sidelocke

I've always been a zoom shooter but I have to say the Fuji primes are amazing.  With that having been said I do own the 18-55 (never leave home without it) and the 55-200 (almost never leave home with out it)  In order not to be redundant, in my signature block below you can see what other Fooj lenses I own.  Anyway, I considered the 16-55 2.8, and I also considered the 10-24 F4 but in the end they were too large, and too heavy for me.  After shooting for years with Nikon gear, and carrying around the Nikon trinity of lenses and some medium format gear, my personal choice was go stay light.  and that is a promise I made to myself and one I intend on keeping.  So far, it has worked out tremendously for me!!!!  I am having more fun than ever!  My images are more fluid.  Yes, I gather a ton more dust and dirt but who cares?  Nothing a good Giotto blower, or a wet cleaning can't take care of!  And knock on wood, I've yet to drop a lens so I'm not going to worry about that.  Though, with that being said on a destination wedding I shot in San Juan Puerto Rico I did manage to drop not once, but twice my D700 with the Nikon 24-70 F2.8;  Once inside the El Morro Fort on solid concrete (camera and lens still worked fine but destroyed my grip) and the second time, the next morning, shooting the "trash the dress" on the beach in wet sand (camera still worked fine).  That just happened to be the last wedding I photographed, destination or local.  Two days, 19.5 hours, heat, humidity.  Done.  Retired. Been doing weddings since the mid-eighties and I literally and figuratively retired.  Now I just shoot stock for travel and magazines/books.  Anyway, I like to keep it light now.  My two cents my friend.  Good luck on your decision.

Actually 56 1.2 on APS-C is like 85 1.8 Full Frame in terms of DOF, not 1.4.   So using 56 1.2 at 1.2 give me same DOF as using Nikon 85 1.8 on my D800.  

Few words about "magic" F0.95 number.
 
Usually when photographers see that on the first time, they say (or think) "Wow! F0.95".
Yes, there are old film lens like Canon 50mm f0.95, which are massive and huge lens with extremely narrow DOF wide open.
But it's not something unusual in terms of APS-C or m4/3 frame coverage.
 
I'm ex-Nikon shooter, and often used quite popular lens like 50mm 1.4 and 85mm 1.4. With that lens + autofocus the narrow DOF on F1.4 is very usable for portraits.
 
With Fuji system, its nice and lovely XF 56mm 1.2 replaces Nikkor 85mm 1.4 it terms of DOF. And using 1.2 there is almost the same.
F0.95 35mm is just corresponding equivalent of Nikkor 50mm 1.4
 
So the main reason for me to try ZSM 35mm 0.95 - getting similar results I had with Nikon. From that perspective this "magic" 0.95 number is just regular F1.4 I got used to.
 
 

I have no idea why people are so focused on the 10-24 weight.  Lets keep it in perspective here, its only 5 grams more than the XF56 prime.
If you can carry around a XF56 on the front of your camera and not blink, surely you can carry something that is 5 grams more.  No?

What setting did you have the IS set to? I found I had issues mostly with the IS in the past when set to continuous. When I turn it to shooting only, images seems to be way sharper. When set to continuous I found the photos to appear soft or slightly out of focus or blurred. This it true with the other lenses such as the 55-200mm as well.

Very interesting.
 
I was discussing this yesterday with a friend of mine.
 
I too like Aperture which is one of the main reasons for me not to upgrade to El Capitan which would erase Aperture ( and doesn’t even inform you of that before you do it as it previously happened with Yosemite which is incompatible with Acrobat and erased it)  but I have seen tests where there seems to be a definite advantage over even the latest version of LR.
 
However Iridient Developer and Capture one pro() seem to have an edge over Aperture.
 
Bu then again how far does one want to go?
 
Sometimes it seems to me that at some point the only macroscopic difference is the microscopig visibility of thin hairs being split in eight parts lengthwise by us debating things like this.
 
 I understand that these matters are, of course, of the outmost importance in the long and dark winter nights spent in front of the computer screen processing pictures.
 
I remember many years  ago when I lived in London I went to see a nice exhibition of original prints ( made by the great alchemist of the darkroom Pierre Gassman ) of the work of Henri Cartier Bresson.
 
The pictures were, as always, stunning as images but not at all all that sharp as one would have thought or supposed. I couldn’t help thinking to the multitudes who, at the times, debated the best camera, the best lens, the best developer and the best paper process ( which I am sure HCB and Gassman used) and secretly ( because if you said this openly they would flame you) chuckle.

I have just tested Iridient Developer vs Lightroom and Capture One Pro and I must say that the result from iridient is amazing. It is sharper, cleaner and overall better than both. I am declaring my opinion because before I have tried this I was really curious about the results. I hope they can stand against the giants like Adobe. Having said that I will go ahead and buy it to support them.

I'm using my 18mm a lot these days, and enjoying it. People say it's not sharp in the corners. I've not been bothered to check whether that's true or not. Besides, if people are looking at the sharpness of your corners rather than at your subject, you're doing something wrong as a photographer.
 
Some pictures from a trip to Ghana




 
 
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

I totally agree with you, my 18/2 is shart from corner to corner when wide open - just use RAW in the proper converter, without distortion correction. So it's amazing lens for the price - and yes, it has very pretty, soft bokeh. 
And one more profit - it's cool for family selfie with a camera in hand 
 

As a someone who owns (and uses) a lot of old lenses, I see his points. I agree with the the author for certain types of photography, but sports/action, landscape, and architectural photographers have different priorities than what's presented here. Given the small, highly-compressed jpeg examples, I couldn't really see what he was talking about. There is some obvious cherry picking going on in selecting the examples - it's obvious the author isn't really moved to make or find a good photo with the modern lenses - they're just quick "example" snapshots.
 
Again - I think I agree with the author - but I don't find the article very convincing. "You simply cannot cheat the diagram." Ha. I guess that would be true if the diagram was based on numbers. But the diagrams are just impressive-looking stand-ins for actual data. The diagrams are a symptom of the inability to express the idea using words and photographs.
 
If the author reads this, please don't take my comments as disrespect. A good bit of work went into this and I respect that.