Jump to content

Recommended Posts

...which, ironically, is a bit like complaining about the people complaining don’t you think? The one you do is also a complaint for its own sake since if you don’t wish to complain what does it matter to you if others do?

 

I am all for the new lens and I have no set ideas on whether it will be better, just as good or not. I even like its looks (on the X-T10 better than the X-T1 now that I’ve seen it mouthed on the camera) with a definite preference for the silver version on a silver body.

 

The black version of the lens on the X-T1 body that I’ve found on line in that picture looks ugly to me.

 

In this picture looks just a little better but it is obvious( to me) that the aesthetics of this lens weren’t based on it being the ideal companion for the X-T1

 

Of course ugly might be the new beautiful!

 

The bigger irony is that by complaining about what "umad?" was complaining about, you are complaining. And yes, I too am complaining. Cheers, "milandro."

Link to post
Share on other sites

if you re-read the post you see that you got the sequence of complaints wrong. I was the first to complain about its looks and got the usual flack for simply giving my opinion ( that the lens looks ugly is not “ hate” just my view, isn’t a forum a place where people discuss their views?) which, according to some one shouldn’t voice.. . (why?).

 

So I can’t complain about the looks but they can complain about me complaining? 

 

:rolleyes:

 

 

These are the two new lens hoods, each giving a completely different look to the lens

 

pic_03.jpg

 

 

 

 

 

The looks of the lens with the larger of the two hoods are radically improved even on the X-T1, so I have no more complaints about its look in this configuration.

 

22318585241_73be33c3bb_b.jpg

 

The looks with the  small lens hood are not as nice, in fact I find it positively ugly ( my opinion)  obviously this was made necessary from the need to not be in the way of the optical viewfinder on the X-Pro-2 to come 

 

21670892390_8d4b00a2ea_b.jpg

Link to post
Share on other sites

if you re-read the post you see that you got the sequence of complaints wrong. I was the first to complain about its looks and got the usual flack for simply giving my opinion ( that the lens looks ugly is not “ hate” just my view, isn’t a forum a place where people discuss their views?) which, according to some one shouldn’t voice.. . (why?).

 

I was just being facetious. Yes, the vented hood is the way to go; looks like the hood of Voigtlander VM 'Nokton' Classic. If you fancy to see, here is a picture of mine on X-T1: https://flic.kr/p/zXFgNM

 

Cheers.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Similar Content

  • Posts

    • I use a TECHART ring to mount Canon EF lenses on the GFX 50S-II and 100S-II, maintaining image stabilization and autofocus. The only limitation are lenses with a small rear element diameter that make it impossible to cover medium format. Fast lenses like the EF 85/1.2L or the 100-400L, however, work great.
    • I also use a Nikon to GFX Fringer and it works very well.  24mm f/1.8 vignettes so best used on 35mm mode.  50mm f/1.8 covers the entire frame very well with no issues and is a superb little lens. 105mm Sigma vignettes slightly but is perfectly usable. 300 f/4 likewise the 105.  I have a 70-200 f/20+.8 incoming to test so will report back but I'm expecting a little vignetting.  Even in 35mm mode the image is still 60MP and if you're prepared to manually crop and correct you can get 80-90 MP images.  I also have a C/Y to GFX adapter.  The 24mm Sigma Superwide vignettes strongly. Ditto 28-80 Zeiss Sonnar. 80-200 f/4 Sonnar is perfectly usable. All work fine as 35mm mode lenses.  I also have an M42 adapter which I tried with the Carl Zeiss Jena 135mm f/3.5 with good results. 
    • Thank you. I will research it.
    • Ahh, the infamous brick wall photos… 😀 According to internet lore, if the dng converter does not properly apply the corrections, you can have it apply custom profiles that should work for you. How to do that is waaaaaay outside of this comment’s scope, but there are plenty of sites listed in the search engines that step you through the processes. Best wishes.
    • Jerry Thank you very much. That is extremely helpful. It seems that the camera and the lens have the latest firmware update, so it appears that the corrections should be applied automatically. The lens arrived this afternoon and I took some quick test shots, in which the correct lens information appeared in the EXIF files, so that sounds good. I used Adobe DNG converter to convert the Raw (RAF) files, and then opened the DNG files and saved them in PSD format. However, with a beautiful, clear, cloudless blue sky, there were no lines near the edges to check if distortion had been corrected. Another day I plan to photograph a brick wall. Thank you for your help.
×
×
  • Create New...