Jump to content

godspeed

Members
  • Content Count

    10
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  1. Really loving my 35mm f21.4 so far! I find focus to be more reliable than f2 version which I also have. It's slower, but not by much. But IQ and rendering is what matters for me and 1.4 delivers! It might not be exceptionally sharp at 1.4 and close distances, but it's enough for me! I tend to shoot wide open, stopping down maybe 10% of the time. Took it for a short shoot few days ago. This photo says it all Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
  2. Decided to go for 35mm 1.4. It has this "zeiss-like" 3D pop that I absolutely miss since switching to Fuji last year. I tested both f2 and 1.4 on X-T2 and f2 is just a tad faster, but not by much. I think it might be a different story on older cameras. In low-light, however, 1.4 focuses way faster than f2. I heard people saying that f2 doesn't hunt, but I had 2 of these lenses and they do hunt a lot in low light. I tend to shoot wide open anyway. Some might not see a big difference in DOF and bokeh, but it is really noticeable to me. The price difference was only $75, so I decided to go for it. I think I will get f2 some time down the road though. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
  3. Thanks. I've seen these threads already before posting. I don't necessary ask people who HAVE these two lenses, but rather people who HAD or tested both of them. I'd love to hear why they chose one over the other. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
  4. Trying to decide which 35mm should I get. I mainly would be shooting documentary-style weddings and family sessions. I have 35mm f2 at work that I use on daily basis. I love it's AF speed, silent operation, size, weight and image quality. But sometimes I wish for that extra bit of smooth bokeh. I tried 35mm f1.4 briefly at the camera store and generally I was pleased with AF speed and that extra shallow DOF, but I didn't have time to compare both 35mm head to head. Basically it's about $100 difference between those lenses on used market, with f1.4 being more expensive. I'm really interested in experience of someone who has/had both lenses and would love to hear why you decided on one or another. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
  5. I've been using X-Pro2 since the release. I was one of the first in my city(Vancouver), who got it. Used it professionally since then. Just bought one for myself. I was deciding between new X100F and used X-Pro2 with 23mm lens. Bought X100F, used it for few days and returned it. X-Pro2 just feels much better in hand, more premium. I still have my full-frame kit that I like to use for certain situations when I need that creamy bokeh, but I just can't even think about how would I carry it with me everywhere. X-Pro2 was a revaluing for me, and still is. Sensor produces some incredible b&w images, and "Fujicron" lenses are exquisite. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
  6. Well, I'm returning my X100F due to squishy screen and some EVF problems. I basically decided to go for a used X100T. However, upon further tests, I simply can't go back to X100T... F might look like a minor upgrade from the outside, but I tell you - it's a SIGNIFICANT upgrade over the T : 1. Sensor. I still can't believe these new sensors resolve at 24 megapixels. I remember getting original X100 and I was like : "Man, 12 is enough!". 2. High ISO. I would never push old X-Trans II beyond 3200 ISO because of waxy skin tones(even at 3200). I can easily push my X-Pro 2 up to 8000 with no problem. Even 12800 is quite usable(for my taste). 3. New processor = speed. F is VERY FAST. Startup time is WHAAAAAM! 4. AF upgrades. F focuses faster than X-Pro2 with 23mm 1.4. I don't have 23 f2 to try, but I have 35 f2 and it's barely behind. Continuous autofocus is dramatically improved! It's USABLE NOW! 5. Button layout and ergonomics. I'm not a fan of ISO dial on the top, but the fact that it can be assigned to front command dial is a no-brainer. I read that a lot of people find AFL button placement awkward, but it's perfect for my taste - it's right where I place my thumb. Joystick is another no-brainer. F is highly customizable. SO MANY FUNCTIONS TO CHOOSE FROM! 6. ACROS! If you shoot b&w this might be the solemn reason to upgrade. If you might not know, in-camera RAW processing of acros is much different that one in Lightroom. I usually import acros jpegs into Lightroom to do some minor tweaking. It's very, very good b&w simulation. I will probably end up shooting it for 80% of the time. Well, these are 6 major improvements for me. If you're willing to pay $100 for each, then you can easily justify upgrading from X100T.
  7. Just received my X100F few days ago and currently doing some testings and comparisons to X-Pro2. X100F's EVF is bigger(higher magnification) and I like it better than one in X-Pro2. However, while shooting in dim light I noticed that EVF has these horizontal lines. That are barely visible, and I could only see them in certain situations(mainly gradients) prominently at the bottom of the EVF. It's kind of hard to explain what they look like, but I'd describe them as line os pixels of different brightness. Try scrolling through some photos in EVF and let me know of you see them or just point your camera on solid-coloured wall. Found a similar issue HERE. P.S. I might sound very nitpicky, but these things don't really bother me. I just want to know if I'm the only one seeing them.
  8. Vancouver, Canada Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
  9. I think images are absolutely gorgeous! I think it's quite sharp wide open in my opinion. Yes, at extreme macro distances it's soft, but even at normal macro(photos with baby and flower) it has this unique glow of a vintage lens while still being sharp at the point of focus. I'd take this glow and softness over perfect sharpness and increased size of the lens. I find it's rendering very pleasing and vintage.
×
×
  • Create New...