noise. 2. The visual judder. Again, for stills, irritating and odd, but not maybe a deal-breaker. BUT for video absolutely 100% a deal breaker in MF. Imagine watching that visual choppiness in a video or film as you change focus, it would be d
  10. Thanks for checking, much appreciated. I have to say, if this is considered normal behaviour for the lenses, that’s unbelievable; this makes them totally unusable for MF in video (not to mention unpleasant for stills). If they are now pushing video hard for the X-H1, this needs sorting. I did a little more digging and found that, apparently, the 35/2 lens did not behave this way initially; it happened after Firmware update 1.01 which was ‘to improve MF accuracy’. So it appears to be FW and not hardware related. Time for another FW update to fix this, Fuji? The 50mm f/2, which I
  11. 100% agree with this. I live by the sea and a lot of my photos are taken there. It’s not an idle request for Fuji to update some of the older lenses with just better AF, but WR can save your equipment - my body is weather sealed, but my primes, which I love and use anyway for IQ, give me a lot of worry where they’re not sealed. I won’t bother to buy the 10-24mm until it’s updated, since I don’t own it yet. The 8-16mm isn’t an option for me either because of the filters issue...
  12. Could owners of the 35 f/2 please confirm whether this is normal or just a fault this guy had on a batch of lenses, please? I was going to buy this lens for fast, quiet AF and quieter smoother MF in video, so the above would obviously make it unusable for focus pulls for the latter use, it’s not so much the noise (although that’s not great on one of the new ‘silent’ lenses), but the very visible, horrid visual judder as focus is pulled...
  13. Totally agree, I really would like an update to this and the 23 1.4 sooner rather than later. Followed by the 16 1.4 and 56 1.2.
  14. Your zoom should be good for most cityscape type shots, and from memory (although a long time ago) 28mm equivalent should be wide enough for e.g. Golden Gate Bridge stretching into the distance, or the hills and tramways. Personally, around cities now I’d always carry a fast prime in the 35 or 50 (equivalent, so 23 1.4 or 35 1.4 for Fuji). Great for street photography, food, details, and fast for when the light falls and you want the city at night (although a very small, light, travel tripod is good for serious night work).
  15. @epscott @waltereffe wow, you guys are on fire today!
  • Create New...