Jump to content

Recommended Posts

I've grown a nice set of Fuji XF prime lenses from 14 mm to the 80 mm macro, and have the 2X teleconverter too. But where are the primes in the neighborhood around 200 or 300 mm?

In my 35 mm film photography days I had Canon equipment, almost all primes, including their 300 mm f/5.6. I loved that lens! It was a clean cylindrical shape with a built in hood that slid forward or back, which was very convenient and made it really easy to pack. That'd be similar to buying a 200 for my new X-T30 II.

But they don't have Fujinon primes in this space. I have 160 when I use the teleconverter on the macro. There's not much point in buying the 90 mm prime as it's so close to the 80. And they have the 400/2, which I'd love to have, but it's way out of my price range. And nothing else between them.

There's the 70-300 zoom, which I guess I'll get when I can (they seem hard to find though I have watches set at a couple stores). I'd have preferred a prime, though. I do own one zoom, the 18-135, for "one size fits all" needs, and its long end is worth having. And, there's the 100-400 zoom. If I got into the right mood, I'd order that, but it'd be kind of irresponsible for me to pay nearly $2k for it.

I did order a cheap Tokina manual catadioptric lens, 400 mm, $250, to get a top end that reaches way out there, though it will probably be a bit of work to focus it well. It was supposed to arrive yesterday but is running late. We will see. I've never had an autofocusing interchangeable lens camera before, and I really like how accurately and quickly the camera does it, so an autofocusing lens would be nice.

Surprisingly, 3rd parties hardly offer anything prime in this range, either.

What can we hope for?

Link to post
Share on other sites

21 hours ago, cpX said:

Hope gives way to certainty extremely quickly.

Wow, that's for sure. I crept downstairs last night and ordered the Fuji 100-400.

All the same, there are some... interesting... options out there with T mounts. In the film days, I really enjoyed experiments with the lens off the camera, using other means (sometimes a separate lens of some sort and sometimes not) to create an image. On the down side, ruining the sensor would be a much bigger deal than ruining film. But on the up side, I could work incrementally and see what each photo looks like before taking the next.

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

    • A fungus in the forest.

      Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

      Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

      (p.s. Open Topic.)  
    • The backslashes you are referring are just symbols denoting path.  Once you import into these LUTS into Davinci Resolve those backslashes are removed by default and you only see is the true file name which has no backslashes.  Convince yourself of this by opening the LUT folder from the Davinci Resolve Project Settings.  Do you see any backslashes in those LUT names? Of course not.  The only name you see is the one that has the underscores and the periods. These LUTS work as designed without having to change any path names.  However, they need to be set up properly through CSTs and by what is supported in Davinci Resolve.  Hence, the FLog2C film simulation LUTS cannot be used because Davinci Resolve does not support Fuji Gamut color space and the FLog2C gamut. Alternatively, Davinci Resolve does support Flog2 film simulation LUTS because the color space for FLog2 is Rec 2020 and there is an FLog2 gamut. If all you are doing is changing the path names then you are not getting the correct results.
    • I found the reddit topic i refere to :  https://www.reddit.com/r/davinciresolve/comments/1pc3f1e/cant_apply_new_fujifilm_gfx_55_lut/ "Update for y'all, It's just like what @ExpBalSat said, it's because of the backslashes in the names break them. I changed the file name and it works now. "   For me it was the solution. Realy annoying if it doesn’t work for you 😕  
    • Here is the solution to using the Eterna 55 file simulation LUTs in Davinci Resolve.   In general, do not use the FLog2C to film simulation LUTs as they are not supported by Davinci Resolve for two reasons: 1) Davinci Resolve does not support Fuji Gamut Color Space and 2) Davinci Resolve does not support FLog2C gamma.  Instead, use Flog2 which is supported by Davinci Resolve.  Here is an example.  Let's say that you want to use Classic Chrome simulation.  Do the following: Complete your color grade and use a CST to get to Rec 709. Add a node.  Use a CST to convert from Rec 709 to FLog2.  Output Color space is Rec 2020 and Outout Gamut is FLog2. Add a node.  Apply the FLog2 to Classic Chrome LUT Create a combination node from node in steps 2 and 3. Apply a Key to the combination node and adjust the Key Output Gain to get the amount of the combination node that you want applied. So that you do not have to do this over and over again, generate a LUT for the combination node.  Remember to turn off all other nodes before generating the LUT. Hope this helps others. Don  
    • Thanks for the insights. I think it's really hard to make a decision without having the two side by side! 
×
×
  • Create New...