W Neder

Yep. Very close minimum focus distance, and tack sharp at areas of focus. Very unique properties. It's also an EXTREMELY sharp and contrasty lens when you're not at that close distance. Really a huge hidden gem of the lineup.

I do a lot of serious paid work with JPGs. I don't deliver them that often, but I use the Fuji system to it's fullest. For almost everything, I shoot in JPG + Raw. about 80% of my work is in black and white, and regardless, I want to see the full tonal picture in black and white when I'm shooting. So the JPG gives me the live preview in black and white. Now I have my own presets I use, and most of the time I simply use the black and white as a quick tonal check on an image before I edit it--but for 95% of the images, the jpg gets tossed and I edit the raw. But occasionally I will use the black and white JPG. Especially with Acros. For high ISO pictures (think dancefloor at a wedding) the grain is much more pleasant than the noise. Also, the trend for many dance floors, even at very high end weddings, is to have the dancefloor flooded with colored light. This can be a nightmare at higher ISOs with skin tones, as there is no way to "smooth" out the tonal map on some skin. But the JPG doesn't hold that color info, and simply captures the tonal values. I find that this, plus the grain effect over the noise, makes that little JPG very useful sometimes. In fact, I've been editing a wedding all day today, and those Acros jpgs have saved more than a few photographs where the image/composition/content was excellent but for the distracting color and weird skin tone gradation effects. You can fix most of it in PS, but it takes waaaaaaayyyyy to long to do for anything but the most important images. Rather, I just edited the JPG and kept a clean, consistent image that was fine for delivery. For me, this is the number one reason I won't really plan on going back to DSLR--as much as I loved my canon 5DMX + L bag. And it's a huge selling point for mirrorless generally. For a black and white shooter, mirrorless isn't just "better" than DSLR, it's like comparing apples and oranges. The best OVF still cannot compete with a black and white "what you see is what you get" EVF in terms of speed and accuracy of workflow. And what's ore, even with my color work, I still prefer black and white in the EFV as I can see a much more subtle tonal picture without the distraction of color.

Great product. I hate that they charge as much as they do--kinda highway robbery--but I cannot deny that it's a great product. It fits perfectly, and it doesn't put weird counter-leverage on the hot shoe.

Any curated set of lenses will be best fit with certain purposes. Shooting weddings is different than shooting sports, underwater, or landscapes for a digital photography magazine. For me, if you're shooting people, events, weddings, emerging news, or etc, I like a bag full of primes that have really unique qualities. You don't have to make the tradeoffs against image quality if you don't want to shooting these themes, outside of having crazy zoom lenses for contingencies. And you will want one, from time to time, but for 95% of what you need this bag will be more than sufficient. But if you're a birding photographer, this bag will be 80% worthless. For me, for the Fuji line: 1. 16mm 1.4 2. 23mm 1.4 3. 56mm 1.2 4. 90mm 2.0 And if you have a fifth: 5. 35mm f2.0.

cont'd.... 5. The other two lenses that deserve mentioning in these categories are the 16mm 1.4 and the 90mm f2. They're along the same pattern to the above, so I won't post samples of them all. The 16mm handles light similarly to the 23 1.4, with the exception of bringing incredible sharpness across the frame and skin tones tend to be "highlighted" a bit more than other lenses. One other remarkable thing about the 16mm is it's ability to do near-macro work. I'd never use it for proper macro work, professionally, but it can be great for more "moody" images (as it seems some Fuji lenses are superb at doing). The ability to have extremely sharp parts to the image, even wide open, with extremely creamy bokeh makes it a fun lens to play around with. 6. I've heard great things about the 14mm, but I had a copy with lower contrast and heavier distortion--uncommon reports on that lens, so likely an anomaly--so I should leave the samples to others. 7. A last comment would be the lenses that don't possess these qualities, but I really wish they did. The Fuji 24-70 equivalent was one I was hoping would have this "fuji magic" to it, but I'm sad to say that it does not. Not even close. Contrary to the lenses above, the images from this zoom are generally flat, low contrast, and lifeless. I thought it might also be my copy, but as it turns out this is a bad pattern across the feedback on the lens. You can certainly fix the images and make them look good in post, but it's not as strongly present in the images directly from the camera/lens combination. I also had very high hopes for the 23 f2--following the great success of the 35 f2--but my testing didn't bare that out. The 23mm f2 is a perfectly capable little lens, but it has much less of that creamy tonal softness in the highlights and drags tones down into the blacks very quickly. It just didn't get the same magic as the others.

This is a topic I'm pretty wrapped up in, as I prefer to only own lenses with some of those "special" qualities. Every system has different candidates, but I learned a long time ago that if you own the non-special lenses you either regret using them when something big happens, or you just leave them on the shelf and pack the others that you love a bit more. This is a huge part of what drew me to Fuji. Here's my read of the Fuji line, from that perspective and from my own pretty rigorous research. These are the lenses that I feel possess "special" qualities of one sort or another. 1. The 35 1.4 is a superb lens. My big drawback with it was that the bokeh could take on a nervous quality in some occasions where high contrast light and high contrast backgrounds merged in the background. But the images from it can be amazing. But it had a pattern that I see in many Fuji lenses where they have good contrast, and defined boundaries between tones, and yet certain tones soften and create very smooth transitions. And yet, the edges stay distinct. Generally, it seems that skin tones (and similar values) are much smoother, whereas the darker tones have firmer boundaries. This makes soft light creamier. I love the effect, and it's similar to what drew me to Leica lenses back when I was learning and learned with a Leica film bag. Fuji and Leica handle these "creamy/contrasty" tradeoffs differently. They're not the same. But it's the same qualities beneath the surface between them, and I personally believe that Fuji shooters are getting some exceptionally brilliant lenses for their system. It's kind of a golden era, but as with most eras, people won't know it until it has passed and they miss what they had. I will say that a hidden value in that 35 1.4 is it's ability to shoot landscapes. I like taking moody black and white Landscapes (primarily centered in the American West). These aren't four exposure landscapes, digitally knitted together over 3 days of post processing. Amazing work that some do with those. But I'm more interested in the gritty, moody images like Robert Frank would have looked for. And that 35mm lens had a unique ability to have the sky and the highlights softly texured, but keep some firmer boundaries to the darker details (leaves, horizon outlines, and etc). 2. That said, I find that the 35 f2 actually possesses it's own unique qualities--along the same lines as described above, but expressed in very different ways--and I like these qualities even better than I liked the 1.4. The bokeh on the f2 is smoother, and it's a good mix to go with the creamy skin tones and highlights. It's not that the f2 is "better" than the 1.4. It's just different, but different in some very interesting ways. There's just a dreamy kind of quality to them that I can't get, in the same way, from other lenses. 3. The other lens I've found that has this same dynamic--but again, expressed in different ways--is the xf56mm. This might be the greatest workhorse lens in the whole lineup. And in fact, I find it adds smoothness to a huge range of skin tones, from dark to pale. But where it also surprises is in how it can shoot moody landscapes in the same vein as the 50mm. How it chooses to separate smooth tones from darker edges is just... special. 4. Another "special" lens is the 23 1.4. This lens has less of the creamy/contrasty qualities of the 35s and the 56, but it it does some other things better. The out of focus areas in the background are soft, the main subjects are pleasantly sharp even at wide apertures, and you can fit more context into the frame in a pleasant way. Something about how the lens allows light and sharpness to focus on the main subject, but then begins receding the background both in sharpness and in tone is pretty unique. I shoot most weddings with this lens on one body, and the 56 on the other. When soft light floods a frame, with this lens, you can get some of those very soft tonal transitions as you see with the 35s. The difference is that it takes a LOT of light do get the effect with the 23, whereas teh 35s seem to do it in even low light. ...cont'd

Great hand grip. Doesn't add too much to the perceived bulk, but really helps the camera's stability in the hand. I most prefer the combination of the metal grip and the thumb rest together--foregoing the strap altogether.

As stated, always keep the histogram in mind. Also be careful of the brightness of the evf. One of the big drawbacks of a nice, bright, evf is that it can look much more contrasts than the image would in some conditions. This is why the histogram is so important.