petergabriel
-
Posts
270 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
3
Content Type
Forums
Gallery
Store
Everything posted by petergabriel
-
I have read numerous reviews of the Fujinon XF f2.8 and they all state that it is a stunning lens, so I have considered adding it to my arsenal which now consists of an XF 23mm f1.4, XF 35mm f1.4 and XF 18-55 f2.8-4. However, one thing I have noticed is how many used Fujinon 14mm f2.8 lenses are sold in my little country, Denmark, compared to Fujinons other focal lengths, and this makes me wonder whether a 14mm lens has to steep a learning curve compositional wise, as so many people seem to give up on the otherwise excellent lens - most common reason people give for selling the lens is lack of use - so I don't think it nescessarely comes to people replacing it with the 16mm f.14. So, what are your opinion on the matter. Is a 14mm so much more difficult to master compared to e.g. the 35mm f1.4 with its tight crop? I like the ability that a 14mm gives me to "see more" while being close to a subject, but I don't expect to use it that much for its often lauded landscape and architectural skills. I want to use it for street and peoples shots (not portrait!). And before you recommend the 16mm f1.4 instead, I have already owned that lens and found it nice, but to big and to expensive, so I returned it. I would rather buy a used 14mm cheap, as I believe it will not be my most used lens, but a nice to have lens.
-
I just saw a picture in a news paper taken by a professional photographer with a Canon EF 16-35 mm f/2.8L II USM and decided to look at its image resolution using lenstip.com - besides heavy distortion the image looked fine. http://www.lenstip.com/198.4-Lens_review-Canon_EF_16-35_mm_f_2.8L_II_USM_Image_resolution.html Here lenstip state: "By f/5.6 at all focal lengths the lens reaches ideally even and outstandingly high level of 44 lpmm." And with many of their Fujinon lens reviews fresh in memory using the same MTF50(lpm) test, a number like that is only barely called decent. http://www.lenstip.com/413.4-Lens_review-Fujifilm_Fujinon_XF_10-24_mm_f_4R_OIS_Image_resolution.html "Let’s remind here that the best fixed-focus lenses, tested that way, have maximum results of 70-72 lpmm; the decency level is situated near 40-41 lpmm." Has so much really happened lens construction wise, that a lens with clearly a lot lower resolution is called outstanding in 2009, whereas in 2016 it is only decent? And if so, does this not mean that there is no need to pixel peep when buying lenses today, and instead just look at contrast, color rendition etc.? -
I have the 23mm and 35mm f1.4 and now i'm considering adding the 14mm f2.8 to make it my 3 prime combo. Still not sure if the 14mm is too wide for my compositional skills.
-
Fujifilm extension tubes working distance? Don't get it.
petergabriel replied to petergabriel's topic in Fuji X Lenses
Thanks. Would you recommend any third party brands? I have read horror stories about third part tubes where lenses fall of or does not sit tight enough. -
Actually I found the rendering of the x100s/t much the same as the 35mm.
-
I think I will get the 23mm. Does any of the other Fujinon lenses render like the 35mm f1.4? I find it quite unique. Would love if the 23mm rendered the same.
-
My 35mm f1.4 never leaves me. My 18-55mm gets used on occasion. Bought the highly praised 16mm, but just couldn't find any use for it. I really like the tight cropped images from my 35mm. So I guess my least used lens is the 16mm. Will return it to the store. I am still considering the 23mm f1.4 as I am used to it from my x100s/t which I sold.
-
I like the odd macro shot, but don't want to spend money on a dedicated macro lens, so I thought about using one of the extension tubes from Fujifilm with my XF 35mm f1.4. However I don't quite understand what is meant by working distance when the tube is attached. I have looked at the diagram Fujifilm has made explaining the working distance for their different lenses with either the MCEX-11 or MCEX-16 extension tubes. Would you be so kind to explain (in layman terms) what is meant by working distance? How far from the fromt element should my subject be and how far away from the front element can it be? Thanks.
-
So, I went with the 16mm f1.4 as it is rather cheap at amazon.co.uk at the moment. Even without cashback it is cheaper than what I could have gotten it for in Denmark, with double cashback. Crazy!
-
I know nothing, but tests (e.g. the two links in op) state that the 16mm's sharpeness is very good, but the 14mm apparently blows it away. The 16mm's close focusing abilities sound awesome though. Anyone up for some samples of your best work with either lens. Preferably with people in them.
-
So, I have found a used 14mm f2.8 and can't decide whether to buy it or pay more for the 16mm f1.4. Resolution wise the 14mm should be quite a bit better than the 16mm, but the f1.4 and close focusing abilities of the 16mm appeals to me. One of the positives that is most often mentioned about the 16mm is its close focusing ability at 15cm, which if you subtract the length of the lens amounts to like 6cm's from the front element. Quite impressive. BUT, the 14mm is supposedly able to close focus at 18cm's, which if you subtract the length of the lens amounts to approx. 12 cm's from the front element. Plus the fact that the lens has a wider view. That is not so bad, right? What are your thoughts on this and would you mind showing some samples of the close focusing abilities of the 14mm? Preferably with people in them. Thanks. Tests: http://www.lenstip.com/387.4-Lens_review-Fujifilm_Fujinon_XF_14_mm_f_2.8_R_Image_resolution.html http://www.lenstip.com/449.4-Lens_review-Fujifilm_Fujinon_XF_16_mm_f_1.4_R_WR_Image_resolution.html
-
Apparently :-)
-
Has the 23mm f1.4 really never had a firmware update? Can't find any.
-
Found the answer myself. It appears that 16mm (aps-c) is the threshold. The sensitivity threshold is estimated to be about 15%, or in other words, a focal length of 24mm (eq. 24 x 36 mm); deformation above 25% (which appears below 17mm, eq. 24 x 36 mm), the problem is considered too big to avoid correcting. From DxO
-
Volume deformation, is this something that is only seen from a given focal length? As seen it is there on a 14mm, but what about a 16mm?
-
I would too, but so far I don't like that Fujifilm's cheaper lenses are not optically corrected when it comes to distortion. I know they do it via software, but I don't like that. The 35 f1.4 and 23 f1.4 and 14mm f2.8 are optically corrected and actually rather well.
-
Great. Thanks guys. A lot of great advice. And now, ta dah, I have also found a cheap 14mm f2.8. Resist GAS :-)
-
Thanks. Just found that article myself. So I guess the 14mm is not for group shots then :-)
-
Volume deformation? Care to explain. :-)
-
Thank you for the explanation:-) But wouldn't you agree that the girl in the red dress to the left looks strangely stretched? The 14mm should be optically distortion free, no (minimal) software corrections, as opposed to e.g. the 18mm f2.0
-
Help me understand what is meant by distortion when sites like lenstip.com rate the Fujinon 14mm f2.8 truly impressive, because it has virtually no distortion, and yet, when I look at the group shot of the girls on this blog, the girl on the left edge of the frame hopefully does not like that in the real world. It looks like she is being somehow stretched towards the upper left corner. Why is that?
-
Ha ha, why didn't I think of that :-)
-
I just bought the 35mm f1.4 used, and despite the noisy AF I just love the lens. Actually I find the AF quite decent on my x-pro 1. So, now I have the option of buying a used 23mm f1.4 to about half the price, and would really like to have it, but I wonder if the focal lengths are to close. Would it be better to go for something wider or are there enough difference between the two to warrant a purchase? As of now I have the 18-55 and the 35 f1.4 in my arsenal. The zoom only being used for snapshots. I like the rendering of primes better even though the 18-55 actually is quite good. Look forward to your opinions/advice :-)
-
ND filter for 35mm f1.4 - how many stops?
petergabriel replied to petergabriel's topic in Fuji X Lenses
I will go for a 3 stop ND then. Thanks! -
I've been thinking about buying a ND filter for my 35mm f1.4 lens, but have no idea how many stops it should have. It will be for ordinary family vacation shots. Nothing fancy. I want to be able to take pictures at f1.4 in the south of Europe where the sun can get really intense during the summer, and my x-pro 1 has a minimum shutter speed of 1/4000/s, so what would be your guess, how many stops should the ND filter have?
