Phil

Here are some more stitched portraits. This is what I started with, with basic exposure and colour correction, and with the detail slider cranked to 100. My Mac's dying and can't handle stitching RAWs (which is a bummer for editing the stitched file), so I batch exported them to JPGs, re-imported them into LR, merged them in PS, then sent them back to LR for final touches like vignetting, a bit of split toning to help tone the sky down, and minor stuff like cleaning up a bit of colour fringing. Here's a single frame: DSCF0091 by Phil Babbey, on Flickr And here's the largest file I could get while still having a standard aspect ratio (4x5): DSCF0092-Edit by Phil Babbey, on Flickr And here's a square crop: DSCF0092-Edit-2 by Phil Babbey, on Flickr This is another location. I really like how this one turned out. DSCF0135-Edit by Phil Babbey, on Flickr

I agree. I'm guessing window light with some sort of reflector, or maybe a larger softbox. The catchlights in his eyes make it look like some kind of square light source. I think there was a fair amount of processing going on. It definitely has that VSCO look. Looks like there was some split toning used to warm up the highlights and make them a pastel yellow colour, and it looks like he used the tone curve to crush the blacks and whites to flatten the image. Colour-wise, it looks pretty natural (as far as the HSL balance goes, not counting white balance or the split toning), and it looks like he pushed the vibrance and maybe desaturated the image slightly. It looks like he added grain, too. Long story short: VSCO preset. I really like the portrait, but I'm not a fan of the look he went for with his processing.

As in useless from f/4-16, or 1.4-4? Either way, that seems strange - I've never heard that before. I mostly shoot people so I rarely shoot slower than f/4, but I've done some product photography with the 35mm at f/5.6-11 and it seemed just as sharp as any other aperture. If you're talking about it being useless from f/1.4-4 then that makes zero sense. I haven't pixel peeped it and compared it to the 56mm, but other than that it's probably the sharpest lens I've ever used, with great bokeh and contrast, too.

I love when this lens gets the swirly bokeh. I'm not sure if that has anything to do with coma or not - anyone know? I was reading about wider lenses and astro photography and that got me thinking about it. Either way, I love the look. I considered the APD version as I mostly use the 56 for portraiture, but I went with the normal one for the lower price and potentially faster autofocus. Most times I see no real difference between the two, short of peeping bokeh at 100%. Where I do see a fairly large difference is with busy backgrounds like trees; the regular version still looks good, but the APD version is a lot softer and less busy. I don't necessarily find it better, just a different look. I could definitely see owning both if I was a full-time photographer, or if I had lots of money. The regular version is the safer choice and better all-around lens, but the few times I think the APD would make a noticeable difference, it would be quite noticeable, IMHO.

Here's a stitched panorama of my wife. X-T1 + 56mm @ 1.2 DSCF0280-Edit by Phil Babbey, on Flickr

I've said it before, but I'd still drop everything and save for a ~33mm f/1.0. I love the 35mm but it's a little tight for me for every day use, so it's more of a specialized portrait lens for me, and I wouldn't mind dealing with the size. Another lens I realized I'd really like to see is an XC ~10-16mm zoom. I've almost rounded out my kit, and just need something legitimately wide (my widest lens is the 18mm right now). I'd love the versatility of the 10-24mm, but since my jobs are primarily events and portraits, the speed of the 16mm is probably more valuable. But if they made a cheaper XC ultra wide zoom for $300 or so, I'd definitely pick it up for when I want to do really wide landscapes and dance floor photos.

Like kid1002 said, it all depends on your shooting style. I have an X-T1 with the 18mm, 23mm, 35mm, and 56mm I use for jobs. I got the 23mm last spring and while I love that lens, I regret not getting an X100 instead. 23mm is my favourite focal length, but I could really use a second body, and the X100 would be a perfect casual camera, too. If you're planning on getting the 56mm, I'd say get the X100S now, so you can run the two in tandem. With that combo I could probably shoot 95% of my wedding stuff easily.

Here are a few I forgot to post from the last few months. All with the 35mm. DSCF0006 by Phil Babbey, on Flickr TBHeadshot by Phil Babbey, on Flickr DSCF0084 by Phil Babbey, on Flickr

That's how I see the 35mm personally. I use it a lot for jobs because it's versatile and my longest prime lens, but as soon as I get the 56mm I don't think the 35 will see much use. I like shooting friends and everyday stuff for personal work and I love the 23mm, because I see in 23mm so framing is really easy for me. I also find it wide enough to be useful indoors, but not so wide that it has that wide angle look. And compared to the 35mm, the 23's just wide enough to get a more dramatic background falloff while still having that shallow depth of field look. It'll be interesting to see how I deal with the 56. Like most people, I learned on a 50mm on an APS-C DSLR, and haven't shot anything like that since I switched to Fuji. In the summer I second shot my friends' wedding and was using the main photographer's Nikon gear. Using the 85 1.4 felt like coming home - I took to it right away and had so much fun shooting with it. So I'm thinking I'll have a blast with the 56.

As much as I love the 23mm, I'd skip it if I were in your position. It's an amazing lens, but if you already have the 18-55 and 35, I'd go for something different. Right now I have the 18, 23, 35, and 50-230. I like all three primes, and they're different enough that they all have a use and are sufficient for most jobs I take, but I definitely wish I had more range. The 23 has a slightly different look to it (because of the perspective the background falls off a bit more dramatically) but it's subtle. Based on what you said, I think you're on the right track with the 16mm. It's that extra bit wider than your 18-55, and the fast aperture makes it useful indoors. However, for that price, check out the 10-24mm if you like doing landscapes. Landscapes and people photos are two very different shooting styles, and since you already have an 18mm 2.8 to shoot people indoors, I think you may be better off getting something more specialized that will really give you something extra over your 18-55. And in regards to your 23mm/X100S question, I'd 100% recommend the X100S. Like I said, I love my 23mm, but in hindsight, I wish I'd bought the 56mm instead, and was looking at getting an X100 right now instead of having the 23mm/56mm combo for my X-T1. The 23mm is slightly sharper and a stop faster, but the X100 gets you a second body, a leaf shutter and built-in ND filter, and the perfect tiny travel setup. I would much rather take an X100 when I'm going out with my wife and friends, because it's so much smaller and more discrete - but on the flip side, it's also enough camera to use for paid work. You could get the 23mm for your X-E1, and then you'd either be bringing a handful of lenses around to swap, or you'd have to choose one and stick with it. If you get an X100, you can fit that and your X-E1 with a lens in about the same amount of space as you would the X-E1 with two lenses. That gets you a second/backup camera, saves you needing to change lenses all the time, and gets you all the benefits of an X100. Personally, I'd either bring just the X100 out with me, or keep it out as my go-to camera and keep the X-E1 handy with a more specialized lens, like the 35mm for portraits and super low light, or the 18-55 when you need the range. Sorry for the long rant. Like I said, since you're concentrating on landscapes and people photos, it really depends where your priorities lie, because those are two very different styles. • I think the 14mm or 10-24mm would work better in tandem with your 18-55. They both add more range, and will give you a drastically different look from your 18-55. They're both decently useable for people and low light, but I think your best approach would be to use them more as landscape and architecture specialists, and plan on your 18-55/35 being the people lenses. • The 16mm is a great choice, but I think that would be more of a lens to replace your 18-55, and would work beautifully with your 35mm. That gives you more or less the same kind of range that your 18-55 has, but with improved low light and depth of field capabilities. The 18-55 probably makes up for the slower aperture with IS, but that doesn't help you when you're shooting people. I don't literally mean the 16mm would totally replace your 18-55, but personally I'd find it a bit redundant to bring the 16 and 35 along with the 18-55, unless you really want to have the zoom available as an option. So I'd see that more as changing your kit, rather than adding range to it. • If you like 23mm, get the X100S. If you're keeping a pretty bare bones rig and want versatility, the 23mm and 35mm are too similar IMHO; however, adding the X100S as your 23mm opens up a lot more options. You have a second/backup body, the most compact travel kit, the option to run two lenses at once, and the benefits of the X100 series. This one wouldn't really be adding range, either, so much as giving you more immediate versatility, and giving you the option of a different shooting style.

And here are a few more. DSCF0954 by Phil Babbey, on Flickr DSCF0959 by Phil Babbey, on Flickr DSCF0163 by Phil Babbey, on Flickr DSCF0190 by Phil Babbey, on Flickr DSCF0319 by Phil Babbey, on Flickr And a pano with the 35mm, which is my longest lens at the moment. DSCF0414 by Phil Babbey, on Flickr

I wouldn't mind an integrated grip, as long as I had a second body I could use for everyday carry. I'm probably one of few, but I'd like to see more weight to the X-T1. I like the reduced size because it's more discrete and easier to bring around with me, but I find heavier cameras easier to hold steady. I would have loved it if the X-T1 alone weighed as much as it does with the grip now, and to have the grip add that much extra weight again.

Not to bump a boring thread but I shot a brick wall, and even at 1.4 only the far corners are soft. Stopped down to f/4, there's a tiny bit of softness in the most extreme corners, but even at 100% it's hard to catch. I think the left corners may be a little softer than the right, but it's hard to even find the softness, so I'm going to go on with my life and try to forget about it. It very well could have been that way when I bought the lens. Definitely the last time I buy internationally, though. With gear this expensive it's not worth the risk IMHO.

Thanks for the feedback guys. I'm thinking things are okay. I did a rough measurement today and it fell pretty much exactly 2ft onto a carpeted floor (with a wood subfloor). Since I was holding it before I let it go, if fell accessory door first. I didn't notice how it landed, but since the lens cap was pushed on harder, I'm hoping it absorbed some of the impact. The AF doesn't sound any different or seem any slower, and my photos from the rest of the day don't seem soft - but it was a wedding and I mostly shoot people anyway, so it's mostly centre frame. I'll keep a close eye on it and shoot it often but try not to worry. With no external moving parts and a (more or less) pro build, it should hopefully be fine. Thankfully it wasn't the 35 1.4. I'm not normally one to obsess over little things, but money is tight and I use this lens for work, and it would be a big hit to have to get it repaired - I'm guessing it would be an expensive fix. I'll shoot it some more after work and update here if I find anything interesting.

That's where I thought I might be alright, because the lens focuses internally and the cap wasn't hit so hard that it took any permanent damage. The fall was under 1 metre. I'm not very tall and the camera was hanging at my side when I dropped it (I unclipped it from my BlackRapid strap for a photo and since I could still feel the strap on my shoulder, forgot and just let the camera fall at my side when I was done). I'm going through the day's photos and doing some tests right now and centre sharpness seems to be fine, but I'm not sure about the edges. In that photo above, is f/4 shallow enough that the top of the wall could just be falling out of focus? I was angling the camera to keep the wedding party near the bottom of the frame.

I was shooting a wedding yesterday and dropped my X-T1 with the 23mm 1.4 attached. It fell about two feet down onto a carpeted floor. It landed more or less on its side, I think, but the lens cap had been pushed onto the lens and was difficult to get off. I found this shot from later in the day, at f/4. The 100% crop in the Lightroom panel is from the centre of the frame, and the cropped view in the middle is from the upper portion of the frame. Does this look like its decentred? I'm Canadian and bought it from B&H, so trying to get it serviced under warranty could be a hassle (I do live right on the border at least). Screen Shot 2016-02-01 at 12.29.07 AM by Phil Babbey, on Flickr

Here's a quick edit from my friends' wedding yesterday. DSCF0931-5 by Phil Babbey, on Flickr

I did a shoot for a salon who did hair for a local charity event. It was mostly candids, but I took a few portraits of the event competitors. It wasn't great, because I only had 30 second or a minute to get three or four of each competitor before they went out, but I got a few I'm happy with. DSCF0138 by Phil Babbey, on Flickr DSCF0146 by Phil Babbey, on Flickr DSCF0176 by Phil Babbey, on Flickr

I really hope it's under $1500CAD. If so I'll be buying it as soon as I can afford it. For what I use the 35mm for, this would only be better and is exactly what I want from Fuji. If the AF performance is even on par with the 35 1.4 (a little slower but less hunting would be fine, too), and if the wide open performance is similar, it'll be an instant buy for me.

And here are the edits. DSCF0009 by Phil Babbey, on Flickr DSCF0017 by Phil Babbey, on Flickr DSCF0064 by Phil Babbey, on Flickr DSCF0114 by Phil Babbey, on Flickr DSCF0125 by Phil Babbey, on Flickr DSCF0151 by Phil Babbey, on Flickr DSCF0184 by Phil Babbey, on Flickr DSCF0206 by Phil Babbey, on Flickr DSCF0228 by Phil Babbey, on Flickr

I shot a friend who works in the mall at Tip Top Tailors today. The smart previews are still building in LR, but here's a SOOC JPG that I wifi'd to my phone while we were shooting. It's the regular monochrome sim with +1 highlights and shadows. We didn't have time to find a good location, so I shot him in the changing room hallway. IMG_2283 by Phil Babbey, on Flickr

I'm interested to see what these changes are. If this camera gets the AF of the X-T1/10 and gets a more similar button layout, I'd get this over the X-T10 purely for the form factor. I hope it sells for around $800CAD when it launches.

Agreed. 24MP is fine if it comes with other IQ improvements, but I'd rather a new 12 or 16MP sensor personally, because I don't need the extra resolution.

I haven't been posting as many photos lately (I've had a lull in paid work and my personal life isn't that interesting ) but I had an engagement shoot last week. I tried shooting a panorama for one of their portraits. It's not quite the same result as the Brenizer method (also, my longest lens right now is the 35mm, so the Brenizer method is more or less out of the question) but got me a wider, more detailed photo with the same perspective as a tighter crop. I shot in vertical orientation and just used the pano to widen the image. The file is huge and has tons of detail, as well as nice falloff. When you have the space for it (it gets awkward with too many close lines like indoors) it looks nice without looking too obvious. DSCF0134-Edit by Phil Babbey, on Flickr And for reference, here's a single shot image from the same position that I shot the panorama. DSCF0112 by Phil Babbey, on Flickr

I would, even the original, but wifi is one of the most important aspects of an everyday camera for me. I use it almost every time I use my camera, even on paid jobs.