Marc G.

You should probably first read into the issues with the A7 cameras. It's not just hype and happy wonder dreamland with that system. Overheating problems with video and A7r II, you're forced to use lossy 11+7 raw bit compression, native lenses with appealing specs (1.4/1.8, AF, high optical quality) are rare or non existent (2.8 zooms). Besides, I don't see the point in this thread as you gave sufficient evidence that you're not interested to get the most out of Fuji X and take the easy way out (see Wedding Photography thread). Either take a look at the X-T1 with latest firmware or don't and keep believing that Fuji X is not your thing.

How dare you use a tool that's totally not the best tool for the job

The OIS would help with shutter speeds of about 1/125-1/15 but you'd probably need to stop down to f/11 or f/16... that's too much to handle without a tripod, at least if you want a good quality at lower ISOs out of the shots.

The DOF problem is inevitable. To get the magnification, you have to get close. Only way out is to get the tripod and shoot at a slow shutter speed and close the aperture down to f/8-f/16. I tested ring shots with our own wedding bands with the 56 1.2 with 11mm extension tube on a tripod and it worked out okay but I'd definitely recommend going for the 90. Big pro for the 90 is the fact that it focuses fast, is ultra sharp at any aperture and is the ideal mate for my 16-55 as I'm using 2 bodies. As others stated: the 90 basically does the job of 3 lenses (general telephoto, longer portrait lens, detail/close-up lens) for me and I'm very happy with it.

If you got the 16mm, try that for ring shots. Let's you get a bit more background into the photo which can be nice. Even rings are suited for environmental close up "portraits"

16 or 90mm. 0.2x magnification is plenty for me. The final result of each lens is different enough to use both at each wedding for ring shots.

Then why you're even writing this bollocks? Fuji made the mistake with the original X100 and users were annoyed because the mechanic was sloppy. The path the lever has to move from 1 focus mode to another was way too short and it was too easy to move. I suppose you never used a Leica. I did. For years. M9 has the same lever. There is no issue whatsoever in actual use. You'd actually make it worse if the order was OFF-C-S. I never heard Leica users complain about the order of the on/off switch. Never. And boy those users can complain. You're the first person I see ranting about it. I say: if it works in actual use, it's well implemented.

You never used a Leica, did you? It's that way with every digital M and people never complained because the stops are just firm enough to not accidentally knock it all the way to C. Fuji had the problem that the switch is just moved too easily.

Answer in bold.

That's total bollocks. Just because you obviously lack the knowledge to properly use a Fuji at weddings doesn't mean it's a total failure as a tool. I suppose you're talking about the wedding dance, where the dance floor is usually dimly lit and the couple moves quite fast. This is where I, personally, used to use the 16/23/35 primes (now adding the 90). Manual focus with the wides, AF with the 35/90. Works a treat, believe it or not. I've shot weddings with Fuji, usually with another shooter. When the X-T1 failed due to too low light, the 6D or 5D III failed, too. If you, as a photographer, know your tools and are prepared for the situations and know how to best use your tools in different situations, then you don't miss anything. If people complain about the Fujis, it's usually due to their own inability. When you're used to DSLRs and start trying to use the Fujis as a DSLR, the whole attempt is destined for failure. It's not a DSLR. Using another system requires time and effort to get the most out of it. But thats often forgotten. Besides: hiring a photographer (or firing in your theoretical case) for his/her gear is superficial nonsense. You hire a photographer for the style, the portfolio and maybe the approach but not for the gear. That's like saying to the catering team: which brand of pots do you use?

Sell 18-135 Sell 55-200 Have a look at 90 f/2. Could be a viable option for you.

No, I don't. I'm happy with my 16-55 and will take it over a slower zoom any day. I expect a 16-70 f/4 OIS WR LM R lens (or a 16-80). Offering better OIS, WR and a wider focal length range (and a marked aperture ring hopefully) over the 18-55 kit zoom. I do expect the 16-70 to be the new kit zoom for the X-T series then.

Answers in bold.

People obviously have expectations when it comes to new lenses that... well, asking for stuff thats impossible is not getting us anywhere. 62mm filter size for a lens ging vom 16 to 70 oder 80mm is basically like asking for it to be below 100g weight. Just look at the 16-55 2.8 with 77mm. 72mm would be a much more sensible choice. Fits the line of 10-24 and 50-140. My guess is that the jump from 18 to 16mm wide angle alone makes 62mm impossible. Making the new lens fit between the 18-55 and 18-135 is quite possible, though.

There are the oldies but goodies in terms of improvements: - AF speed - AF-C reliability and there are a few points people often ask for: - bracketing improved - video button programmable - better battery indicator - proper TTL&HSS, in combination with a new, top of the line Fuji flash - digital distance scale in manual focus mode with focus clutch lenses

Yeah. But I suppose you can't expect pretty much more of the 50-140 as it is already an excellent lens. It get's the job done but anyone wanting a creamy look is probably going for primes anyway.

480g vs the 300g of the Sony Zeiss lens, I'd say that 200g more is a lot, as the Sony/Zeiss was the first comparison.

I've found the 50-140 to produce mediocre bokeh. But it basically depends from your viewpoint. If you, like me, are used to large aperture primes (35 1.4, 56 1.2, even 90 2.0) the 50-140's bokeh is mediocre, at best. Doubled-edged, contrasty bokeh which I wasn't used to. It makes up for it with its other features, but for pure look of the final picture, primes rule supreme.

Shouldn't we know the gear you're using in the first place, so we can actually recommend something you don't already own?

Exactly the way I do it, too. For happy snappin', JPG only is fine. For anything serious it's RAW. That said, I heard Kevin Mullins shoots jpg only...

That's the real advantage of the Fuji focusing, at least in my opinion. I don't need to check for focus accuracy, if I know what I do in the first place. I choose the size and position of the AF point according to the subject I shoot. And if the AF misses, sometimes in low light, it's either in focus and appears sharp in the viewfinder, or it is WAAAAY out of focus and totally blurred but then I know, before I take the shot, whether it is in focus or not. I understand that it's easier to check focus with a large jpg but I rather save space and buffer for RAW only. Thanks for the insight, though. I didn't know that before reading your post.

I wouldn't ever want to shoot jpg only. It's RAW only 95% of the time. But I'm one of the rare breed of people who can't understand the fuss about Fuji jpgs. Probably because I never shot and will never shoot jpgs... I'm just used to the RAW conversion.

At the same distance to subject, the 50-140 2.8 at 2.8 and 140mm provides greater subject isolation, by a few. At the same framing of the subject, the 90 2.0 provides greater subject separation, due to the smaller distance to subject. So depending on your point of view, the 90 may or may not provide greater subject isolation.

Yeah, ahm, no.