Jump to content

Recommended Posts

a different approach to nature

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!

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

My contribution. X-Pro1 + XF 60mm.

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!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

These are great photos.

But I wish Fuji upgraded this macro lens or planned a 90mm. The upcoming 120mm is way too big for the Fuji bodies, IMHO. I've now ordered the Zeiss Touit 50mm macro and even that focal length might not be ideal but at least it's about the same size as the Fuji 60.

Link to post
Share on other sites

These are great photos.

But I wish Fuji upgraded this macro lens or planned a 90mm. The upcoming 120mm is way too big for the Fuji bodies, IMHO. I've now ordered the Zeiss Touit 50mm macro and even that focal length might not be ideal but at least it's about the same size as the Fuji 60.

I read the Zeiss had 1:1 magnification, which is a plus over the xf60mm

 

Sent from my SM-N910C using Tapatalk

Link to post
Share on other sites

Another shot with the X-Pro1.
I like the 60 for portraits too.

 

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!

Link to post
Share on other sites

I own both the 56 and the 60. Although they are close in focal length, they are different enough in other ways to justify owning both. In good light, I find the 60 with its close focus ability to be more versatile. And being smaller and lighter, it is much easier to carry.

 

 

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

does anyone know if the 60 AF's well enough with a raynox macro filter in tow? i am surprised how well my 18-55 AF's with the raynox 250 in place on the x-e1

The 60 with the raynox works the same, but if you are that close it's easier to focus manually and moving the camera back and forward. If you will use it you will need to buy a 39mm filter, if it's a cheap one remove the glass. This is because when the lens retracts the raynox will hit the lens body and will not allow the lens mechanism to work correctly, you need some kind of "spacer" to move the raynox a bit further away.

 

If you want some specific test I can do it for you.

 

Sent from my SM-N910C using Tapatalk

Link to post
Share on other sites

I love this lens and frequently use it with a LED ring light a cheaper one that does not flash. OK the lens cover is naff. but I leave it off most of the time.  Low res pic attached.  The Ring LED was used.

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!

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 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.
    • Typically you need to make sure the lens is compatible with the camera, i.e. check the lens compatibility charts for your camera, then make sure the respective firmwares are updated so older issues are resolved. After that, each lens has a manufacturer’s profile which will be embedded into the raw file meta data for the images captured using that lens. From there, it is up to the raw conversion software to apply the lens correction to the image. Different converters do that differently, some automatically, some only if a setting is turned on. For in-camera jpegs, the on-board converter does the corrections automatically, assuming the camera recognizes the lens, it applies a generic profile otherwise. I do not know if that can be turned off or not.
×
×
  • Create New...