scorpionz

If you need the low-light and almost-macro-like capabilities, then get the 16, or else the 10-24 will be a more versatile option.
 
I couldn't get both because $$$, and I wanted a lens which could be used for street, landscape as well well as astrophotography. I ended up getting the 16. I almost exclusively use it at 1.4 or 2.0 and couldn't be happier with the results.
 
Both are phenomenal lenses and you can't go wrong with either.

Huge zoom? Umad? 
 
 
I can’t help asking. Have you actually ever had it on your camera?
 
It sound like you really aren’t all that familiar with the Fuji 10-24mm.
 
This isn’t anywhere near the size of the Canon 11-24 f4 THAT is a huge lens.
 

 
The Fuji 10-24mm is not so much bigger than the 18-55
 

I have looked at the 10-24 and I love the "wideness" of it, but I am in LOVE with my 16 1.4,  It's sharp, clean, and I can use it as a mini-macro lens.  It's my second "don't leave home without it" right behind my 18-55 lens.
 
Even though the 10-24 is fabulous, I don't want to carry the bulk or the weight;  this is the reason I've also decided to stick with the 55-200 vs the 50-140 2.8

I agree with you on the starburst thing. It was the only point I was worried about. But I found some images (on flicker I guess) which convinced me buying this lens. The six rays can (I.M.H.O.) give a really clean looking starburst from the sun or from lampposts. See one of my first pictures I shoot with this lens. If I desperately need more rays then I can always use my 18-135mm. 
 

I know its personal taste but I find the 10-24 image a bit dull and lacking that tiny bit of contrast for a nice sense of depth. But color is easy to adjust in post processing.
 
An other thing I found out lately with this lens is that in some light circumstances and in combination with a Lee Seven5 Soft Grad. ND filter the Samyang logo is too shiny so it's reflecting on the filter and will be visible in the picture! Just to let you know! Maybe if its going to happend that much I will put sticky tape on top of it...

My last purchase this year
 

 
Thanks for the tip, milandro!

Only can say that I love this lens
 
1.

 
2.

 
3.

 
4.

 
5.

 
Sent from my LG-H818 using Tapatalk

35/2
 
You've got an impressive/insane number of lenses!
 
Since you're averse to carrying only the 18-135, if I were to pick from that list, I'd do the 10-24, 35/2 and 55-200. For what I shoot, I'd rarely ever use the 55-200, but given the diversity of landscapes you will encounter, might be worthwhile carrying it.
 
As you noted earlier, dust is/will be an issue so I would be very wary of changing lenses often.

I think it's more of a case of "what are you able do with it", vs. is the 27mm any good.
 
The '27' is easy to master and does not disappoint.
I wont say how "good" it is, or speak on the build, or the lens cap or the stinking box it came in, it's just an easy lens to get to know.  Like a cheap taco, it's just satisfying to use at a good price.
 
Those quick to poke at it with a stick maybe aren't patient with other Fuji lenses either. They may also be the crowd that thinks they need a full size sensor, and then find out those often have less pixel density than an M43 Olympus Pen.
"Mastering what you have" is typically a better initial practice then hopping around from lens to lens, blaming glass on one's ability, or "inability" to hit the metaphoric side of barn with 16 MP's of gamma...
 
Great conversation just the same. At least we all shoot Fuji, right?   You guys probably hate motorcycles,

my humble apologies......
 
Some stray pot shots with an XE-1 (does anyone even shoot with those anymore?) and the crappy 27mm.
 
Horrible, complete lack of color saturation
 

 
 
Nearly no contrast at all, a bit bland.... snooze...
 

 
 
 
Rotten, worthless bokeh. You can't get bokeh from a 27, forget it.  It's crap. Good luck!
 

 
 
The pics without any feeling at all, flat, boring, very run of the mill "snaps" at best.
 

 
 
Very prone to blowing out the whites, (whoops!) worthless!
 

 
 
 
It's not capable of finding focus with both hands and a flashlight. 
Especially running around with no flash at an indoor event. Forget it. Just stay home. Buy a Canon!
 

 
 
As a 'beater" lens, it's ok, but no better than an iPhone 4. 
Maybe good enough so you remember where some of the big parts go... but that's it. Not a good lens for anything "expressive",

everything pretty flat, bla-meh....
 

I couldn't get any good answer to this question so ended up trying my luck using a generic adapter.  I got one called the K&F concept adapter on Amazon. Here's the link - 
https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B00OONK89W/ref=oh_aui_detailpage_o01_s00?ie=UTF8&psc=1
 
It has a nice aperture ring, construction is solid and works well on my Nikon 50/1.8. No complaints here.

Hello everyone, first time poster here. I shoot pretty much exclusively with old 35mm manual focus lenses and have done so for many years now. I can definitely say that they are worth using from both a creative and cost effective point of view.
 
The issue of adapting lenses is really quite simple. Does a lens, be it a new auto focus model or older manual lens, give you what you need to create the shot or vision you are attempting to capture? If the answer is yes then use the lens. It doesn't matter where it was made, or if it was made yesterday or 50 years ago.
 
Now if you are a professional photographer shooting paid work for a client then it is critical you choose the right gear. You will probably see most working photogs using modern auto focus glass that has full functionality with their camera body. This is to be expected since speed is life and AF will help nail shots in critical focus right when you need it. On the other hand, there are plenty of other pros out there using older adapted glass when speed is not as important or when an older lens is lending a desired creative effect to the work being captured.
 
Where you will see much more use of adapted lenses is in the work of non professional photographers and this makes a lot of sense. When you are shooting work/art for yourself (or family/friends) they you have a lot more lee way to slow down and make mistakes while making the capture. And please don't take this in any way as a slam to non pro photogs. I myself firmly fall into this category with only a few small paying jobs under my belt. That is simply not why I shoot photography. It is a common misconception that the goal of photography is to become a professional photographer and nothing could be further from the truth. The goal of photography is to create a compelling image that moves the human soul, or to document something in a visual format.
 
With that in mind it makes sense for non pro photographers to adapt old lenses to their cameras so that they have access to some really wonderful glass, at a fraction of the cost of their modern equivalents. Keep in mind that almost all of the great photographs from all the masters in the 20th century were taken on manual focus film lenses. In the hands of an experienced photographer the lens and camera simply become a tool for the creative process happening in the brain. But it is to easy in this internet forum discussion age to forget this fact and focus instead on the small differences in gear both old an new. People have a desire to min/max everything and will spend countless hours 'discussing' the perfect lens when in fact no such thing exists.
 
I guess the point of all this is....it doesn't matter which camera you hold in your hand. It doesn't matter when the lens you are using was made or who it was made by. It doesn't matter if focus is achieved by a small electric motor and a computer or by the fingers on your hand gripping old worn metal knurls. What matters is the image you create. Is it pleasing to you? Has your art been made manifest? If it is paid work then is your client happy with it?
 

 

 

 

 
 
These are just some examples of my art over the last few years. I currently shoot with a Sony A7 and previously with a NEX 7. You might think it odd that a Sony shooter is posting on a Fuji site, but as I said before the name on the box really doesn't matter as long as it is providing what you need. While I do love my A7 I almost purchased the X-T1 instead when it came out and there was much deliberation between the two before the purchase was made. Having said that I am still giving Fuji a hard look at a possible replacement for my Sony gear. There are several things about the X line that I find intriguing and to be honest I miss using the Metabones Speedbooster for my nex 7 and I believe the Fuji cameras are an excellent body to use as a platform for the SB.
 
If you like you may view my A7 files that have many more examples of manual focus lenses here. https://www.flickr.com/photos/8539414@N07/sets/72157641534772013
And for examples of the Speedbooster on my NEX 7 you may go here. https://www.flickr.com/photos/8539414@N07/sets/72157633126249795
 
I hope the information here helps someone. If you want to try old lenses then I can heartily recommend it. Don't be afraid to try and don't get caught up in the search for gear. By all means educate yourself on the lens choices available but don't let the pursuit of gear be the driving force of excitement in your photography. Just remember that it is the image that is important. Only this and nothing more.

I stole borrowed some ideas from Bill Fortney's blog (www.billfortney.com) and purchased an old (1980s) Nikon 300 f/4.5 lens.
 
Works great with focus peaking and a $25 Fotodiox adapter.  Gives me a 450mm FOV and more reach than my 55-200 can achieve. Not perfect as my MF skills are lacking - but with decent DOF it's possible to get some good shots.
 
I'm looking forward to Fuji's 100-400 offering next year but until then this works. I'd love to try the Nikkor 400/3.5 but don't want to spend $1000 right now.
 
Couple of photos with zero artistic merit as I sat on my back porch playing with the lens and X-T1.

So far I'm using a lot of old Pentax K-Mount lenses and a few M42 (screw mount).
 
I'm definitely in love with the russian Helios lenses, the Helios 44 has this wonderful swirly-antique effect (it's based on an old pre-war Zeiss design) and comes in many variations, some older ones with more (13 or 8) aperture blades, newer ones with 6 blades (but those are sharper). Most sought after are the Helios 44 M-2 (13 blades), M (8 blades), M-4 (sharp), M-6 (sharper). They can be found for 20-30 Euros on ebay, it's also worth searching for an old Zenit camera which came usually bundled with a Helios. The 44 M-2 is a bit more sought after, also the lenses with a lot of zeros as first digits in the serial number are rumored to be better and more expensive. But I'm quite happy with my regular ones. 
Anyway, they are mostly made with the M42 screw mount, a simple dumb adapter for Fuji-X will cost you about 15 Euros on ebay. Adapted, the 58mm F2 turns into an almost-perfect 87mm portrait lens. There are also Metabones Speedbooster and cheaper chinese "Lens Turbo" adapters which turn it back into it's original 58mm focal lenght and add an extra stop of light. 
 
Other than that, I recommend experimenting. Pentax K lenses around 50mm are good and usually not as expensive as vintage Canon/Nikon lenses. Third-party P-K lenses can be found very cheap, I got a lot of "Auto Revuenon" lenses for almost nothing, apertures down to 1.7 are usually very affordable (based on your luck 10-30 Euros)- only the 1.4/1.2 lenses are quite expensive in comparison. A good alround lens I liked very much is an Auto Revuenon 50mm f1.9, got it for my girlfriend for 17 Euros and it's sharper than my own f1.7 version.
 
I'll have to look if I find some photos I can share, so far text only. 
 
Edit: Here's a pic taken with the Helios 44 (M-6 I believe). The swirly effect is quite visible, even with the crop sensor. I plan to get a Lens Turbo soon for the full effect.

The question, I suppose, is why?
What is it that you can get from, say, the SLR Magic 23/1.7 that's better than what you can get from the Fuji 23/1.4?
 
 
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk