Edp

The xf18mm f/1.4 R LM WR is easily one of if not THE sharpest lens in Fuji’s line up. It’s outatanding and optically superior to the 16mm.

The coatings are typically extremely durable, and I would be surprised if you were able to damage/strip it with a zeiss cleaning wipe. The variation in appearance may be from any number of things such as dried surfactant of some kind. I’d look at using a q-tip or pec pad with eclipse.

I made the entire switch from a canon 5DmkIII to the X-T5, and sold all my gear except my 17mm tilt & shift, which I use with a fringer adapter. Zero regrets and the move has brought back the joy of photography. you can check out images if you want on my gallery. Http://www.palisoc.photo

Same. I stayed up to watch the x-summit a few weeks ago, and immediately pre-ordered the 8mm the second it popped up on Adorama.

I ran into something similar with my x-t5 with the new software app - I came across a “reset network setting” option and that did it. I do t recall where I saw it, but it was at the bottom when I scrolled, maybe on the same menu group as the pairing one.

Fuji has already issued an apology letter that due to demand the supply of 8mm will not be adequate, and they are doing what they can to meet expectations! Seems like there’s a lot more desire for this lens than anticipated.

Given the inverse rule, a stable shot at 1/8 second not even including IBIS, there aren’t many compelling reasons for needing faster than f/4 on this UWA lens. Astro maybe, but nearly every other use case it’s not really there. You aren’t going for subject separation on 8mm, nor “bokeh balls”.

I too have a pre-order set up - I’m excited to compare this to the 9mm laowa I currently have.

I use the fringer pro II with my TS-E 17mm on a X-T5, and it’s great, aperture ring et al. They just released a firmware update that specifically deals with the TS-E lenses and IBIS, and it’s a nice improvement.

There was a recent specific firmware update to fix the issue with failed attempts using the remote app. You need to do the firmware update using an SD card directly and not use the app to push an update.

Make sure the file name is correct, including the extension “.DAT”. The file name itself can’t have any extra characters such as “(1)” or such, which sometimes OS systems like to add. They also have to be in the root of the SD card, do not copy the folder structure - just its contents. Also, are you sure the lends needs updating? Check the firmware version on the lens first.

If you haven't bought into the Adobe ecosystem, and do not need the image management with lightroom (though it is very very good), then I'd suggest sticking with CaptureOne. It does process Fuji RAW better than Lightroom. As a sidenote, there's lightroom cloud (Lightroom CC) and lightroom classic. There's an important distinction if you're going the Adobe path, as Lightroom CC does not take to plug-ins as well as Classic. Personally, I use Lightroomclassic, WITH DxO Pure Raw3 and it's plug-in. Imho, PureRaw3 is exceptional, and does an incredible job processing Fuji RAW files, far far better than Lightroom alone could. As an alternate you haven't mentioned, Dx)'s PhotoLab 6 with Deep Prime XD is possibly even better than CaptureOne, but then again, this is a very subjective topic. The benefit of Photolab is that you get really good file management tools, with the power of PureRaw3, all in one app. I don't think you can go wrong with any of the three I mentioned. Examples of what I get with it can be seen in my gallery here... http://www.palisoc.photo

I suspect it would not be worth it repairing when compared to the price of a new one, but that would be a guess. If it’s a mkI vs a mkII, then it might definitely be worth getting a new one, in context.

I was curious after you asked it - lots to learn, and I hate assumotions 😛

That’s really odd. I can do what you say on the x-t5 (if I’m understanding your post correctly), I can’t imagine why the h-2 doesn’t have that functionality.

“Best” is very subjective, and I’m always wary about answering questions phrased that way; that being said *I* use DxO pure raw3 in conjunction with Lightroom Classic. With that, I share a linked collection that allows me to access my Lightroom classic catalog with Lightroom Cloud, giving me viewing and editing capability across the internet and all my mobile devices.

The sky was far too bright either directly or when the sun was blocked to see the stars with the naked eye. I didn’t see them in the viewfinder set either. I wasn’t aware they would be visible and wasn’t part of the shot I was anticipating, and initially thought they were artifacts in the image.

@jerryy I looked at the EXIF file, and noticed something that maybe you'd explain - The "INITIAL DATE AND TIME OF CAPTURE" time stamp (I was in Spain, but the camera settings were left on NYC/east coast TZ - lol) is notably different than at the bottom, "FILE TIMESTAMP" that's BEFORE the image capture datestamp. All I can think of is WTF, did I discover time travel? I have no idea why they are different, as in before the image date. It was copied to an iPad for backup storage, but that was on accurate local Spain time when I did it, and that TZ is forward of NYC. Confused.

Thanks Jerry, I'll certainly keep that in mind. So many settings.... lol. I went back into the camera, and it's at "100" I definitely want to look into an iR camera. I did it a few times in the old film days, and it fell off the radar of rabbit holes for me to fall into with digital. My wallet is already whining. 😛

Thanks for that Jerry. I hadn't messed with that setting, so I'd assume it was at a default. I opened the file with Fuji's RAW Studio, and this was the EXIF it's reporting, is this what you'd expect to see? I see dynamic range stating "100%" The articles you linked all seem related to HDR, and embeddment of extra images - I don't shoot HDR (not really interested in it), so it seems a normal RAW file isn't really affected by that setting?

I was shooting raw at base iso of 125, which would give the widest dynamic range; correct me if I’m wrong but the dynamic range setting only applies for film simulations…. Otherwise I’m not sure.

Maybe this is better....

I was reviewing some more of my shots from my recent trip, and I noticed something in one shot that at first I thought was trouble, but turned out to be shocking. Here are two images.... Here's the first - I purposely used the top of the spire to shield the sun, to allow it to halo the top as part of the composition.... When I zoomed in to see about cropping it some, I noticed spots, and thought, "wow the lens or sensor got REALLY dirty, and that's a shame. Wasted shot." I looked at the other images immediately after and before it, and there were no spots, so I was naturally confused. Zoomed in... That's when I realized, those aren't dust spots or bad pixels, those are... STARS. The dynamic range was wide enough that it could pick up the faint starlight that was mixing in with the sunlight, stars that are always in the sky, but normally invisible due to the intensity of the sun. I am impressed with the ability of the sensor in the X-T5 to resolve these details. post edit - the compression when posting the image ruins the details, sadly. I may post another one REALLY zoomed in to show it better....

I'm getting less and less excited for this - it looks big and heavy. For what I would want to use it for, I would have preferred it a 1.8, maybe 1.4, as long as it was no larger than the Fuji 18/23/33 1.4's When I used the 27mm pancake, it was a GREAT compact size with great IQ, but there were a notable number of occasions I just needed faster glass. f/2 at a minimum, but something in the 1.4/1.8 would have made it FAR more useful.

I brought with me the following (and roughly how much each was used) Fuji 18mm f/1.4 LM WR R - 80%-ish Fuji 27mm f/2.8 mkII pancake - 10% Fuji 35mm - f/2 3% Laowa 9mm f/2.8 - 2% Viltrox 75mm f/1.2 - 5% The Viltrox came in very handy when I used it, but tbh, it was a LOT of focal length, and I would probably would have made more use of a 56mm. Perhaps as an addition, not as a replacement, since the times I did use the Viltrox, it was perfect for the moment. It's just there were opportunities where I would have loved to have had a 56mm handy, in more situations than where the 75mm came into play. The cities we were in are very close quarters, so the distances were a bit too close. Looking back, I could have gone with say a 23mm instead of the 18mm, but then there are a number of occasions where that 18mm was spot on, and frankly, I flat out LOVE that damned lens. Easy to work with, SUPER IQ and razor sharp, it REALLY sings on the X-T5 because the extra pixels lets you leverage the ability to crop without losing much if anything - so you can shoot with the wider lens and increase the chances of catching things, then compose in post. When you get only one chance at a moment, that can make all the difference in having enough context to frame the message, vs not having enough (for me at least).