Jump to content

Phil

Members
  • Content Count

    216
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    3

Everything posted by Phil

  1. Another vote for wide lenses. Most cities in Europe are pretty tight, so unless you're expecting to shoot wildlife or have a lot of time for scouting/shooting landscapes, I can't see a long lens being overly useful. Depending on the type of shooting you're planning on doing, I'd almost be worried about 18mm not being wide enough, if anything. For casual photos it would be fine, but if you're looking to do any architecture or cityscape type stuff, you may run out of room. I'd say just bring the 18-55mm and 12mm. If it were me, and if I was working with your setup, I'd get the 23mm f/2
  2. 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.
  3. 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).
  4. ^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.
  5. 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 decis
  6. 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.
  7. 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.
  8. 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.
  9. 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.
  10. 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
  11. 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
  12. 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).
  13. 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,
  14. 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.
  15. 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.
  16. 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.
  17. 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,
  18. 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
  19. Phil

    One Lens Choice

    edit: Disregard. Sorry, didn't see you'd already made a decision.
  20. 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.
  21. 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
  22. 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 j
  23. 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.
  24. 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 i
  25. 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
×
×
  • Create New...