Nero
-
Posts
286 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
3
Content Type
Forums
Gallery
Store
Posts posted by Nero
-
-
Can you post some examples?
Here are shots from summer with the 10-24mm:
http://orendarling.com/post/128955143305/turkey-run-state-park-indiana-september-2015
http://orendarling.com/post/130583770586/turkey-run-state-park-indiana-september-2015
Here are two shots from winter with the 16mm:
http://orendarling.com/post/138513629673/turkey-run-state-park-in-january-2016-oren
http://orendarling.com/post/137987889421/turkey-run-state-park-in-january-2016-oren
I realize that the shutter speeds are different on these shots, but keep in mind that the OIS was switched on for the 10-24mm (which the 16mm doesn't have), I have a pretty steady hand, and the image quality is better in the static objects in the scene for the 16mm.
-
I love how compact the 27mm is. With it attached, in a way you create a whole new camera because it has the look and form factor of a larger point and shoot. It's easy to stow in a coat pocket. Perfect for street photography and very underrated in image quality.
That being said, I would definitely go for the 35mm for what you re talking about. It's a much more versatile focal length, has an aperture ring, an extra 1 or 2 stops of light depending on the model you buy, and it has a better build to it.
For me, I found that the best use of the 27mm is to attach it to my X-E1 and leave it. If I'm traveling, that's my backup camera and my street camera. Wonderful little lens, but for a long term body of work I'd take the 35mm every time.
-
Had an interesting day today. Went to Elan Valley in Mid Wales (landscape shooting) and took both my Canon 5D - 17-35 zoom and X-E1 - 18mm prime. I am happier with the framing of the X-E1 - 18mm F2 and felt more clinical when shooting with it (if that makes sense). During the odd situation where I thought the additional width would be useful I shot an in camera pano and in the end these helped compliment the 'normal shots' and made the photograph collection more interesting to my eye.
When shooting with the zoom I found myself experimenting with different focal lengths too often with no real end benefit and it was wasted time.
Conclusion for me is there is a lot to be said for shooting with fixed focal lengths (consistency and learning to 'see' with a particular length) which is going to influence my lens purchases moving forward for sure.
I love shooting with primes, even for travel. My favorite travel kit is 16, 23, 35, and 55-200. Sometimes I'll go with the 10-24, 35, and 55-200 depending on circumstances, but most of the time anything under 55mm I use a prime.
-
-
I'd definitely go do that deal with the 23mm and like others have said, get the 35mm too if you can. The 23mm deal is too good to pass up though. I own both of those lenses and would not part with either. It's worthwhile owning both if you can do it.
-
I've been happy with the 18-135mm. It is extremely versatile. I'm wondering if there are some quality control issues based on the comments here. It is the one lens I had no intent on buying, but ended up getting it on reviews from other sites. Mine is sharp and seems at least as good as the 18-55 and 55-200. As others mentioned, it depends on what you plan to shoot and how you do it. I have quite a few lenses myself, so more to choose from, and if I were going to Australia I'd bring the 35mm f/1.4, 18-135mm, and 10-24mm. That would cover from 10-135mm and have a fast, normal lens and would work well for what I'd shoot.
This very well could be the case with the 18-135mm. It is one of the few XF lenses that is not made in Japan, so quality control might not be as tight with it. Some people absolutely love this lens and I am slightly biased because I typically shoot with primes for a lot of focal lengths, but I'm not a pixel peeper and I immediately notice a lack of contrast in the fine details on landscapes that other lenses don't seem to have trouble with. It's pretty sharp for me too, but that contrast issue is a deal breaker for my shooting style. I still find it to be superior to any other "do everything" kit zoom with this much range that I've used, but it's purely a casual shooting, poor weather lens for me now. If I get a chance, I'll try another copy of it to compare to mine to test the potential quality control issue.
-
If you're willing to push your ISO up and/or open up your aperture, then I think the 16-55 is fine at the longer end. It took me a while to get more comfortable with using my X-T1 at ISO 3200 or sometimes opening up the aperture a bit more than I had in the past for a landscape, but once I got past those mental biases from my past equipment I had few problems. Also, as ISO performance continues to improve, it will be less and less of an issue in future cameras.
As for the primes, one of my favorite kits that I like to throw into my bag sometimes is the 16, 23, 35, 55-200. Some people will discourage you from owning both the 23 and 35 because they are relatively close together. Nothing wrong with that opinion, but I think they complement each other very well and for me, owning both is perfectly reasonable.
-
I have made some great photos with the 18-135, but I'm currently selling mine because of quality. Not that it's bad, but the other Fuji lenses in my kit are just that much better and I don't use it much anymore. The 55-200 beats it on quality every time in my opinion and I'm not a pixel peeper. If you are used to prime level quality, then I would stick to the 16-55 and 55-200.
I traveled to Switzerland and Turkey with the10-24, 18-135, and 35 f/1.4. Recorded some great memories, got some amazing photos that I've printed large format with beautiful results. But looking back on it now I am a little disappointed in some of the shots from the 18-135 that could have been much more than just a digital memory with a different lens. I found myself having to overwork the RAW to get it where I wanted it. Particularly in contrast and fine detail in expansive, deep landscapes in the Alps. Had to hit the Dehaze and other adjustments a bit harder than I would with other lenses.
So, if capturing memories is your goal, the 18-135 won't ever let you down. If you are thinking about capturing images to have them professionally printed and/or exhibited at larger sizes when you get back, I'd lean toward something else.
-
I think that the 55-200 is automatically included in any list for me. The image quality is a tier above the 18-135 and it has more reach. Aside from that, there are a lot of ways I could go with this. I shoot a lot of landscape, nature, architecture, but I also shoot whatever is around me at the time.
One of my personal favorites for a limited travel package is:
10-24
35 f/1.4
55-200
A fair amount of the time, I go also go with a prime-heavy lineup in my bag consisting of:
16
23
35 f/1.4
55-200
For a zoom-heavy lineup, one of my favorites is:
10-24
16-55 or 18-55
55-200
Maybe add the 27 for street given it's cheap and adds almost zero weight.
I don't put too much emphasis on the WR lenses in most of my bag configurations. It's a nice feature that's an extra insurance policy for dust and moisture, but I put a great deal of trust in my bag. As of now, there's a lot of great lenses that are not offered with WR, so I treat that as an added bonus and use a bag that I have complete trust in so that a bit of bad weather doesn't keep my camera indoors.
-
Given the high-ISO performance, I wouldn't be overly concerned about a lack of OIS on the 16-55mm, especially at the wide end. Something else to consider is pairing the 16-55 with the 55-200, which I've found to be a very underrated lens. The quality is excellent. There were a lot of complaints about its slow focusing for a while, but in general I haven't had that issue using it with the X-T1 or anything newer and it's far less expensive with more reach compared to the 50-140.
-
I've answered this question before, but my setup has changed a bit since then. I've got the 16mm, 23mm, and 35mm f/1.4 as the three primes in my bag for use with my X-T1 (plus the 55-200mm for a zoom). I used to include the 27mm as a low-profile street option in selecting my three primes, but I now have it permanently attached to an X-E1 for that use.
-
I have both the 16mm and the 23mm. If you're mainly trying to take photos of people with one of these lenses, I would say the 23mm. It's very useful for other purposes too and I don't think it's too close to the 35mm. The two complement each other quite nicely. If you want to be taking photos indoors where you capture the place more than the people, then the 16mm would be my choice. For people, the 16mm is wide enough that you may need to get uncomfortably close to photograph them. Even if it's family, sticking a camera right up in their face can have an impact on them that changes their expression or presentation in the photo, not to mention possible distortion. For street photography, that might not be as much of a concern, but not really for family/social photos in my opinion. I was part of a team that my employer sent to CES this year and one of our affiliates managed to make the cut for Best of CES Finalist in the Maker category, so I was there taking photos and it got really busy and crowded around that booth. The 23mm was perfect for that situation.
-
In an ideal world, I would say both. The 16mm for image quality and the the 10-24mm for versatility/travel. Obviously, that's a substantial investment though, so ask yourself which is more important to you. I will say that although the 10-24 is top notch quality for a zoom, the 16mm take image quality to a whole new level once you've shot with both and can compare. After getting the 16mm, I've gone back to reshoot locations that I had previously done with the 10-24. I wouldn't just arbitrarily say "I always prefer image quality" and go with the 16mm. Really consider which is more important because you won't be disappointed with the quality on the 10-24, but the 16 is noticeably better.
-
The 16mm is my go-to landscape lens. I love the 10-24mm, but I bought the 16mm for a WR option because I found that the bulk of my best shots from the zoom were right around 16-17mm or 24mm and I already had the 23mm to account for the upper end of that range. It has not disappointed. I've found myself revisiting places nearby that I had shot extensively with the 10-24mm to capture new sets of images with the 16mm. It was immediately visible as soon as I opened up the RAW files. Don't get me wrong, the 10-24mm is a great lens, but at slow, handheld shutter speeds when the stabilization kicked in real hard the corners would start to get soft on some shots even if most of the frame was tack sharp. I was finding myself pixel peeping because I would second guess the quality of the corners on some shots. The 16mm is incredibly sharp edge to edge. Also, I found the 10-24mm struggling with fine detail against bright sky, tree branches on a sunny day. I'd have to push the adjustments on my RAW conversion more than I'd prefer to get the detail to come back. Not so on the 16mm.
-
I'd love to see a 10-24mm WR. Other specs could stay the same. I'd also like to see a 55-200mm WR with improved autofocus. Those two lenses plus one of the 35mm versions would be my ultimate travel kit. The 50-140mm is an amazing lens, but I want more reach than aperture. I have the 16mm and the 10-24mm and although the image quality is higher on the 16mm, I would take a WR 10-24mm any day for a travel kit. The missing pieces from 24-34 and 36-54 wouldn't really be a concern for me if I had this setup.
-
I haven't noticed any issues with my copy, but I also mainly shoot landscapes with it, so I don't have a good comparison that I can remember. I have noticed that in my landscape shots, flare from the sun generally comes across fairly well and I don't have a problem turning it into an aesthetically pleasing flare (or mostly eliminating it) with just a very slight adjustment to my camera placement.
-
I have one one if these that I've adapted for my X-T1 and it's a beautiful lens, but I'm really feeling torn between this and the Fuji 90mm f/2 which I've tried and really like. The f/2 version of the 100mm Olympus is known as one of their best, but to me it's largely nostalgic versus truly useful so I'm thinking about selling it to offset the cost of the 90mm. I've read that the 100mm f/2 is somewhat rare and valuable, but I have no clear answer on what I could expect to get for it. Anyone have an idea? It's in great condition. I checked eBay and there's only one listed (about $700 I think), but with only one to go by it doesn't really give me a good idea of what to price mine at.
-
-
Unfortunately, that doesn't bring much clarity to the situation for me. You very well may be 100% correct in the above information and perhaps this is just wishful thinking on my part since I really wanted this product, but the 44 AF-2 is listed on Metz's website here:
It's also listed for sale through an eBay seller here:
The seller has a lot of sales and a 99% rating, but I can't find it for sale through any normal retail channels, which makes me very skeptical.
-
Does anyone know where this can be purchased? I have found an eBay seller out of Italy offering it, but they have no photographs on their listings. Other than that, nobody seems to have it, but the original release said that it would be available in December.
-
My top criteria was durability and weather proofing. I do a lot of landscape photography and therefore wanted something that I would be comfortable with getting caught in the rain. I may not be intentionally shooting in bad weather on a frequent basis, but I hate to look at the weather forecast and having a 1-2 hour block of potentially bad weather dictating my plan for the entire day. I don't need a lot of space because I typically don't change lenses very often and in many cases will only bring my X-T1 with 16mm + 18-135mm or a prime heavy combination of 16mm, 23mm, 35mm, and 55-200mm. If I'm traveling with the 16 and 18-135, sometimes I'll put an X-E1 with the 27mm in my bag for street photos too. I do tend to carry a lot of spare batteries, cleaning kit, rain cover for my camera, etc at times.
I settled on the Billingham Hadley Pro, which has been wonderful for the needs I outlined above and had solid reviews from everyone I knew in regards to confidence in their weather proofing, but I'm sure there are plenty of other options that fit these needs.
-
My experience has been that manual focus is your friend in this situation - and that would let you keep using the zoom that you have.
I would agree. Experiment a little bit in advance with the most acceptable ISO and aperture combinations to balance depth of field to noise/quality in different situations and just go manual focus. Take the autofocus out of the equation and kind of use more of a zone focus.
I haven't tried any video with my adapted Helios 44-1 or 44-2 (58mm), but if you need something that's a touch longer than the 35mm, those might be something to consider. They're cheap on eBay, f/2 max aperture, and they've got unique bokeh under the right conditions, so they can be interesting to have around for photography even if you buy one to try with video.
-
Overall the idea is interesting and it's good to see people thinking about different approaches, but those mods and the port that you insert them through seem like a perfect route for dust and other unwanted junk to make its way into the lens and require frequent cleaning/servicing. Given all of the potential problems and unknowns there's no way I'd sink that kind of money into a crowd-funded lens at this stage of its development.
-
Love the photos. I just got the 16mm last week and my 10-24mm is already on eBay. It was a great lens, but the 16mm just fits my shooting style so much better.
landscapes with fuji x
in Landscape & Travel
Posted
Haven't had time to get my Flickr page going yet, hopefully sometime in March. I'll post the link when I have it up and running. I have a Tumblr blog though:
www.orendarling.com