willie_901
Veteran
The lens arrived today. The first thing I noticed is it is much smaller than I imagined. Even the petal hood (I don't like those) seems small. I guess either the lens doesn't photograph well or I didn't pay close attention to the numerous comparison photos posted all over the place. This lens has first Fuji lens cap that actually works well.
The construction quality is excellent just as with the 35/1.4 and 18/2. As has been often reported, the aperture rings seems too easy to move. The indents are crisp, but the resistance is lighter than most lenses. The push-pull MF ring is well-executed. MF operation is very nice. This lens really gets fly by wire focusing right. The DOF markings are useful too. The AF performance is also good. I have not done extensive testing in low light, but I did have success working in one low light, low contrast situation. I doubt focusing this lens will be a disappointment to anyone who knows how to use the 35/1.4 or 18/2 lenses.
I took a few throwaway photos on my early evening walk. The camera does feel a bit larger with this lens. I noticed a difference. I am definitely not buying any of the zooms. The X-Pro 1 fits easily in my ancient but trusty Mountain Smith bag with the other lenses, but only fits one way with the 14/2.8. I guess I need a new bag (everybody needs a new bag now and then). Actually, I can make do.
The lens is very easy to hold level using the artificial horizon. I use this EFOV all the time with the D700 and the X-Pro 1 is much easier to level.
The multi-metering mode is tricky using the because the frame is so large. Even though I know that overexposure is likely with super wide lenses, I still over exposed. :bang: I am going to play with spot meter mode and see if that approach works better with such a wide field of view.
Photozone just published a review/test of the lens.
http://www.photozone.de/fuji_x/807-fuji14f28
I did not do any sort of carefulboptical of testing today. There were no cyan color distortions at the frame edges I will say that overexposing the sky (not blowing it out, but getting close) does lead to some fringing in high contrast situations. Of course the Lightroom Defringe slider cleans it up. I did not notice any CA, but that could be corrected automatically. I'm thinking it's better to avoid pushing the highlight exposure with this lens. Photozone reports the lens has one one weakness, the vignetting is high. Of course this is corrected by the on-board lens profiles, so most people will never see it. The lens is quite sharp. Horizon detail held up well. I shot directly into sun during sunset. Exposure was key to reducing flare. I'm not sure how this works though. I just need to take more photos in diverse circumstances before I can say anything more specific.
I noticed the sharpening parameters I used with this lens seems different than those that work well with the 35 and 18 mm lenses. Pixel peeping detail was better with less sharpening. I didn't see any color bleeding, but it's to early to say anything definitive.
Eventually examples from this lens will show up on my Flickr stream. I'm in The middle of a extensive editing/processing project now, so it will be a while before I do much serious work with the lens.
Bottom line: this lens is expensive. So far it seems worth the cost. I look forward to using it in a variety of situations.
The construction quality is excellent just as with the 35/1.4 and 18/2. As has been often reported, the aperture rings seems too easy to move. The indents are crisp, but the resistance is lighter than most lenses. The push-pull MF ring is well-executed. MF operation is very nice. This lens really gets fly by wire focusing right. The DOF markings are useful too. The AF performance is also good. I have not done extensive testing in low light, but I did have success working in one low light, low contrast situation. I doubt focusing this lens will be a disappointment to anyone who knows how to use the 35/1.4 or 18/2 lenses.
I took a few throwaway photos on my early evening walk. The camera does feel a bit larger with this lens. I noticed a difference. I am definitely not buying any of the zooms. The X-Pro 1 fits easily in my ancient but trusty Mountain Smith bag with the other lenses, but only fits one way with the 14/2.8. I guess I need a new bag (everybody needs a new bag now and then). Actually, I can make do.
The lens is very easy to hold level using the artificial horizon. I use this EFOV all the time with the D700 and the X-Pro 1 is much easier to level.
The multi-metering mode is tricky using the because the frame is so large. Even though I know that overexposure is likely with super wide lenses, I still over exposed. :bang: I am going to play with spot meter mode and see if that approach works better with such a wide field of view.
Photozone just published a review/test of the lens.
http://www.photozone.de/fuji_x/807-fuji14f28
I did not do any sort of carefulboptical of testing today. There were no cyan color distortions at the frame edges I will say that overexposing the sky (not blowing it out, but getting close) does lead to some fringing in high contrast situations. Of course the Lightroom Defringe slider cleans it up. I did not notice any CA, but that could be corrected automatically. I'm thinking it's better to avoid pushing the highlight exposure with this lens. Photozone reports the lens has one one weakness, the vignetting is high. Of course this is corrected by the on-board lens profiles, so most people will never see it. The lens is quite sharp. Horizon detail held up well. I shot directly into sun during sunset. Exposure was key to reducing flare. I'm not sure how this works though. I just need to take more photos in diverse circumstances before I can say anything more specific.
I noticed the sharpening parameters I used with this lens seems different than those that work well with the 35 and 18 mm lenses. Pixel peeping detail was better with less sharpening. I didn't see any color bleeding, but it's to early to say anything definitive.
Eventually examples from this lens will show up on my Flickr stream. I'm in The middle of a extensive editing/processing project now, so it will be a while before I do much serious work with the lens.
Bottom line: this lens is expensive. So far it seems worth the cost. I look forward to using it in a variety of situations.
back alley
IMAGES
i bought a metal wide angle hood on ebay for under 4 bucks...works ok...
kzphoto
Well-known
First impressions: It's outstanding.
Frontman
Well-known
I got mine back in January, but still have not had a chance to do much shooting with it yet. I will put it to use on my next vacation.
The results I have gotten soo far are outstanding, I'm looking forward to seeing what it can do.
The results I have gotten soo far are outstanding, I'm looking forward to seeing what it can do.
kuvvy
Well-known
I had chance to handle the 14 a couple of days ago at a photo show here in the UK. It looks pretty good and the shot I took on the reps camera looked excellent, on the cameras screen anyway. I currently use the CV 15mm Heliar and this performs well too. Much slower at 4.5 but a lot smaller than the Fuji. Would like the Fuji but a bit unsure given I'm pleased with the CV. The faster aperture would swing it if I decide to get one.
Paul
Paul
back alley
IMAGES
one from yesterday...cropped from the 14...
Dante_Stella
Rex canum cattorumque
Any nits before I order one?
willie_901
Veteran
Nothing new to ad in terms of nits.
rhl-oregon
Cameras Guitars Wonders
Paul's point about being satisfied with the CV 15 raises not a nit but an asterisk*: what, really, is the limitation of f4.5 on a camera that behaves superbly at ISO6400? And on a superwide at that?
On the other hand, I'm hardly removing the 35 from my XE, except to mount the Metabones/Zeiss G 45. Even the Fuji 18 is getting little play. So for me it's moot. For now.
On the other hand, I'm hardly removing the 35 from my XE, except to mount the Metabones/Zeiss G 45. Even the Fuji 18 is getting little play. So for me it's moot. For now.
willie_901
Veteran
The slower lenses on smaller sensors at least limit the dynamic range since increasing ISO reduces dynamic range.
A nit would be that above the electronic ISO (which is >1600 for the x100) the under exposed result is simply multiplied digitally in order to write large numbers to the in-camera raw file. So the shadow areas' S/N suffer. I don't know of any published data for the maximum electronic ISO of XTrans camera.
A nit would be that above the electronic ISO (which is >1600 for the x100) the under exposed result is simply multiplied digitally in order to write large numbers to the in-camera raw file. So the shadow areas' S/N suffer. I don't know of any published data for the maximum electronic ISO of XTrans camera.
Dante_Stella
Rex canum cattorumque
Does the OVF cover it?
kzphoto
Well-known
Dante,
I think the OVF barely covers it, but you'll be using the whole OVF to frame. It's been about 3 or 4 weeks since I shot the lens in early February so my memory is a bit fuzzy.
I think the OVF barely covers it, but you'll be using the whole OVF to frame. It's been about 3 or 4 weeks since I shot the lens in early February so my memory is a bit fuzzy.
Dante_Stella
Rex canum cattorumque
Thanks - it should not be a problem then. None of my 21mm (or 50mm for 6x9) finders seem to be much above 95% anyway... Looks like a killer lens, at least by the numbers...
Dante
willie_901
Veteran
Yes, it does.
kzphoto
Well-known
It's pretty damned sharp, that's for sure. Here's a quick sample of a flat space:
Slanted -- Oakland, CA by kzamani, on Flickr
Slanted -- Oakland, CA by kzamani, on Flickr
kzphoto
Well-known
texchappy
Well-known
Think you're supposed to take the shot before you eat the food in food photography
kzphoto
Well-known
Only if you want other people to see what you're eating! I like to post the remnants. My way of going against the grain, so to speak.
Dante_Stella
Rex canum cattorumque
Arrived yesterday. Optical performance (particularly the microscopic native distortion) is going to put some hurt on a lot of competing systems (Leica and MFT). The clutch seems a little gimmicky compared to the slip clutch on Nikon AF-s lenses.
Dante
Dante