arty

1. Give up. Your fears should be overwhelming. You have no idea of how little the GFX50S means in the overall business of Fujifilm. To put things into a bit of perspective without baseless FUD.
 
I have the pro-video Fujinon pages open on the B&H Photovideo site and you would be devastated with the products it is up against in-house. Not just a matter of six new lenses that spell doom to the nice little X-cameras but:
81 professional Fujinon video production lenses being maintained to divert people away from X design. The cheapest of the lot is $3,900US and the most expensive is $233,490.00. That for a single lens!!! Nine pro-cine PL-mount Fujinon lenses from $18,200.00US to $99,800.00! 29 Industrial Fujinons from a mere $109.95US to $11,500.00 14 Hasselblad HC lenses from $3,110.00US to $6,310.00. The Fujifilm GX645AF became the Hasselblad H1 and Fujfilm still makes its lenses. Unknown lenses built under government contracts around the world for satellites, weapons and other classified projects. Also, 30 models of binoculars from $59.99US to $16,559.95.  Fuji Xerox is a joint venture between Fujifilm and Xerox Corporation of North America. Fujifilm bought Sericol Ltd., a UK-based printing ink company specialising in screen, narrow web, and digital print technologies in March 2005. They also do cosmetics.
 
Clearly, the X and GX cameras were doomed from the beginning with Fuji needing their engineers to work on paying projects. The consumer-camera project obviously is a drop in the bucket. Give up all hope. 
 
On the other hand, realise that Fujifilm is several times larger than Nikon. It is a fully independent corporation, unlike Nikon, which is a member of the Mitsubishi group of companies. Those ignorant of the facts seem to think that Fujifilm is a tiny company only producing consumer-level cameras. Nothing could be further from the truth. Fujifilm has about three times the revenue and three times the employees. Most significant, in 2015, it grossed 7.45 times the income of Nikon!
 
Nikon Revenue ¥857.8 billion (FY2015) Net income ¥18.4 billion (FY2015) Number of employees 25,415 (March 31, 2015)   Fujifilm Revenue ¥ 2492.6 billion (2015) Net income ¥ 137.1 billion (¥118.6 attributable to FUJIFILM Holdings) (2015) Number of employees 79,235 (consolidated, as of March 31, 2015) While Kodak management thought that digital imaging was a brief fad that would go away if ignored, Fuji invested and diversified, fully embracing the disruptive technology. Little or nothing is left of Kodak that is still original and intact.
 
With initial resolutions of 16MP, the X-Trans was a brilliant solution to the removal of the AA-filter without creating moire. Above 24MP it becomes much less needed (Nikon D810) and at 50MP no longer relevant. However, for the time being, it is pure brilliance. Times change—technology advances.
 
Don't weep for Fujifilm—or us for that matter. The company has vast resources for this little camera project of theirs. Medium-format is not aimed at high-end consumers as is the X-Pro2 and X-T2. It is an industrial tool for working photographers—just as Fuji's very pricey medium-format film cameras were. The market is limited compared to retail buyers, and production is balanced to fit the size of the marketplace. It is an absurd purchase for anyone who does not make a reasonably quick return on investment. Just in salaries, a single afternoon advertising shoot can far outdistance the price of the camera. A whole 'nuther world.

Do you really need f/2.8?? Get closer and use f/5.6

Why? That's no guarantee for better bokeh. In my personal and most reviewers opinion the 1.4 still has better bokeh. 
 
Plus the difference is a stop... iso 1600 vs 3200 or for example a shutter speed of 1/60 instead of 1/30. That can make a difference. 
 
I don't say one of them is bad but I think it strange to say it makes no difference. 
Edit: I've had both.

This lens is surprisingly nice to use indoors taking pics of my kid. Straight out of cam, no post processing. Couldn't get this kind of pic with any of my canon lenses because there is no 18 f/2. And I wouldn't get these wonderful colors even with post processing.
 

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

My long story short: had the 18, sold it, missed it, bought it again and will hold on to it for dear life now. I also own the 14, 35 (1.4) and 90. I hardly ever use the 14 and might as well sell it. The 18 and 35 I adore and use most of the time. The 90 is simply magical. I sometimes deliberately take it out and try to find subjects for it.
 
Here's one taken with the 18mm.
 

sunghosts, no filter on 
 

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 
 

I have a soft spot for "well used" camera gears so after my X70 got it first "scratch"... Well now you know what happens next.

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. 

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 
 

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

With three wide angle primes one of them has to be last. But just because it is last compared to the others, doesn't mean it isn't great. I love mine. It's light, fast to focus and it renders colour beautifully. OK, so it isn't as sexy as 1.4 or as wide as 14 but it gets a bit of a bum wrap.
 
I believe it is one very underrated lens just like the 60 2.4. A lot of it is internet myth and people repeating what they have heard about it when it was originally released. I have 18 x 12 prints made with it and they're perfect. As stated a bit softer in the corners wide open. That is is the only negative I can say about it.

Hoping for a compact 56 f/1.8 (or even 2 is fine) for half the price of the 56 f/1.2 

I'm using my 18mm a lot these days, and enjoying it. People say it's not sharp in the corners. I've not been bothered to check whether that's true or not. Besides, if people are looking at the sharpness of your corners rather than at your subject, you're doing something wrong as a photographer.
 
Some pictures from a trip to Ghana




 
 
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

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 
 

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 
 

I think this 18mm f2 lens has something very special going on with it. My only gripes have to do with what happens at the far sides with the digital distortion correction, that could have been done by Fuji just a bit better. So avoid group people shots with faces at the extreme edges.
 
And sharpness, well, this lens is plenty sharp, often VERY sharp where it matters. That's a non-issue for me. People should make more photos and stop peeping. Sharpness is generally not what gives a lens its character and special qualities. 
 
What I love about the little 18 is its look, how it renders a well placed subject. Shooting with an 18mm on a cropped-sensor is an art. It's easy to take boring shots if you don't make your subject and your viewpoint interesting, easy to make everything seem blandly distant. But when done well, this lens really has a special pop to it, a nice 3D realism. I also love its color and contrast and a certain liveliness about it. Even it's bokeh is nice. 
 
And don't forget, f2 is fast. That's a real factor to consider. 
 
It focuses quickly too. 
 
It's affordable, especially used. 
 
It has a fairly close near focus distance, not quite macro, but nice and near. It's small and light and has a great hood. It has the nice aperture ring and focus ring. I think it's quite the special lens, often misunderstood, tragically underrated among the XF collection. A well kept secret actually. 
 
Highly recommended. 

sure,
 
Fuji, leave us texture! Pls!

Hi,
 
not RAW, but unretouched straight out-of-camera JPEGs from an X-E1:
All hand-held, but I used high shutter speeds so as to prevent any shake-induced blur.
 
1) First, one admittedly very boring shot of the gravel on a footbridge at f/4, just to show how SHARP this thing is!
'Astia' film simulation, DR = 100
View: original size
 
2) Then, a 'torture test' for CA: wide open, and backlit against an almost (but not quite) blown-out sky. Impressive control of all chromatic aberrations, and razor-sharp plane of focus.
'Astia' film simulation, DR = 200
View: original size
 
3) A 'bokeh' shot at f/2. Quite neutral and pleasant, IMO.
'Astia' film simulation, DR = 100
View: original size
 
4) Lastly, an indoor shot wide open at ISO 6400. Coming from film, I still find getting such high-quality and 'film-like' results at such high ISOs amazing...
'Negative High' film simulation, DR = 100
View: original size

Marco
 

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):
 

x100s

Hi all,
 
I got into the Fuji system after using a Micro-Four Thirds system for a while. For portraits, the sharpness, skin tone rendering and level of detail is incredible, certainly when adding flash...
 
Some of my more recent work, if admins approve, I'll keep this post updated as I process new shoots. Started doing portraiture in November only, so there will be some progression hopefully over time
 
Gear used up to today, together with generic speedlights and modifiers.
X100T
X-T1
56 1.2 APD
50-140 2.8
16 1.4
 
First post is my earliest work with the Fuji system. Three shoots I did in December.

Click on the pics to see full size.

Here are a  few pictures from last weeks Bergenfest in Norway. I am very happy with my first festival using only Fuji cameras. 
 
Check out the rest at AllDylan.com