konzy

Here is a reworked version!
 

I use a smartphone app called Star Chart, but there are tons of other similar apps available. Basically, it's a start map that shows you what you are pointing at. Then, you need to use your eyes to find the object in the sky (if it's visible), or nearby stars to guess where it is (for non visible objects). Usually I take a few test shots to center as much as possible the object in the photo.
 
For the ballhead, I was using the one from my Sirui tripod, but I feared it would drift, indeed. So I bought a video "ballhead", that is also easier for astrophotography (https://www.amazon.de/gp/product/B0711J4YFV/). If I need a little push on the left, for instance, it's far more precise than a classic ballhead, since you can control both directions independently. 
 
 
I'm glad you enjoyed it! It's a fascinating world, indeed, but you need motivation... Right now, I don't have any, it's way to cold in Bavaria at night!
 
But a couple nights ago, I noticed Orion was out, in front of my balcony. I thought it could be worth a try, so I just got my tripod out, set up my X-T1 and the Samyang 135/2 on it, aimed around the belt or Orion and wow! A wonderful purple nebula (M42), clearly visible on the liveview. So I took a few shots, and I'm pleased with the result! It's a very basic setup, only a tripod, and I'll definitely try again with slower lenses. Luckily, the Samyang is a very fast lens (f/2), so that helped a lot, but I wonder what the other can do.
 
Of course, it's a bit blurry, very noisy and slightly out of focus. But considering I did it with just a tripod, in a big city, on my balcony with a major street below, I'm quite surprised it's not that bad! I'm sure you can find some objects out there to photograph as well. Orion is very easy to find, and even with crappy conditions, you can get something nice
 

Hey guys!
 
I finally had a chance to make some pictures of the sky. Munich's weather is often challenging, and the Moon isn't very helpful in this regard either!
 
I bought the iOptron tracker, as well as a cheap and yet excellent lens, the Super-Takumar 200mm f/4 from Pentax. This is an old school lens from the 70', I think, which is often recommended as an affordable quality astro lens.
 
Here is one of my first test, the Andromeda galaxy. It's far from being perfect, but as a first try it's really rewarding to get just a little glimpse of something so big and far away! When you think of all the things that are in this pictures: billions of stars, planets and, perhaps, lives... And when you think that the light that hit my camera's sensor traveled about 24,000,000,000,000,000,000 km during 2.5 million years... Wow.
 

 
This 20 minutes long exposure is a stack of 40 "light" photos (as well as some "dark" frames used to diminish noise) taken with an equatorial mount (iOptron Sky Tracker Pro) and aligned together in DeepSkyStacker software. Single exposures were 30 seconds long, at ISO 1600 and f/4.
 
The big bright halo in the center is the core of the galaxy. You can see a bit of the arms of the galaxy around the core, as well as 2 satellite galaxies: Messier 32 (the brightest halo at the left of Andromeda's core) and Messier 110 (the faint halo at the bottom right). Andromeda is the closest galaxy to the Milky Way, and will collide with our galaxy in about 4.5 billion years... we have time to prepare!
 
Unfortunately, I'm still a beginner and did several mistakes:
- The tracking of Polaris was not accurate enough, and we can see a bit of star trailing. For those who are not familiar with tracking mounts, it consists of a motor aimed at the Polaris star, and rotating at the speed of the Earth, in order to eliminate the movement of our planet and make long exposures of the night sky.
- The stacking: I probably failed something, because there is a weird fabric-like pattern in the picture. Someone told me it might be due to the de-bayering of the picture, but I have no idea what it means! I'll look into that later
- The exposure: the exposure, 20 minutes, is not enough to bring all the details out of the galaxy. 1 hour would have been better! Not to mention that Munich is a light polluted area, even in the city park, and that the moon was quite bright that night.
- The aperture I used, F/4, produced quite a lot of vignetting. In astrophotography, it can be removed quite easily, but I need to spend some time on this. Perhaps next time I'll use an aperture of f/5.6, which seemed to produce better results on my test shots.
 
But on the other hand, I think it's a good start and I have a lot to learn, both in the setup itself and the post-production.
 
The version I posted on Instagram is a bit different, the enhanced filters I used brought some of the details in the arms back:
 

 
As a comparison, here is a picture taken by Hubble, NASA's space camera. You will notice that their picture is infinitely better than mine, but hey, I can't afford to send my Fuji into space
 

 
To be continued!
 
Konzy
⠀

Taken near Eibsee Lake, in the German Alps
 
X-T1 and 14mm at f/2.8
 

It was tested by the guy behind Fuji vs Fuji blog, on a set of lenses, with examples: https://www.fujivsfuji.com/mcex-11-vs-mcex-16/
 
But I doubt the 56mm can be a very good macro lens. That's really not its purpose, and macro extension rings are sadly limited by the laws of physics. My advice would be to use a dedicated macro lens. For scanning slides, perhaps a 1:2 would be enough? In that case, buy the 60mm from Fuji. It's small, sharp, awesome and is now easy to be found used, thanks to the newer 80mm.
 
Otherwise, if you need 1:1, there are different options:
- Native lenses: Fuji 80/2.8 (but far too expansive if you just want to scan slides), Samyang 100/2.8 (cheaper), Zeiss Touit 50/2.8, Meike 85mm (I think it's new too)
- Adapted lenses from other brands. You can mount barely anything from Nikon, Canon, Tamron, Sigma... The old (and the new) 90mm lenses from Tamron are great 1:1 macro lenses (the oldest models are only 1:2 though), and can be found used in lots of different mounts.
- The Raynox adapters. You don't get the quality of a dedicated macro lens, but you get close and it's not too expansive.
 
Good luck!
 
Konzy

Here is a reworked version!
 

Hey guys,
 
So I finally had the time to continue my space adventure. I got really better in mastering both the software and the hardware! And yet, so much to learn...
 
Here is the picture from my 1st post, reworked with better settings. The X-Trans sensor is kind of new for stacking softwares, and without the proper settings, it introduces some kind of ugly canvas in the picture. I was able to correct it though, by tweaking some options in Deep Sky Stacker.
 

 
Looks cleaner, but still a bit blurry/foggy!
 
 
 
A few days later, I had another attempt. The conditions were much better:
- no Moon (it was just after the eclipse!)
- Andromeda was higher in the sky: the higher, the better, because light has to travel through less atmosphere. And the atmosphere is full of light pollution, particules, clouds, humidity...
- The polar alignment was much more precise than the first time, so managed to do longer poses (1 min vs 30 seconds)
 
Here is one RAW image, SOOC:
 

 
 
After stacking in DSS and correcting in Lightroom, I managed to get this:
 

 
 
I didn't like the colors, so I converted everything to B&W. Then, I made a color version, just for fun! I got inspired by some Apple wallpaper that I used on my computer, a few years ago.
 

 
 
Things I need to improve:
- Reduce the noise
- Shoot from a less light-polluted area (but I only have a bike, so I'm limited!)
- Improve the tracking to make longer exposures (aiming at 2 min)
- Improve the post-production
 
Cheers!
 
Konzy
 

I took this recently in a friend's bar in Paris, with Fuji X-T1 and 23/1.4. I love that lens!
 
Cheers!
 

X100T has a cool macro mode! Bad news: you need to be very close... Good news: it develops your ninja skills!
 

X100T has a cool macro mode! Bad news: you need to be very close... Good news: it develops your ninja skills!
 

Taken near Eibsee Lake, in the German Alps
 
X-T1 and 14mm at f/2.8
 

Taken near Eibsee Lake, in the German Alps
 
X-T1 and 14mm at f/2.8
 

X100T has a cool macro mode! Bad news: you need to be very close... Good news: it develops your ninja skills!
 

X100T has a cool macro mode! Bad news: you need to be very close... Good news: it develops your ninja skills!
 

Here is a reworked version!
 

I finally visited New York, with my trusty Fujis as travel companions !
 

Yeah, I hear that often, like "if you ave to crop, you weren't close enough" or "you're photo wasn't good enough"... This is, IMO, a statement from another time, that doesn't apply anymore today. Point a camera to someone 50 years ago, and you obtain a nice Magnum-like candid street portrait. Point a camera at someone today, and most likely you'll have a macro shot of his hand and a "Go away, you creep" thrown at you. I have the feeling that only the poorest countries of this world still have the curiosity of the camera. Most of street candids I see on the Internet are from poor countries in Asia or Africa, often children. Here in Germany, I think people would call the police if you try to take their portrait...
 
Anyway, I noticed this statement about cropping often comes from photographers who mainly do street photography in a very orthodox way. When you do macro or landscape, you can't always get closer or reframe the way you want, because the insect would be gone, or because a tree is blocking the view, or because there's a cliff. Even when you do street, sometimes you take what you see, and then you analyse your picture and wish that car wasn't here. 
 
Cropping isn't a bad thing to me, just like increasing the contrast or switching to black and white. It's just reframing the picture afterwards, because you change your mind, notice something else that wasn't worth being shown in the frame, or because the cropped scene just looks better to you. Who cares if it's cropped? The photo itself is a crop from the real world. Would it be a better photo to frame in 35mm, change your mind, put a 50mm on your camera, and take the picture?
 
That's an advantage of 24mpix cameras over 16 or 12. If you crop, you'll have enough room for printing. I personally don't print anything bigger than a paper sheet, but some people might need it.
 
I agree with what you said about better cameras. I saw a lot of people with expansive gear, producing not so great pictures. That's why I do more and more film: the cameras are certainly not the latest, so you need to move your butt and get a nice picture by yourself. Technology won't save you!

A lot has already been said, and you seem to had finally found what you needed. But just in case someone has the same question... I have both lenses, and I wouldn't say one is better than the other, as they both serve a different purpose.
 
The 55-200 is a great zoom lens. The IQ is very good, judging by my recent tests. If you just need a light telephoto lens (compared to other options) with a good image quality and don't need WR, go for this lens. When I go hiking in Bavaria, I usually take the 14mm and the 55-200 lens, and I'm a happy man!
 
The 18-135 is another story. It reminds me a bit of the Nikon 18-200, which was a very versatile lens. As someone said above, it's a Swiss army knife! The WR, the OIS, the versatile focal range... it's a great companion for travel. I think it's a good lens, globally speaking. It's definitely not bad, and it's not the best either, but it works well. I have made some pretty nice pictures with it.
 
I would definitely bring the 18-135 to a "once in a lifetime trip" -- but it depends where! If it involves a lot of nature, like in a demanding environment, then yes. I don't want to change lens in the middle of a desert or jungle, and I might need to do alternate landscape and wildlife shots. But if I'm going to a nice city, like New York, where I would occasionally need some reach, then I would take the 55-200 instead. And probably use my X100T (+WCL) for most of the shots (mostly street) and the 14mm for the landscape shots. 
 
Also, I believe that what matters most in a once in a lifetime trip is not image quality, but the ability to catch moments. And the 18-135 gives you far more versatility and flexibility in that regards, due to the focal range and the WR. Sure, you might loose a bit of image quality down to the pixel level, but who cares? You were here, you made a nice picture of a beautiful place... it's all that matters
 
A few examples with the 18-135:
 

 

 

 

 
 
With the 55-200:
 

 

 

Dennis by Trenton Talbot, on Flickr

Looks like I'm getting better at every post 
 
Here is another shot of Orion's nebula, taken in Switzerland on Christmas eve. It's much better than my first attempt, a few weeks ago!  The mountain skies were much clearer and less polluted than the city center where I live.
Gear and settings:
- Fuji X-T1, tripod and Samyang 135mm f/2 at f/2.8
- 150 "light" exposures of 1 second each, ISO 1600
- 60 "dark" exposures at the same settings (to remove noise)
- RAW files converted to TIF in Lightroom
- TIF files aligned and stacked in DeepSkyStacker
- Final TIF file cropped and adjusted in Lightroom (curves, saturation)
 
 

A lot has already been said, and you seem to had finally found what you needed. But just in case someone has the same question... I have both lenses, and I wouldn't say one is better than the other, as they both serve a different purpose.
 
The 55-200 is a great zoom lens. The IQ is very good, judging by my recent tests. If you just need a light telephoto lens (compared to other options) with a good image quality and don't need WR, go for this lens. When I go hiking in Bavaria, I usually take the 14mm and the 55-200 lens, and I'm a happy man!
 
The 18-135 is another story. It reminds me a bit of the Nikon 18-200, which was a very versatile lens. As someone said above, it's a Swiss army knife! The WR, the OIS, the versatile focal range... it's a great companion for travel. I think it's a good lens, globally speaking. It's definitely not bad, and it's not the best either, but it works well. I have made some pretty nice pictures with it.
 
I would definitely bring the 18-135 to a "once in a lifetime trip" -- but it depends where! If it involves a lot of nature, like in a demanding environment, then yes. I don't want to change lens in the middle of a desert or jungle, and I might need to do alternate landscape and wildlife shots. But if I'm going to a nice city, like New York, where I would occasionally need some reach, then I would take the 55-200 instead. And probably use my X100T (+WCL) for most of the shots (mostly street) and the 14mm for the landscape shots. 
 
Also, I believe that what matters most in a once in a lifetime trip is not image quality, but the ability to catch moments. And the 18-135 gives you far more versatility and flexibility in that regards, due to the focal range and the WR. Sure, you might loose a bit of image quality down to the pixel level, but who cares? You were here, you made a nice picture of a beautiful place... it's all that matters
 
A few examples with the 18-135:
 

 

 

 

 
 
With the 55-200:
 

 

 

Hey there!
 
I'm new to street photography, which I discovered a few month ago when I bought a used X100. I really like it now, it forces you to move out of your comfort zone, but the reward is worth it!
 
I will post a few shots I've been doing recently. Hope you enjoy!
 
Konzy
 

 
X100T f/3.6 1/640s
Paris

You have some great images, Sapphire/Gretchen (both "here" and on your website).  And Konzy's images (above) also are awesome.  Thanks both, I am mighty impressed with both photographers and lenses, and were I mostly indoors or studio based might seriously crave that 55-200mm.

I hope to post a few samples down the road, after sorting through 1000's of images (many in triplicate, bracketing by 3 film emulations, standard, classic, and Acros). I'm aware this thread is "55-200" vs "18-135" (and would be yelled at for commenting were this, say, an Apple forum!). So I'll keep my comparison of 18-135mm vs 18-55 (all I can compare so far) to a minimum.  But it's all I know, and I can offer a few thoughts on the 18-135mm vs X, or as a "one lens solution", from experience now. In my 2 weeks of far-from home travel, the biggest challenges for me were battery life, storage, and heavy rain. So... last, first, there is no way I do not appreciate the weather resistance of the 18-135mm, which no doubt was vital, as me and camera/lens went through some occasional super-soakers. As to the "one lens solution" for travel, I think one could survive with the 18-135mm as main lens; I kept it on during days I knew it would be raining and/or I'd be shooting from a distance and wanted the reach. But I reverted to the 18-55mm while outdoors at night (where the 18-135mm does not shine at its brightest, especially at extreme ends of its range), and tried to use the 18-55mm for indoors events and sunny days close up to things - monuments, building & alleys & cars (of Cuba), etc.  

In the end I think it worked out just perfectly to use the 18-135mm as my all-purpose workhorse, and being mindful of its limits was extremely happy to leave it on during inclement weather especially. As for the 18-135mm vs 18-55mm comparison, well - that's another thread I suppose, but in brief I agree that the 18-55mm is amazing for a "kit"/"not really kit" lens, in terms of clarity, IS, IQ, etc.  So for me, intentionally intent on traveling as light as possible, it was perfect, rarely missing a longer-length (heavy) lens, and in my case (others will vary no doubt) making do without a more wide-angle or light-friendly lens, though that may come along. As they say, YMMV.

Mostly my initial turning to this forum was to see more of a discussion about the 18-135mm, which got near-universal horrid reviews both from photo sites and purchasers. None of the big complaints (IQ, "stuck" barrel at 133-135mm, etc.) really surfaced, though it's true that in minimal light, and at extreme focal lengths, there were some challenges. That said, for light travel photography, I'd not be scared off from the 18-135mm. That's my summary, my experience.

Also I'm happy to have gotten the 18-55 discounted as a kit - a mighty fine (if non-WR) lens for walk-around street photography. Sifting through my "best" images of Havana and rural Cuba - most were taken with the 18-55mm. For video it was perfect too, in the narrow streets, alleyways, and plazas. Here's one brief example of how the X-T2 paired with the 18-55mm handled things, just to add something for those who like me, recently, are pondering what the XT-2 can do with video.

This is a short snippet (46s) with XT-2, internal mic, HD, hand-held, 18-35mm (at the edge of its range, 34.3 mm, ISO 200,  +.3 EV, averaging around f 4.5-5.6):   


And that's my first impressions, still unpacking, "processing" (images and memories), and reflecting. In short, I took a risk on XT-2 w/18-55 and 18-135mm as my "once in a lifetime" trip kit, new to Fujifilm, new to mirrorless, and far from home. So far, no regrets at all, in total agreement about the overall Fujifilm lens quality and the camera too, and on first sort-through, super-happy with the results and also at hedging my bets by relying on the 18-55mm for walk-around/street use, and having the WR 18-135mm for longer reach and for use during downpours. I guess I'm a full convert now to mirrorless as well as the Fuji camera. Always loved their films.

 

I have a 18-55mm now as I gave my 18-135mm to my daughter for her XT-10. Now I definitely miss my 18-135 because I don't need to change lens all day long and this avoid a lot of risk catching dust on the sensor. It is a globetrotter's lens. I find the quality of the 18-135 lens really good.

Things that can drain your battery:
- OIS: I don't know how power hungry the 80mm is, but compared to the 35 and the 16, it's certainly much more, since they don't have OIS!
- OIS mode: check what MrT suggested, that might be the cause to your problems!
- The cold, if you shoot outside
- The "high performance" mode of your camera. If you're not shooting Santa's reindeers taking off, you probably don't need this high performance mode.
- The LCD. When I want to save some battery, I just use the "Viewfinder + Eye Sensor" mode. Also, you can keep the brightness level lower.
- Turning the camera on and off
 
Mirrorless suck as regard batteries, but on the other hand, they're small and inexpensive. I always carry at least 2 when I'm out shooting!
 
By the way, the battery indicator is a lie...