quincy

Maybe the Samyang 135mm F2.0 ED UMC is the right lens for you then...

First: Thank You for your detailed answer. I appreciate that, especially since it's not that common on the internet these days. So you say the focal length of the XF80 changes when adjusting focus? That's interesting, because I thought one of their development goals was exactly to avoid this behaviour (by using two floating focusing groups etc.). meh... The main reason I wanted a telemacro was working distance, and the 220 mm from front lens to subject the Sigma 180/2.8 gives you is unbeatable anyway. I guess I'll try the XF80 with teleconverter, but if it doesn't convince me completely I think it's time for a dedicated macro solution. About xtrans CFA: the obvious thing I like most about it is it's lack of aa-filter. That obviously also works with a classic bayer pattern, they simply don't do it (that often). But another point that's not so obvious is the lack of color noise in dark areas. I see that every time I work with files I got from friends (be it Nikon, Canon or Sony), they always have color patterns in dark areas of the image. My Fuji simply doesn't. And this also should be a result from the xtrans CFA, because it has each of the three color informations in each row and column, whereas in standard bayer pattern red and blue each are just in every second row and column. (by the way, I use Capture One anyway, so I never had problems with demosaicing)

If you talk about the physical switches then nope, get a replacement.

Just a matter of taste anyway. Did you refocus or did you move the camera? And do you like your new lens? I'm still torn between this and simply getting the Sigma 180/2.8 Macro + any adequate body (don't know yet if 5Ds R, D850 or one of the APS-C ones)

me likey... a bit too dark though.

I see two very different effects there. - In your "brick wall images" there is field curvature (flat object normal to the optical axis in object plane can't be focused completely on a flat image plane) - the dog image with the tree simply shows your depth of field, or rather the distribution of sharpness. Just follow the ground with your eyes. At the bottom of the frame, the ground is blurred. Then it gets sharper up to the point where (approximately) the head of the dog is located, and from there following the ground you see the image getting more blurry again. combine both, and you get the last image. I wouldn't be surprised if leica lenses were corrected to have a flat field of focus so that users can take images of tack sharp brick walls, corner to corner, but I would be very surprised if they get their corners sharp even if the object shown in those corners is far out of the focus plane.

So far, there are no teleconverters for Fujinon lenses other than the two made by Fujinon. You can, however, use teleconverters from other brands for lenses from other brands and then adapt the whole stack to a Fujifilm camera. But I'd wait with doing this until real "smart" adapters with power supply, aperture control, lens info etc. are available. Concerning the 55-200, it's still my favorite Fujinon lens, despite being a rather slow zoom. It's just so sharp at 200/4.8 and has a very pleasing bokeh for my taste. The stabilizer is fine for me, and it's very compact and lightweight. perfect travel-tele.

done. Thank You for your comment. In the description text below the 50-140 I stated "Cameras retain phase detection autofocus with this lens and the 2x teleconverter attached.", while the description text of the 100-400 states "With the 2x teleconverter attached, all current camera models lose phase detection autofocus and have to use contrast detection autofocus.". So I think I already did what you asked for, right? So far, the 50-140 and the 100-400 are the only two lenses compatible with the teleconverters. Therefore, I've added the teleconverters to both lenses' description text, and I think both lenses have reviews linked concerning the TCs. Some time in the future when more TC-compatible lenses are available (not just the 80 macro), we could add a separate TC category. Sure. We also added Fuji's own XM-FL body cap filter lens. It won't be on the chart though, because that only goes to 11 and this body cap lens is f/16. (won't change the layout of the chart anymore, until a native Fuji lens requires it)

Or you can find the entrance pupil yourself. There are many tutorials online.

I know you didn't ask me, but: the shutterless

Good idea. I'll just have to think about how to count the lensbaby composers. But I think I'll count the drop-in lenses, not the tilt adapters.

Didn't read the rest, but my grip has only two green leds. They glow when charging, and turn off when the batteries are full.

You could measure how big your rear cavity is, and I'll measure the front part of the TC for you, if you want.

Home again. I had the same thing going with the XF16 1.4. Got it shortly before the trip and shot almost everything with it. (Except for animals etc. that was done with the 100-400)

Thanks, now I remember what I wanted to do. /edit: done. 124 of them.

Wow! i've been in Iceland for three weeks now, but I don't think that even one of my pictures looks like that. Did you like your long(er) lens?

Mmmmh... Want one

Thanks! I didn't notice. Have added it now. Looks exactly like the Laowa Venus 60mm macro. I've added it to the list. Those are new to me. Have added them to the list. The Sain Sonic Kamlan is Sony E-Mount only so far. Thanks, didn't know that. Have added it to the list. Thank You for your response. Have added the review to the list. Existing third party lenses for Fuji with Fuji-Mount? Just the mirror lenses Samyang made. Adapting (manual) old lenses might be a possibility. If you need a long tele with autofocus, just get the one you want from Canon, Nikon or Sigma. They are all well above $5000, so you can simply throw in a suitable canon/nikon body, like the 7DII or the D500. Just don't expect it to be anything like the 23/50. A 200/2 is a monster of a lens. (http://www.fuji-x-forum.com/topic/2180-xf200mmf2-lens-rumors/page-4?do=findComment&comment=31004)

Maybe now you can try the 16-55?

I hope you didn't push too hard...

No need to apologize, I just wanted to express that there are probably as many opinions as there are photographers (which is good). I'd also recommend you to just start photographing, and when you realize that there is something you can't do, get the right filter for it. You can still decide if you want one filter size and adapter rings (for when you want to have a lot of filters), or just get the filters you want for the lens you need them (if you don't need many filters). My advice is: - UV filter: don't buy at all, except for when you want to do IR or UV photography - Polarizers: right size for the lens, so you can use the lens hood (or if you are really getting into landscape photography and want to work with ND-filters and grads, see below) - protection filters: right size for the lens, as above - ND-Filters: you could share those via adapter rings. (or if you want grads too, see below) - graduated filters: you should buy those with a filter holder system to be able to place the transition where you want it (or not buy them and do exposure blending) - closeup lenses: those are expensive, so just get one, doesn't even have to be a big one, and adapt it to your tele lenses (won't work well with wide-angles) - color filters: I've actually come up with a use for them: If you want to do photography just in a narrow band of wavelengths, they can be useful. If you don't, don't buy them. You already have a color filter array in front of your sensor, so you can do everything in post. /edit: filter test at lensrentals

As I wrote above, I think polarizers are the only filters that are useful for general photography because their effect can't be replaced by post processing. But as with every other filter, if you don't need the effect, you don't need the filter. I have one for my wide lenses, but I would not use it on my teles, where shutter speed and high ISO is always a topic. What i forgot to write: you also need to consider which filter you need for which lens. For example, do you need to share an nd filter from your wide angle with your 400 mm lens? (I don't say that would be stupid, but do you need it in your case?) By the way: I expect the others not to agree with me, that's what i wanted to express in my posting.

Filters vs. adapter rings is a difficult topic. And I'll show you why. You may agree or disagree. If you ask me personally, I'd buy the filters I need for each lens in the right size. But then again, I don't use many filters. The only filters you really need for general photography are polarizers. - UV-filters are not needed anymore, since every relevant digital sensor today has an UV-filter in the glass-stack containing the color filter array etc. - Protection filters are simply stupid. You add a layer of unnecessary glass in front of your lens, probably negatively affecting your image quality, while they won't protect your lens when you drop it and might even induce more damage. And front elements themselves are pretty scratch resistant on their own. (lots of youtube videos and blog posts about this) - Instead of using ND filters, you can take multiple images, summing up to the total exposure time you want to have and stack them in post. - graduated filters can also be replaced by post processing. Just take several different exposures and blend them together. Tutorial on this: Photographing Horseshoe Bend with Elia Locardi and the GFX 50S - every color filter can be easily simulated in post On the other side, there are exceptions for almost everything I said above: - If you are on the beach, protection filters might save you the hassle of carefully removing every sticky grain of sand before washing off the salt layer that coats your front element, because when at home, you can screw them off and simply rinse them in the sink. (I have one 67 mm filter (for XF16 & Samyang 12) for exactly this purpose). But having those in a different size than the lens prevents you from using the lens hood. - When you want to create long exposures during the day, maybe wide open to utilize the better resolution of the fuji lenses at those apertures, you'd need to shoot several thousand images in order to stack them in post. I've tried this just yesterday. At f/11 and with just a circular polarizer attached, I got a shutter speed of 1/50th. To get a cummulated exposure time of 1 second, you'd need 50 images. If you want to go to 10 seconds, you already need 500 images. (at f/4, it would be 4000 images). I took about 450 and tried stacking them in post. And here comes the problem: even with 8 or 11 frames per second, with a shutter speed of 1/50th you have more time NOT recording an image than recording one, therefore the stacking isn't smooth. If you stack enough images (more than 100 in my example), you get a good result, but with less images you can see separate images lying on top of each other. - UV-filters can be useful for converted cameras, but that's a speciality topic - grads and colorfilters are still useless to me. And then there are closeup lenses. I do have achromatic closeup lenses made by Marumi, and I use them with all of my tele lenses. I bought them in 55 mm filter size, but since you need to stop down anyway for macro photography, they are fine even on my 100-400. (from f/8, there is no vignetting anymore, which is logical considering 400 mm divided by 8 is 50 mm) Therefore, I just adapt them. If your question is just about the maximum filter size for fuji lenses: So far it's 77 mm. The rumored upcoming 8-16 f/2.8 might need bigger filters, but it also might not be compatible with screw in filters at all. Also consider that instead of different filters, you'll then have different adapter rings, taking up the same amount of space in your bag (they'll all be 77 mm in diameter, while separate filters might be smaller). They might be cheaper, but they are also prone to introducing vignetting with wider lenses. You see, it's not easy, and there is no universal solution.

Thanks for your answer. Our systems are up to date, and we are in contact with AMD to solve the problems (although it doesn't look good). At this point I should add that a lot of software is written for intel architecture, so it's not completely "AMD's fault". Anandtech's benchmark report shows that - computational power for money - AMD seems to do good (which makes me happy, in a way), and that's a sector I honestly didn't have on my mind. But sadly they didn't include i7 or XEON processors, which is the sector I'm interested in (maximum raw power). Anyway, I don't want to derail the thread too much or confuse the OP. I think that both CPU manufacturers can probably offer the base for a system that is more than enough for image processing. But I stick with my advice for a used workstation, and I, personally, would wait for the second generation of threadripper to build an AMD system. I have high hopes that they will overcome their theething problems until then

Why are Ryzen better for content creation than Intel's Core i processors? I'm asking because we have several high-end workstations here for simulation purposes, and we do have some Ryzen 7 1800X. While Passmark (~15400 points) says they should be faster than most of our Intel based systems (e.g. Core i7-6800k ~13800 points), tests have shown that they need even more time to solve the same problem than our 'slower' Core i7-6700 (~9900 points). And they absolutely don't stand a chance against the Xeons. This might be the fault of the mainboards we use, but here is the next problem with the Ryzen system: a very limited choice concerning mainboards. I want AMD to succeed and become a big player again, and I still have my trusty Thunderbird at home (still running @80°C when I boot it), but sadly this was their last competitive CPU in my eyes. To the OP: If your use case is just photo and video editing, without gaming involved, you can get yourself a used Xeon based workstation from HP or Dell easily within your budget. They usually have a Xeon E3 (comparable to high end i7) or E5 (>i7), 16 GB RAM or more, professional graphics cards (nvidia quadro or amd firepro), and if you need to upgrade it with an SSD you have more than enough budget left.