Jump to content

Phil

Members
  • Content Count

    215
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    3

Phil last won the day on December 3 2016

Phil had the most liked content!

About Phil

  • Rank
    Advanced Member
  • Birthday April 8

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    Ontario, Canada
  • Interests
    Photography, music/guitar, cooking, homebrewing

Recent Profile Visitors

418 profile views
  1. I have the 16 and 23 and love them both, but 16 on its own can be a bit wide for reportage stuff IMHO. The look isn't all that different from the 23, but you have to get quite a bit closer to your subject to get dynamic photos, and it doesn't look as natural (it has more of that obvious wide angle look). I mainly use it for situations where the 23mm isn't wide enough (wedding dance floor photos, wide venue shots, getting ready photos in tight spaces, etc). Like I said, it's great, but if I had to choose between that and the 23mm, I'd take the 23 no question.
  2. What about the 50-230mm? It's nothing special compared to the XF lenses but it's not bad (on par with the Canon/Nikon kit zooms).
  3. ^What Nero said. I'd bring the X100T, 35mm, and maybe the 14mm if you want to play it safe. That, or either the X100T or the X-T1+35, and that's it.
  4. Phil

    Which lens buy

    What do you see yourself shooting with this lens that the 18-55mm can't do? Do you want to be able to get shallower depth of field? Or are you looking for a more compact lens to carry around with you as a daily carry? If you're looking for shallower depth of field, get the 35mm. It'll emphasize background blur more, and is a bit sharper at closer focus distances. 35mm is a sweet spot where it's long enough for pretty much any portraiture, but it's wide enough to be flexible and is a good lens for pretty much any kind of shooting. If you're looking for a compact everyday lens, the decision gets a bit tougher. Go out and shoot with the 18-55 on 23mm only, then do the same thing at 35mm, and see which you like more. For me, 23mm is how I seem to see naturally (I can most easily frame for 23mm in my head before I've actually looked through the lens), and that's my preferred walkaround lens. It's wide enough to be flexible in tight spaces, but still looks natural IMHO. It's a good documentary/vacation lens for me, since it can do indoors and landscapes well, but still looks natural for people photos. 35mm is more of a portrait/speciality lens for me. For regular use (aka just bringing my camera around and documenting life), I find it too long. I'll always go to frame a shot and find myself having to take a couple steps back. But if I were choosing one lens and portraiture was going to be a priority, I'd do the 35mm, because it's significantly better than 23mm for formal portraits IMHO, but is still a flexible focal length overall.
  5. I got one for my X-E2 because my wife prefers zooms. It's really not bad, but the deal-breaker for me is the lack of an aperture ring. I'm so used to having an aperture ring now that it really throws me off.
  6. If you have the 23mm, get the 50mm. They work great together (I could shoot most jobs with just those two lenses, and could be totally happy travelling with that setup). 50mm can be totally useable for upper body portraits indoors, and would be even more flexible dealing with small kids.
  7. Very interested in this. I've had my eye on the Rokinon 12mm for a year or so now, but this would be even further from my 16mm and should be great for astro.
  8. I'd avoid the 15-45. My wife uses the 16-50mm and it's perfectly fine, but it's much more in line with a Canon or Nikon kit lens. The sharpness isn't bad, but it's got quite a bit of distortion, and is definitely more prone to colour fringing. I can't see the 15-45mm being any better, and I'd bet that the power zoom would eat up more battery life. Do you shoot with a telephoto a lot? What about using the 10-24 and 55-200? Providing you don't need fast apertures, that would cover pretty much everything.
  9. I shot Canon before Fuji, and almost bought the Sigma 18-35. The focus issues with Sigma are due to the fact that the regular, through-the-lens AF on a DSLR is completely separate from the sensor. Native DSLR lenses can require calibration, too; 3rd party lenses are sometimes simply just more prone to discrepancies between the AF system and the sensor. Fuji's focusing is all done on the sensor, so if the autofocus system sees an in-focus image, then the sensor will, too. AF accuracy (as long as you're working within the speed limitations of a lens) isn't really an issue with mirrorless cameras. Having said all that, I have no idea what the adapters are like as far as focusing speed and reliability, so I can't help you there. I imagine that images will always be in focus if the camera thinks they're in focus, and if there are issues, it'll be more with AF speed.
  10. The focal lengths would be great, but I'd keep the 35mm - 23mm is wide enough that you can get some dramatically skewed perspectives if you're shooting vertical portraits. I avoid using the 23mm for vertical portraits unless the situation is just too tight for the 35mm. Also, I own the 23mm, and while it's great, I wouldn't bother getting it on top of an X100 unless you specifically need the faster aperture for low light. I definitely wouldn't get the 23/1.4 strictly for image quality purposes - I shot a wedding with a friend who has an X100S, and there's very little real-world difference between the two. And that's coming from a photographer; unless your clients are in the media industry, they'll never notice. I shoot weddings, and use the 23/1.4 wide open quite a bit, but if it weren't for that, I'd prefer an X100 for the leaf shutter. The leaf shutter is more valuable for portraiture IMHO, especially since you mentioned you're investing in lighting gear. Also, as nice as it is to carry one body, if you're going to be carrying multiple lenses and lighting gear anyway, you likely wouldn't even notice the addition of the X100, and having two bodies means less changing lenses, which is nice if you're outdoors or would be bouncing between a couple focal lengths frequently.
  11. On an X-T1, the 23mm is definitely better. It's faster, but it's also more consistent - the 35mm is more likely to randomly rack focus or start hunting, especially in low light (i.e. 1.4, 1/125, 3200). However, I don't think I'd call it night and day. Like I said, make sure the firmware for your 35mm and X-T1 are up to date before buying a new lens. Even though the 23mm is better, I don't find it that much better; I still make my decisions based on focal length, not AF performance (this is coming from shooting weddings and events, mostly indoor).
  12. What camera do you have? I've got an X-T1 and X-E2, with maybe the newest firmware (if not it's pretty close to). I've got the 23 1.4 and 35 1.4 and the 23mm is definitely faster and more consistent. The 35 is pretty close in decent light, but in bad light it's definitely worse. Now that I think about it, have you done the firmware update for the 35 1.4? It had an update a year or two ago that made the AF noticeably better. That plus whatever body/firmware you're using could make a big difference. Like I said, the 35 is noticeably worse than the 23, but I wouldn't call it painful, so I'm wondering if there are other factors involved here.
  13. Mine does that a bit. I always assumed it was something with the dampening of the focus ring. I've shot thousands of frames with the lens in the last year and a half and have never had any issues.
  14. It looks like the f/2 image quality is great, so it really comes down to: Do you want/need the extra stop and a bit? Without A/Bing photos, I don't think the f/2 one will look like it's missing anything, but that extra speed comes in handy in low light.
  15. Wouldn't one reason be that the Fuji has the focus motor in the lens, whereas the Nikon doesn't? Plus the Fuji would have been designed to be sharp for a much higher pixel density - I would imagine that it performs better optically than the 85m 1.8 D.
×
×
  • Create New...