frod

I'd wager it's more like they were preferring tried and trusted designs (for them) while the X system was still in its infancy. Having established a base they are now using more contemporary features.

I know that; but why do you need that specifically? what is it about 1:1 that brings on all these pointless arguments? Why not get even larger than life on a larger sensor with more lens options? Sorry, but I don't see the advantage of mirrorless when you're shooting macro.

I've always wondered why some people need to get a 1:1 capture. What is magical about that reproduction ratio? Why not 2:1? 1:1 just means you're capturing an image at focus that's the size of your sensor. Why stop there? What do you do with those images once taken that makes 1:1 so important? Why are you even bothering to do this on APS-C when surely 35mm or larger would be more practical and better served anyway?

Can't say I've observed that on any of my lenses but I don't have the 60mm. Can't imagine why it would do that though.

Welcome. That's not an X Series camera so it may be that nobody here has experience of it, I hope I'm wrong.

http://theonlinephotographer.typepad.com/the_online_photographer/2012/02/d800-megapixels.html

I'd imagine that you could buy a perfectly decent video camera for a lot less money than the lenses in question; we haven't seen the xpro2 yet but trying to make existing Fujis into decent video devices is like trying to make a silk purse out of a sow's ear.

An L-bracket grip caters to heavy lens users better than the battery grip. I also think you'd probably find more mad enthusiasts than actual pros using those heavy lenses anyway. X-Pro2 needs to be WR, get a bigger buffer and faster processing.

If you normally prefer to shoot 10-24 then that is what you should get. A grip will help with balance if you decide you don't get on with the combination initially. Don't let anyone else dictate your preferred focal lengths, you'll only end up changing anyway.

It is not really possible to 'do what they did with the 35' because as we go to a wider angle of view it requires a different grouping of lenses that doesn't really lend itself well to this kind of idea. As mentioned above, although doable in principle (lighter/smaller), I really don't think you would like the resulting changes to distortion or resolution; imagine a poorer and larger version of the lens on the X100, given that they would have to cope with additional back focus distance due to having to incorporate the lens mount. From what little I know of optics, the 27mm is probably the limit of the simpler double gauss design before extra lenses are required for correction (or quality suffers, cf. the 18mm). It's just unavoidable physics; look at other ~63 degree angle of view lenses; cheap, small, quality: pick one.

surely, like with cameras, the best lens is the one you have with you? And if so, the 27mm has a very good chance!

I think the hoopla around this lens is more related to the incredible sharpness and focussing speed rather than anything particular about its focal length. I don't think it's the place of reviewers and awards to decide what focal length we should or should not be using. It's certainly not what I've read into the hype surrounding this lens; pure performance plaudits.

More to the point, it's sharp across the frame. Coupling this with the closeup focussing is what makes it a macro, as you say. Reproduction ratio doesn't really come into it.

You could consider tiding yourself over with an extension tube until the 120mm macro comes out.

That's the part that makes me smile. Doesn't like the 27 or 18 but wants a 23 the same size with better quality.

Just try it. Awards are as credible in the camera industry as they are in every other consumer industry.

Don't get me wrong, I'm all for options; smaller versions of every focal length would be nice to have... but you're vilifying a great lens here based on stuff you read in some blogs because it doesn't match requirements you've specified that it was never designed to address.

Photozone don't generally hand out 5 stars ever. Check out the review of your 35mm for example. Word of warning, you may find yourself selling it if you're that influenced by online evaluations instead of personal experiences though. As a 50-140 owner and former FF Nikon shooter the weight concerns raised just don't resonate with me at all I'm afraid. The 23mm on my x-e2 is just about perfectly balanced, the size is no greater than the 18-55 kit when zoomed out and it's suitably lighter and smaller than its equivalent peers in the DSLR world. It sounds to me (as many have suggested) that you've bought the wrong system given your list of complaints here.

Well, this was a rather ill informed original post. The 23mm and 27mm are both Highly Recommended by photozone.de: http://www.photozone.de/fuji_x/868-fuji23f14?start=2 http://www.photozone.de/fuji_x/855-fuji27f28?start=2 If you've found reviews favouring the X100 lens over the 23mm f/1.4, I'd suggest you're being misled by a site surviving on affiliate link income.

Yeah, if you only shoot Fuji or mostly Fuji, I'd forget about equivalence and just use the numbers in front of you. Just imagine every supposed stop you 'lose' in terms of kilograms saved :-)

Can't wait to get that kind of DR in my smartphone.

Wouldn't mind getting a silver uv filter for mine. Can't find anything except ultra expensive Leicas though - anyone know any alternatives?

I had am issue like this on a nikon 70-300. Hama make a glass fibre contact cleaning pen which worked for me then.

http://howmuchblur.com/#compare-1.5x-90mm-f2-and-1.5x-56mm-f1.2-on-a-0.9m-wide-subject Of course, bokeh quality is subjective and neither of these lenses are at their sharpest wide open.

Hi Andrew, just curious if your replacement lens met expectations?