Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Hello Everyone,

 

My name is Dwain and I'm new to this forum and to Fujifilm cameras but not to their film.  I'm a former Canon shooter (not professional).   I've decided to keep my Canon 6D, the 24-105 F4 and the 100 F2.8 macro lenses just in case.  I delved into large format (Chamonix 4x5) for a short time, shooting primarily Acros developed in Rollo Pyro.  My interests tend to lean towards landscape, architectural, environmental portraiture and night photography but lately, I've been itching to try street and event photography. 

I recently placed an order for the X-T3 and the Fujinon XF18-55 F2.8-4 lens to get use to the system and a good place to start.  Not sure which other lenses to consider at this early stage.  I did look at the Poll here regarding the most used Fuji lenses and two of the focal lengths I've been considering (23 1.4 and 35 1.4) seem to be the most popular despite these being older designs.  The XF 16 1.4 also looks interesting. 

Anyway, thought I'd introduce myself. 

Feedback and suggestions welcome.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

While many folks talk about the magic of the f/1.4 lenses, they both (23 and 35) need an update. They are heavier, slower to focus and more expensive than the f/2.0 lenses. If you stop them down a bit, there is no discernible difference in IQ between the f/1.4 and f/2.0 lenses. I prefer lighter and faster focusing.

 

For landscapes, it depends on your POV; I shoot both wide (10-24 mm) and long to compress hills and mountains (100-400 mm). I have the 18-55 but love the 16-55 f/2.8 despite the lack of OIS. The 56 mm is very nice for portraits but slow focusing and not as effective for street photography.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hey there steviewonder!

X-T3 w/ XF18-55 arrived.  Battery is charged so it's ready to go except I need to set the camera up first.  

I will be traveling to Cuba for 10 days in February with this combo and thought the XF16 1.4 as a prime wide angle might be nice to have along as an alternative to the 10-24 zoom but looking at Fujifilm's X Mount Lens Roadmap, maybe I should wait and see if Fuji releases the 16 XF 16 2.8 R WR lens in 2019.   The 10-24 offers more versatility but it's not a weather-resistant lens if that would matter in February in Cuba.

Will be staying at Casa particulars.  The itinerary includes 2 nights in Havana upon arrival in Cuba followed by 2 days in Vinales.  Will also be traveling to Cienfuegos and Trinidad before returning to Havana for the last 3 days of the trip.   I'd like to take at least one prime for walking around 23,  35  or both? 

This will be my first trip to Cuba.  I would like to keep the camera kit I take with me to be light but versatile.  The first time I traveled to Mexico with the Canon 6D and EF 24-105 F4, it was just too heavy and bulky and I wound up not shooting very much.  I haven't traveled with that camera since; hence the decision to go with the X-T3

I also haven't decided whether I should take a tripod but I don't own a small, lightweight, travel tripod anyway --and if  I don't take one, I'll probably regret it.

The 100-400 would be nice to have eventually.  I have a nephew that is into bird photography big time and is always asking me to come along.  He shoots with the Canon 7D Mark II and Canon's older version of the 100-400 and has added the the 5D Mark III to his kit.  Image quality aside, for me to have to lug around a 5D Mark III or even the 7D Mark II with that lens would be like my first trip to Mexico with the 6D/24-105 combo -- I wouldn't be shooting much.  Besides, I'm not really into bird photography.  Although, with Fuji's 100-400 attached to the X-T3,  I could learn to like it more.

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 hours ago, steviewonder said:

While many folks talk about the magic of the f/1.4 lenses, they both (23 and 35) need an update. They are heavier, slower to focus and more expensive than the f/2.0 lenses. If you stop them down a bit, there is no discernible difference in IQ between the f/1.4 and f/2.0 lenses.

I don't agree with this. The 35/2 is not optically corrected. Near focus correction is absolutely abysmal. From a bit further out it's better, but not as good as the 35/1.4. The bokeh is pretty good, but you have to keep a certain distance to your subject. The corners and center contrast have different qualities between the two 35 lenses, none of them is really better, but from f/2.8 on the 35/1.4 actually gets better while the 35/2 will not really clean up in the corners. 

The 23/2 is better, but it's more on the 21mm end than on the 23, which isn't much of a problem. Bokeh is not nearly as pleasant as with the 23/1.4, but CA seem a bit better controlled. Even at f/2 the background blur on the 23/1.4 is visibly better, not even talking about how nice it is at f/1.4. When stopping both lenses down, the 23/2, just like the 35/2 again doesn't clean up in sharpness in the extreme corners, although mid-field and edges do get quite good. 

Overall, the benefits of the f/2 lenses are:

  • Slightly smaller for the 35, significantly smaller for the 23
  • Less weight, irrelevant for the 35, significant for the 23
  • Weather sealing
  • Slightly faster focus in good light

The downsides are:

  • A full stop slower
  • Earlier to force the camera into contrast detect AF due to half the hitting the sensor
  • Not properly optically corrected in case of the 35
  • Not as good optically in both cases (at least with the various samples I tested)

I'd not use either of the f/2 lenses if corner sharpness is a concern, which it is for me. They are great street lenses, but I sold both of them and kept the, in my personal opinion, significantly better 1.4 optics.

Now, for the 50/2 the story gets interesting. It has great bokeh, is decently corrected, very sharp, pleasing rendering – I'd keep that one over the 56/1.2 if f/1.2 is not required. Image quality across the frame on the 50/2 at f/2 is actually better than the 56/1.2 which only cleans up by f/4, but resolution wise never gets as good as the 50. 

Oh, and I own(ed) all of them and tested multiple samples for each (during an extensive testing session with likeminded folks at the office).

Edited by cug

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Greetings Cug

 

There seems to be quite a bit of controversy surrounding the F1.4 vs f2 versions of the 23 & 35.  I've also read that the 35 f1.4 has a tendency to hunt when focusing even when mounted on the X-T2.

However with the new X-Processor 4 and CMOS 4 sensor on the X-T3, this may help to reduce or eliminate the tendency for the 35 f1.4 to hunt.

There's also the question of having a non-WR lens mounted on a weather sealed body.  Kinda defeats the purpose of having it in a way for some but may be a non issue for others.   

I guess it just comes down to personal preference, shooting styles and whether you really need that extra stop.  For many Fuji shooters, IQ of the f2 lenses vs the older design may not be a deal breaker especially if the type of shooting requires them to have WR.  Would have been nice if Fuji could have given us both (fast glass & WR) without compromising IQ and to some extent, they have achieved that goal.  

I've heard tell that Fujifilm listens to its customers.  If this is true, then the 23 f2 R WR & 35 f2 R WR may have been Fujifilm's response.

It's also worth noting that it doesn't appear that the 23/35 f1.4 lenses will be leaving the Fuji lens lineup anytime soon - but who knows what the future may bring.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Welcome Dwain,

for the type of photography you like to shoot, go for the 23 and the 14. The rule is you should try every lens you want to get, because no one is like the other.

I owned both the 23s, and the f/2 was way better than 1,4. Overall, not just in terms of weight and speed. Anyways try both and decide. However when you shoot landscape, architectural even street, the last thing you need is bokeh. It's a plus, but not the sole characteristic you need from a lens.

The most important is you will be more than satisfied with Fuji system. By the way the 18-55 is a very great lens.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Dwain said:

I've also read that the 35 f1.4 has a tendency to hunt when focusing even when mounted on the X-T2.

"Hunting" is a matter of the camera telling the lens what to do to achieve a contrast AF. A lens by itself does not hunt. Overall, there is a lot of stuff written about everything in photography equipment and a lot of it is "quite interesting". I started to trust mostly my own impressions and very few other folks. 

The best is of course if you tested it for yourself, but that's not feasible for everything. 

Quote

I guess it just comes down to personal preference, shooting styles and whether you really need that extra stop.

Of course it does. 

The f/2 lenses are perfect for a lot of situations and or a lot of situations. But the differences are measurable and very obvious when you compare results directly. I've done so when I had all these lenses here:

  • XF 35mm f/1.4 and f/2
  • XF 23mm f/1.4 and f/2
  • XF 50mm f/2 and XF 56mm f/1.2

I kept the two f/1.4 lenses as well as the 56mm because I often want maximum separation between subject and background/foreground. While I would appreciate the size/weight advantage of the 23 and 50, it's not worth the quality trade-off for me as I also own an X100F.

So, the best is when you try to figure out what lens properties are important to you and go from there. For me it's small depth of field when needed and the highest possible image quality when stopped down in addition to rendering I like more. But that's me, your conclusions might be different.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi

I don't want to star new topic so maybe ill ask here. I`m owner of  T20 and i want to buy new (and probably only lenst for now). I`ve rad a ton of reviews, rankings and comparisons ant i still can`t decide :( Finally i was wondering between  35mm 1.4 and f2 versions. I need lens for vacations, family photo etc. 1.4 version seems better for low light (like evening walks or concerts) but f2 is cheaper. Can you please help me decide which one will be more universal.

BR Alice

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Some time ago I've faced the same dilemma. I chose f2 and though I never regret about that I always wanted to test 1.4 as well, so I was almost ready to buy it when Fuji announced that 33f1 is coming. So 1.4 purchase is on hold now and I'm saving... )

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have the 28-55 “kit lens” as well as the 10-24.   Both are excellent.   As a budget alternative to extreme wide angle, I would have a look at the Rokinon 12mm f/2.   It can be had for $300 USD.   I’ve used it for night time Milky Way photography

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm new as well and went through tons of research before deciding what to get.

Eventually the kit I have started off with is:

X-T3, 18-55, 10-24, 100-400 + 1.4TC.

I might fill the gap later with a 55-200 or 50-140, as I am going on a safari next year and might want something mid-range. But this current kit covers everything I want to do. Results from all the lenses is just great, I'm so pleased with everything I've bought. 

I decided to stick with OIS lenses only as everything I do is handheld, even with the 100-400, and also all stayed with WR where possible (not the 18-55 but not bothered by that). 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 hours ago, Cyrtis said:

I'm new as well and went through tons of research before deciding what to get.

Eventually the kit I have started off with is:

X-T3, 18-55, 10-24, 100-400 + 1.4TC.

I might fill the gap later with a 55-200 or 50-140, as I am going on a safari next year and might want something mid-range. But this current kit covers everything I want to do. Results from all the lenses is just great, I'm so pleased with everything I've bought. 

I decided to stick with OIS lenses only as everything I do is handheld, even with the 100-400, and also all stayed with WR where possible (not the 18-55 but not bothered by that). 

 

Welcome and congrats to your mighty new kit. I am looking forward to see some of your safari shots (and others), I hope you will share some with us here on the forum. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

×
×
  • Create New...