corposant
Member
Thom Hogan (maybe one of the more dispassionate gear reviewers) has posted his X Lens reviews.
In one of the more surprising (to me and to him) revelations, he recommends entrants to the system to seriously consider the 18-55 instead of the 18mm and 35mm primes (I have the 35mm and I find I use it less and less since getting the zoom), loves the 14mm and seems very satisfied with the 60mm.
You can find the reviews at sansmirror.com
In one of the more surprising (to me and to him) revelations, he recommends entrants to the system to seriously consider the 18-55 instead of the 18mm and 35mm primes (I have the 35mm and I find I use it less and less since getting the zoom), loves the 14mm and seems very satisfied with the 60mm.
You can find the reviews at sansmirror.com
willie_901
Veteran
These are useful and fair reviews.
I do think Hogan's comments about the XF micro contrast characteristics are valid. I was amazed to read his comments on CA because they are identical to my observations. I enjoy using the 35/1.4 XF with its much smaller longitudinal CA compared to expensive Nikon primes. I refuse to buy Nikon primes because I can not tolerate the LCA.
For me the zoom is too slow. The zoom is also just a bit too big for me to carry everyday. It is a great lens for the money though and the optical quality is competitive with other brands. I can see how many people find it to be a perfect compromise.
Even the 35/1.4 is only equivalent to a f 2.0 lens (assuming identical camera locations) with a 24x36 mm sensor in terms of light amplitude reaching the sensor. My main concerns are S/N and dynamic range for identical perspectives. This is the main reason I abandoned m4/3... the lenses just weren't there or are extremely large (for the bodies) and expensive. Of course others have different priorities.
The XTRANS array allegedly is more efficient which mskes lower lenses more practical. But until there's software like RawDigger (and others) to evaluate the raw data files many will doubt this claim. I do not based on the DPREVIEW S/N data and my own experience with D700 raw files.
The 18/2 and 14/2.8 are simiar to many of their 24x36mm format counterparts. Much larger and heavier 24x36 format prime wide angle lenses with larger maximum apertures are available though. I just don't want to carry them around. The upcoming 56/1.2 will only have a half stop disadvantage compared to the popular 85/1.4, 24x36 mm lenses.
I have not noticed edge sharpness issues with the 35/1.4. On the other hand the 18/2 has edge issues at wider apertures. I think the high level of software barrel correction required for this lens contributes to the egde problems. I have noticed an improvement with LR 4.4 though. I think the 18/2 performs simiarly tonthe 28/3.5 Color Skopar I use to own, but that is only a qualitative assessment. I carry the XP1 with the 18/2 by default. I like the compact size and the angle of view works for my projects. But I think landscape photographers would be much better off with the 14/2.8.
I do think Hogan's comments about the XF micro contrast characteristics are valid. I was amazed to read his comments on CA because they are identical to my observations. I enjoy using the 35/1.4 XF with its much smaller longitudinal CA compared to expensive Nikon primes. I refuse to buy Nikon primes because I can not tolerate the LCA.
For me the zoom is too slow. The zoom is also just a bit too big for me to carry everyday. It is a great lens for the money though and the optical quality is competitive with other brands. I can see how many people find it to be a perfect compromise.
Even the 35/1.4 is only equivalent to a f 2.0 lens (assuming identical camera locations) with a 24x36 mm sensor in terms of light amplitude reaching the sensor. My main concerns are S/N and dynamic range for identical perspectives. This is the main reason I abandoned m4/3... the lenses just weren't there or are extremely large (for the bodies) and expensive. Of course others have different priorities.
The XTRANS array allegedly is more efficient which mskes lower lenses more practical. But until there's software like RawDigger (and others) to evaluate the raw data files many will doubt this claim. I do not based on the DPREVIEW S/N data and my own experience with D700 raw files.
The 18/2 and 14/2.8 are simiar to many of their 24x36mm format counterparts. Much larger and heavier 24x36 format prime wide angle lenses with larger maximum apertures are available though. I just don't want to carry them around. The upcoming 56/1.2 will only have a half stop disadvantage compared to the popular 85/1.4, 24x36 mm lenses.
I have not noticed edge sharpness issues with the 35/1.4. On the other hand the 18/2 has edge issues at wider apertures. I think the high level of software barrel correction required for this lens contributes to the egde problems. I have noticed an improvement with LR 4.4 though. I think the 18/2 performs simiarly tonthe 28/3.5 Color Skopar I use to own, but that is only a qualitative assessment. I carry the XP1 with the 18/2 by default. I like the compact size and the angle of view works for my projects. But I think landscape photographers would be much better off with the 14/2.8.