Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Posts posted by cug

  1. To a degree. The differences between most lenses are small. People like to quote the 35/1.4 vs. the 35/2, but the difference between these two lenses on a current body is basically irrelevant. You'd have to compare something like the 60mm or so to a more modern lens. Or a lens that has to move massive glass like the 56.

    Overall, unless you compare lenses that are hardly comparable, there are other attributes that are much more important. Like noise when focusing in video recording or general image rendering. 

    Regarding hunting: it still depends mostly on the body and the algorithms. Especially in video this can be annoying even with the fastest lenses and the fastest bodies. And depending on what you do or which settings you chose, all of them will have their distinctive issues.

  2. On 1/11/2019 at 4:51 AM, sachafilms said:

    Focus hunting, or its lack of, depends on the lens you are using. 

    Hunting happens when the body does not find focus. The lens has nothing to do with hunting as long as it can provide enough contrast/sharpness in the given light. A 1.4 lens can be better focusing in low light than a slower lens given that it allows more light in.

    As newer bodies have shown, hunting is created by the body telling the lens to move back and forth when it goes into contrast detect mode. The lens only ever does what the body tells it to do. So the above quote is technically completely wrong.

  3. Nope. No such thing as it just isn't possible to "create" light ... A speedbooster takes ALL the collected light from a larger imaging lens and focuses it on a smaller image circle of a crop sensor. Since XF lenses already project to an APS-C circle, you can't "bundle" more light onto it as the lens doesn't provide more. Plus there are a myriad of other issues with what you're asking like flange distance, focus, protruding rear lens elements and the like.

    What you are asking is physically not possible. You'll have to buy the faster lens to get more light to the sensor. No way around it.

  4. Please, don't take this the wrong way, it just pains me a little bit: it's "JPEG" (Joint Photographic Experts Group) and "joystick". 

    I kind of agree on the JPEGs, the newer models have of course larger file sizes due to 24 megapixel vs. the older 16MP, but I'm also under the impression that the JPEG compression ratio is slightly lower and therefore retains a bit more detail, especially in soft transitions, like sky or dark shadows. I find the 24MP JPEGs also easier to work with in Lightroom as long as I don't try to make significant color adjustments. Exposure, shadows and highlights, contrast, detail etc. works pretty well.

    Update: oh, and welcome, just saw it's your first post here. 😉

  5. Choice for me would be between 18 and 23 – if you like wider, then 18, if you like slightly narrower, 23. The 18 is a great lens, maybe not as sharp or contrasty as the newer Fuji lenses, but super sweet rendering, especially out of focus areas. 

    Check this: https://www.flickr.com/search/?text=XF18mmF2 R

    The 7Artisan 35/1.2 is a nice lens, tiny and therefore handling is a bit awkward. I sold mine again, it just didn't get me much over the 35/1.4. I don't know the other 7Artisan lenses, so can't speak for these. I had the 23/2 and sold it again. Nice size, but it's a bit wider than I'd like for a 23 (it's more like 21) and the OoF rendering just isn't what I came to expect having the 23/1.4 – even at f/2 the larger, faster lens is just so much nicer rendering (to my eye).

    I would not pick the Samyang for your use case, it's just too wide and slow, although it could be fun. I'm using the XF14 for fun shots of people, but they are rather rare. 

    My recommendation for what you describe is the XF1 18mm f/2, that's partly because I feel you'd want a greater distance from the XF 35mm and partly because I really like the 18.

  6. The problem with that little add-on flash (EF-X8) is that it's never there when you need it because nobody really leaves it on the camera all the time. Plus you can't bounce it. The only upside (pun intended) is that it's further up. I used the X-E2 flash often to optically trigger other flashes or bounce it off the ceiling or wall for just that little extra kick of illumination. 

    Regarding EVF – it might not be a problem for you. I can tell you that the EVF is not fully visible with normal glasses on. So, if that doesn't bother you, fine. Other than that the EVF is okay. But for me, this detail makes it pretty crappy experience.

    The sensor is the same size, different megapixel count. I can't tell the difference whether any of the prints I have (up to 30x40 inches) is from a 12, 16 or 24MP camera. That makes the resolution difference irrelevant. The only camera that I can reliably point out in the prints is the A7R III.

  7. 2 hours ago, Dwain said:

    I've also read that the 35 f1.4 has a tendency to hunt when focusing even when mounted on the X-T2.

    "Hunting" is a matter of the camera telling the lens what to do to achieve a contrast AF. A lens by itself does not hunt. Overall, there is a lot of stuff written about everything in photography equipment and a lot of it is "quite interesting". I started to trust mostly my own impressions and very few other folks. 

    The best is of course if you tested it for yourself, but that's not feasible for everything. 


    I guess it just comes down to personal preference, shooting styles and whether you really need that extra stop.

    Of course it does. 

    The f/2 lenses are perfect for a lot of situations and or a lot of situations. But the differences are measurable and very obvious when you compare results directly. I've done so when I had all these lenses here:

    • XF 35mm f/1.4 and f/2
    • XF 23mm f/1.4 and f/2
    • XF 50mm f/2 and XF 56mm f/1.2

    I kept the two f/1.4 lenses as well as the 56mm because I often want maximum separation between subject and background/foreground. While I would appreciate the size/weight advantage of the 23 and 50, it's not worth the quality trade-off for me as I also own an X100F.

    So, the best is when you try to figure out what lens properties are important to you and go from there. For me it's small depth of field when needed and the highest possible image quality when stopped down in addition to rendering I like more. But that's me, your conclusions might be different.

  8. 23 hours ago, steviewonder said:

    While many folks talk about the magic of the f/1.4 lenses, they both (23 and 35) need an update. They are heavier, slower to focus and more expensive than the f/2.0 lenses. If you stop them down a bit, there is no discernible difference in IQ between the f/1.4 and f/2.0 lenses.

    I don't agree with this. The 35/2 is not optically corrected. Near focus correction is absolutely abysmal. From a bit further out it's better, but not as good as the 35/1.4. The bokeh is pretty good, but you have to keep a certain distance to your subject. The corners and center contrast have different qualities between the two 35 lenses, none of them is really better, but from f/2.8 on the 35/1.4 actually gets better while the 35/2 will not really clean up in the corners. 

    The 23/2 is better, but it's more on the 21mm end than on the 23, which isn't much of a problem. Bokeh is not nearly as pleasant as with the 23/1.4, but CA seem a bit better controlled. Even at f/2 the background blur on the 23/1.4 is visibly better, not even talking about how nice it is at f/1.4. When stopping both lenses down, the 23/2, just like the 35/2 again doesn't clean up in sharpness in the extreme corners, although mid-field and edges do get quite good. 

    Overall, the benefits of the f/2 lenses are:

    • Slightly smaller for the 35, significantly smaller for the 23
    • Less weight, irrelevant for the 35, significant for the 23
    • Weather sealing
    • Slightly faster focus in good light

    The downsides are:

    • A full stop slower
    • Earlier to force the camera into contrast detect AF due to half the hitting the sensor
    • Not properly optically corrected in case of the 35
    • Not as good optically in both cases (at least with the various samples I tested)

    I'd not use either of the f/2 lenses if corner sharpness is a concern, which it is for me. They are great street lenses, but I sold both of them and kept the, in my personal opinion, significantly better 1.4 optics.

    Now, for the 50/2 the story gets interesting. It has great bokeh, is decently corrected, very sharp, pleasing rendering – I'd keep that one over the 56/1.2 if f/1.2 is not required. Image quality across the frame on the 50/2 at f/2 is actually better than the 56/1.2 which only cleans up by f/4, but resolution wise never gets as good as the 50. 

    Oh, and I own(ed) all of them and tested multiple samples for each (during an extensive testing session with likeminded folks at the office).

  9. I'm just paying the subscription. For a reasonable price I get Lightroom as well as Photoshop, can use it on two machines, it works great as long as I take care of the various intricacies of x-trans and I get consistent results with my other cameras (Canon) when using Masten Labs film simulations. 

    So, while I'm not really that happy with subscription models, I understand that software companies need to make a living as well and therefore pay for what I'm getting. 

  10. The rendering of the X100 lens is a little smoother than the 27/2.8, partly because it's a f/2 lens, but it's also just not as clinically precise. The 27/2.8 is one of the very sharp Fuji lenses, it's sharp and precise across the frame, so the rendering might seem a bit different from the less flawless 23 in the X100. 

    I do have both and I like both for different reason. The X100F for the package, the XF27 for the flexibility with bodies and other lenses.

  11. None of them.


    You're either a guest or the photographer. If you're a guest, go and have fun with or without whatever you like and tell the bride, you're not "the" photographer. If you're the only photographer, why are you asking here? You should be a paid pro and know what to do.


    This is just putting a friendship at risk if there are any expectations from her side.

  • Create New...