Jump to content

Fringer EF-FX PRO adaptor

Cando69

By Cando69
in Adapting lenses to Fuji X

 Share

Recommended Posts

Cando69 Apprentice

Cando69

Posted
Posted

Hi everyone, I'm chasing some feedback on the fringed ef to fx adaptor..  I want know if anyone has used big glass with it I.E 100 to 400 or 150 to 600mm sigma lenses and tele converters.. I'm just looking at cheaper option to the fuji 100 to 400mm.. 

Thanks for your  all your help in advance

Noel

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 1 month later...
Cando69 Apprentice

Cando69

Posted
  • Author
Posted (edited)

Just in case anyone is interested I went ahead and bought a fringes ef/fx pro2. It cost me $450 au new and also picked up a 150 - 600 Sigma contemporary for $814 au used in top nick... wow...! Very happy with the results.. to be honest the autofocus works great, not as fast my 55 to 200 but not that much slower either, very usable. The Sigma is on the heavy side but 600mm mmm mmm love it. I can still hand hold. I had a bit of a play around the house over the last couple of days and have so far enjoyed using it and haven't found any real faults. I've used a canon 70 to 200mm L ll f2.8 and once again the autofocus was a little slower but not by much. I'm not a professional, I'm just letting people know that the fringes works and works well.. so if have some Canon lenses or I would like to get a cheaper option then the fuji 100-400mm and 1.4 extender is all. I do not regret my purchases and I am now looking at Canon lens options second hand like the 300mm prime. Hope this is of some help :)

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!

Edited by Cando69
At pic
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.

×
 Share
Go to topic listing

  • Similar Content

  • Posts

    • BobJ
      X-T5 Cleaning Mistake

      By BobJ · Posted

      Because the sensor assembly is moved electrmagnetically. When there is no power it is essentially free moving.
    • jerryy
      Astro-photography (open thread)

      By jerryy · Posted

      Ahoy ye hearties! Hoist ye yon Jolly Roger and Cascade away. NGC 1502 The Jolly Roger Cluster:

      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!

      This is the equivalent of 43 minutes, 40 seconds of exposure. NGC 1502 is a neat little cluster located in the Camelopardalis Constellation. This region of space was thought to be fairly empty by early astronomers, but as you can see, there is a lot there. Kemble's Cascade (a.k.a. Kemble 1) is named for Father Lucian Kemble, a Canadian Franciscan friar who wrote about it to Walter Scott Houston, an author for the Sky And Telescope magazine. Houston named the asterism for Fr. Kemble and the name "stuck". NGC 1501 is the Oyster Nebula. A longer focal length telescope is needed to bring this one into good viewing range, but it is well worth the effort. NGC 1502: https://skyandtelescope.org/online-gallery/ngc-1502/ Camelopardalis Constellation: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Camelopardalis Kemble's Cascade (and NGC 1501: The Oyster Nebula): https://www.constellation-guide.com/kembles-cascade/ Arrrrrr Matey.
    • Greybeard
      Only comments are baited ads

      By Greybeard · Posted

    • BIGOAK
      55 or 80?

      By BIGOAK · Posted

      Looking for input; there are some decent deals and might want to take advantage to expand my lenses for my 100s already own: 110/2 32-64 35-70 100-200 + TC   Shooting mostly family shots, bringing my kit to capture family outings indoors and out. Tracking the 63/43 effective FLs on the two, but has anybody used both? Would the 55 (covered by two zooms right now) be redundant? Would the 80 be too similar in character to my 110 for portraiture?
    • Fotomatt
      Only comments are baited ads

      By Fotomatt · Posted

      See what I mean? Two instantaneous ads. Worthless.   
×
×
  • Create New...