Jump to content

arty

Members
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    18

  • Joined

  • Last visited

 Content Type 

Everything posted by arty

  1. arty
    Thank you, Larry, for this info
  2. arty
    Do we really need f/1.4? Today's shot with 35/2, f/2.8 for more DOF
  3. arty
    The bokeh of the 35/1.4 could be a little nervous and look like "lensbaby" effect in the corners of a photo, when you have a busy backgroung like the leaves. Some examples, just what I found in haste Untitled Angel of death But it depends on your subjects and maybe you will never see it on your photos. And contrariwise 35/2 make the funny, joyfull balls of the leaves or so on (not mine)
  4. arty
    I'd prefer a slow, but pancake zoom, the present 16-50 is too big to get a little Fuji-camera in a pocket with me allaround. So I'd like a small, compact zoom, maybe 16-40 mm efr.
  5. arty
    I would advice to get 1.4 first, for not to regret of a slower aperture of the 35/2. And then after some time to get 35/2 and compare your feelings. For me, I prefer 35/2 because of its bokeh tracery first. 35/1.4 has a nervous, little suicidal bokeh (for my eye), and 35/2 has a joy, festive bokeh. Other advantages are AF speed, better retro-look, WR, light eight and significally smaller size. That's it
  6. arty
    don't know did anyone tell about the cheap Soviet lens Industar-61 It's a small and good performing lens for a penny. http://allphotolenses.com/lenses/item/c_666.html Here it's on my Pro-1 A couple of shots, both f/4
  7. arty
    35/2, because of better bokeh, smaller size, better vintage look and WR
  8. arty
    sunghosts, no filter on
  9. arty
    wow! Crazy, but cool!
  10. arty
    18/2 + 35/2 + 60/2.4 is my combo, I love all three And who says 18/2 has soft in the corners I think they never try to develop RAW files made with 18/2. If they try RAW they would see that there's no soft in the corners, 18/2 is sharp at all plane. The corners soft is due to incamera distortion correction only
  11. arty
    could you explain?
  12. arty
    highly hope for that, this silver version and RF design, someth like that
  13. arty
    nice shots, thank you!
  14. arty
    I had all three - 27/2.8, 35/1.5 and 35/2, now I get 35/2 and the rest are sold. 27/2.8 was nice - very small and better angle of view than 35mm. If to shoot street, 35mm can be a little narrow. But I kept 35/2 because it's more artistic. Smooth bokeh and solid isolation of the subject.
  15. arty
    I totally agree with you, my 18/2 is shart from corner to corner when wide open - just use RAW in the proper converter, without distortion correction. So it's amazing lens for the price - and yes, it has very pretty, soft bokeh. And one more profit - it's cool for family selfie with a camera in hand
  16. arty
    I'd better have small, light, cheap, WR and silver 55/2 or something like that for portraits.W/o macro, OK I don't have money for 56/1.2 and it's too bulky for walkaround Fuji, pleeease!
  17. arty
    sure, Fuji, leave us texture! Pls!
  18. arty
    Hi all, I get FD 50/1.4, it's cheap but works great. But I sold it because wanted something longer for portraits. Now I get XF 60 and happy with it FD 50/1.4 works from open aperture but has a little nervous bokeh, and at f/2.8 bokeh is creamy and 3d-look. The following is at f/2.8 (and crop):
×
×
  • Create New...