citral

It's hard to judge now if this is good or bad. Maybe they'll stick it only on X-T3 which is already more video oriented than X-PRO, and that would be ok I suppose. But if they put it on X-PRO3 and X-E3, along with touch flippable screen, automatic modes with kitten recognition, and all this crap and points of failure, they are at risk with losing the public that made them become what they are now : actual photographers (not gear-heads) interrested in no-non-sense, robusts, photography cameras, not in sony's technology demonstration/proof of concept without a soul and so many menus and options by the time you have read the manual I've shot thousands of photos with my x-e1... We are getting everyday further from the XPRO-1's spirit and I find it regrettable. Otoh, one can still buy a new one for cheap so...

18mm F2 35mm F1.4 50mm F2 I tried the 23mm F2 and sold it quickly : it has NONE of the rendering of the 35 F1.4. or even the despised 18mm F2. It's flat. Boring. Dead. Fortunately, the 50mm is none of that. It's marvelous, and for 200 grams I have a short tele I can take when hiking for landscape closeups, big animals, hiking friends portraits etc. Bokeh is very good on that one. Rendering is "3D" unlike the 23 F2. 18mm because other wide options are too big/heavy for me to take everywhere and it has, despite extreme corners softness/distortion/fringing, a fantastic rendering. Just don't fight against it and put an important (human...) subject in an extreme corner when you frame and you'll be absolutely fine, no one will be able to tell not even you. It's really a fantastic lens that I had to buy again after selling it stupidly. The 35mm f1.4 is still the best fuji lens and nope, the 35mm F2 does not match it. It might be "90%" of it as some reviews claim, but those 10% account for an incredible, very pleasing, film-like picture vs a "good digital one" IMO. I'm still thinking I will add it to my kit because it's better if I'm hiking in snow and make F8 landscape pictures vs not taking the 1.4 at all Eagerly waiting for a 16 or 18mm WR F2 lens so I can have 18-35-50 WR with the 35 F2 being so-so but able to take all abuse I throw at it, and keep the 35 1.4 warm and dry for important stuff.

DSCF7117 by Christophe Branchereau, on Flickr DSCF7191 by Christophe Branchereau, on Flickr DSCF7196 by Christophe Branchereau, on Flickr

A few pictures of Elsass DSCF7229 by Christophe Branchereau, on Flickr DSCF7100 by Christophe Branchereau, on Flickr DSCF7139 by Christophe Branchereau, on Flickr

First disable image review. Then shoot thoughtfully when on a journey. No you don't need 20 pictures of the same thing to decide later on which one is the best. 90% of the time it's the first one anyway. Then with 1 battery + 1 spare you can easily make 800 pictures so really that should last you 5-8 days if you're not a japanese tourist.

Wrong.

A Parresque moment DSCF6719 by Christophe Branchereau, on Flickr

So I went to the beach 2 weeks ago with my fuji camera. OOC Jpegs. 35mm f/1.4 DSCF6929 by Christophe Branchereau, on Flickr Boring, uh? Let's add some amusing people DSCF6919 by Christophe Branchereau, on Flickr DSCF6909 by Christophe Branchereau, on Flickr DSCF6884 by Christophe Branchereau, on Flickr DSCF6842 by Christophe Branchereau, on Flickr DSCF6754 by Christophe Branchereau, on Flickr How to use the 18mm F2 : DSCF6778 by Christophe Branchereau, on Flickr

Nope. Never even thought of it. Why would I want to delete anything in shooting mode? Would just be confusing. What's next, I want to be able to focus track in playback mode?

Disgusting...

I believe developping and printing film, even just for a course, helps to refine a good taste for PP in digital. Also, it was and still is a part of the art of fine photography. There is a reason William Eggleston's dye transfer books are so incredibly sought after (look at the price of his Chromes). It's part of his art, and a tremendous amount of work, hats off no LR preset will touch that, at least pay some interest to the interresting techniques, and gain some humility? Rather than "uh I don't care only composition matters"

While I basically agree with you, it's still way too many words to describe an art that has nothing to do with words (it's visual). Only the end result counts, if film helps one to achieve his vision there is nothing to argue. Nothing.

You buy this lens for its incredible IQ / feel / weight / magic / price, not for the AF. It's more than adequate for everything walking, but not running.

Thank you so much for sharing your opinion, OP, the world really needs to know Mr abjurina doesn't care about film. I feel now is the right time to confess I don't care about pop music.

Now that I have it I realize a point completely overseen : the 18mm can focus extremely close (18cm). That means you can have easy bokeh with a wide angle and do "kind of macro" in a real small package. It then renders out of focus areas in a smoother manner than the 18-55. So if you are using a wide to make sharp shots of wide stuff (to "get it all in the frame") it probably doesn't matter much vs the 18-55. But if you use it to exaggerate the size of something close it has a definitive edge over the zoom, try it.

Obviously ois helps a lot on long focales, because every little hand movement is magnified x time and when x becomes really big you're in trouble without a tripod. That's why it makes sense to have it on a 50-140 but you can do without on a 16-55. Better leave it to a per-lens basis imo, while people who understand only technical x vs y charts want ibis (OMG y has ibis and I have x, my life sucks) people who understand photography can do fine without it. You can make a perfectly fine picture of something at 1/30 or as low as half a second (lean to something, rest your elbows, etc) with a 35mm, so if you're at 1.4 and ISO 1600 that's almost complete darkness you're trying to shoot. Get a flash, a tripod, or just don't insist on something that won't really be of any interest since a beautiful picture is usually made of beautiful light.

Jesus Christ a 35mm f/1.4 of that quality at 370€, a camera (X-E1 as I own it) that nails perfect exposure, WB and colours one shot after the other, aperture ring and speed dial and evf in such a small, robust package it is unique, come back on earth. Does Samsung do it? No. Sony? No. Canikon? No. Etc.

Well it's already bad enough to work with a zoom (uh which focale should I chose now uh picture gone) it's even worse if the aperture is changing. If light is limited, say you're at 18 and 2.8, ISO fixed at 1600, you want a portrait, set at 55mm and bam f/4 shutter speed dropped to 1/30 or worse good luck. If I really needed a zoom for whatever reason, that'd be the 16-55. There are enough things to worry about, light, timing, composition etc. not to fumble with a variable aperture as well. If there is plenty light and you use it between f/4 and f/16 then why not.

I still fail to understand that "lifestyle" concept (isn't everything life?) but welcome, and nice photographs

That's my experience with the 18-55 iyayy, stabilised but "soft" or sometimes downright blurry pictures with ois on, not always but way too often. It works quite good for still stuff and being right slow, bit not in a hurry, typically with moving stuff. The 16-55 a debacle? What?

I'm pretty sure there are at least 5 things you're doing horribly wrong as a photographer that need fixing before listing minor inconveniences that bother you. None of the above matters. Manual controls are fine, portraits are stunning, metering never fails (how do you manage to get it wrong? ) if you're into heavy strobing you picked the wrong system, batteries yeah OK why not, tho if you carry two cameras I don't see why you'd bring more than one spare for each, if you're shooting more than 1200 pictures a day I've got some bad news for you. Blablabla.

I've received the 18 today, and for what I do it's fine. I want to be able to pack my stuff in a small holster, like next week when traveling by plane with a small luggage, the 18+35 combo is about the same space and weight than the 18-55 (maybe a bit more, but then always less on the camera and almost nothing in the bag). But what is interesting to me is really documenting stuff, funny situations, if I shoot a building I will likely include people shooting the building in my frame so absolute corners sharpness or distortion is not of real importance to me. However, a pleasing out of focus rendering is, and I'm in love with the 35 for that. If you're out to make "serious" architecture shots the 14 or 16 probably makes more sense, but then if that's what you're doing equipment probably matters more than if you're into documentary and you should accept the weight and space penalty. So, still life -> boring anyway, so you might as well take the best glass to at least get incredible detail etc. so people will look at the picture for more than 10 seconds before moving on People, documentary -> the interest being very far away from corners sharpness, you might as well use something unobtrusive and easy to carry absolutely everywhere you go. If you like to shoot both, decide which you like most, equip accordingly and accept the tradeoff for your secondary shots (I'm not really worried if I shoot the Eiffel tower with the "bad" 18. There are like 2 millions pictures of it on flickr) Or if you really can't decide buy all and take with you what suits your daily activity...

Mate no, the 18-55 is OK replacing the 18 but not the 35. I've been shooting the whole morning the family in an OK lit church turned into a breakfast place, and the 18-55 at 35 and f/3.6 is not anywhere close to the 35 at f/2. Mind you, it's not close for landscapes either. I'd say it's good enough for architecture but that's about it. Of course the 23 would have done as well, but the 35 is just better for portraits, and for wider shots it's only 1-2 steps back compared to the 23 and you don't have that much background to worry about in your frame so it's easier to compose. That's just my opinion, more food for thought not evangelical speech