willie_901
Veteran
Sure, the 12-24 DX, the 17-35/2.8 AFS and the 16-35/4 VR G. The 16-35/4 was the best of these three.
I never used a Nikkor on the X-T1. I used the Nikkors on D300 or D700 bodies. I was specifically discussing how much effort and accommodation was required recording the images and then during post production in LR/PS. The X-T1 body itself has higher analog dynamic and signal-to-noise than the D700. The difference is small (~half a stop from base ISO to ISO 400) but real. At ISO 800-1600 the D700 is ~ 1/3 stop better. Of course, the D700 sensor (irrespective of the color-filter array differences) uses older technology.
All three Nikkors did not match the Fujinon at their minimum focal length especially at the frame edges. Also the barrel distortion contained higher order curvatures which ACR could not remove. With all three Nikkors I was comfortable using them only when their minimum focal lengths were set at 2 to 4 mm longer.
Often I had to photograph residential exteriors when the sun was in front of the camera. In these cases the ghosting and flare resistance of the Fujinon was significantly better than the Nikkors.
Ignoring the convenience of reduced size and weight, in my case the bottom line my post-production time was reduced by at least 25% when I started to use the Fujifilm system for gigs. Because clients valued having the images early the morning after the shoot, life became easier and the results were slightly better.
back alley
IMAGES
i'm lucky in that my favourite focal lengths happen to be excellent in the fuji line.
i have always liked 24/35/85...lots of time i also had a cute little 40 in the mix as well.
with fuji, the 16/23/56 and even the pancake 27 are all better at making images than i am!
the xe line of cameras are close to rf in feel of use and do what i like cameras to do...no deal breakers in the line up for me.
i have always liked 24/35/85...lots of time i also had a cute little 40 in the mix as well.
with fuji, the 16/23/56 and even the pancake 27 are all better at making images than i am!
the xe line of cameras are close to rf in feel of use and do what i like cameras to do...no deal breakers in the line up for me.
Avotius
Some guy
That 55-200 lens is damn good, and the 50-140 has one of the best in lens image stabilizers. And the 16 f1.4 is awesome as well. But honestly my top 3 would have the Rokinon 12 f2, its that good.
Big fan of the new 35mm f/2 ...
back alley
IMAGES
tell us more...
It focuses fast, the size is right, and the results look good.
I don't over-complicate this stuff.
back alley
IMAGES
It focuses fast, the size is right, and the results look good.
keeping it simple!
MCTuomey
Veteran
I want to rent & try one. I've read it's THE lens for astro uses, among other things, and it's f/2 and pretty small for pete's sake. Is there a lot of copy variation in the Rokinon's?
willie_901
Veteran
It focuses fast, the size is right, and the results look good.
In my experience jsrockit's succinct summary describes the new 35/2.
All I will add is I enjoyed the results from the 35/1.4 Fujinon yet I don't regret selling it. When I sorted the photos I took with this lens hardly any were at f 1.4.
SuperUJ
Well-known
It focuses fast, the size is right, and the results look good.
Mine is supposed to arrive tomorrow. I can't wait to pick up my X-E2 again with it.
John
Good to hear John... but don't let that M246 get lonely.
SuperUJ
Well-known
Will try a tag team approach: M246 + CV35 f/1.2 & X-E2 + XF35 f/2 for size and weight; color and B&W; manual and autofocus. The form factor of the XF35 f/2 should help blend in better in certain situations
John
f2bthere
Member
I have the 35/1.4, Zeiss Tuite 50/2.8 makro, 56 APD/1.2, 16/1.4 and the 18-55/2.8-4. I also have a Nikon mount Zeiss Planar 85/1.4 with an adapter.
My photography tends to be more documentary (candid images of people who are engaged in some way, externally or internally) and because I want to be unobtrusive (not "sneaky" but also not "in your face"), the Xpro1 is the best platform I have used. Much of my work is in lower light, so fast lenses are important. My subjects are almost always people and sometimes also dogs.
The 35/1.4 is the best all around and can be had for a great price. This lens draws very well and the focal length is very handy--long enough to use for portraits, wide enough to photograph most things. If you could have only one lens, this is a good choice.
The 56 APD is expensive, let's in less light than the regular version and doesn't focus as well on the newer Fujis (I use the XPRO 1, so either would focus slower for me). I was lucky enough to get a great deal on it. It renders significantly better than the non-APD version, so for me it is well worth the trade-offs. It is not quite as good as the Zeiss 85/1.4 Planar (but what is?), but it beats the Canon 85/1.2 and the Nikon 85/1.4, which are both fine lenses--the regular 56/1.2 is not as good as these two. A portrait lens isn't as versatile as a normal, but what it does, it does very well.
The sweet sixteen, 16/1.4, is a fantastic lens and fairly new to me. The 16mm (like a 24mm in full frame) sits at the sweet spot between very wide and ultra wide. For photographing people, it is still pretty easy to take normal looking images without having to be extra careful, the way you do with an ultra wide--not to say you can be careless, but it can be used quickly once you are used to it. The 23 is probably more practical and much easier to use, but if I want wider than the 35, I want more width than the 23 or even the 18 will give me. The 16 hits the spot. It also combines a fast aperture and great close focus ability (down to 6"!). These two characteristics give it the ability to deliver very unique images which you can't really get otherwise. Wide images with shallow depth of field to separate subjects and draw the viewers attention while providing a significant amount of context--fabulous!
The 18-55/2.8-4 is a versatile lens and for many it would be a great "if I only had one lens" choice. I prefer primes. For my work, I often need faster lenses. But if I know I will be in daylight or working with studio lights (and hence stopped down), this is a handy lens. I could live without f1.2 at the portrait end and even without f1.4 (although I do use them), but I wouldn't want to give up f2.0. I tend to need f1.4 a lot at the normal end (low light) and I want something wider and faster at the wide end (hence the 16mm). So this is the lens I could most easily part with. But quickly changing situations in good light, not to mention the light weight given its versatility, make this a nice lens to have.
The Zeiss 50mm is a great lens, but I find f2.8 limiting, which makes it hard to justify the weight in the bag. The 56mm is far more likely to hold the portrait lens spot. This is a superior macro lens, going to 1:1 if needed. It draws very well and is a great portrait lens to f2.8, which is fast enough for most portrait needs. But for the type of work I tend to do, the 16 is great for close ups (not macro, but close enough for most purposes) and the 56 APD edges it out for portraits. And both beat it for low light. I do find myself bringing it out more in the studio or for images of objects (or for real macro photos), but not as much in the field anymore.
So my tendency is to take just one lens (whichever seems appropriate or fun) or, if I need versatility, three: 16, 35 and 56. This trio is, I think, the perfect combination for my way of working out of a bag.
My photography tends to be more documentary (candid images of people who are engaged in some way, externally or internally) and because I want to be unobtrusive (not "sneaky" but also not "in your face"), the Xpro1 is the best platform I have used. Much of my work is in lower light, so fast lenses are important. My subjects are almost always people and sometimes also dogs.
The 35/1.4 is the best all around and can be had for a great price. This lens draws very well and the focal length is very handy--long enough to use for portraits, wide enough to photograph most things. If you could have only one lens, this is a good choice.
The 56 APD is expensive, let's in less light than the regular version and doesn't focus as well on the newer Fujis (I use the XPRO 1, so either would focus slower for me). I was lucky enough to get a great deal on it. It renders significantly better than the non-APD version, so for me it is well worth the trade-offs. It is not quite as good as the Zeiss 85/1.4 Planar (but what is?), but it beats the Canon 85/1.2 and the Nikon 85/1.4, which are both fine lenses--the regular 56/1.2 is not as good as these two. A portrait lens isn't as versatile as a normal, but what it does, it does very well.
The sweet sixteen, 16/1.4, is a fantastic lens and fairly new to me. The 16mm (like a 24mm in full frame) sits at the sweet spot between very wide and ultra wide. For photographing people, it is still pretty easy to take normal looking images without having to be extra careful, the way you do with an ultra wide--not to say you can be careless, but it can be used quickly once you are used to it. The 23 is probably more practical and much easier to use, but if I want wider than the 35, I want more width than the 23 or even the 18 will give me. The 16 hits the spot. It also combines a fast aperture and great close focus ability (down to 6"!). These two characteristics give it the ability to deliver very unique images which you can't really get otherwise. Wide images with shallow depth of field to separate subjects and draw the viewers attention while providing a significant amount of context--fabulous!
The 18-55/2.8-4 is a versatile lens and for many it would be a great "if I only had one lens" choice. I prefer primes. For my work, I often need faster lenses. But if I know I will be in daylight or working with studio lights (and hence stopped down), this is a handy lens. I could live without f1.2 at the portrait end and even without f1.4 (although I do use them), but I wouldn't want to give up f2.0. I tend to need f1.4 a lot at the normal end (low light) and I want something wider and faster at the wide end (hence the 16mm). So this is the lens I could most easily part with. But quickly changing situations in good light, not to mention the light weight given its versatility, make this a nice lens to have.
The Zeiss 50mm is a great lens, but I find f2.8 limiting, which makes it hard to justify the weight in the bag. The 56mm is far more likely to hold the portrait lens spot. This is a superior macro lens, going to 1:1 if needed. It draws very well and is a great portrait lens to f2.8, which is fast enough for most portrait needs. But for the type of work I tend to do, the 16 is great for close ups (not macro, but close enough for most purposes) and the 56 APD edges it out for portraits. And both beat it for low light. I do find myself bringing it out more in the studio or for images of objects (or for real macro photos), but not as much in the field anymore.
So my tendency is to take just one lens (whichever seems appropriate or fun) or, if I need versatility, three: 16, 35 and 56. This trio is, I think, the perfect combination for my way of working out of a bag.
Big Ursus
Well-known
I picked up my new 35/2 last week. I haven't worked much with it so far, but I was immediately impressed by its size and, especially, by how fast it focuses with the firmware update.
I also have the 18/2.0, which is still my fave, and the 18-55/2.8-4.0. I'd like to get a longer, faster zoom, but I can't justify it - though I keep trying.
I also have the 18/2.0, which is still my fave, and the 18-55/2.8-4.0. I'd like to get a longer, faster zoom, but I can't justify it - though I keep trying.
Pherdinand
the snow must go on
the 23/2...glued to the x100 i have
rhl-oregon
Cameras Guitars Wonders
I think I'm about to enjoy the 16/1.4 as much as I have enjoyed the 35/1.4--wide open unless the light or circumstances dictate otherwise.
coelacanth
Ride, dive, shoot.
Loved 35/1.4 and 56/1.2 (original) when I had a kit of native lenses and a few bodies for an assignment. My remaining X-E1 had been permanently mated with Fuji's official M adapter and used as a film scanner using BEOON until today.
I just got myself the newly released 35/2. So far looking great but I need to get out and shoot some.
Liked 23mm a lot as well, but it was way too big for me. With those very positive reviews of the new 35/2, I hope Fuji will consider making 23/2 in similar size.
I just got myself the newly released 35/2. So far looking great but I need to get out and shoot some.
Liked 23mm a lot as well, but it was way too big for me. With those very positive reviews of the new 35/2, I hope Fuji will consider making 23/2 in similar size.
Baby of Macon
Well-known
The 14 is an exceptional lens. Not that common a choice but worth checking out.