quincy

No, thank you for taking the time to measure it and for making the list better!

First you should think about why you want a new lens, what you would use it for, and why you can't do it with those you already have. When you found answers to those questions and you come to the conclusion that you need a new lens it's usually pretty easy to find the right one, especially in the Fuji system. Until then I recommend the 100-400, it's a great lens and will expand your spectrum. About XF 23 F1.4 R vs. X100T: see Zack Arias' blog post about Fuji lenses, somewhere in the lower part of the posting. It's mainly about having a second body as backup, or for whatever reason.

That's a great one, I like that a lot! Did you crop it down to 1200x800 or is it resized?

I've been to London lately. If you want to take all the usual tourist shots around the Thames (City, Tower, Southwark, Lambeth and Westminster), I'd recommend to take at least the widest wide-angle lens you have. I took my Samyang 12/2, the XF 27/2.8 and the XF55-200. The 12mm was definitely my most used lens, followed by the 27mm for buildings that were further away or when I wanted details. I used the long zoom mainly for squirrels and birds in the parks, once when two apache helicopters flew low over the Thames and a few times to compress stuff, like making the london eye big in the background while shooting through st. james' park, and such. Next time, I'd leave the long lens at home. Now, back home, I wish I would have had the XF 10-24/4. That would have been the only lens I needed, and it would have made switching lenses unnecessary. About the 35 for interior shots: Taking pictures was prohibited in almost every church I was in. I think my only church interior shots from the whole trip are from the Abbey Church of Saint Peter and Saint Paul in Bath (which is gorgeous, by the way). However, even if you find a church where you can take pictures, you wouldn't want to take them at f/1.4, because everything except what you focused on would get blurry, and I think you wouldn't want to take them with a 35mm lens, because of the narrow field of view. About the 35 for portraits: When you're in London and want to do portraiture, why would you choose a wide aperture? If you want to blur the hell out of the background, no one will ever know that it was taken in London. About the 35 for night shots: Better take a tripod and do long exposures (or put the camera on one of the many ledges and rails around the city). There's lots of colorful light in the skyline and the buildings close to the Thames. Depth of field is your friend in landscape and cityscape. tl;dr I'd recommend the 10-24/4. If you only have the lenses you listed in the OP, I'd take the 14 and the 27 and have a nice, lightweight kit for a relaxed trip.

Yes, and 1:8 makes much more sense than 1:2.

You're welcome! And I'm always open for constructive critique and suggestions.

To calculate the magnification, you compare the size of the real object with the size of the image on the sensor (which, in our case, is of course the size of the sensor itself). So, to calculate the magnification of the lens, ideally I need the total number of squares you can get on the image on the long edge. Then, by dividing the lenght of the object in real life (e.g. 19 squares + 2/5th of a square -> 97 mm) by the lenght of the sensor (23,4 mm), you get the magnification (in this case about 1:4). But I can back-calculate from your informations. The back lcd is about 70 mm wide, the screen should be about 1248*832, so if your Square was 3,2 cm wide, that would be about 570 pixels. The total resolution of the sensor is 4896*3264, that means you'd get 8,6 squares onto the whole image. -> 43mm -> magnification of about 1:2.

I think $293 is fair for a whole new board and that rubber stuff, if the camera was already out of warranty. After my latest longer photography trip I've finally decided to send my camera to Fujifilm, too. I also want new rubber parts, a sensor cleaning and I've told them about the bigger lenses losing electronic contact sometimes when zooming. I'm curious what my bill will look like. Perhaps I'll get the 'mount assembly' you were promised.

The Modula Optical CM33 might have been your dream lens if it hadn't been cancelled. The prototypes were quite short and small. But then again, I think it was supposed to be very expensive. I've added the new informations (12 blades, prices...). I thought I had linked to a comparison between several wide angle lenses on the lonelyspeck page, but I can't find that anymore, so I've just deleted the link to petapixel. It would help me if you could set the zonlai 35 to it's closest focus distance and hold the camera in front of something with a scale on it (a ruler, or a piece of grid paper) at the distance where it is at it's sharpest. Having said that, in the video you made a vignetting test. Was this done at the lenses' close focus distance? And what's the distance between the lines? That would be enough. (If it's 5mm between the lines, the magnification would be approximately 1:3.6)

Great contribution, Thank You! I've added your video review to the list, and added some data to the stats-list that I got from your video (12 aperture blades, 0.3 m close focus distance). Do you know if the 25 mm also has 12 aperture blades? And do you know the maximum magnification of the 35 mm? You mentioned and showed severe focus breathing, which is always my reason not to simply calculate the magnification.

Thanks! They also have a 50/2 that looks almost exactly like the Kaxinda 50/2.4. I guess I'll merge those two.

Yep. If I set my Camera to AF-C and Zone-AF 3x5 (although different lens, 100-400) and try to shoot a sitting water frog, when half-pressing the shutter, the image shown in the EVF is out of focus constantly. But all the images taken, either in CL or CH, have something sharp in them where the focus zone was. And usually, it's the frogs face.

It's pretty hard to tell other people what to buy, but there are several reasons why I would prefer the X-Pro2 with the 55-200 in your case. - you said you want to film. I wouldn't use a Fujifilm camera, but if I had to, I'd take the X-Pro2 at the moment. - The X-Pro2 offers better low light performance and might just compensate the 1.5 stops of difference between the two lenses at the long end, which also gives you more depth of field and therefore more leeway for slight misfocusing. - The 55-200 has much more reach. (You could, of course, get the 1.4x teleconverter for the 50-140) - The X-Pro2 has more resolution, so you can crop easier, giving you even more reach. - X-Pro2 + 55-200 weights a lot less than X-E2 + 50-140. - Both combinations won't be weather sealed, so it makes no difference. - I have had good experience with the 55-200 in low light. It's not a fast focusing lens, but it doesn't get worse in dimly lit environment. Pre-focusing on something static close to the subject helps the lens a lot. If it doesn't have to move far it is quick, and my sample is very accurate. Usually, when it get's too dark to focus, the images are ugly anyway, due to high ISO and all the noise creeping in.

That's why I said that it is probably a tolerance problem. Some of the slot holes on the lenses (where the locking pin snaps in) are wider, some are narrower. The variation seems to be worse with Samyang, otherwise your's wouldn't be tight while mine is loose. But even the Fujinon lens mount parts seem to vary, as my four lenses are all different.

That's a tolerance-thing. The slot holes in the Samyang lenses seem to be a bit wider than Fujinon's. But even with Fujinon lenses, there are differences. With the XF27 and the XF18-55, I have almost no play, just a tiny amount that seems to come from the play the locking pin has in the camera sided mount. The XF55-200 moves a bit more, but it's acceptable. The XF100-400 however moves so far that it can temporarily lose the electrical connection. My 12/2 moves very noticeable, worst of all my lenses. But there are no electrical contacts, so I don't care. A little rotational movement around the lense's optical axis should have no influence on the image.

Can I have something to stick my Fuji inside that looks like a Hasselblad and adds the missing weight? Would be cool if it also removes all the additional functionality.

I have both, and that's how I use mine. The 55-200 is also great for travel. Just wanted to give you food for thought.

Yeah, lenses we don't already have from Fujifilm. As you said, 85/1.4, 135/2 and maybe the 100/2.8. But I'd like a revised optical design for the 85, the images I've seen were very soft compared to Fuji lenses. Maybe even pushing the focal lenght to 90. The wide-angles (8/2.8 fish & 12/2) don't really need AF. There's just one problem: I remember some years ago, Sony released all mechanical and electrical specifications of the E-mount for free. As far as I know, Fujifilm never did that with the X-mount. However, I hope you are right. Diversity and competition were always good for the customers.

Are you sure you need both, 55-200 and 100-400?

Or maybe a full frame tilt shift and a speedbooster / lens turbo adapter?

Can you provide some EXIF data for the two images? The second one looks exactly like the results I get when panning with the electronic shutter.

Very high shutter speed maybe? Ball moving upwards, very narrow shutter slit moving downwards, ball gets compressed. maybe. Very high shutter speeds are like line-scanning where the whole frame overall is still captured at the flash-sync speed (close to 1/250th of a second with older Fujifilm cameras, 1/250th of a second with the X-Pro 2). There are two ways of getting rid of it: Using a camera with a leaf shutter (X100 series, for example), or a highspeed flash. /edit: or using a slower shutter speed and accepting some motion blur.

The 8mm f/2.8 lenses (both I and II) are made for APS-C sensors in mirrorless camera bodies, see here. I don't know what the difference between the 8mm f/2.8 I and II is, but I don't think it has to do with larger sensors. P.S.: Ian Norman from Lonelyspeck says v2 is a little bit bigger but sharper in the corners: http://www.lonelyspeck.com/rokinon-8mm-f2-8-umc-fisheye-ii-review/ (it's down in the comments somewhere). And you should probably be careful, while searching for differences between v1 and v2 I found a lot of messages about decentered samples and issues where center and corners could not be focused at infinity at the same time.

Sorry for the late response. I've added the Jackar Snapshooter to the list&chart. It's getting very crowded in the relatively-slow-aperture-normal-focal-lenght lens range. I'm not sure about the Fujian CCTV lens. http://www.lensporn.net/2011/12/review-fujian-35mm-f17-c-mount-cctv.html Might be, but the C-mount version can be bought for about $35, which would make the Jackar look very expensive in comparison.

I shouldn't mess around with my postings when I'm tired. Thank You again for helping! Now it's in the right place. I think Pentax calls their lenses "SMC" since the 70's