Minimax

Have it - love it! It is an absolute underrated Gem in my book. 21 mm in 35mm format is about the best wide angle focal length to have a ballance between ultra wide and „just too wide“ for me. Has always been, even back in film days. focus speed is more than adequate, absolutely nothing to complain. IQ is one of the best, only matched or surpassed by the 90mm (comparing within the lenses I own only) f2.8 is a no brainer - this is an ultra wide angle, who needs a faster f on an ultra wide angle....

Did you actually try to dial down sharpness? Maybe increase the noise filter bit (funny, I have a PRO 1 and I dial the noise reduction way down...)? I would not really play the contrast card - it does not make the files softer....in my mind. Oh well, maybe you just need to get used to it - like a new car: It accelerates so fast, but hey, I can't see the landscape anymore.... and the consumption is so low, but I love gas stations :-)

I am an old (by age and usage...) X-PRO 1 user. I know it's old, I know it's slow.... I don't care. For me it is the best camera I ever had.... Some shots to follow -let's start with something I call my Starbucks Affairs :-) Hope you like it

Good! Now calm a bit and enjoy your lens, your photos and live

Well, you did ask... So I tried to explain.

Just for the record: this discussion is useless. If it is f11 or f16 does not matter that much, since it is in any case much less than any 2.8 or 4.0 optics and that is my point. Given that I am not a "tele photographer" at all (I would better have kept my Canon system for the shier amount of teles otherwise), I repeat: its for sure a great lens in the right hands and I do not doubt its usefulness. Its just not for me. By the way: the more expensive 4.8 lens is no alternative for me, since you are right - its just one stop more.... On the other hand I am looking forward to buy a 90, and that is a far as I need.

Ok, I am NOT a phd in physics, but I work long enough in the imaging indusry to know that difraction takes its toll around f11, if we talk APS-C. Your samples show nothing to me, really. Well, apart from the obvious depth of focus change. Scientific reviews show that difraction starts to show at about f11 (see photozone for example). If they are good they also say that f11 is still perfectly usable... And there is one more thing: I dont claim to be right in a strict sense, I said it in my first post here. I just wanted to share why I - and only me - dont like "this kind of lens" and thus I am not in the mood to defense my position, since I am not offensive Your milage may vary and thats a good thing! Cheers

Ok, you are right, I should have explained the playground a bit: To me having only a choice to select f numbers between 6,3 and 11 (because difraction takes its toll after f11), is a very limited choice. If I compare this to a good fixed lens - well, no real comparison, but then there is no 200 mm fixed lens in Fuji land anyway. But even if you take the other zoom from Fuji you get more choices in terms of f numbers. For me and my style of shooting every additional f stop counts. Again, strictly my biased oppinion. If that makes sense to you?

I really dont doubt the image quality at all, I also believe that weight and size are Great. My point is: f6,3 at the long end just does not give me enough creative "playground" - I had things like that on my Canon system and honestly I rather dislike them. Not and never for their image quality nor for the build quality (which is sub standard, but you get what you pay for). No it is that very slow f number, which really spoils it for me. Just my completely unscientific and highly individual 2 cent

I do have 18 and 35, was looking at the 56, but will go for 60. Simply because this is a great lens which is very compact. AF speed is no isdue for me. In the meantime I use a Zuiko 50, 1.4 via adapter - great lens

You made it clear in your post: Same size than Leica means to get rid of AF. You can wish for everything... but it is highly unlikely. As is, I think that most lenses are in fact a good balance between performance and size - coming from Canon I recon that even the EF-S line is not as compact. And the Fujis are clearly in a class of their own as far as mechanical and optical construction is concerned.

I don't. I think that the pro platform is just not the right one to have vide capabilities like this. Pana made it also clear and split between GH and G... for good reason I think. T-T2 will have 4k (if Fuji can overcome the technical issues at all) and I guess that's good. Having said this: I don't mind it at all, as long as it does not compromise the still shooting of the pro2

I did. Very often so! Take the car reviews as an example. You can meassure many things, but in the end it's the level of the reviewers bias....

Nothing new.... If you read car reviews you can tell who wins just by the country the review is from. Did you ever see a French car win in a German review? I can't remember that.... Still, if your'e interested, you might want to read, take out what you think is important for you and move on. Trouble only starts if you go into forums. That is where the real pain starts. Even within Fuji forums you can see people defending "their" Pro1 versus the T1 or vice versa. Psychology behind this is easy and should really put people to shame: everybody wants to be the best. And if my photos lack against Henry Cartier-Bresson, so what - at least my gear is better.....

Like always it all depends how you use your stuff. For me a second X-PRO1 would be a great choice (but I still wait for the PRO2...) - no interest at all in a T1, simply because I don't need it's features. As I try to avoid zooms as much as I can and the majority of my shooting is between 18 (maybe 14) and 60 mm - the optical viewfinder works perfect for me and all is great. Your mileage may vary and of course if you need to use latest technology - the T1 is yours. But I for one have an iPhone 4s and an iPad mini 1st generation and could not be happier.... oh well, maybe I am a bad customer for the tech companies... :-)