Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Everything posted by Phil

  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.
  16. I'm probably going to get an X100T (used). I'd like the new features from the X100F (particularly the ISO dial, all the RAW/JPG changes, and new battery), but the reason I'm getting an X100 is for the leaf shutter. The X100T will be half the price used of a new X100F, and since I have an X-T1, the X100T will fit into my existing workflow really smoothly (similar button layout, and identical files). I'd definitely like an X100F, just like I'd definitely like an X-Pro2, but I'm trying not to get too caught up in gear, and have come to terms with the fact that the X100T will be good enough, which is all that should really matter IMHO.
  17. I'm not sure that I agree. I've never understood the "mirrorless cameras are meant to be small" argument. IMHO they don't have to be small. Plus, Fuji camera still have unique handling and UI, not to mention a fantastic lens lineup that is native only to their bodies. I do some paid work around my day job; mostly weddings, events, and portraiture. I like a larger, heavier camera for paid work, because it's easier to carry around for long hours, and the extra weight helps steady my hands (note that "larger and heavier" are relative). I could shoot Canon or Nikon (in fact, I did shoot Canon before switching to Fuji), but I choose to shoot Fuji because I like the handling, lenses, and the accuracy of the on-chip AF. If Fuji kept with the "mirrorless should be small" mentality and didn't offer heavier bodies with extra grips, or fast, optically-corrected primes, I wouldn't shoot their cameras. Because they do offer those options, I happily choose to use their cameras. If you like Fuji but don't want a large, heavy kit, then choose their smaller bodies and lenses. I often see posters on this forum air grievances with a camera or a rumoured set of specs, and you respond by telling them that maybe Fuji cameras and lenses aren't for them. If you don't like the way Fuji is heading, then maybe they're not the system for you. Edit: To keep this on-topic, I voted for the 33/35mm f/1.0, and the 8-16mm 2.8. Since I shoot mostly people, events, and often indoors, the 2.8 aperture is more valuable to me than f/4 and OIS. 8-16mm is enough range for me - if that smaller range and no OIS keep it around the same size (and price?) of the 10-24, I'd likely buy it within a year. I love shooting fast lenses, so if they announce the ~33 f/1 and it's under $1500CAD, it'll be my next camera purchase.
  18. Phil

    One Lens Choice

    edit: Disregard. Sorry, didn't see you'd already made a decision.
  19. I'll be bummed if this rumour is true. One of the main reasons I don't use my 35mm as much is the less predictable focusing (the 56mm may be slow, but at least it's consistent) and the fact that it focuses externally. I like how most of the other primes focus internally and come with plastic hoods; I feel more confident when they get subjected to bumps and the like. Even if they replace the 35mm 1.4 with another 1.4 lens, internal focusing would be enough to get me to switch. f/1.0 would have been a much-welcomed bonus, too.
  20. Check the custom white balance setting in the menu. This is an older camera it looks like, but there will be a WB shift setting. Maybe that got knocked out of whack? http://fujifilm-dsc.com/en/manual/x-t2/images/osd_mn_sm_wb_shift_en_336.png
  21. I had access to an A7 at an old job. I had issues with my Canon 70D and was looking at upgrading to a 6D; since I would have to sell my APS-C lenses anyway, I figured if I was going to switch to mirrorless, that was the best time. I didn't like the A7. The handling didn't feel as fluid as the X-T1, I personally didn't really like the menus or button layout, and the lens selection wasn't nearly as fleshed out at the time. Now I feel pretty much the same. Fuji's lenses aren't cheap, but I think they're good value for money; a lot of Sony lenses seem to be either a cheaper lens that are just decent, or very good lenses that are big and expensive. I don't think the full frame argument holds that much weight these days (resolution is another matter, however). Shooting the Fuji 56mm at f/1.2 vs the Batis 85mm at f/1.8 will yield similar results, and the extra stop of light from the 56mm helps negate the Sony's better low light performance. The GM 85 1.4 will trump the 56mm, but you're looking at double the price, double the size, and double the weight. If your goal is purely the best image quality possible, an A7Rii with G Master lenses will beat Fuji. When you factor in the entire experience (performance, size/weight, and cost) I think they're pretty evenly matched, and you should use each and figure out which system you enjoy more.
  22. IIRC it has something to do with how the elements are arranged for autofocus. I could be wrong, but I thought I read that with the larger primes, the autofocus is more complicated (something along the lines of different groups moving different amounts). Whereas with the newer f/2 WR primes, a larger group of elements is moved as a single unit, which allows for faster autofocus, but affects the image quality around the minimum focus distance.
  23. Is the issue just with f/8, or is it with all apertures? If it's with all apertures settings, is it consistently off by 1/3 of a stop? The aperture ring works via a position sensor. So you set the aperture you want, and the lens reads the position of the aperture ring, and tells the camera to use that aperture setting. IIRC, the position sensor is just a little thing mounted to the inside of the barrel (and the inside of the aperture ring has a row of markers), so my guess is something got bumped out of whack with those. If the discrepancy is consistent, that would seem like a sensor issue, and if it's just the one aperture setting, or if it's random, it's probably the markers inside the aperture ring.
  24. Also recently, I did some headshots for the college I work at. I played these ones really safe, just a 43" umbrella key and a 24x36 softbox as a soft kicker/rim light. X-T1 + 56mm@2.8 LC-9 by Phil Babbey, on Flickr LC-22 by Phil Babbey, on Flickr LC-41 by Phil Babbey, on Flickr
  25. These were for a girl who wants to start a blog, and was going for the Instagram/lifestyle look. All three are X-T1 + 56mm wide open (the bottom one is a stitch). raven-7 by Phil Babbey, on Flickr raven-3 by Phil Babbey, on Flickr raven-6 by Phil Babbey, on Flickr
  • Create New...