Jump to content

Nero

Members
  • Content Count

    285
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    2

Reputation Activity

  1. Like
    Nero got a reaction from Highlander123 in 18-135 mm or 55-200 mm lens?   
    I had the 18-135mm and sold it. It's not a bad lens, but it's not a great one either. Whenever I was shooting something where I specifically wanted a longer focal length, the 135mm was rarely enough. Also, the 55-200mm has exceptional image quality. I shoot 90% of my photos with primes, but the 55-200 never disappoints me in sharpness or overall image quality. It doubles as a decent portrait lens too if you open up the aperture, zoom it, and step back a bit.
     
    I would also say that if you enjoy landscapes, the 55-200mm is something I never go without for landscapes. It seems counter-intuitive at first, but a moderate telephoto zoom can get you great landscape photos in specific environments. I've shot the Swiss Alps with the 10-24 and the Cascade Mountains with the 55-200 and got great images in both cases. Excellent and underrated landscape tool.
  2. Like
    Nero got a reaction from Jacques Gaines in Introduce Yourself   
    Hi everyone,
     
    Just finished my MFA in Electronic and Time Based Art at Purdue University. I first picked up a "real" camera a little over a year ago when I bought my Fuji X-T1, so I've still got a lot to learn. I shoot exclusively with that. My favorite lenses are the XF 23mm, 35mm, and 10-24mm, but I do use the XF 27mm and 18-135mm WR sometimes and have three vintage Helios 44-2 f/2 58mm lenses, one of which is modified with a reversed front element. 
     
    Black and white is most intriguing to me in terms of my own work, but I enjoy good photography in all forms. I really like shooting landscape/nature and architecture, but I'm an equal opportunity photographer, I'll shoot anything that is interesting at any given moment. 
     
    I have a photo blog that I usually update twice per day, but will eventually move to once a day when I get through my work from last year. 
     
    Oren Darling Photography
  3. Thanks
    Nero got a reaction from casperghst42 in Bag for hiking (Lowepro Photo Sport BP or other recommendations?)   
    I use an Osprey Stratos 24 with a Tenba BYOB 10 insert. I find that it's far more versatile than camera backpacks if you want something that will serve many purposes. It's also incredibly comfortable and you can buy a hydration insert too. All around great solution if hiking and photography are equal priorities for you. The Tenba BYOB 10 holds my X-Pro2, 16mm, 23mm, 35mm, and 56mm lenses. Cleaning kit and spare batteries go in another pocket. Plenty of space for snacks, jacket, etc. If you want a tripod you can attach it to the outside of the pack.
  4. Thanks
    Nero got a reaction from Wolla in Any owners of 18-55 f/2.8-4 AND 23mm f/2?   
    I love the 23mm focal length, but I'd say it's a toss up depending on what your personal preferences are. 35mm could be an excellent option as well. Either of those two will probably be an ideal prime to complement the zoom. I probably do 90% of my photography with either the 23 or 35 and the remainder is a mix of the 16mm and 55-200mm. The 23mm and 35mm may seem fairly close in focal length, but there is a huge difference between them when you're actually out shooting. I'd get as close to each of those as possible on your zoom and try shooting at only one focal length for a bit. Try at 23 first, then 35. You very well may end up owning both of those primes eventually, but that will help you decide which to buy first. The other question is how comfortable are you getting close to people in your street photography? If you're very comfortable with that, then the 23 makes a lot of sense. If you're not that comfortable with getting close to people, the 35 might help then you can get the 23 as you get more comfortable.
  5. Like
    Nero got a reaction from kris-chan in Best Lenses for Video Autofocus?   
    The newer f/2 lenses are probably a consistent bet among the primes. I'd go with the 50mm f/2 over the 56mm f/1.2 for video. The 56 was designed to be a portrait lens at a time when video was at best a secondary concern for Fuji.
  6. Like
    Nero got a reaction from George_P in Lens suggestion for night street photography   
    Personally I prefer the f/1.4 lenses and through firmware updates they do have okay speed compared to when they were originally released, but they are slower than the f/2 models. Either way, one of the most important things you can do aside from equipment is to get used to pushing your ISO settings higher than you might normally be comfortable with, 3200 or even 6400 sometimes. Get a feel for the amount of noise that starts coming through when you process the RAW files at these high ISOs. Some people are really averse to any visible noise in their images, but some it doesn't bother some people at all. Remember that regardless of how quickly one lens focuses compared to another, the difference between f/1.4 and f/2 could mean pushing your settings from ISO 3200 up to 6400 more frequently in some situations. Get a feel for that difference first with whatever lenses you already have and then ask yourself whether slightly faster focus or more light is most important to you. I tend to be a more patient and thoughtful street shooter, finding a scene, focusing, waiting for the right moment. Other people are the opposite, constantly moving and shooting on the fly. There's nothing wrong with either approach, but those kinds of shooting preferences are what really matter in making the right choice in equipment.
  7. Like
    Nero got a reaction from paulga in Fuji 56mm F1.2   
    I have the 56mm and love it, but when people ask me about buying one, I always try to throw the 55-200mm out there as a second option to consider for a smaller budget. While the 56mm is my first choice for portraits, the 55-200mm has decent bokeh when shot wide open, is fairly versatile for longer focal lengths, and you can find a good used copy of it for under $500. 
  8. Like
    Nero got a reaction from claude in Travel lenses   
    Too much noise is made about lenses that "do it all" at the expense of what you're comfortable with. When I'm traveling in new places with new scenery, I don't want to be adjusting to focal lengths that feel unnatural and new to me. That's a recipe for bad photographs, even if a new lens will technically allow you to do "more." I'm most comfortable with my 23mm and 35mm f/1.4 lenses, so that's what I bring when I travel. Depending on where I'm going I may bring my 55-200mm or my 56mm for the remaining 5% of shots depending on where I'm going, but my top 2 lenses are always what I'm most comfortable shooting with and I only adjust my kit if I feel that it merits bringing a third lens. 
  9. Like
    Nero got a reaction from terrapin44 in Bag for hiking (Lowepro Photo Sport BP or other recommendations?)   
    I use an Osprey Stratos 24 with a Tenba BYOB 10 insert. I find that it's far more versatile than camera backpacks if you want something that will serve many purposes. It's also incredibly comfortable and you can buy a hydration insert too. All around great solution if hiking and photography are equal priorities for you. The Tenba BYOB 10 holds my X-Pro2, 16mm, 23mm, 35mm, and 56mm lenses. Cleaning kit and spare batteries go in another pocket. Plenty of space for snacks, jacket, etc. If you want a tripod you can attach it to the outside of the pack.
  10. Like
    Nero got a reaction from merlin in Fuji X Zoom Lens   
    The only one with that much range in focal length is the 18-135mm, which most people say has very good image quality. I owned a copy that I pre-ordered and was a little disappointed. It was FAR better than the equivalent 18-135mm Canon kit lens that I had some experience with, but anything in the distance seemed to lose contrast, especially when zoomed. I sold mine because I usually shoot with primes anyhow and was almost never using it. If I shot zooms more frequently, there's a good chance I would have kept it just because of versatility. 
     
    That being said, I have seen many photos taken with this lens that don't appear to have the issues that I had with mine. That points to the possibility of some quality control issues with the early production that have since been worked out. If it fits your needs, I wouldn't discourage anyone from buying it based on my experience because it was still a very good lens. Just approach it with the right expectations.
  11. Like
    Nero got a reaction from Guzzi Jim in Thailand travel, which lenses to take   
    One thing that I have noticed that I think your experience backs up is that when traveling I almost always take the 55-200mm instead of the 56mm (or 50mm for some people). For the space and weight it takes up, the 55-200 is much more versatile and in a pinch it can be used as a perfectly serviceable portrait lens even though the bokeh isn't as good as the 56mm.
  12. Like
    Nero got a reaction from glospete in 18-135 mm or 55-200 mm lens?   
    I had the 18-135mm and sold it. It's not a bad lens, but it's not a great one either. Whenever I was shooting something where I specifically wanted a longer focal length, the 135mm was rarely enough. Also, the 55-200mm has exceptional image quality. I shoot 90% of my photos with primes, but the 55-200 never disappoints me in sharpness or overall image quality. It doubles as a decent portrait lens too if you open up the aperture, zoom it, and step back a bit.
     
    I would also say that if you enjoy landscapes, the 55-200mm is something I never go without for landscapes. It seems counter-intuitive at first, but a moderate telephoto zoom can get you great landscape photos in specific environments. I've shot the Swiss Alps with the 10-24 and the Cascade Mountains with the 55-200 and got great images in both cases. Excellent and underrated landscape tool.
  13. Like
    Nero got a reaction from DonLa in 18-135 mm or 55-200 mm lens?   
    I had the 18-135mm and sold it. It's not a bad lens, but it's not a great one either. Whenever I was shooting something where I specifically wanted a longer focal length, the 135mm was rarely enough. Also, the 55-200mm has exceptional image quality. I shoot 90% of my photos with primes, but the 55-200 never disappoints me in sharpness or overall image quality. It doubles as a decent portrait lens too if you open up the aperture, zoom it, and step back a bit.
     
    I would also say that if you enjoy landscapes, the 55-200mm is something I never go without for landscapes. It seems counter-intuitive at first, but a moderate telephoto zoom can get you great landscape photos in specific environments. I've shot the Swiss Alps with the 10-24 and the Cascade Mountains with the 55-200 and got great images in both cases. Excellent and underrated landscape tool.
  14. Like
    Nero got a reaction from dknolles in 27mm f2.8 pancake lense and what to complement with?   
    For your trip I think the 12mm is an excellent choice. Should be able to get some wonderful aurora shots (or astro in general). If that's a big goal for you while there, it's a great investment given the price.
  15. Like
    Nero got a reaction from dknolles in 27mm f2.8 pancake lense and what to complement with?   
    Personally, I prefer the f/1.4 versions of Fuji's primes, but if the f/2 is more in line with your budget and you find the weather resistance reassuring you won't be disappointed. For me, I don't really compare the focal length of the 27mm to the other lenses in my collection when I'm deciding what to pack for a trip or purchase. Among my lenses, I consider the 27mm to be a specialty lens. I use it when I want to keep a low-profile for street photography or when I want the smallest possible camera. It is a great lens, but my most used lenses are the 23mm and 35mm and it doesn't bother me at all that the 27mm is so close in focal length, especially with how small and light the 27mm is. I think there is a lot of value in owning all three.
     
    If you're looking for something to shoot a lot of portraits with, then I would go for the 50mm. If you want something that has a little more versatility, the 35mm is a good choice, but it is pretty close in focal length to the 27mm. As I stated above, that doesn't bother me, but I know it's an important consideration for some people. Also, if you like to do portraits that show a bit of the environment around the subject, then the 35mm is a good choice.
  16. Like
    Nero got a reaction from claude in My favorite camera bag is...   
    Billingham Hadley Pro. I can carry my X-T1, 18-135mm, 10-24mm, 23mm, 27mm, and 35mm with room for extra batteries, iPad, cleaning kit, filters, and a Helios 44-2 if I want. It's practically bulletproof too. I've never felt alarmed by weather or other conditions with my gear in this bag. It's not cheap, but worth every last penny for the quality and insurance it provides. It also cleanly fits under the seat in front of me on airplanes.
  17. Like
    Nero got a reaction from Guzzi Jim in Thailand travel, which lenses to take   
    All I can do is give you what I would bring if I were in your position because I have never been to Thailand myself. I prefer to use primes. When I travel, my bag starts with 2 primes, then I'll add a zoom. I would probably bring the 23mm, one of the 35mm lenses (I prefer the f/1.4, but both are good), and the 18-55mm. The X100T is a great camera, but with my personal shooting style I generally don't subscribe to the "bring the X100 instead of the 23mm" line of thinking. 23mm is probably my most used focal length and I would rather bring both the lens and the X100T. If I want to be less conspicuous, use the X100T when necessary. But I would never want to be caught without that focal length on my interchangeable lens camera. I think the 23 and 35mm focal lengths nicely cover the range of subjects that you can expect, based on what friends and relatives who have been to Thailand have shown me.
  18. Like
    Nero got a reaction from frankinfuji in 18-135 mm or 55-200 mm lens?   
    I had the 18-135mm and sold it. It's not a bad lens, but it's not a great one either. Whenever I was shooting something where I specifically wanted a longer focal length, the 135mm was rarely enough. Also, the 55-200mm has exceptional image quality. I shoot 90% of my photos with primes, but the 55-200 never disappoints me in sharpness or overall image quality. It doubles as a decent portrait lens too if you open up the aperture, zoom it, and step back a bit.
     
    I would also say that if you enjoy landscapes, the 55-200mm is something I never go without for landscapes. It seems counter-intuitive at first, but a moderate telephoto zoom can get you great landscape photos in specific environments. I've shot the Swiss Alps with the 10-24 and the Cascade Mountains with the 55-200 and got great images in both cases. Excellent and underrated landscape tool.
  19. Like
    Nero got a reaction from Curiojo in Which wrist strap for X-T2?   
    I'm a big fan of this Tap & Dye wrist strap. It's incredibly comfortable and the leather is very durable and high quality. Gordy's makes a great product too though. I have the Tap and Dye on my X-Pro2 and a Gordy's on an X-E1.
     
    https://www.tapanddye.com/collections/leather-camera-straps/products/l-e-g-a-c-y-leather-camera-wrist-strap-horween-chromexcel-hand-stitched
     
    For leather maintenance, I use Montana Pitch Blend once every other month, sometimes more frequently depending on the weather conditions I've been shooting in.
  20. Like
    Nero got a reaction from GreenGuy33 in Fuji Flowers   
    Here are some test shots of flowers taken with my X-T1 and a modified vintage 1970's Helios 44-2, 58mm lens at f/2. I love the old Helios lenses as portrait lenses too. I keep a couple unmodified versions on hand for more general use.

    Hello guest! Please register or sign in to view the hidden content.
    Hello guest! Please register or sign in to view the hidden content.
    Hello guest! Please register or sign in to view the hidden content.
  21. Like
    Nero got a reaction from DashingElegance in Should I get the 23mm f2?   
    As long as you can keep your hands even a little bit steady, you'll be fine without OIS, especially at 23mm focal length. The wider the lens, the slower the shutter speed you can get away with. Just watch your shutter speed in different lighting and situations as you get used to the lens. A very general rule is that you should try to keep your shutter speed at 1/(focal length of the lens in 35mm equivalent). So for the 23mm, you should aim for at least 1/35 second to be safe (that is assuming that your subject is not moving). If it's slower, then open up your aperture a little bit or increase your ISO.
     
    I have pretty steady hands, so I've found that I can usually get away with down to 1/20 second using my 23mm. As I get older, that will probably change, but for now I can do it! If I'm running really close to my limit for handheld shots, I'll usually take 2 or 3, which isn't a bad idea anyhow regardless of shutter speed if you think it's a good shot.
     
    About 85% of my photos are done with the 23 and 35mm primes and I have zero problems without OIS. You'll be fine once you shoot with it for a little bit and find your own limits for handheld shutter speeds.
  22. Like
    Nero got a reaction from Warwick in Any owners of 18-55 f/2.8-4 AND 23mm f/2?   
    I love the 23mm focal length, but I'd say it's a toss up depending on what your personal preferences are. 35mm could be an excellent option as well. Either of those two will probably be an ideal prime to complement the zoom. I probably do 90% of my photography with either the 23 or 35 and the remainder is a mix of the 16mm and 55-200mm. The 23mm and 35mm may seem fairly close in focal length, but there is a huge difference between them when you're actually out shooting. I'd get as close to each of those as possible on your zoom and try shooting at only one focal length for a bit. Try at 23 first, then 35. You very well may end up owning both of those primes eventually, but that will help you decide which to buy first. The other question is how comfortable are you getting close to people in your street photography? If you're very comfortable with that, then the 23 makes a lot of sense. If you're not that comfortable with getting close to people, the 35 might help then you can get the 23 as you get more comfortable.
  23. Like
    Nero got a reaction from yukosteel in Help me choose my next lenses   
    I own the 16mm, 23mm, and 35mm in the f/1.4 versions. These three form my main kit for most of my photography, with the 23 and 35 being on my camera about 85% of the time. You specifically mention night shots as one are that you need to cover. Are you wanting to do general purpose night photography or astrophotography (or both)? The 16mm has a fair amount of coma when used for astrophotography and a lot of people stop it down to f/2.8 for those types of shots, so it loses some of it's edge there. Among the Fuji lenses, the 23mm is probably the best I've used for astrophotography.
     
    If you're looking for a wide angle prime for everything except astrophotography, the 16mm is by far the best in terms of image quality in my opinion.
     
    Personally, I really enjoy street photography at night and have been very happy with the 23 and 35 for that use. The 23mm has lived up to being sharp and overall one of the best quality Fuji lenses I've used. 
     
    I know that zooms are more convenient for travel, but after several years with Fuji, my kit has shrunk to the 16mm, 23mm, 35mm, and 55-200mm, for both everyday use and travel. I love those three primes enough that even with the "better" zooms like the 16-55mm, I will gladly trade a little versatility for the image quality (and image character) of the primes.
  24. Like
    Nero got a reaction from akai3377 in Introduce Yourself   
    Hi everyone,
     
    Just finished my MFA in Electronic and Time Based Art at Purdue University. I first picked up a "real" camera a little over a year ago when I bought my Fuji X-T1, so I've still got a lot to learn. I shoot exclusively with that. My favorite lenses are the XF 23mm, 35mm, and 10-24mm, but I do use the XF 27mm and 18-135mm WR sometimes and have three vintage Helios 44-2 f/2 58mm lenses, one of which is modified with a reversed front element. 
     
    Black and white is most intriguing to me in terms of my own work, but I enjoy good photography in all forms. I really like shooting landscape/nature and architecture, but I'm an equal opportunity photographer, I'll shoot anything that is interesting at any given moment. 
     
    I have a photo blog that I usually update twice per day, but will eventually move to once a day when I get through my work from last year. 
     
    Oren Darling Photography
  25. Like
    Nero got a reaction from Angieh in Best lens for sports   
    If budget is one of your points, the 55-200 is a great choice. It's slower than the 50-140, but much less expensive and a lot easier to handle on a lighter body like the X-T10. 
×
×
  • Create New...