sir_c

Lake Garda, Italy. Taken with X-T1 20160503-DSCF0003 by crispian stones, on Flickr 20160503-DSCF9902 by crispian stones, on Flickr 20160427-DSCF9392 by crispian stones, on Flickr

The XF 60 is an excellent piece of optic. Very nice bokeh and love the colours. Damien Lovegrove did some testing last year, showing the differences of various lenses, including the 60: http://www.prophotonut.com/2015/01/05/fuji-x-series-portrait-lenses-compared-inc-56-apd-50-140-zoom/

The 35/1.4 is very cinematic in its rendering, I really like it for exactly that. I think the 60/2.4 is of the same breed. Was it not the first generation of Fuji X-lenses that give a similar image (i.e. 18, 35, 60)? The 23 is closer to the 56 in its rendering I think, more analytical (for lack of a better word), just like the 14.

Spooky night _DSF1867 by crispian stones, on Flickr

And as mentioned in the comments under the article, the pictures themselves show nothing useful at all. The whole frame itself is too dark, the subject in focus is too tiny to judge anything besides that the lens is capable to focus on just something. Zero examples of rendering, sharpness falloff, colour reproduction. None. Of. It.

For all those people who keep their front lenses speckle free and who get frantic from dust inside. It is pretty striking how much you actually see of all this in your images... almost none! Even when you have a really beaten up lens, it takes some damage before you will actually notice it. http://kurtmunger.com/dirty_lens_articleid35.html http://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2008/10/front-element-scratches

Summarizing, I can say that buying an M42 adapter is a safe bet to start experimenting. The lens choice is huge and their prices are mostly fair. Helios, Pentax Takumar and Carl Zeiss Jena are brands to look for, and there is more interesting stuff if you do some research. Be wary of german sounding brand names made in Japan. There are gems in between but you really need to know your business. The same counts for Russian glass. Other mounts like Contax-Yashica (C/Y) and Leica-R have nice offerings too, but the prices go steeply upwards too. Google is your friend here, go look for the character/rendering you like best. If you want utmost sharpness, least distortion and CA etc, please stick with native.

difficult to say if you don't tell us which ones you can pick... The Planar 50/1.7 is nice & small. Light and very, very sharp. Nice for portraits. The Planar 50/1.4 is my favourite. Wide open it is less sharp than the 1.7, but its rendering is very pleasing. Skintones are wonderful. Stopped down a little bit can give lovely 3D. The Planar 85/1.4 is very nice, but big and bloody heavy. Taking the crop factor into account, I hardly use it because its view is too narrow, but it is not really tele enough for more distant subjects. Due to the large front element, it is *very* front-heavy. But if you happen to nail the shot... The Sonnar 135/2.8 is not too heavy and with proper light quite astonishing. Against bright backgrounds you'll see lots of lateral CA (green/magenta) however. I really like this lens but I do not use it very often because of the focal length. The wide-angles contain some very decent Distagons etc. I have no experience there, but many of those designs are still available in modern mounts like EF and Nikon. Please note that especially the heavier lenses will make you camera front-heavy when stuck onto an adapter. I use a standard Kipon X->CY adapter, not some speedbooster thingy. It is well built and works as designed.

Indeed, with the camera set to focus priority, the shutter mash trick works: the camera won't pop the shutter until it has acquired focus. This does screw up the "decisive moment" shots, because the camera decides when to release the shutter, not you. The XF56 is slower focusing than the 18-55, but f/4 vs. f/1.2 is 3.5 stops of light... motion blur anyone? I set the camera to AF+MF and adjust to suit. However, I am not a wedding photog.

And when you nail it with the XF56, the results are so pleasing. I am also quite fond of this gem. Ssshh... just don't tell the people that you threw away 99 other shots :-)

Work and play _DSF1728 by crispian stones, on Flickr Exodus _DSF1824 by crispian stones, on Flickr

Yes it is mentioned in the manual that the pushed ISO values are JPG only, but that is a nice gotcha, cos the camera doesn't warn you about this... Just like silent mode and flash... :-( Since you work in RAW and the fact the sensor is ISO-invariant, you can better over/underexpose the RAW and then pull/push the RAW in post processing. Also note that ISO-L and H in fact do the same, and that in ISO-L you will lose a stop of headroom in the highlights. Better stay at base ISO for optimum results and use the electronic shutter or ND filter when it is too light.

I use the older Yongnuo 602C triggers (which I originally bought for my Canon, obviously) and they work fine. I have an EX580II flash and two Metz 54 MZ-3 with Canon-foot. All stuff I only use in full manual mode.

Yes, and a nice Porsche too

A few weeks ago I did some motocross event; I have a post about this in the Adapted Lens thread. About a third of my set I have done with a manual focus lens, a Summilux-R 50/1.4, a handful with the XF 18-55 and the rest with the XF 55-200. It was the first time I have used my X-T1 under such circumstances, and I must say I am quite happy with the results. I used to have an EOS 40D and the AF there was worse, even with an EF 70-200/2.8L. I am quite eager to getting firmware v4 to see what difference it makes, because I think the camera is capable of better AF. The lenses are fast enough, it's mostly the algorithms that need tuning for better subject tracking. I do not mind some limitations, as long as they are predictable. Right now the AF behaves a bit erratic, making it a game of hit & miss. _DSF3530 by crispian stones, on Flickr _DSF3809 by crispian stones, on Flickr _DSF3892 by crispian stones, on Flickr _DSF4776 by crispian stones, on Flickr

Some pics I took in Serignan-Plage in France. I used a Super-Takumar 50/1.4 lens on an adapter. Sunset fisherman _DSF2842 by crispian stones, on Flickr Driftwood at sunset beach _DSF2831 by crispian stones, on Flickr Duck-like log _DSF2848 by crispian stones, on Flickr

Lens adapters will always introduce extra points of error. Due to tolerances the lenses will seldomly be 100% correctly aligned. Roger Cicala of LensRentals wrote some nice article about the subject http://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2013/09/there-is-no-free-lunch-episode-763-lens-adapters However, I am not always interested in the utmost sharpness. Looking at my skills, there are usually worse imperfections in my photos than slight decentering... :-) I like the slowing down that manual lenses bring, not quite unlike listening to LPs rather than mp3s. Also, do not forget one can use the imperfections to one's advantage as well. In low light, manual lenses tend to hunt much less than AF ones *grin*. So, for a couple of tenners you're ready to go. And you can make it as expensive as you like, but be careful for GAS.

whisky collection _DSF2100 by crispian stones, on Flickr X-T1 and XF56

Hello, A few weeks ago I went to see some motocross event close to where I live. I have been there in the past, but this year was the first time with my X-T1. I brought along my XF18-55, the XF55-200 but also an adapted Leica Summilux-R. I have used this MF lens in the past on my Canon gear and its rendering is wonderful. Focusing on fast moving subjects is pretty hard to do, so one has to use a different approach. Find a nice position along the track, where you can see the bikes coming. Prefocus on a piece of the track where you have possibility of a nice shot (e.g. after a hump, or in a bend). Set the f-stop to f/5.6 ~ f/11 for plenty DoF. Check the shutterspeed you get. Longer ones give nicer motion blur, but your keeper rate will drop considerably. I try somthing between 1/125 and 1/400 depending on the speed of the bikes and curves in the track. The whole set is on my Flickr, but the images are unsorted regarding lenses. https://flic.kr/s/aHskbHe8Pm Kind regards, Crispian

Hi, All M42 Takumars are worthwhile considering. The old model 50/1.4 Super Tak with knurled focus ring has a very nice vintage rendering. The later SMC version has a more modern look, but is much sharper. The Helios is special, like the Zeiss Biogon. I must say that the later Helioses (v5 and up if I'm correct) have less pronounced swirly bokeh, are much sharper and less prone to flare. Fujinons are very nice ones. Also Carl Zeiss Jena, Mamiya, Contax, Leica-R have some nice offerings. However, some of them at a different price point and with different lens mounts. But none of them will give you the corner sharpness wide open like the XF56. I have that lens and I own quite some vintage glass. But even a Summilux-R 50/1.4 or a Contax Planar 50/1.4 are nowhere near as sharp wide open. However, I use them often for their character, especially with people portraits. Plus it depends on your needs whether the omission of AF is a decision maker.