Jump to content

Marc G.

Members
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    183

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    3

 Content Type 

Everything posted by Marc G.

  1. Marc G.
    There's google for acronyms. It's a matter of less than 10 seconds and I did that same thing when getting accustomed to the acronyms used in English photography forum speech. I suggest people who don't know do the same thing.
  2. Marc G.
    Problem is, the X100T's lens and "sharp as a tack" definitely do not go hand in hand.
  3. Marc G.
    Primes are supposed to be primes. That's about it when it comes to things that they HAVE to be. There are primes offering a f/5.6 aperture (e.g. 12mm Voigtlander). So what? The 35 f/2 will undoubtedly have its place in the lens system of Fuji. Personally, I see no real reason to update the 35 1.4, after the firmware 4.0 of X-T1 or X-T10. It's fast, accurate and has a tiny bit of magic in it.
  4. Marc G.
    Only looking at the numbers sounds a little narrow-minded to me. f/2 is never necessarily worse than f/1.4. The f/2 offers some things, the f/1.4 does not offer. The f/2 has weather sealing, is said to be optically superior and focuses faster. All in a smaller and lighter package. The f/1.4 offers that faster stop, albeit with downsides.
  5. Marc G.
    If the client pays for the (mostly) outrageously expensive printing paper, it would be a great idea. That said, for photo booths, I'd prefer 1 cheap strobe... just easier than changing batteries on the hotshoe flashes.
  6. Marc G.
    I'd probably sell the 12 and 56... 16/35/90 is a beautiful combination
  7. Marc G.
    They would need to make it a 60mm f/2.4 (or 2.8) 1:1 macro with OIS and probably WR. That said, I just got the 60 2.4 1:2 macro for a dirt cheap price brand new and would not consider to trade it in for any new macro lens... niche lens for me.
  8. Marc G.
    Street photography is not depending on lens form factors but rather your body language and behavior. You can act like a reasonable person and shoot with a big lens and get away with it but also act like a creep and shoot with a small lens... and get busted. If you want a workhorse, the 16-55 will not disappoint you. The focal lengths it covers are of high quality. 16-55 and 35 1.4 is a VERY nice combination for people pictures. I'd only go for the 12/27/35 comboi if astro photography is a big interest, as the 12/2 is brilliant for that purpose. I mostly used the 16-55 for weddings but the more I used it, the more I started using it for personal photography. It's simply a brilliant lens. Big and heavy but also optically stellar.
  9. Marc G.
    I found the new Retrospectives most addictive... made from beautiful leather and pinestone canvas.
  10. Marc G.
    It depends on the whole philosophy of the photographer at a wedding. I started with 23/56 on 2 bodies but came to the conclusion that most times throughout the day the 16-55 is simply more convenient and it excels IQ-wise just as much as the primes but now I have the other body free to use an ultrawide or tele lens on it. So I went from primes to 50/50, kinda. That's why I can justify a higher cost for the lens I use most. If primes are the primary workhorses and the zoom is just for a few situations, the 18-55 will give you the convenience at a lower price and your shoulders won't hurt from carrying it with you all day.
  11. Marc G.
    The 18-55 is a fine lens but it lacks speed at the longer end, has an unreliable OIS system and is, optically, not as good as the 16-55 2.8. I found variable aperture lenses to be a PITA. YMMV (!). But it's also a heck lot cheaper, smaller and lighter and works just as well for formals/group shots and some documentary stuff. Besides, I found the 35 to be a heck lot more useful for couple portraits than the 56 or 90. With the 35 you can keep connected to the couple while you have to step back quite a bit with the 56/90.
  12. Marc G.
    No Problem 16-55+90 will get me through the day just fine... I'd miss the 35 1.4 for the shoot part but the 16-55 would do just fine..
  13. Marc G.
    - the Nissin i40 hack should work - 35/90 will not be enough to cover a whole wedding. Besides backup lenses, you're missing the wide category of lenses completely. With 2 bodies and only 2 lenses, I'd look at 16-55 2.8 (must have in my opinion for weddings) and either 90 2.0 or 50-140 2.8 - possible other combinations are... wide lens (10-24, 14, 16, 18, 23) + long lens (56, 90, 50-140) and maaaaaybe, if wide is 10-24, 14, 16 or 18, there is some place for the 35 1.4 - I did cover a wedding with primes only. It sucked, kinda. I took 16, 23, 35, 56, 90 and 2 X-T1... after 2 hours the lens changing was a PITA. The 16-55 just takes such a huge amount of lens changing off your workload... it's unreal. If I could only take 1 lens to a wedding, this would be it. And the Nissin i40!
  14. Marc G.
    First of all, I'm not used to the inch measurements. Living in Europe, I use cm measurements, so we need to get our calculators out if he want to go on I printed a 120cm wide print (thats 47 inches wide) with the 10-24 and had no issues. It was hand-held at base ISO and 5.6, taken at my honeymoon. Biggest issue one can run into is wrong viewing distance. If you get up close to the print with a magnifying glass (I'm obviously exaggerating...) every large print will show weaknesses. When viewed from the proper distance, you can print even larger without the need for a D800 or 5DSr... that being said, the print from my honeymoon looks fine even up close. Now back to your question regarding the 16x24... thats a 40x60cm print and I wouldn't hesitate at such a size. That's no challenge for the excellent sensor and lens combination.
  15. Marc G.
    Both, actually. I didn't print maximum size with the comparison files at the time and I didn't own the M240. It was a test to check my doubt at my leica dealer. Same lens, same tripod position, same aperture, base ISO. Sensor resolution, in my opinion, is the most overrated digital camera feature. Ever. Besides, I rarely crop, if at all. Getting stuff right in camera is part of my workflow. In fact, having better technical ability with photography will get you sharper pictures than 16 vs 24 MP... I'd much rather see a 16 or 18 MP sensor with better ISO and improved dynamic range.
  16. Marc G.
    Try this with either the 90 2.0 or 16 1.4. Those both act as semi-macro lenses, at least for me. And both offer very (!) different images. Ringshots with the 16, offering a lot background, are definitely a change from the stereotypical tele macro ring shots.
  17. Marc G.
    8 more MP will hardly improve resolution at all. That's more a mental thing with users. I didn't see any resolution benefit when Leicas M240 came out. That was a switch from 18 MP to 24 MP. No visible difference. I guess it will be the same with Fujis new sensor.
  18. Marc G.
    You mix up bokeh and the amount of blur. You refer to a lens with pleasing bokeh but not an extremely shallow DOF. Good bokeh can actually result in extremely shallow DOF where the out of focus areas are just a blurry mess but also result in a background that is just a tad soft. Bokeh = quality of blur, not the amount.
  19. Marc G.
    No issues here. It's my do-everything-lens. Performs best at the extreme ends of the range. At 35mm, equals the 35 1.4 and at 16mm equals the 16 1.4 from a pure resolution point of view. Lacks a little behind the 56 1.2 and is roughly equal to the 23 1.4. At the same aperture numbers that is. The 16-55 is my workhorse during weddings. It delivers in every category. I wouldn't hesitate using it for anything, knowing fairly well that it will prove its worth.
  20. Marc G.
    Another post without proper testing and knowledge by peterh. Raise your hand if you're not surprised... MF works pretty well with the focus clutch lenses and the zooms. I wouldn't try it on the 35 1.4 and longer as the focal length+aperture combo provides a thin DOF, so hard to achieve fast manual focus. I use manual focus with 16/23 for dancing and it's quite easy. The EVF with focus peaking is an enormous help in these situations. That being said, I use autofocus even in very low light with 16-55 and 35 and since firmware 4.0, the 35 is really really quick to focus, even in very low light. How low light are we talking abjurina? The 35 did well at 6400, 1.4, 1/60 which is pretty much the maximum I needed thus far.
  21. Marc G.
    It's a pancake design. Of course, it suffers in the corners. It also offers f/2 aperture which is rare with pancakes. I'm with you though. 28mm on 35mm format was my favorite focal length and I miss it a bit with Fuji. I'd love to see a 18 1.4 R WR
  22. Marc G.
    Generally speaking, the zoom SHOULD be faster. The 18/2 is an ALG lens (all lens group focusing), meaning every lens element moves during focusing. The Zooms have a dedicated focus group which is much lighter, smaller and should be faster to acquire focus. Thats the theory. In how much the 1 stop brighter aperture helps the focus acquire its target faster, I don't know. My guess is that the prime nails the focus better than the zoom. Faster? Don't know.
  23. Marc G.
    I'd love to have a 2.8 weather sealed non-stabilized wide angle. 10-18 or 10-20 would suffice, regarding focal length range. WR/LM/R are must haves. Priced around 1200€, so slightly higher than the 16-55.
  24. Marc G.
    It's probably quite good for documentary work. Edge performance doesn't matter there and the field curvature helps to blur to edges even more as the plane of focus is curved towards the camera. I wouldn't use it for stuff where edge to edge performance matters most but for people/documentary photography it's one fine lens. That said, I primarily use the 16 and 23 for this kinda stuff. f/1.4...
  25. Marc G.
    23/35 or any zoom covering these focal lengths.
×
×
  • Create New...