Maurice

Not the problem, obviously. The M42>EOS adapters are 1mm, you don't notice they're there. They're not really adapters, more like lens converters. The 'mirrorless' adapters are 1 million meters in size, more than some of the 50's themselves are! So just one of those is fine thanks.

You guys have seen this side by side?
 

 
https://ivanjoshualoh.wordpress.com/2015/05/18/please-to-meet-you-mr-bokeh/

How is that going to help. He doesn't have some kind of all powerful X-pertise. It is only his opinion that Lightroom is perfectly 'fine'. And i agree that for most people it can be, but i'm not looking for something that's 'usable', i want it to be better than usable, i want it to be great. And this is not some kind of unreasonable request, everybody else is already doing it with regular Bayer.
 
With sharpening you cannot get out what isn't there, you're stuck with the processors demosaicing engine. So when it doesn't 'understand' the file correctly then you can push and pull on it to hide that fact as best you can, and that will be fine in most cases. But you cannot fix what is out of your control, the sensor, and software's demosaicing engine. Imagine being a cook that has to make a dish where one of the ingredients is just past its expiration date. I'm sure a good cook can make something of it to hide that fact, but it's never going to be perfect and there's nothing you can do about it but use something else!
 
Personally in my opinion it is xtrans itself that is at fault. It was supposed to make a OLPF redundant to maximize detail and remove moire by its color filter layout. But instead it only creates its own artifacts with either false detail and color or loss of it, and as many tests have proven the true iso values don't match other camera systems. Even compensated there appears to be less noise, but indeed it only appears as such because the actual noise is obscured by the irregular detail retention. While some converters manage to deal with that better than others, it never actually looks better than a equivalent photo in the same converter. Even from the X-A1 that seems to have the same old sensor underneath a standard bayer filter.
 
While some of all this can actually be beneficial for JPGs, for Raw shooters there are only problems and not one single benefit. So if you ask me i wish they would just quit this nonsense already.

Again, not true. What the APD filter does cannot be solved with a longer focal length.
 
As said, it requires specific conditions all coming together to benefit from it. With indeed shooting at F1.2 being one of them, but that is all part of the deal, and most people that buy such a fast lens will want to use it wide open! I'm not saying everybody should get the APD version if they could, more like the opposite. Only do it if you understand its perks! But as to the reasons why, there is just too much false information going around, clearly.
 

 
https://ivanjoshualoh.wordpress.com/2015/05/18/please-to-meet-you-mr-bokeh/

I don't think that's true. If the bokeh is nervous due to a difficult background then the non-APD version would be nervous too. There is no lens on the planet that is always perfect. But it is impossible for the APD filter to 'add' any nervousness, all it does is soften edges of the 'circle of confusion' in very specific conditions. Any remaining nervousness is due to the background conditions only.

richard hammond from top gear.
http://www.topgear.com/uk/richard-hammond/richard-on-retro-artefacts-2012-07-23
 
apparently a lot of the tg crew own fujis as well and they've got some of the best cameramen i've seen.

Norman Reedus (from The Walking Dead)
 

 
I don't think *all* the people mentioned above actually own one, so i guess movies are fine too?
 
Hector and the search for Happiness:
 

 

You guys have seen this side by side?
 

 
https://ivanjoshualoh.wordpress.com/2015/05/18/please-to-meet-you-mr-bokeh/

Aaand again, completely missing the point. Nothing needed correcting or whatever you're doing. And talking long enough about it won't change it either, we'd just be going in circles.
 
 
First time i'm hearing it. And i'm always skeptical with such claims because it could be a million things that makes one say that, especially with such big apertures lenses .. and xtrans.

Again, not true. What the APD filter does cannot be solved with a longer focal length.
 
As said, it requires specific conditions all coming together to benefit from it. With indeed shooting at F1.2 being one of them, but that is all part of the deal, and most people that buy such a fast lens will want to use it wide open! I'm not saying everybody should get the APD version if they could, more like the opposite. Only do it if you understand its perks! But as to the reasons why, there is just too much false information going around, clearly.
 

 
https://ivanjoshualoh.wordpress.com/2015/05/18/please-to-meet-you-mr-bokeh/

You can get close with a 35 and MCEX11 alright, but you can ONLY get close. The focusing range is very limited, and the focal length is not ideal. With insects it means they will fly away because you need to get too close, and for other things it often means you will be in your own shadow. The 60mm allows you to keep some distance, it is a much more useful focal length for Macro, and it is of course a multipurpose lens that you can use for many other things, it is quite stunning for portraits, and no need to remove any adapter before you can focus to infinity again. There is just no comparison, you do get what you pay for.

The following is just my personal and subjective opinion. I'm no tech geek or something.
 
I've tried different M42 50/55mm lenses:
 
Fujinon 55mm f/1.8
Fujinon 55mm f/2.2
Fujinon 50mm f/1.4
Asahi SMC Takumar 50mm f/1.4 M42
 
 
Fujinon 55/1.8: Great lens!!! Nothing to complain on. Sharp even wide open. And you get it for 20 - 40 €. Here are some examples from a not so good photographer: https://www.flickr.com/photos/93978937@N07/tags/fujinon55mmf18m42/
 
Fujinon 55/2.2: Even cheaper than the f/1.8 but not that good. Very soft wide open. Also ugly CAs in some situations. Save your money by not buying this one.
 
Takumar 50/1.4: Seeams to be a great lens. And yes it is and also it isn't. Cause very soft wide open, good at f/2.8, great from f/4. Unfortunately it also shows some ugly CAs wide open in some situations. BUT (and that's a huge but): The BOKEH is gorgeous!!! Very creamy and harmonic!!! Also you can create some nice lens flare with this lens. If you're looking for a great bokeh lens the winner (of these four lenses) is definitely the Takumar!!! Price about 150 €.

Whistle by KwyjiboVanDeKamp, auf Flickr
Some other examples here: https://www.flickr.com/search/?user_id=93978937%40N07&tags=takumar&view_all=1
In the end I gave my Takumar to a friend of mine cause of purchasing the following lens.
 
Fujinon 50/1.4: That's my personal winner! Also about 150 €. But you get a sharp image even wide open. Also you have this extra speed towards the Fujinon 55/1.8. Image quality is similar to the 55/1.8 I think. Couldn't test it side by side cause I don't have the 55/1.8 anymore. Bokeh is quite nice but not as great as the Takumar.
Bright-eyed contentment by KwyjiboVanDeKamp, on Flickr
 
By the way if you're looking for a 135mm lens it's the same as with the 50/55mm lenses. The old Fujinons are the best choice. I also tried different of these lenses and Fujinon always did the best job!! See my test here: http://www.fuji-x-forum.com/topic/317-135mm-lens-comparison/
 
 
Like nowadays Fuji is and was the best lens manufacturer!!! IMHO
 
 
Here's a link to a M42 database http://m42lens.com/
 
 
Hope I could help a little bit.
 
Have a nice day.

Not the problem, obviously. The M42>EOS adapters are 1mm, you don't notice they're there. They're not really adapters, more like lens converters. The 'mirrorless' adapters are 1 million meters in size, more than some of the 50's themselves are! So just one of those is fine thanks.

Well i would take it, but it depends on what you want of course. It becomes a more difficult question when you also have the 90/2 or 50-140mm and a price difference to consider, but since it's "for free", personally i would take the APD. But that doesn't mean you should. Because it is possible that you just don't like that ultra-smooth background when it 'happens', some people say it looks like photoshop blur.
 
Cons:
Trouble with phase detect (allegedly!)
Tiny loss of light (who cares, DoF unchanged)
More expensive (does not apply here)
 
Pros:
More valuable (fact)
Different (if you like that kind of thing)
Sometimes it *can* produce bokeh like nothing else (like it or not)

Again, not true. What the APD filter does cannot be solved with a longer focal length.
 
As said, it requires specific conditions all coming together to benefit from it. With indeed shooting at F1.2 being one of them, but that is all part of the deal, and most people that buy such a fast lens will want to use it wide open! I'm not saying everybody should get the APD version if they could, more like the opposite. Only do it if you understand its perks! But as to the reasons why, there is just too much false information going around, clearly.
 

 
https://ivanjoshualoh.wordpress.com/2015/05/18/please-to-meet-you-mr-bokeh/

I don't think that's true. If the bokeh is nervous due to a difficult background then the non-APD version would be nervous too. There is no lens on the planet that is always perfect. But it is impossible for the APD filter to 'add' any nervousness, all it does is soften edges of the 'circle of confusion' in very specific conditions. Any remaining nervousness is due to the background conditions only.

If you have an unlimited supply of APD lenses for your rolling deal – sure, why not? I'd trade my non-APD for your APD, sell it, buy a non-APD, and repeat the transaction until I have both lenses on hand – "for almost next to nothing"!   

Again, not true. What the APD filter does cannot be solved with a longer focal length.
 
As said, it requires specific conditions all coming together to benefit from it. With indeed shooting at F1.2 being one of them, but that is all part of the deal, and most people that buy such a fast lens will want to use it wide open! I'm not saying everybody should get the APD version if they could, more like the opposite. Only do it if you understand its perks! But as to the reasons why, there is just too much false information going around, clearly.
 

 
https://ivanjoshualoh.wordpress.com/2015/05/18/please-to-meet-you-mr-bokeh/

I don't think that's true. If the bokeh is nervous due to a difficult background then the non-APD version would be nervous too. There is no lens on the planet that is always perfect. But it is impossible for the APD filter to 'add' any nervousness, all it does is soften edges of the 'circle of confusion' in very specific conditions. Any remaining nervousness is due to the background conditions only.

Indeed the rolling shutter problem is terrible.
 
And somebody already did make that 8 x 10 " sensor.
http://petapixel.com/2011/08/25/photographer-makes-his-own-8x10-digital-back-for-the-price-of-a-house/
 

The X100's are absolutely fantastic as a second body along with any interchangeable lens camera, IF you like the 35mm focal length of course it is a no brainer imho.
 
Alternatively, it could be that you want to switch between a standard zoom and a longer tele often, then a 35mm isn't going to do you much good as the zoom already covers that. A second interchangeable lens body might be of more use in order to have a long tele always at the ready. Then of course the Hybrid Viewfinder is of little use, while the higher resolution EVF and faster focusing of X-E2 would be most useful !

If I could have only one lens it would be the 23mm. You can use it for pretty much everything, indoors and out. But if I had just the 35mm and I were given the choice of adding either the 23mm or the 16mm to my collection, I'd choose the 16mm. Together with the 35mm, those two lenses give you a huge amount of scope and variety, whereas the 35 and the 23 have a bigger area of overlap. Outdoors, head-and-shoulders portraits etc - that's your 35. Indoors, tight spaces, close-up action, fast-moving pets, landscapes - that's your 16.
 
 
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Hover over the image to see the weight, it's 1650g for the Nikon vs 840g for the Fuji, total! That is less than the 28-300 weighs alone.
 
Plus the optical performance is much better. Fullframe sensors really aren't made for such extreme zooms.

Guys really, are we going to be stuck on the word He here. I was replying to x-tc so i said He, big deal. if you want to be called Rico then don't hide behind 'flysurfer'.
Now i try not to use Rico in fact so that other people who are not aware of His greatness don't have to start looking for who the heck i'm referring to.
 
And again. Is it just impossible to have an opinion that is different from yours .. Rico, without you taking offense? Nothing wrong with your view, just isn't mine.
This is what we do in forums, discuss our differences in taste and workflow. There is not ONE right way, though there are facts, but we deal with them in different ways.
 
 
 
Exactly, hence my earlier comment.

Don't have it, but let's start with this: http://camerasize.com/compact/#493.359,493.426,ha,t
 
You might want to get the add-on grip. Or a thumbs-up thingy.