boxlock

If I were you I'd hold on a little longer and wait with the decision. Looks like you haven't made up your mind yet and it's more expensive to sell and rebuy again. Plus the 27mm won't make a lot of money and is a great lens. Just screw it on once in a while and take your camera when you otherwise wouldn't. And you're happy with the results of the 55-200 and can't reproduce that with another lens. Would be a shame to lose that. 

How about...
 
- 10-24 or 16mm f1.4
- 35mm f1.4
- 56mm f1.2 or 90mm f2
 
 
...and an X100t
 
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Im not quite sure that I agree with these statements in their totality. Are there problems with some legacy lenses? Of course...no system is going to be able to use every old lens available with complete compatibility. But as mdecorte said, most problems lie with wide angle lenses, especially those made for rangefinders due to theirs short flange distance and inherent lens design. The vast majority of SLR lenses should have little to no issue.
 
As for 'you cannot have the maximum possible IQ with an adapted lens", well this is a very open ended and unprovable statement. Define maximum IQ. I have never seen a maximum IQ rating for any lens I have ever used, either new or legacy. What I have seen is some AMAZING IMAGERY on flickr and other photo sites from users across the world using old legacy lenses. Go look up some photo examples of old Leica R lenses on any of the Sony A7's or Fuji cameras and tell me that they are not at maximum IQ, whatever that is.
 
I think the problem here is one that has bothered me for a long time now and is one of the reasons I don't post to forums as much as I used to. To often the discussion on these boards turns to lens sharpness, or quality of bokeh, or corner to corner sharpness, or chromatic aberrations or any number of things that mean absolutely nothing to image creation. 
 
Now don't get me wrong, you should always be aware of the limits of what your gear can do. A good artists should always pick his tools wisely. And again, if you are a paid professional shooting for a client the by all means you better have the right tool for the job. But for the most part in enthusiast circles way to much time and effort is spent discussing the technical specifications of lenses or bodies and the merits thereof and very little time is spent talking about things like compelling subject matter or interesting composition. The skill and knowledge and artistic vision of a photographer can overcome gear limitations any day of the week. I know this because of the simple fact that a great photographer can take a great photograph with crappy equipment. Just go look at some of the Pro Photog/Crappy Gear segments they do over at DigitalRev.
 
Here is a favorite saying of mine....There is no Pulitzer Prize for sharpness.
 
The majority of the great photographs of the 20th century, right up until the 80's when autofocus was introduced, were shot with manual focus lenses on film cameras. This is including all the great works from the great masters. I have seen plenty of work shot with the same old lenses on modern digital cameras that meet or exceed the vision and power of those old great photographers.
 
Photography is about image creation. Preferably the creation of a compelling image that can move the human soul. Or at least make you look at it and think. For the enthusiast photographer there is a incredible treasure trove of lenses from the film era out there just waiting to be picked up by you and used to create your artistic vision. Usually at much cheaper prices then modern lenses. Are these old lenses computer/CAD created with updated electronics and super cool coatings made from the rarest moon minerals? No, of course not. But I will be the first to admit that most of them (at least from the major manufacturers) are better lenses then I am a photographer. The day I can outshoot my FD 50/1.4 is the day I will have succeeded at Life.
 
Shoot more. Create more. Love light, not gear.
 
All of the images in these two albums were shot on old film lenses. I guess they aren't at maximum IQ.
 
https://www.flickr.com/photos/8539414@N07/sets/72157641534772013
https://www.flickr.com/photos/8539414@N07/sets/72157629936411965

I often read and see examples of this adaptations done by the many followers of this trend and I have done some adaptive photography myself.
 
I wasn’t particularly struck by the quality and practical use of it so I sort of gave it up although I might do some more in future.
 
Obviously one cane take pictures with adapted lenses as many do but I was wondering if there was some inherent problem in doing so.
 
It turns out there is.
 
 
According to Mr. Takashi Ueno in his interview given to the Fujifilm Blog he says the following:
 
http://fujifilm-blog.com/2015/06/30/interview-with-mr-takashi-ueno-from-fujifilm-tokyo-why-dont-fujifilm-make-full-frame-dslr/
 
“...Firstly, the angle of light that film and imaging sensors can receive differ from each other. Film can receive light at the slanted angle of up to 45 degrees without any problem, but in case of the digital camera, the light needs to be as perpendicular to the sensor as possible. Slanted angle light causes mixed colors and therefore the real colors sometimes cannot be reproduced. In order to receive the light perpendicular to the sensor, it is important to make the rear glass element on each lens as big as possible to put the light beams parallel from the outlet of the light to the sensor. Finally, the back-focus distance should be shortened as much as possible to eliminate the degradation in image quality..."

On the X-T1 I have the 23mm 1.4 and the pancake 27mm. I oscillated between both for a while. I love how sharp and useable the 23mm is and it just feels like image quality is a step above that of the 27mm. Whether it was the slight change in focal length (43mm equivalent) or the glass, or just me (likely) I was not happy with what the 27mm was producing. On the other hand, the size and weight of the 27mm is super convenient and effectively transforms the XT-1 into the smaller X100s form factor.
 
I chose to stick with the 23 mainly due to ergonomics of the aperture ring and the field of view being more to my taste. However you might want the 27 because of the form factor or the closer FL. it's a win win situation but these are matters of personal preference.
 
Ok my personal pov coming up next:
 
I don't buy the 'inconspicuous' thing. I think that's a big misconception in street photography. Your demeanour attitude confidence personality have a much larger role to play in my opinion. I decided to stop agonising over this issue, sold one of the lenses and for the past year have gotten used to that lens to the point where I know it so well I can focus on the image and my composition and because I am confident with my gear I get noticed less anyway. (Weight is not an issue for me either with the 23. I carry it around my neck or shoulder with those beatiful Japanese silk straps and it is supremely comfortable. )
 
Allow yourself to be "that guy with the camera " in your neighbourhood, don't be sneaky, talk to people who see you shooting, and soon you will be invisible. I accepted the fact that people will ask me what I am doing who I am shooting for why did I take their picture etc. then magically all of a sudden they stopped asking (well less and less).
 
I realise that's only one approach to street and that's my style and it suits me. It may not suit you but I hope to give you some input for your own journey. I know you only asked about a lens right? And some guy gets all preachy!! Sorry can't help it I love photography ;-)
 
Worry less about your lens choice and more about the opportunity cost of not shooting whilst you deliberate. You cannot go wrong with this wonderful set of tools. Good luck ;-)
 
 
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

It's a really good lens, great considering the price and size. I shot this Westminster Dog Show story for New York magazine using only it. 

.
 
 

Дедушка не любит влажные ноги by Christoph, auf Flickr
 
 
:.

Why? Well as a working photographer I have found that it does cut down on the number of amateurs asking me about my camera's or my settings while working. Don't get me wrong, I don't mind offering advice but if I am working i am not there to socialize with people who are there just shooting for them self. I am happy to talk to people if I am between things but when people are trying to stop you while you are working it becomes a bit bothersome.
 
Additionally no need to be so condescending just because it is not something you choose to do. Do you add badges of the gear/manufacturers you like to your forehead so everyone knows what you use/prefer? ....Maybe Fuji could use some more advertising since they don't have the largest market share in the mirror less market. 

Just got the X-T10. With the 27, it will fit in my ScottE vest pocket. I've been shooting with the 27 for 2 years now and have gotten to really love life at 40mm. The people who say that it's too slow are living in their heads. With the excellent high-ISO capability of Fujis there is no problem. I owned the 23, but sold it. It's a brilliant lens, but fits in between for me. It's too big to be unobtrusive on the street street. It's too long for landscapes and too wide for a lot of studio work. If I did more traditional documentary, it would be great. I don't.
 
I put the 27 at f/8, hyper-focus at about 8 feet and forget about focusing. It's all there. The lens is brilliantly sharp, has great contrast and makes the camera unobtrusive. On the X-T10, the kit looks like a point and shoot and won't catch attention. Add in the totally silent electronic shutter and you fly under the radar.
 

There are street photographers that shoot in 35 and even 50.  You going to go tell them that they aren't street photographers?  All the street photographers out there making a living with the X100 series, that aren't street photographers because they aren't shooting the right focal length.
 
I don't understand the need to feel that you aren't shooting street if you aren't shooting wider than 35.  That's a ridiculous and asinine statement if I've ever heard one.
 
Street is subject, not focal length.

I personally chose the black. The silver looks very lux and attractive but if you like to photograph in the city at night and or in dodgy neighborhoods, very poor rural areas around the world, then the black is super incognito while I think the silver draws a lot of attention (cause it looks soo good). Just my thoughts..

the only stars I might be shooting aren’t in the night sky.
 
as for this lens being “ large and heavy” has anyone seen the 10-24 by Nikon? I am a big boy anyway! I don’t mind its size.

I have no idea why people are so focused on the 10-24 weight.  Lets keep it in perspective here, its only 5 grams more than the XF56 prime.
If you can carry around a XF56 on the front of your camera and not blink, surely you can carry something that is 5 grams more.  No?

Hi. I'm newbie here. This picture was from the first day I've owned first Fujifilm X Series camera as X-T1 Graphite Silver.
 
Bought it in Kyoto, Shot it in Kyoto. 
 
Autumn Floating by Mahalarp Teeradechyothin, on Flickr

Hi all,


I'm new to this forum and want to introduce myself with a few pictures. I am primarily a landscape photographer. Last year I was hiking for two weeks in a remote area in the north of Sweden: Sarek national park. My X-T1 accompanied me with three lenses (14-23-56) and tripod. In the following a few impressions. The image of the northern lights was not easy to frame without an optical viewfinder as the EVF was almost totally black.


View of the Laitaure river delta, 700 m below (14mm, f7.1,  1/45, ISO 200)

Morning view of the Rapadalen valley (56mm, f/8, 1/17, ISO 200)
 

Northern lights above Rapadalen (14mm, f/2.8, 10s, ISO 3200)
 
Feel free to comment or ask questions.
 
Stefan

The area I crossed is almost untouched by civilization which is very rare in Europe. There is no touristic infrastructure and no marked trails. This makes a hike in Sarek a special experience. Due to their low weight and high IQ the Fuji X cameras are perfectly suited for such an endeavor.
 
Let's continue:
 

Evening light in Sarvesvágge (14mm, f/11, 1/2s, ISO 200)
 
 

View from my campsite in the upper Njoatsosvágge (23mm, f/4, 1/210, ISO 200)

Nero makes a great suggestion regarding the 10-24 zoom.  I was just in Europe and took five lenses: 12mm Samyang f/2, Fuji 35 f/1.4, 18-55 zoom, 55-200 zoom, and 27mm f/2.8. The ones I used most were the 18-55 and the 35mm. Left the 23mm at home as it was a little big and heavy compared to the 35.  I carried them with me, but it took a bit too much time to get them out and fitted while trying to enjoy my trip with my wife.  The 18-55 was used WAY more than I thought I would use it.  If I had the 18-135, that would have been a great choice.  The 27mm was nice for quick walk arounds and I got a few nice images with it.
 
If you are committed to only taking two lenses, then my suggestion is to take your 56mm prime for low light, a little focal compression, and size/weight, and then rent the 10-24 zoom.  That would be a great combination, and shouldn't take much to choose which to use.  If you can swing it, and squeeze in the 35mm, then take both primes and the 10-24 and you should be in great shape.
 
I also brought with me some ND filters, a polarizing filter, and a travel tripod with me.  The best tripod though was a mini Manfrotto 709B that I carried with me everywhere. It is so small it fit in my backpack easily.
 
Have a great time in those wonderful cities as they are a photographers paradise.
 
Here is a shot done with the 18-55 zoom:
 
[[post='_DSF1653.jpg by Michael Muramoto, on Flickr'][/post]

Don't forget a polarising filter. Not only for the sky, but you might have some misty mornings in Toscana.

For as much as I love my collection of primes, if I were going on a trip where I could only take 2 lenses, it would probably be my 10-24mm and the 18-135mm WR. If you were to only take 1 zoom, it would definitely be the 10-24mm due to the architecture and landscapes on your trip. The image stabilization on both lenses is a big part of my reasoning. Personally, the 10-24mm would be a must have for that trip. As for the 18-135mm, the stabilization is unreal. I took it into Mammoth Cave in Kentucky and was nailing 1/2 second exposures in almost no light. The WR feature is a nice insurance policy against the weather on a trip too. You don't want to arrive and then get timid about a bit of rain. It also has extra reach for detail shots.
 
That being said, it would be so hard for me to go on a trip without my favorite prime. If you can't leave it behind, take your favorite prime and the 10-24mm.
 
If there was a way to sneak the tiny 27mm into my bag as a third lens for street photos, I'd do that too. It weighs nothing, takes no space, and makes the X-T1 look almost like a point and shoot on the streets.

This is the first time ever for me to hear that. You must be confusing it with some other lens, the 18mm maybe? Because i hear (and see) nothing but good or great things about the 14mm.

Wut?!   Once upon a time there was a fanboy post about XF 14mm titled "The best Leica lens Fuji ever made" or something like that… still true. Tack sharp, very clever construction (you don't have to worry about vignetting and internal reflections with filters), light and fast. Love this little gem.
 

(X-T1, XF 14mm, 26 seconds from tripod; air temperature is around -22F)