Phil
-
Posts
216 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
3
Content Type
Forums
Gallery
Store
Posts posted by Phil
-
-
If you're shooting at faster shutter speeds than 1/250th, IS won't make a difference. I'd recommend the 90mm, as it has the fastest aperture of the longer lenses.
I own the 56mm and fast aperture is nice, but AF speed is a little on the slow side (no worse than the 35mm). If you have the 35mm and it's not close enough, I'd say go 90mm.
-
thanks for the respond Mike G. but the kit lens, 18-55 doesn't do that when i focus manually. is it only with the prime lenses?
I could be wrong, but I'm pretty sure the quiet lenses are the ones with linear focus motors (they use magnets instead of a motor). So far it consists of the zooms and the 90mm IIRC. All the primes use traditional motors - they all vary in noise/volume, but the 16mm is one of the quieter ones. Out of the lenses I own, the 16mm and 56mm are the quietest, and the 18, 23, and 35 are all louder.
-
If you don't have any specific requirements (i.e. headshots or sweeping landscapes), I'd start with the 23mm. If I had to choose one lens, it would be 23mm. The aperture will be really handy in low light, and eventually you can pair it with the upcoming 50mm f/2.
I have the XF18-55 which I bought recently. The camera (XT10) came with the XC16-50. I bought the XF because it was more expensive (I know, easily led!) and it had a metal mount and it was an XF rather than an XC ( I know, easily led). I wish I hadn't. The XC is just as good as the XF, I can't tell the difference in the images with each. I shouldn't have wasted my money on the XF. I would recommend the XC16-50.
Personally, I'd recommend the 18-55 over the 16-50, especially as an only lens.
I got the 16-50 for my wife to use with my X-E2, and the build is like a Canon Rebel kit lens. The autofocus gets really slow in low light, and the aperture is pretty limiting.
Having said that, I'd prefer the 16-50 + 23 over the 18-55 alone.
-
So torn between this lens and 18 to 55
What other lenses do you have? Those two are very different; personally, I'd take the 23mm hands down.
-
-
Another vote for the Fuji. f/2 --> 1.8 won't make a noticeable difference. The Fuji lens has stellar reviews, and you're guaranteed compatibility.
-
X-T1 + 56mm 1.2 (the bottom one is a stitch)
FXT10129 by Phil Babbey, on FlickrBM-307 by Phil Babbey, on Flickr- m_knight77, tomO2013, frankinfuji and 3 others
-
6
-
Canon doesn't have any manual focus-only EF lenses, so I'm not sure about the quality of the manual focus on the affordable ones. You should be able to pick up an older 50mm 1.8 II for like $50 on Craiglist or whatnot. That will MF on its own, but it's not an enjoyable experience. I can't speak for the original 50mm 1.8.
If you want to do affordable manual focus, I'd recommend getting a $10 Canon FD or M42 lens mount (there are a lot of options for M42, especially crazy Russian lenses). Then you'll have a lot of really interesting options in the <$100 and even <$50 range.
-
^ I just came here to say that's an awesome photo!
-
You did see though that exposure compensation is set to -2?
This. Exposure comp is most definitely set to -2.
Screen Shot 2016-12-01 at 6.37.40 PM by Phil Babbey, on Flickr -
Yes, I have, with appropriate measures like for example using a monopod , but you may mean events in total darkness.
Recently I went to a birthday party where the official photographer was shooting, with a Nikon, in near total darkness or where there was no light to speak of. There was no prohibition to use a flash.
Analogically, I’ve never shot a portrait any higher than 400ASA and Digitally, I think that I’ve shot one portrait at 1600ISO. Anyway, like for the IBIS thing, this seems to be a big deal for some and not for others.
I suppose that it simply mean that fuji’s are not for everyone. If you like them you do, if you don’t you don’t.
Firstly, I have no desire to drag a monopod around at a wedding reception - never mind a monopod on each body. Secondly, I have no desire to shoot living subjects at shutter speeds so slow I need a monopod. Thirdly, not everything is so black and white; it's possible to like something without liking every single aspect of it. Just because I don't like Fuji's high ISO JPGs, that doesn't mean I don't like Fuji cameras or that they aren't for me.
There's no need to be rude and insult other people's shooting techniques, especially when the thread doesn't seem to be relevant to you.
-
I get the odd random issue maybe once every six months or so. Actually just this past weekend, for example, my X-T1 kept racking focus and wouldn't do anything else. I turned it off and back on and it was solid after that.
It's the odd little issue like that that would make me hesitate to suggest the X-T1 for serious professional use, unless you could afford true backups (i.e. if you're a two-camera shooter, having at least one extra body). I've never had a shoot ruined or missed shots because of it, but I have had the odd scare.
I also don't know how normal that is. My paid jobs are mostly weddings and events, so my cameras have taken a beating (I've dropped my X-T1 a couple times, and it gets banged around pretty regularly hanging on the shoulder strap). So it could be the camera, or it could be my specific camera. I've heard the same thing said about Sony mirrorless (when being compared to the usual Canon/Nikon pro cameras), so it just makes me wonder if these newer camera lines just don't have the rock solid firmware that more veteran digital lines do.
In regards to your initial problem, what kind of batteries do you use? I used to have two OEM batteries and two 3rd party batteries. I found that when I was using the grip and mixed OEM and 3rd party, the camera was prone to freeze up the odd time. Once, when I was using an OEM and 3rd party battery and had a Yongnuo flash on the hotshoe, the camera would consistently freeze up until I pulled the battery. When I booted it back up, it would do the exact same thing.
I've started using all OEM batteries if I'm using the battery grip, and do my best to only use OEM batteries for jobs, and haven't had any issues since. Since my X-E2 can only use one battery, I used my 3rd party batteries as backups for it, and never had any issues, either.
-
what I really don’t understand is that this supposed “ problem” appears only at high ISO and I really don’t think that I shoot portraits at high ISO so what is the problem?
However it is what it is. If one likes the rendition of colors and surfaces by Fuji one likes it, if one doesn’t one doesn’t. Fuji has had plenty of time to give this a thought and if they didn’t do anything is either because they don’t want to or can’t or, more likely, because they don’t see, as I do, the problem.
There is no account for taste, but why? I simply don’t understand it. When I started taking pictures, a very long time ago, nobody in his right mind would have shot a portrait at 1600 ISO and above.
We all dealt with films that simply could have not been used that way and we didn’t.
At some point “ beauty “ photographers ( those whom shot make up and things like that) used to overexpose 3 stops and underdevelop two stops.
This made sure that the skin tomes were pastel and the surface equalized ( I am talking of times before the widespread use of any computer!).
But again “ unicuique suum ”
Then you haven't shot events where flash is discouraged/not allowed.
I do a lot of wedding and event shooting and am routinely shooting at 1600-3200 in ambient light. JPGs in most lighting scenarios at those settings do have too much smoothing, which makes skin look unnatural. However, I really like Fuji overall and am willing to shoot RAW to avoid that; that being said, I'd be more likely to buy a new camera if the phenomenon was alleviated/reduced.
Poor light existed even before digital photography, and you couldn’t shoot portraits with film at Asa/Iso above 1600.
No box contains chops.
In any case, it is what it is.
Well now you can shoot portraits with digital chips at/above ASA 1600, and there are clients who expect you to do just that.
Different photographers have different needs.
-
If you're happy with the 18-55mm and only want the 16-55mm for this trip then I'd say either rent it or skip it. If you're worried about WR then why not consider the new 23mm f2? Much cheaper, faster and an intro to primes, assuming the 18-55mm is your only lens?
Agreed. I went to Ireland with a Rebel and non-WR lenses and it was totally fine.
If you really want the option to zoom in the rain, I'd say rent the 16-55mm instead of buying it. It is a really good lens, but IMHO no one will be able to tell a difference between shots from that and the 18-55mm; if the rain is your main reason for buying it, I'd say skip it and just rent.
Personally, I don't think it will be an issue at all unless you want to be able to shoot in pouring rain. If so, I'd say skip the 16-55mm and pick up the 35mm or 23mm WR. Both will be fine in the rain, and they each offer something different than your 18-55mm, so will be more useful back home, too.
-
Mirrorless isn't only about smaller size. You get benefits like on-chip autofocus, an electronic viewfinder, and a shorter flange distance for better lens design. Additionally, not every photographer is looking for a small system when they switch to mirrorless.
Pros and enthusiasts said they wanted professional grade 2.8 zooms, and Fuji listened. They've said the 2.8 zooms are as small as they could make them without sacrificing image quality.
-
^Agreed.
The 10-24mm is more versatile for some things due to the focal length, but as someone who shoots a lot of people photos and in lower light (weddings, events, etc) I'd take the extra stop of light gathering over the flexibility of the zoom.
I own the 18mm and 35mm 1.4. The 1.4 isn't the fastest autofocusing lens, and I wouldn't suggest it as a primary lens for low light event coverage, but for daytime shooting and low light portraiture, it's perfectly fine. Image quality is great, and it's an incredible lens.
The 18mm is an interesting option. Image quality is good (other than the extreme edges), autofocus is faster than the 35 1.4, and it's very small for an f/2 lens. It's definitely underrated - it's a good lens, it's just that the other Fuji primes are a bit better so it gets ignored.
The lenses you mentioned cover a very useful focal length range, and they're all great. If that's what you like, go for it - you won't be disappointed.
-
I had that happen with my X-T1. I figured out it was when I used 3rd party batteries in the battery grip - mine were DigiPower, the Best Buy brand. The only think I didn't try was using two 3rd party batteries - I always had tried it with a Fuji battery in the X-T1, and a 3rd party in the grip.
I got a couple extra Fuji batteries, so I always use OEM batteries when I'm using my X-T1 with a grip, and with the non-gripped X-T1 or my X-E2, I don't worry about which batteries I use.
-
I chose the 1.4, because my other main lenses (16mm and 56mm) have similar maximum apertures, and once you get used to 1.4, it's hard to go back.
-
Despite initial scepticism, I think the fact that the development of GF medium format lenses is adversely affecting XF lens development is beginning to dawn on a larger number of people.
It is clearly doing so at two levels:
1. Diverting human resources away from XF lens development
2. Causing the XF mount to be treated as a second rate consumer product for those unable to afford medium format
I really don't think that will be an issue.
1. As popular as this medium format camera is right now, how many people are actually going to buy it? GFX production has got to be a tiny, tiny fraction of the XF production. I doubt they'll start short-changing the XF lineup to meet the huge GFX demand, because there probably won't be a huge GFX demand.
2. I also seriously doubt they'll start to play the XF lineup off as a second-rate product for poor people who can't afford medium format. The Canon 1DX is ~$6000, and the 5D is ~$3000. Is Canon trying to play the 5D off as a second-rate product for people too poor to buy a "real" DSLR? No; Canon sells way, way more 5D's than 1D's, so it would be stupid to belittle/alienate that customer base. The 5D is considered an excellent workhorse camera for professionals, and the 1DX is an outrageously expensive camera that 99% of photographers don't need.
The Fuji XF bodies are around half the price of what the 5D4 will be, and the GFX is even more expensive than the 1DX2 and much more specialized. No one in their right mind would try to make someone feel bad for buying an X-T2 instead of the GFX simply because the GFX is "better".
-
I've got the 16mm and use the hood for jobs and have never noticed any vignetting.
Is the hood on properly?
-
I was going to suggest either the 16 or the 90, depending on which way you lean.
The 16, 23 and 56 is going to be an excellent kit for you and cover anything you'll likely want to shoot. Enjoy...
That's my go-to kit and it covers everything I realistically need. 23mm is my favourite all-purpose focal length, 56mm is great for portraits but wide enough to be versatile, and 16mm is wide enough for landscapes and adds drama while not looking too unnatural for people photos.
-
I could live with the 18mm and 35mm lenses only ... they are on my camera 90% of the time.
I mainly use the 16mm, 23mm, and 56mm, and I'm really happy with it. For jobs (especially weddings), I'd prefer this combo for the spread.
For personal stuff, though, and everyday carry, I could totally live with 18mm and 35mm. Super versatile and compact combo.
-
I haven't posted in a while, but my wife and I saw Enter Shikari in London ON a couple months ago, and I brought my X-E2 with the 18mm and 35mm. I figured the smaller size might help get me into the venue in case they didn't like cameras. No one batted an eye, and in hindsight, I probably would have gotten along with the 23mm better, if anything for the more consistent low light AF. Between the low light and backlighting, both the 18mm and 35mm were struggling.
DSCF0114 by Phil Babbey, on FlickrDSCF0123 by Phil Babbey, on FlickrDSCF0386 by Phil Babbey, on FlickrDSCF0137 by Phil Babbey, on FlickrDSCF0157 by Phil Babbey, on FlickrDSCF0383 by Phil Babbey, on FlickrDSCF0465 by Phil Babbey, on FlickrDSCF0524 by Phil Babbey, on Flickr -
I know you didn't mention this lens, but what about the 23 1.4? It sits right in the middle of the focal lengths you mentioned, is a stop faster than any of the lenses you mentioned, and is IMHO the sweet spot for shooting everyday life (wide enough for most situations, but tight enough to still be versatile).
Portraiture work, running topic
in People
Posted
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).