Martin G

The X Pro 2 isn't more expensive than the Fuji X-T2....

I liked the 6D but focus was hit and miss in daylight and I only used the centre spot. In the dark the -3ev did well compared to previous cameras. Am still amazed when I use the 35 1.4 at 1.4 on the X-T1 and get sharp crystal clear eyelashes. I have never had that sort of focus accuracy on a DSLR with wide open prime lenses (and I have had all sorts of L lenses). The X-T2 with -3EV focus, double card slots, faster auto focus, improved ISO and the focus spot controller stick make it a must for me and will make working a lot easier. An X-E3 will be a very interesting bargain buy if it has some/all of this stuff.

I am selling mine if you are in the UK and I would say it is a good one. Bought from WEX and is in mint condition. http://www.183560.co.uk/gallery/fuji-prime-lenses-18-35-60/ You can see some images there. Panamoz is fine and they supply a three year warranty and their are no import duties. You can Pay them with PayPal so you have the PayPal protection as well. Ignore the one for sale 30 seconds after I posted this it sold!

I think there is a lot to be said about the three original Fuji lenses 18 f2, 35 1.4 and 60 2.4. I have collected all three and although I have other primes etc, these are the three for pleasure. If you have these three you can make yourself and whole career out of them!

With three wide angle primes one of them has to be last. But just because it is last compared to the others, doesn't mean it isn't great. I love mine. It's light, fast to focus and it renders colour beautifully. OK, so it isn't as sexy as 1.4 or as wide as 14 but it gets a bit of a bum wrap. I believe it is one very underrated lens just like the 60 2.4. A lot of it is internet myth and people repeating what they have heard about it when it was originally released. I have 18 x 12 prints made with it and they're perfect. As stated a bit softer in the corners wide open. That is is the only negative I can say about it.

Have used four X-E1 and X-E2 but now just have the X Pro 1 and XT1. Will get the X Pro 2 and keep all three.

You're very welcome. But guess what. Day after, new X Pro 2 has four levels of adjustment either side!!!!!!

With time to spare today I wanted to see the real effects of adjusting these values in the menu to see the effect on the jpeg output. I think an image speaks a thousand words on this subject so please if you were interested/curious and don't have enough time to try yourself you can see the results here and download the jpegs as a reference: Although tested on my X Pro 1 (odd I never pick up the X-T1 for this stuff) it will apply to the current crop of Fuji cameras. At least until tomorrow!

Having tested ACR, I am very happy with the files coming out of it. Looking at an image at 100% on screen and scrutinising slight difference are not going to make a difference to an actual print. Last week I choose a jpeg (that looked a little soft to me) straight from the camera at 6400 ISO and enlarged it to 18 x 12. I then copied it and ran Nik Sharpener over one. Both came back, the Nik sharpened imaged looked a bit sharper in some parts when I looked very close up to the print. From 30cm away (not the best distance to see an 18 x 12 print they are identical and you cannot see any difference. I bet if you lined up an image from each converter side by side any difference you might see, will be so slight, that having a preference for one or the other is just subjective. In reflection there isn't "the best raw converter" just the one you like and know best. SilkyPix v Adobe ACR

Hi Royal, I have been playing with this recently (today) and to my eye, Adobe ACR is the better option (at least for me). I use a PC not a MAC. Sharpening in ACR is better and the images have more detail. Have a look at my results here: http://www.mgiddings.com/photography-software/adobe-acr-raw-versus-silkypix-ex-2-0-raw-convertor All the best, Martin

No the 18mm isn't pants it is a fine lens. Mine works perfectly and produces excellent results: http://www.mgiddings.com/lens-review/fuji-18-f2 There are better wide lenses from Fuji available now but just because this one is the weakest doesn't mean its bad. Stand a Ferrari a Lamborghini and a Porsche next to each other, one of them will be the weakest. But it doesn't make the weakest bad.

Hi all, I am Martin, mainly a wedding photographer who has left Canon for Fuji and building up my equipment for next years season. Presently have an X Pro 1 and and X-T1 with an 18mm and 35mm prime to play with. I will add a 50-140 and may be a X100T or the 23mm not sure which way to go yet. Love the X-T1 but prefer to X Pro 1 for some reason. Looking forward to seeing its replacement. I live in Norwich, Norfolk, UK and have been a full time photographer for eight years. All the best, Martin

I have just written about the 35 1.4, my conclusion is I want them both. BUT, if you have the 23 1.4 keep it for sure. As you have a 1.4 lens then I would say the f2 would be a very good choice for you.

I couldn't agree more. The Canon 50 1.4 wasn't really a lens to be used at that aperture. Never hit focus where I wanted it to be. I really only used the Canon at 2.8 and focus would miss, a lot!. But the Fuji 35 1.4 just hits where I place the autofocus point and it is usable. In fact that isn't fair, it is totally sharp.

Great you got it sorted out my 18 f2 is a cracking lens and very sharp! You were just unlucky.