Jump to content

sir_c

Members
  • Content Count

    44
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About sir_c

  • Rank
    Advanced Member

Recent Profile Visitors

322 profile views
  1. I only have the 56 and I like it a lot. The 90 does have the edge, also in sharpness. But the focal length is difficult for me. The 56 is already hard to use indoors, you get very tight shots. Just imagine the XF 90 here. I think those kind of parameters are more important in deciding between the two than the quality of the blur or lens sharpness. The latter two are so close that you must think well of you use cases.
  2. I think it is a bit overrated by most people. Regular lenses can withstand some abuse pretty well is my experience. However, if it comes in as a bonus, or for a slight extra, I'm in. It is not just protection from rain, but also from dust and sand. On windy locations around a beach, that is definitely a useful feature. But I have never abstained from shooting pictures with my kit at those same locations.
  3. What I understood is that the original holy trinity (18/2, 35/1.4, 60/2.4) have a similar, warmer, colour balance than the newer lenses.
  4. What I especially like about my 35/1.4 is how it handles flare. The 56/1.2 is magical in its own way, but this it can't do. I can only reproduce it with some vintage lenses. Also the gentle sharpness roll-off is what makes this lens cinematic. The 35/2 (which I do not own) may have smoother and more pleasant bokeh, but it is a different beast again.
  5. The first adapter I'd suggest would be for M42 mount. With this, you can use a myriad of vintage lenses like the Pentax Takumars, Zeiss Jena, Pentacon, Helios, Jupiter etc. Olympus OM, Contax C/Y or Leica R mount also have their merits, but lens prices go up quickly there. I really like the Takumar, the Contax Planar and the Summilux-R, which all have totally different characters. Also the Helios 58mm is a special one, it's quite a nice character when used wide open. With the 50mm vintage it is difficult to go wrong, you must only be careful not to pay too much.
  6. The 18-135 is more like a swiss army knife. It carries everything, but it's not particularly good at something. If you want to travel easy & light, go for it. It has excellent OIS but it is not a very fast aperture zoom. Its versatility compensates for its deficiencies. If you have a little more space, I'd take the 55-200 for the extra reach and light gathering capabilities, and it is not too heavy. I like it a lot. Maybe trade the WA zoom for a 14/2.8?
  7. Yeah, this lens is a kind of sleeper lens. You always forget to bringing it along, but its pictures are quite stunning at some moments. Also for portaits it's a very nice one actually. Not always as bitingly sharp as the primes, but very versatile and a pleasant rendering and sharpness rolloff.
  8. Still it is a pity one cannot get a proper histogram during playback, with blinkies & all. I still think this histogram feature is a bit half baked.
  9. Like what cprevost said, it's better to decouple the AF from the shutter trigger. That is also how it can be done on other brands cameras, e.g. my old Canon could do the same trick. Depending on what apertures you use, the focus & recompose method may not give the best results. Especially with the 56/1.2 @ 1.2 just a slight movement already causes a big shift in what is in focus. I have tried to learn myself to move the focus points around instead, or use the face detection feature. When it works, it is a very nice feat.
  10. I heard for Lightroom there is a plugin Mogrify that can do such. But in-camera I haven't seen this on digital myself.
  11. Also when using high-ish shutter speeds, the OIS may even add blurring, I encountered. Which seems counter-intuitive. I know Canon have a threeway switch on their IS lenses, where one click is dedicated to panning. Fuji do not do this on their lenses though.
  12. The APD version of this lens forces the camera into using CDAF always.
  13. I presume the vignetting was added in PP? I'd say to use it more sparingly; especially such tightly cropped images don't need darkened edges. For the rest, always nice to see old cars being used properly
  14. Imagine tiny birds at 400mm which you already have to crop. Using 200mm will cause too much resolution loss again when cropping those. And in some cases indeed one cannot get closer due to safety issues or physical barriers.
  15. Moving around the magnified area using the joystick was possible on my old EOS 40D (in live view). I do find that a very useful feature in numerous cases. Like on tripods. The face detect algorithm is too erroneous to be useful. If it would better detect faces, and customizable which eye to focus on (left, right, either) it would be pretty stunning. Also when they would be able to integrate PDAF into the search algorithm for quickly getting close, and then CDAF for the final part... that would be great. Also you need to remember to switch it off when doing scenes w/o faces, or else it hampers focusing. Better noise reduction (as in: none, I prefer post-processing) and highlight preservation are also high on my list.
×
×
  • Create New...