Max_Elmar

Hopefully, it will the perfect lens for a WR body we haven't seen yet. The narrower front would be perfect (well, better) for a hybrid OVF/EVF. But I don't see me selling off the 35/1.4 to get one for my X-E2.

Yeah, the 18-300 is going to seem a bit weak on the 7100 - but WOW the reach. The closest equivalent in Fuji land is the 18-135, which is obviously shorter, but sharper in the overlapping range. If you crop down from 24mp often, you may feel constrained by 16mp in the XT-10. If you can live with considerably less reach, you will be rewarded with a high quality travel rig with about 1/2 the weight of a D7100+18-300. I'm not a "convert" really. I still use my D7000 for sports and action. I use a D800 at work. But now I happily travel with X-E1 (soon X-E2) and an 18-55 and/or a bag of primes. The 18-55 is great. One quickly gets used to the luxury of small fast lenses. Not sure if the X-T10 is right for you, but maybe you should give it a try. Maybe rent one and the 18-135 to take on a little trip of discovery.

The focus ring on mine is also heavily damped. It bothered me at first, but now I like it because the focus setting just stays put when using hyperfocal techniques. From the Andromeda galaxy to .5m is only about 2cm on the focus scale - so you are never far from where you need to be. And the damping keeps one from "overshooting" the mark.

I know I've stated this elsewhere, but I'm pretty sure there are some side agreements in place with the big 3rd party lens manufacturers and the original equipment manufacturers. The electronic Tamron, Sigma, and Tokina lenses could all be rendered non-functional with a firmware update from Canon, Nikon, or Sony. Those 3rd party MFGs have been known to make lenses that get OEM branding. There is probably collusion to keep them out of the Fuji market. Meanwhile, Rokinon/Samyang keeps rocking our world - no autofocus or OIS, but the glass is really good, much to Zeiss's dismay. The Koreans play different games. Good for them. Good for Fuji, too - as the high-quality, manual-focus Korean glass doesn't compete in the exactly same market as the Fuji glass. Looking hard at the new 21/1.4 over here...a new, dedicated, APS-C mirrorless lens... and I really like that focal length on APS-C... (about 1/2 the price of the Fuji 23/1.4...)

Most primes have somewhat specific uses that really make it impossible for us to answer that question for you. What do you want to do with the prime? The 18mm makes a very nice, compact fast travel lens. The 60 does beautiful portraits, flowers, and architectural details. The 35 is the classic "50mm on film" field of view and bokeh - probably the most versatile. I have a few other lenses for my Fuji, but I really could be happy with just these three. (I use the Fuji as a lightweight travel camera system. Still a DSLR "dinosaur" for professional architecture and landscape work and sports.)

I work in an environment where this can be a real problem. My form has always been to use plain language on first mention, then go to the acronym on subsequent mentions. Unless it really is a very common acronym. Clarity and brevity are both important.

I wouldn't say that 3.41 was not meaningful, as it kept the camera useable with Win10. Still, point well taken that the X-Pro1 has fallen behind. With Fuji, we simply expect a bit more - as the company has gone to some lengths to set these expectations.

It's broken. Send it back. A good 18 only looks "bad" compared to the 14 or the 23.

Fuji makes exactly what you want, but it comes permanently attached to an X100T. Nice camera.

Nice capture, guy!

Not at all. For one thing, Fuji simply does not make a really full line up of lenses yet. Say you wanted photograph in UV with the new UV and IR capable X-T1? You would probably use a Nikon or Pacific Optics lens because Fuji does not even make a UV capable or IR optimized lens to complement the camera. Need a 300/2.8, 400/2.8, (or even a 180/2.8)? ANY Fuji lens over 230mm? Not available in Fuji land. Yet. Fortunately, Fuji cameras can be set up to record the focal length of an adapted lens in the EXIF. Fuji even makes its own Leica lens adapter. They can even do automatic corrections for some Leica lenses.

It is a mystery what "corrections" (perhaps "profiles" would be a better word?) are applied to RAW files in camera. Careful analysis suggests both Fuji and Nikon are doing something to the noise in RAW files above a certain ISO, that's for sure. Much less of a mystery are the corrections applied in the jpeg engine as we can compare the resulting images. I know it's not a perfectly controlled comparison, but it's still useful information for a photographer. All of which makes it all the more impressive that the Rok/Sam 12 measures better than the Zeiss in Raw files, as it does not have the advantage of these possible RAW corrections/profiles.

That's amazing that you can actually READ it! I have always wondered why people did that to some of the old lenses I have acquired over the years.

You made the right choice. Here's a website that actually measured raw files from both lenses on the same sensor, the Rok measured better for coma, distortion, and sharpness ... I guess the Zeiss is "obviously" superior at making the well-heeled feel good? Recording EXIF? It is a LOT better at autofocusing. CA is definitly lower in the Zeiss, even in the RAFs. There are things you have to attend to in post that would be handled automatically in a Fuji jpeg from the Zeiss. (That's probably what trips up the, lets say, "casual" lens reviewers on the internet.) Read the entire review for coma examples and distortion measurements, but sharpness info would be right here: http://www.lenstip.com/382.4-Lens_review-Carl_Zeiss_Touit_12_mm_f_2.8_Image_resolution.html and here http://www.lenstip.com/404.4-Lens_review-Samyang_12_mm_f_2.0_NCS_CS_Image_resolution.html The ROK is certainly not better than the Fuji 14... but it's wider and faster so the two are not really that comparable.

Chain - Indeed stuff like this is why I keep my D7000 around. That, and the fact there isn't a Fuji 180/2.8 prime. Or a 300/4. And certainly not one I can buy for $350 used. (Two lenses that I use a lot for sports.) A fuji 90/2 is undoubtedly a spectacular lens, but is it worth DOUBLE what a Nikon 85/1.8 costs? The value proposition for me for Fuji is still "smaller with similar or better performance" but it's within a fairly narrow band. The Fuji system isn't nearly mature yet, but it is getting better all the time. And I simply really enjoy using it.

Firmware up-to-date in camera and lenses? The 90 is so new - surely the X-Pro1 would need a FW update to use it properly, no?

Set to manual focus, my X-E1 does this trick, but the AF box does not light up in green to confirm focus. Seems to work fine otherwise. Good to know!

X-Pro2 needs a third OVF magnification ratio! Currently X-Pro1 has x.3 for wides, x.6 for normals - Fuji - please give us a 1:1 option for the 60 and 90, like the great Japanese RFs of yore! (Nikon S2, S3, S4, SP, and Canon P all have 1:1 finders!) That would be amazing.

I do quite well with the "OG" three - 18/2, 35/1.4, 60/2.4 "OG" in this case stands for "Original Glass" Also have a Rokinon 12/2 and the Fuji 27mm - but they are special use for me. People bring up the zooms in a thread about primes? Well, whatever. When I need stabilization or I need the reach or I have no time to switch lenses, I have the 18-55 and the 50-230. I could easily imagine going with the 14/2.8, 23/1.4, and (maybe) the 56/1.2 - ask me in few years when i have collected them.

You can also just do it in the camera by going to the lens mount adapter setting and using one of the flexible presets (5&6) and set it to 12mm. That way they are marked right from the camera. Just the focal length is recorded so I well understand why you may want to mark things "properly" in the EXIF after the fact.

Dude - you're such a prankster!

Very nice work - a fine reference for the community. Thank you! No internet back then. No electronics in what were solid brass (or aluminum) and glass lenses. Film did not show lens flaws like a 36mp digital sensor. But mostly the first thing.

Purchased Affinity about a week ago and I've logged a few hours and I am more than impressed. I can't speak to it's abilities with RAF files (I use Iridient to develop) but most everything else works a treat. Very, very well done and a much better deal than Photoshop, which, let's face it, has morphed into bloated graphic design software. Affinity is very easy to use, very flexible, and powerful. I thought Pixelmator was good, but this is better. (I have no connection to these folks, I just like their work.) Very pleased and I'm excited to see how the software develops - still just version 1.3.5 (Having used Photoshop for 15 years now...)