Nick05

The 18-135mm didn't interest me at all when it was announced and I said it is the one lens I'd probably never buy.. except then I did. I expected to use it about the same as I did with my Canon EF24-105mm. Just a casual walk around lens when image quality didn't matter much. After using the 18-135mm for a few weeks, I found myself never using the 18-55mm and eventually sold it. What I'm saying is the 18-135mm surprised me by being better than I thought. It is a little soft at 135mm. The aperture isn't the widest and it being variable is a bit annoying, but it is overall a decent performer. The 16-55mm should perform better, but it has different limitations. I'm hoping they release a 16-75mm F/4 or something close focal range that is great optically. Unless you need the F/2.8, I'd go with the 18-135mm for flexibility. @welshkc The 50-140mm is optically fantastic. Not much compares to it. You are going to be spoiled and disappointed by most other lenses moving forward.

Interesting read. I've never used a Leica, but I always liked the rangefinder design. It is what drew me to the X series initially. I didn't own the X-Pro1, but I did buy the X-Pro2. It is my favorite camera to use and the one I take with me most of the time. I take the X-T2 when shooting wildlife because it handles the XF100-400mm better with the grip. I've looked at the Sony A7 lineup some, but I hear the same opinions from just about everyone regarding the "computer" feel so I never bought one. The X-Pro2 just feels so natural.

I don't believe this was a setting in any of my Canon cameras. I switched away from them about 2 years ago completely so I cannot check, but I don't recall this being available. Maybe it is a setting in some point and shoots or M4/3 cameras. I find aperture priority to be extremely fast to change, so I am with you.

I never heard that, but I will admit, I didn't read any of the documentation on them. I have three of them and I have stacked two of them together a few times without any issues. I like using them with the 90mm, but I'm sure they would work great with the 55-200mm.

Understood, but the lenses have more than 6 stops in aperture values so it either won't be doing the full range or somewhere in the middle it wouldn't be adjusting at full stops. Using the 50mm F/1.2 I still have. Would "1" be 1.2 or 1.4? If it would be 1.2, does that mean "2" would be 1.4 or would it then be 1.8?

Adam, I've been able to find some info at the link below. I also just bought a used X-E2 to convert and will probably send it in next month to convert. I want to spend a little time shooting with it first to make sure it doesn't have any issues. Hopefully we will get some responses here. http://fujixsystem.blogspot.fr/p/fuji-infrared-lens-tests.html

I have looked into some that showed the aperture ring like above with the 1-6 numbers. The reviews weren't great and I think trying to control aperture with numbers 1-6 would be sort of hit or miss as well. The one that has the scroll wheel may be the most promising. I am down to one EF lens, the 50mm F/1.2L and will probably sell it this year though it would be fun to adapt if the aperture and AF worked.

I have the X100T and I have not decided on whether or not I will upgrade. I think the upgrade is worthy, but the X100T is not my main camera. I have an X-Pro2 and X-T2 that I use as my main cameras. I had the X100T for a while now, bought it a few months after it was released. I like the camera and enjoy using it, but the advantages it has over the X-Pro2 is limited to size and how quiet it is. If I upgraded to the X100F, I'd gain a lot of the functionality of the X-Pro2, but I don't know if I would use it enough to justify upgrading. I really enjoy the X-Pro2 and I think it has really replaced my need of the X100 series camera.

The EF lenses don't adapt very well to Fujifilm or most other brands. There seem to be some adapters to make them work reasonably well with Sony, but not really other brands. My recommendation would be to sell that lens and purchase the 10-24mm F/4 version from Fuji. You will definitely end up with better results. The main reason the EF lenses from Canon, and a lot of newer lenses in general, don't adapt well is they require electrical contacts to adjust aperture and to focus. I adapt some old FD lenses and some old k-mount ones with great success, but they all have manual aperture rings. I've sold all but one of my collection of Canon EF lenses, almost all of which were L versions. I have an adapter for the EF lenses, but never really used it for that reason.

Every time I see it on this forum, it is advertising an Android device, but you mention only Apple. It is in the older comments, but mentioned specifically multiple times. Maybe all the Android users thought you weren't meaning them.

Are you able to rent a lens? I haven't shot any weddings for the past few years due to lack of time. When I was doing weddings, I was shooting Canon and the 24-70mm F/2.8L and the 70-200mm F/2.8L were the primary lenses used. I actually preferred to shoot the recetption with primes, but you need some flexibility with the ceremony. You cannot risk missing the shot. Given your situation, it may not be as important if you miss a key shot. Do you have a chance to check out the inside of the church to determine what focal length will work? Do you know if they will have any restrictions on where you can stand? The 50-140mm is a fantastic lens and really impressed me when I used it. I don't own it yet, but it is one I would like to buy when I have more of a need for it. You may Consider going with the 90mm F/2 if you want a great portrait lens and a longer focal length to capture the wedding from a bit further distance. In the end, it comes down to covering the focal lengths you need. As others mentioned, the 18-55 is a decent enough lens. I'm not sure it is fast enough to shoot inside a church so it wouldn't be my first choice.

Thanks for putting this together. I'm a big fan of keyboard shortcuts on computers, but only knew about one of these.

Are you using it as a standalone product to work on the RAW files, or are you using it as a plugin? It looks interesting and like it may be easy to work with either way.

I've ordered and received two from Adorama in the last month. I received them within a week. I tend to go back and forth between Adorama and B&H. I think more people shop B&H so if you are trying to get something in short supply, it seems in my experience, that you have a better chance of getting it sooner from Adorama.

I don't know when the next sale will be, but I believe they have one in the spring. For me, it will be better if there is more time before the sale begins. They seem to get some of my money every time they have a sale.

There is a setting in the camera settings menu that allows you to set the OIS to a couple settings. It is called "IS Mode". Mode 1 Continuous and Mode 2 Shooting Only. I find I get much sharper images when using Mode 2 Shooting Only. I tried it a few years ago, set my camera that way, and found I ended up with better results. When I get a new body, I do not remember to set it that way until I begin looking at the images and think the lens was defective. I'm not sure if it is because when it shooting only, i have to steady myself more to compose the shot or if it has to do with something like in the article linked below. http://digicamhelp.com/camera-features/shooting-modes/is-modes/

Thanks for the review. I have been looking for some info around this lens. I don't need it, but I have been thinking about getting it to add to a travel kit with the 23mm and 35mm and haven't seen too many reviews on it yet. Edit: I see where it said jpeg now,

I agree with you very much on this. A product that gets people excited about the brand can be worth a lot from a marketing standpoint. And the 100-400mm is the lens that made me switch, but is far from my most used lens.

Yes, mine has the wobble too. I found that I get much sharper photos if I turn the IS mode to shooting only. I recently posted that same suggestion in a topic on the 100-400mm too and was thinking I should really do a comparison between the IS settings. I remember reading it somewhere else and it seemed to help me.

Yes, I use it for a few things here and there. What error are you receiving?

Remember it is not about the brand or type, but the person behind it. A professional Oracle can tell the future well even with a cheap crystal ball.

You are correct about a fast prime lens. I think what was meant in the post above is that most people tend to stop down to smaller apertures when shooting. I tend to shoot a lot wide open and do shoot in lowlight a often. A fast lens is required. I don't think I could recommend the 35mm F/1.4 for anything that is moving. It has a fairly slow AF. The 23mm F/1,4 focuses much quicker, but the 35mm F/2 and 23mm F/2 focus even faster which may be what you are looking for. You will lose one stop of light going with the F/2 versus the F/1.4. What this means is if you were in lower light, and you had your 10-24mm on your cameras and you were shooting at F/4 at 23mm, ISO set at 200, aperture set to F/4, and your shutter speed was 1/30 resulting in motion blur, if you didn't change anything other than the lens, it would remain the same. However if you put the 23mm F/2 on the camera and set the aperture to F/2,8, your shutter speed would become 1/60 or if you set it to F/2, it would become 1/125. The challenge is that you lose depth of field which means the amount it focus is less. I don't think that will be an issue for you, unless the kids are moving fast.

It sounds like a slow memory card. I have a few slow ones I use in my X100T and when I change it for a faster one it makes a huge difference. It really behaves just like you describe with the slower cards. I use them in the X100T because it isn't meant for taking a lot of images quickly so I don't notice it as much.

What setting did you have the IS set to? I found I had issues mostly with the IS in the past when set to continuous. When I turn it to shooting only, images seems to be way sharper. When set to continuous I found the photos to appear soft or slightly out of focus or blurred. This it true with the other lenses such as the 55-200mm as well.

I almost bought the 16mm during the last sale, but resisted at the time. I have the 10-24mm and the 35mm. I think if I could only have one of the two combos, I'd go with the 16 and 35. I don't often want to go wider than the 16mm and from what I am seeing the IQ is better. I like the 10-24mm, but it is missing something for me.