sir_c

I always thought that it was the Pope who said this. I don't recall that he was called Andreas though

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

I heard for Lightroom there is a plugin Mogrify that can do such. But in-camera I haven't seen this on digital myself.

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.

The APD version of this lens forces the camera into using CDAF always.

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

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.

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.

(Ultra)Wide angle takes much more care than conventional focal lengths indeed. First of all, there is a lot of stuff captured into the frame, just by the sheer viewing angle. So you have to be very careful with your composition. The compression of distant subjects is another thing; ChinaGuy phrased it well: shooting wide vistas get quickly boring. Especially when you just get out of the car and pop off a few shots. Almost never works. Ken Rockwell once wrote a usable introductional piece on UW lenses: http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/how-to-use-ultra-wide-lenses.htm which summarizes a lot what has been said here. The wider you go, the larger the issue gets. So if you say you already were having difficulties with 16mm, I presume 14 won't improve matters. It requires a different eye, so you will need to invest time and effort to master wide angles. I am not particularly good at UWA, but I must say that when I see a well-composed UWA photo, I really enjoy it.

Last weekend there was a gathering of French car owners in my town (Franse Auto Dag, aka FAD). All cars were allowed, being oldtimers, regular cars and highly tuned street racers. As long as their origin was France of course. For me and my son it was quite a nice event to walk around and spot the gems. Below some highlights. Peugeot 404 interior DSCF1212 by crispian stones, on Flickr Citroen DS3 tuning DSCF1220 by crispian stones, on Flickr Alpine-Renault Berlinette 1600 SX DSCF1239 by crispian stones, on Flickr Alpine-Renault Berlinette 1600 SX interior DSCF1237 by crispian stones, on Flickr 2CV rat car DSCF1129 by crispian stones, on Flickr DSCF1125 by crispian stones, on Flickr

Some pics I took at a blues festival last year, with some notable young artists too :-) DSCF6403 by crispian stones, on Flickr DSCF6786 by crispian stones, on Flickr DSCF6616 by crispian stones, on Flickr DSCF6577 by crispian stones, on Flickr

Yes indeed some nice vibrant images. Must say that the images where the faces is visible is most noteworthy. The first one is also quite ok due to the interesting light and the apparent vibrant energy in it

Shot some photo's at the Vrijstadmarkt in Culemborg, a little while ago, where they showed some old-fashioned trades and arts. There were some groups performing plays, choirs singing, etc. DSCF0640 by crispian stones, on Flickr DSCF0689 by crispian stones, on Flickr DSCF0684 by crispian stones, on Flickr DSCF0705 by crispian stones, on Flickr DSCF0702 by crispian stones, on Flickr

Some nice images, great!

These kinds of pictures I will never be able to take at home... just too much light pollution :-(

Don't know what you mean by that? The Adobe software is still installed on your own local PC. It does not run from the web or so...

The 56/1.2 I find the most difficult to use, and it's this one I leave home the most. Not because the images ain't great. But for indoors use, the field of view is too narrow, I prefer my 35/1.4. For concerts it is a gorgeous lens, provided one can get close enough. But there, the unpredictability of the AF makes life hard.