cug

Tenba has great inserts.

Don't know how it would be possible to have a front-focusing lens if the focus is determined right on the sensor. Concentrating on the classic focal lengths for certain scenarios makes it easier for users to transition to the Fuji system or between systems. A system that has mostly non-comparable focal lengths won't attract as much attention as it is hard to compare. And without comparison there is no classification in usability for a certain task compared to existing tools. Thinking outside the box is great but that generally works mostly once you established a baseline. I fully expect Fuji to expand the lens line more and more into areas where they aren't represented yet as well as re-visiting lenses that have been working great when the system launched but needed to be reworked to go along with modern development. For example, the slow AF that was often criticized with the X-Pro1 was not just the camera, it was also the XF35 and XF60 lenses that have such slow focusing engines that they make even a camera with a fast AF system feel slower than necessary. That will hurt the sales of new cameras with improved focusing systems. A hypothetical X-Pro2 that comes out and uses the current XF35 as the "standard lens" will be held back in focusing speed and therefore beaten over the head in reviews.

If portability is the main thing, I'd go for a table top tripod. But that's just me, I have a solid but certainly not small Gitzo (which I personally find still very portable as long as I use a daypack/backpack and not a shoulder bag) and a tiny but super portable table top tripod. Something in the middle just wouldn't do it for me. The question is, what do you want to do with it? I found that the tiny tripod was a bit weird in the beginning, but then got me into all kinds of really cool perspectives which I hadn't tried before. Lots of fun and super useful. Otherwise, the Mefoto Backpacker feels fairly okay for what it is. I had one, wasn't my thing though, it wasn't that much lighter than my carbon fiber Gitzo is now, just smaller and a lot less stable.

Oh, sorry, yes. I have it in the signature on other forums: https://www.flickr.com/photos/cug I just remembered that I took down most of my old shots from San Francisco a while ago, so here's a good link to get started: https://www.flickr.com/search/?q=San%20Francisco Let me know if you can't figure out from where photos are taken that you really like, maybe I can help. Not guaranteed, I don't live in SF, but I know it at least a little bit ...

I'm in the South Bay, so "close enough". I've never really experienced San Francisco as a tourist, but some things are definitely worth it: Twin Peaks if the weather is okay, light is best in the afternoon with the sun behind you when you look towards the city, but there is very often fog or low cloud cover during that time as well. Marine Headlands are great, as is Sausalito. Renting a bicycle and getting around or using cabs (expensive) is a really good way as a car will most likely just get you stuck in traffic instead of seeing something. Palace of Fine Arts is worth a visit, very nice night shooting opportunities there and near the Bay Bridge on Embarcadero. Lands End, Fort Point, The Presidio, Mason Street near Grissy Field gives nice views towards the Golden Gate Bridge, as does Marine Headlands - just from the other side of the Bay. Treasure Island has incredible views towards the city. I found Alcatraz worth going, but only if you really have enough time on your hands. There is so much to see in SF, it's hard to pinpoint just a few places. A lot of the shots on my Flickr page are from San Francisco, just walking around in areas and taking photos. Maybe go on Flickr, search for San Francisco and take a look at the photos you like and where the locations are. Google Maps is also a great resource for finding good photography places in a new city.

It's a really good question. If your goal is travel documentary, I'd say the 16-55 or 18-55 are nice tools for that. There are so many people with huge cameras running around in SF, you wouldn't get a second glance with the 16-55 in the touristy areas, just don't point it at people. The 18-55 is probably even better due to being lighter weight, and you're not getting that much out of the additional 2mm in SF unless you go for wide angle effect, which I assume if you wanted THAT you'd rather use the 14 to get the effect exaggerated. Now, I'd definitely not take the 56, that's a specialty lens, I only carry it as I don't carry a zoom that covers that focal length from either f2.8 or f4 on. Meaning I don't carry it around for the speed but reach over 35 or 23 or so. I need faster mainly in very specific scenarios that rarely ever happen for me during travels. Personally, as I don't do travel documentary style anymore but go more for a "street photography" or "considered creative shot" style, I'd probably just take the 14 and 35 for San Francisco, or because I own it, just the 23 and be done with it. In Yosemite I like having some reach, so the 50-140 is probably a good thing to have there, depending on how you take pictures and which areas are still open (winter is coming, I haven't checked whether it hit Yosemite yet). So, I wouldn't buy another lens for SF if I was in your situation.

I'm not a zoom person, so, if you can live with two different X bodies, I'd use: XF14 (wide and small) OR XF16 (a bit more user friendly focal length but large), X100 series for 23mm + TCL for 50mm equivalent, and XF56 (very fast and great for indoors) OR XF90 (slightly less fast, larger, great for outdoors or large and very bright indoor locations). That being said, lenses and use is a very personal thing, I like to use a single body only when I'm out shooting and are not in a hurry. That means I use combinations like X100T + TCL in the bag (the WCL isn't worth it for me) or X-T1 with 23 mounted and XF56 in the bag. Or X-T1 with just the XF35 mounted and nothing else. Or ... you name it. Endless combinations, but again, I never carry more than two lenses unless I'm on a longer vacation, then it's three.

Beautiful shots. I could bet that I had a TV just like the one in the last picture at some point a long time ago ... ;-)

Any lens can shoot portraits while traveling. It's you who needs to decide what perspective, framing and look you want. There are people taking environmental portraits with the 14mm and others who insist that nothing below the 50-140 at the long end at f/2.8 works for portraits ... or that it has to be the 56 APD. But that's plain untrue. It depends on how you take portraits, what you mean by portrait and what the look you want to achieve is.

I'm not specifically recommending these lenses but something LIKE these might be a cheap way of getting into macro and figuring out whether it's something you want to invest more in. I haven't used the Rokkor macro lenses, but the other Rokkor lenses I owned were great. Personally I use the Zeiss and love the lens. Just using it VERY rarely and thinking of selling it because of that.

Something like these: https://www.keh.com/238337/minolta-100mm-f-3-5-macro-rokkor-x-md-mount-manual-focus-lens-55 https://www.keh.com/238342/minolta-100mm-f-4-macro-md-mount-manual-focus-lens-55 might give you an idea. Critters need some focal length. Plan on a good tripod as well!

As macro often needs manual focussing anyways, some old adapted macro lenses are great options. There are some fairly cheap ones out there, the more usable ones (mostly the longer focal lengths) are quite expensive though. Still an option to think about. The next option is the Zeiss Touit 50mm lens - an incredibly good macro lens. The main downside is the short focal length, so you need to get SUPER close, nearly touching the object with the lens hood to get to 1:1 magnification. Might not be a problem depending on what you want to do with it, but for critters that isn't great. I have the Touit and it's a wonderful lens. It's by far the sharpest lens I have for the X-Mount, at 2.8 (wide open for it) it's already sharper than for example the 56 gets at any aperture plus it's really really good across the frame unlike most of the Fuji lenses. Can't compare it to the 90mm which is supposedly incredibly sharp in the center. Fuji also has a 120mm OIS macro lens on the roadmap for some time next year. I wouldn't expect it come before fall though. Still excited about it and I will likely get that one. I do not own the XF60, but from all I've heard it's a great lens. The next option are the close focus adapters from Fuji - around a hundred bucks for distance rings between lens and body to be able to get closer. That together with a 56 or 90 might be a nice and flexible option as well. I'm planning on getting the 16mm ring to use with the 56 when I only carry a two lens kit (something + the 56). I've read though, that the close focus ring does not work too well with the XF60. My advise would be to look out for an adapted lens, Minolta Rokkor, Canon FD, old Nikon glass ... in the 100mm range and use it with an adapter. I wouldn't spend more than $200 on such a lens though and prices are going through the roof as the mirrorless systems have given new life to the old lenses.

We'll see.

The size difference between the 35 and the 23 is very significant, especially when you account for a hood (I use a smaller than OEM hood on the 23, but it's still a large and heavy lens). I also don't like the 23mm perspective too much, but that is personal. I find it not very suited for "portrait". It's okay for "from the hip up" shots, great for full (or mostly full) body and in my personal opinion useless for head shots - but again, that's opinion. Some people like large noses. So, it depends on how closely you want to frame someone in a "portrait". From a versatility perspective the 23 and the 35 are about the same in my opinion. What you gain in wider shots, you loose with perspective distortion and less bokeh when you try to frame tighter. Both are very useable focal lengths and giving a recommendation for one or the other will pretty much only be based on personal taste of the person recommending, so you should ignore it right away. Do this: Go through the photos you have shot with the 18-55 and check which focal lengths you have used most. I know that zooms tend to be used mostly at the extremes, but still, give it a try - is it more in the low twenties or more in the mid thirties (if it is not right at 18 or 55 - which should give you a hint as well)? That could give you an idea of what focal length you prefer. Otherwise, set the zoom to 23, use some electrical tape to tape the position down and go out and shoot for a day. Repeat on the next day with 35mm. Ignore the differences the aperture makes, just concentrate on the framing. Which one did you like better. If you buy a prime - you should buy YOUR preferred focal length first. The next thing: go to a store and handle both lenses. The 23 is larger and heavier and has the manual zoom clutch (makes it only more cumbersome to use in my opinion, some people love it though) and the 35 isn't quite as solid feeling. Put both on your camera body and feel how they handle. Remember to put the lens hood on. THEN make your decision.

I don't think the reason has anything to do with rangefinder style, it has to do with where the metal lugs sit on the camera. The cuff needs a lug on the right side of the camera that sits very high. Otherwise it won't be very comfortable. Most DSLRs have that and there it works fine. I use Peak Design Cuff and Leash (depending on mood) on my X100T, works well.

I love my 35 and 56. The 23 is just too frigging large for my taste and for what it is (I have that as well, but rarely use it).

It doesn't seem to be for the high end. I've read multiple reports from people of the X-T1 working in weird ways or not at all by exceeding the high temps just by a little bit. Don't know about the low. Biggest issue is the battery. Compromises. I did this all the time, but granted, on WR bodies. I'd definitely keep the batteries warm. The rest is much less likely to have issues from cold than from heat.

Okay. Pre-ordered. Will see how I like it in comparison to the current XF35. Unfortunately, it shows a release date of 12/31. Darn, could have used it for the vacation trip to Mexico over New Years ...

I don't use the XF56 when walking around, it's my dedicated portrait/people lens. I was trying to get into the 23mm focal length, but I like neither the cheapo feeling of the X100T nor the huge size and weight of the XF23. So, currently Fuji has nothing in that focal length that really excites me. My most used lenses are the 35 (about 40% of my photos), then the 14 (about another 20%), then the 56 and the 27 with both around 10% and the rest is roughly equally distributed over 23, 18-55, Zeiss 50mm Macro and a manual 90mm M lens. If I were doing a wedding or an event (which I'm not, I'm not good enough for that, I have done events a long time ago, but I'm not really interested in that anymore), I'd put the 23 and 56 on two X-T1 bodies, stuff about a dozen extra batteries somewhere and start shooting.

Here. About 10x more with the 56. I can deal with the size when I have the specialized requirement for the XF56, but I hate the size of the 23 for an always on lens, therefore I use either the 27 or the 35 instead and deal with the different FoV. Or I use the X100T, but that is fairly rare as well. Don't like it all too much.

One thing to note is the Fuji specifies the operating temp range as 0 – 40°C (+32°F – +104°F) and there have been reports that at least the X-T1 doesn't like it even a little bit above 40. It's still a lot easier to keep a camera warm in a cold environment than the other way around. Given that and the general rather less impressive quality record I have with my Fuji cameras, I'd expect some issues, but still wouldn't worry too much about it, just pack it under the jacket when carrying it around.

You already know that the f/1.4 outperforms it? How do you know? You have a copy already? If not, why are you saying the current one outperforms it? The current XF35, even while being my favorite ever lens, has some very clear shortcomings, mainly corner and edge performance at pretty much any aperture. The corners all the way up to f/5.6 are actually pretty crappy in terms of resolution, not reaching more than 60% of the center performance. That's not great for some street or landscape photography. Doesn't matter if you use it for portraits only though. When you look at the performance of more recent XF lenses you probably see where Fuji is going: much more consistency across the whole frame and at a wider aperture range. Until the lens is out, measured and compared, saying one outperforms the other is just plain ridiculous (to use the politest phrase I could find for this).

That was a lot easier when lenses had gaps you could finger through to get dust out and you replaced the sensor with every photo. Modern technology is much more fragile.

That's pretty much my experience as well: tracking is so-so, for a mirrorless it's not too bad, but it can't really compare even to my old 40D or 50D, and with the incredible lag you get through viewfinder blackout and not seeing the actual real time image during continuous shooting, close up and erratic movements are nearly impossible to frame. Also the AF is plain unreliable and goes into a complete block from time to time, taking forever to recover. Overall, the Fujis are still not there in terms of hardware reliability, add then all the weird shit the camera does or does differently or things that don't make sense or ... it's just not a system I would want to use under stressful, fast paced conditions. Sure I get some shots, but I get probably ten times more usable shots from an old Canon DSLR. That's the point. Therefore my point is: as much as the Fuji are theoretically superior in concept (no front/back focus issues), that doesn't help until it becomes an actual day to day advantage. You just have to read the various forums - there is a continuous stream of people coming in asking whether they are doing something wrong because they can't get the darn things to auto focus properly, but the real hit are the answers then: - "use zone focus" - "pre-focus to the right distance" - "anticipate the moment" - "learn how the camera works, slow down and take deliberate shots" That's pretty all a bunch of BS instead of just saying: "Hey, you got a camera that doesn't focus the way you expected. Either get used to it or get something else." Might sound harsh, but it's the bitter truth. And for most people it's also the right advise: they'll get used to it and find their way OR they are so pissed that they switch to something else (or go back).

Twice in the service for the X-T1, twice for the X-E2, owned X-T1 less than a year, X-E2 since it came out. Owned 40D (three of them) since 2008 now and none of them has been in the shop even once. 50D is too new (to me) and therefore doesn't count but I expect the same. Every service also was 4 to 6 weeks where the camera was gone without much information from Fuji service about what was going on.