Mervyn

In this review Jonas Rask mentions that the documentation of the lens states it has 0.95 T-stops. Could be a false claim though. https://jonasraskphotography.com/2017/03/22/mitakon-35mm-f0-95-mk2-review/

Check out the reviews of the Mitakon 35 f0.95 on the BHPhoto product page: https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1226781-REG/mitakon_zhongyi_mtk35m95m2fx_speedmaster_35mm_f_0_95_mark.html Especially read 'Not really f/0.95' and then 'I stand corrected'.

To answer my own questions: Never mind, because I just discovered that my 3 year old 23f1.4 does the exact same thing! Once every 20-30 shots or so I can hear a soft humming sound from the autofocus motor that persists after it has acquired focus in AF-S mode. So I'm relieved. Because it's a new lens I pay extra attention to these things. But because my old 23 does it too, hey, I guess it must be normal. :-) My guess now is that it's not the lenses at all; rather I think it could be the camera (X-T2) that somehow is still giving a small current to the autofocus motor of the lens after having already acquired focus. But it happens only once every 20-30 shots or so, and most often it won't happen at all. I think it's not a physical problem but rather something firmware related. Could be a small bug, but likely nothing too serious. Actually it's a very soft hum, hardly noticeable, but it's there. Much softer then the usual autofocus noise. Did anyone else notice this?

I'm a happy prime user, but you're right that a zoom can be very convenient. I enjoyed photographing with a zoom during our summer holiday and it's great that it covers everything from wide to normal to a little bit tele all in one lens. And not having to switch lenses on a stormy beach with lots of sand blowing around is an added bonus. However, I think you should give your primes a chance. Just pop on a 23 or 35 (my favorite is the 23) and leave all your other gear at home. I find it fun and quite liberating. Also I tend to get more creative because I need to move around more to get the shot when I only have one focal length. The only times when I really feel I'd need a zoom is when it's crowded with a lot of people and I'm unable to move around freely to compose the shot. Or when I'm inside and I can't go wider because I'd be bumping into a wall when I'd step back. For everything else the 23 is great. It's also cool for very dynamic portraits with a much more 3d perspective as opposed to say the 56 or 90 f.o.v. which normally make things more flat. The 23 f.o.v. is more energetic whilst the 56 or 90 usually are more flattering and more still. Things I'd most likely never have discovered if I'd only have been using a zoom.

I recently reacquired the Fuji 56f1.2. It's a fantastic lens and I should never have sold it. However, my new copy of the 56 occasionally makes a humming sound that persists after acquiring focus in AF-S mode. I don't recall my old 56 ever doing this on my X-T2 so now I'm slightly concerned. For the rest there doesn't appear to be anything wrong with it. At about one in a 20 shots, especially at minimum range (though I've also had it happen at infinity), the auto-focus motor keeps humming after acquiring focus. Sometimes it stops after a few seconds, but I've also had occasions where it wouldn't stop until I'd press the focus button again or switch off the camera. It happens in AF-S mode. My question is: do other people with the 56 experience this occasional after-focus hum as well, or could it be that I got a bad copy? And my second question is; could it possibly damage or shorten the lifespan of the lens when the autofocus motor keeps running after acquiring focus? I would hate to have the lens work for two years and then break just after the warranty has expired. And my last question: would you keep it and try your luck, or would you return it to the shop and exchange it for another copy? Edit: Problem solved, see my post below.

I'd choose the 16mm to round out the 23 and 56. Personally I never missed the 35mm with the 23 and 56 already in my bag. What i did miss was the option to go wide, because 23 sometimes just isn't wide enough. I've tried both the 14 and the 16 and they are both great. In the end I chose the 16mm because it was wide enough for me. Also because it is f1.4 and because of it's close focus distance. That it has WR also helped.

I wonder if this would be good for portraiture as well. The OIS could be nice and an 80mm focal length might be just a bit easier to work with then 90. I might miss the wider aperture of the 56 and 90 though. Mmm, maybe not the best option, actually for portraiture the 50-140 seems to be practically the same thing as the 80, but with added flexibility.

I know that my 90mm does this, and there it is perfectly normal. I haven't noticed it on the 16-55mm though. Wait, let me try it... * Shakes 16-55*... Yes, it turns out that you were right, I do hear a slight clunking sound. It's different from the 90 though, that ones clunk is lower and sounds heavier. It's nothing to worry about, it must be by design, like I know it is with the 90. But..., just don't clunk it too hard.

Personally I would go for the 16mm. It's wider and two stops brighter then the 18-55. Since you're experiencing difficulty because of a lack of light I would play it save and go for the f1.4 option. F2 might not make enough of a difference to justify buying another lens.

@Calocedrus - I wouldn't return to that shop again; sounds like very bad service. You should be able to return a product after 3 days use. I read a rumor that Fuji might be working on an upgraded version of the 18mm. Makes sense because it's considered to be softer then the 18-55mm zoom. Personally I would be very interested in upgraded versions of Fuji's older primes like the 35f1.4, the 56f1.2, the 23f1.4 and the 14f2.8. What I would like to see is fast and silent autofocus, WR and a stiffer aperture ring. I tried the 50-140 in a store and there I didn't notice any sound in particular coming from the lens. I did notice the totally amazing OIS though, I was really impressed by it.

@Melv - No, I didn't do anything special. I used a little blower to remove the small grains of sand, and I turned and moved both the focus and aperture rings. After doing that the aperture ring clicked again. My guess is that it was a grain of sand that was stuck underneath the aperture ring that was causing the problem, most likely it had nothing to do with the ball bearing.

Of course it will me ok, don't worry. The 18-55 will do just fine. Ever heard of the concept of one-camera-one-lens? Really get to know the 18-55 over a longer period of time and learn to work with it's strengths and limitations. It might be everything you'll ever need. If you can, try to avoid buying camera gear and lenses out of curiosity, an itch, or a theoretical need instead of a real actual practical need. It will save you a lot of hard earned cash. I think this is a mistake that a lot of people that are interested in photography have made. It's called GAS: gear acquisition syndrome. Actually one of the worst things that you can do is read other peoples opinions about camera gear and lenses on a forum. It will only fuel your itch to get a shitload of gear that you won't really need. I can think of a perfectly good reason to own every single piece of x-mount gear that Fujifilm has made. But do I really, really need it? No! Of course not. Simplicity is king. Only use what you really need. And when you do really need a new piece of equipment make sure that it's acquisition is purely based on your own need for it, not on other peoples opinions.

Instead of on the 56 I had this with my 23f1.4 after using it on a sandy beach. Not with ball bearings coming out, but it did stop clicking for a while. A couple of days later the problem kind of fixed itself and from then on the aperture ring clicked perfectly again. I do find the aperture ring a bit loose; I prefer the more stiff rings of the newer WR lenses.

Had the 56 for a couple of years and I never noticed a wobble. So nope, not wobbly.

I've got the 11mm tube. I don't really have an interest in macro but I'll use it if I need to. For people that do have a real interest in macro work a real macro lens would be about a thousand times better. It's sharper, and easier to focus with then an extension tube. Stacking extension tubes only further deteriorates the image quality. But, an extension tube is an excellent el cheapo solution to dabble with macro. :-)

Judging by the wear on the lens my 23f1.4 is definitely my most used one. :-)

I never had the 18-55 so I can't really compare, but I do have the 16-55. Obviously the 16-55 is bigger and heavier then the 18-55 or a prime, but personally I don't mind and I find it perfectly balanced on an X-T2. Yes it's much more expensive then the 18-55, but what I prefer about the 16-55 is that it has 16mm on the wide end and f2.8 on the tele end. Actually f2.8 at 55 is essential for me, because I've just sold my 56. I felt the need to simplify my 5 lens set-up (all primes) and went from 5 to 2 and then added the 16-55 zoom. Now I won't need to swap lenses nearly as much and everything fits neatly in my bag. 16 to 56 are my most used focal lengths. I don't really need anything wider or closer. So the 16-55 zoom makes a lot of sense to me. And at these focal lengths I don't mind that it doesn't have OIS. OIS would have been nice for video use, but I hardly ever film anymore. On the 50-140 the OIS is absolutely amazing though, and at those focal lengths OIS is much more of a necessity. Edit (addition): This week I rented the 100-400 to try my luck at bird and wildlife photography. It was loads of fun! After working with the 100-400 for a couple of days I just took another look at my 16-55mm. Guess what? The 16-55 is tiny and lightweight in comparison. It's pretty obvious of course, but 'big and heavy' as the 16-55 often is described (also by me) is very relative. It depends on what you compare it to. Actually the 100-400 didn't feel too big and heavy for what it is either.

I've had both the 35f1.4 and f2. The f1.4 certainly has character, but it's noisy and relatively slow to focus, like a grumpy old man that you need to poke before he gets out of his comfy chair to make you a photo. When he does however, the old man turns out to be a grandmaster and the results can be quite wonderful. The f2 is like a smooth businessman, always in a hurry and quick to close deals. It's sharp and silent, has fast auto-focus and has creamy bokeh. But he lacks the character of the 1.4. All joking aside, in real life use the difference between a 1.4 and 2.0 aperture is pretty much negligible. Yes, 1.4 is one stop faster but who cares, they're both fast. And 1.4 might have a tad more bokeh, but not much more. Where I do see a real difference is when I compare 1.4 to 2.8. Personally I traded my f1.4 for the f2 because I preferred a silent lens with faster autofocus. Later I got rid of the 35mm focal length completely; I prefer 23 for a walk-around lens and 56 for portraiture. If I could have just one lens I'd keep the 23f1.4. (And I'm not interested in the 23f2.)

I guess 'magic' is a very personal taste. I find the 90mm to be quite magical. I had the 35f1.4 but I couldn't get used to it's grinding noise and relatively slow focus. I traded it in for the f2 version so I guess I've mostly missed out on the magical qualities of the 35f1.4. Later I ditched the 35mm focal length completely; For a walk around lens I prefer something a bit wider, like 23. And for portraiture I prefer 56 (or more).

Optical and mechanical quality of the 90mm are near-perfect. And the 90 has a certain magical quality about it that's very addictive and hard to define. The 90 is optimal for headshots and outdoor portraits. But it's less flexible and is less practical to use; you'll need to adapt to it. Indoors you may bump into walls and outdoors you'll need to walk a lot more whilst composing the shot compared to shorter focal lengths. For indoor and low-light use the 56 is better and for flexibility the 50-140 zoom would be the better choice. However, the 90 is easier to focus with then the 56. And compared to the zoom it's rendering is better suited for portraiture; I find the zoom a bit bland compared to the 90. Also the 90 is much smaller, lighter and cheaper then the zoom. For low light use the 56 is king. And the zoom has such incredible OIS that it easily beats the 90. For the 90 I usually use 1/250th or faster. With the zoom I can go as low as 1/15th, or with subject movement about 1/80th. One other reason that people trade in their 90mm besides practicality and flexibility could be the rattling sound that it makes while it's off camera, or while the camera is switched off. This is by design and not a defect. It has to do with the autofocus motor which uses magnets. The magnets are not activated when they have no power, thus the rattling sound of the lens interior. Just don't worry about it, it will be fine. No, really! :-) Personally I've sold my 56 and kept the 90. The 90 better complements my other two lenses (16-55 and 23f1.4). One last word of advice: The 90 definitely is not a telephoto for photographing birds or other small animals. For that I find that even the 100-400 with the 1.4 teleconverter can occasionally be a bit short.

If I'd had to pick three primes I'd choose the 16, 23f1.4 and 56. When I got my first Fuji camera (an X-T1) I started out with the 23f1.4 and the 56f1.2. A great combo and if I wouldn't have been tempted to try anything else I could have done almost all of my photography with just those two. Later I discovered the fun of and use for wide-angle lenses and I added the 16mm. It's just amazing what look the 16mm can produce. It focuses super close and under certain situations it creates almost painterly bokeh. Also it's cool for giving a grand total of your subject in it's environment. You can get really creative with the 16mm, but I do think of it as an effect; use it sparingly to avoid over-use. For my case (portraiture) the 23f1.4 is a better choice then the 16 though. It's a little bit less extreme, but I find it better suited for photographing people. Also it has a better quality bokeh. Now of these three lenses I only still own the 23f1.4. I've sold the 16 because for my use the 23 is quite similar and actually more useful. And I've switched the 56 for the 90 because I find the 90 better optically and with more accurate focus. Also I think it has just a bit more depth of field wide open whilst still having the same beautiful out of focus background. Besides the 23f1.4 and 90 I've added the 16-55f2.8 for flexibility, a speedier workflow and for not having to switch lenses all the time. And the zoom still gives me access to 16 and 55mm, because I still need those focal lengths. The 90 better complements the zoom then the 56 would and I use the 23f1.4 for low-light scenarios, slightly more bokeh at the same focal length, or for when I want to travel with just one lightweight lens. At a certain point I owned 5 primes and switching lenses became too much of a hassle, especially on a windy beach with blowing sand. I thought long and hard about adding a 2nd body, which would have been an excellent option, but in the end I decided to go for a zoom instead. For me the use of a zoom has less of a disconnect then switching camera bodies. It helps me to stay in a state of flow. And people are more used to seeing someone with a zoom then with two camera bodies. I don't want to draw too much attention to myself whilst making photographs. Now I'd only add a 2nd body if I'd need a back-up camera. Long story short; for primes I think the 16, 23f1.4 and 56 are pretty much ideal, with the 16mm being optional.

I had the 35 f1.4 at some point. Though the image quality was great, I couldn't quite get used to the noisy auto-focus motor. When I heard there was a f2 version I did some bokeh tests to see what the difference in wide-open depth of field was. Just a simple test, nothing solid or scientific. Under the circumstances i didn't actually see very much difference between f1.4 and f2. I also tried f2.8 and that was a difference; i liked f2 better. Also I find the 35 f2 actually has a very pleasant kind of bokeh. It's very smooth. And it's fast and silent with WR as a bonus. The faster AF speed is very helpful for photographing small children. My daughter has a tendency to run up straight to the camera so it won't focus because the distance is too small. The X-T2 supposedly has better low light performance. So for photographing kids, personally I'd pick the f2 over the f1.4. For the 23mm I love the f1.4 version. I haven't tried the f2 version, because I don't feel the need for it. The 23 f1.4 performs fantastic on the X-T2! It's a lot more responsive then it was on the X-T1 and somehow it seems to focus with much more precision as well. The noise of the 23 doesn't nearly bother me as much as the noise of the 35 f1.4 did.

Apparently there is a firmware update, but you'll need to send the flash in to the distributor for the update. https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/58344264

I noticed the same thing. It doesn't bother me all that much, though I do prefer the thinner lines the X-T1 had after the firmware upgrade. It should be easy to fix.

What's the speed of the memory cards you're using? I've had good results with Sandisk U3 90mb/s. This is the read speed though, the writing speed is lower. I've had your problem in the past with another 4K capable camera. I thought i had a fast SD card, but the write speed wasn't fast enough. Most of the time it was ok, but when there was a lot of image fidelity the camera gave me an error. After I switched to a more reliable SD card, I haven't had the error anymore.