|
Which preview is saying the 35 f/2 is soft wide open? The shots I've glanced at look spectacular and impressions seem very positive. I'm absolutely grabbing one to complement my 23 f/1.4. Animal seems to be the only one posting that it's not sharp wide open, so I'm not sure which preview in particular caught his attention.
|
#
?
Oct 21, 2015 19:51
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 8, 2024 07:26 |
|
|
I found this thing: https://www.flickr.com/photos/25805910@N05/sets/72157656994872294 for all of our pixel-peeping needs. Looks solid to me, but I'm sure someone here will be able to bring a more critical eye to this thing.
|
|
#
?
Oct 21, 2015 19:55
|
|
|
Star War Sex Parrot posted:Which preview is saying the 35 f/2 is soft wide open? The shots I've glanced at look spectacular and impressions seem very positive. I'm absolutely grabbing one to complement my 23 f/1.4. Sorry, I should have quoted a source: quote:With 9 rounded aperture blades, the XF35mmF2 R WR delivers pretty smooth bokeh. The minimum focus distance (MFD) is 35cm, so you can get close to your subject. However, similar to the X100/S/T, shooting wide open at or near MFD can lead to some dreamy softness. It disappears as soon as you stop down to f/2.8 or f/3.2. Rico is usually pretty spot on, albeit too much in love with Fuji. If he is right and this is like the lens on the X100, then f/2.8 is gonna be the go-to aperture if you need sharpness at low light. Mind you, the x100t's softness at f/2.0 is not a dealbreaker, and can be used creatively, but its definitely a thing that can get in the way in certain situations. I think this 35mm is gonna be a great outdoor travel lens bolted to an X-T1. I avoided the XF 16-55mm because it was too big, and waited for this little lens, and I think I will get it before I head to my next desert destination.
|
|
#
?
Oct 21, 2015 19:59
|
|
|
800peepee51doodoo posted:
I don't care if you guys aren't talking about this anymore, it's still hilarious.
|
|
#
?
Oct 21, 2015 20:49
|
|
|
dpreview.com commenter:quote:By uhoh07 (1 hour ago) HOW DARE YOU TAINT THE BEAUTIFUL LEICA NAME!
|
|
#
?
Oct 21, 2015 20:54
|
|
|
Any chance the new 35 gets paired with the xpro 2 as a package? That would be just right for my fuji needs.
|
|
#
?
Oct 21, 2015 20:56
|
|
|
Animal posted:It's simple, I expected it to be sharp at f/2. I understand that other lenses are not sharp wide open, and that the f/1.4 is sharper at f/2 (and even wider). None of that means that hoping the new lens to be sharp would be a completely unreasonable expectation. Sorry, I typed that wrong. The initial impressions of the 35mm 2 are that is it sharper at 2 than the 1.4 is at 2, and that it's all around very sharp. The sample images from it are gorgeous. Have you ready any of the reviews of the early models that people have posted?
|
|
#
?
Oct 21, 2015 21:14
|
|
|
Animal posted:Best bang for the buck! I bought it for astro, got some great shots, but it's gotten plenty of use as a travel lens. 12mm, kit lens, and a Gorillapod = great travel kit. Ross Kennedy also made a nice page on astrophotography with a fuji. I'm planning on getting the 12mm exactly for travel and astro, too. The kit lens was fine, but wider and faster would have been better. Basically though, you just need a wide fast lens, a cable release, and a tripod, though lens specifics on things like coma matter, too. The combination of lens characteristics sets how long you can expose for before star trails become visible and there's a simple formula for doing that; both of the web pages linked here will point you to it. If the lens isn't fast enough or wide enough, you don't get enough light in before things start to smear.
|
|
#
?
Oct 21, 2015 21:24
|
|
|
Fart Car '97 posted:Sorry, I typed that wrong. The initial impressions of the 35mm 2 are that is it sharper at 2 than the 1.4 is at 2, and that it's all around very sharp. The sample images from it are gorgeous. Have you ready any of the reviews of the early models that people have posted? I have been looking at the images and they do look great, but it seems most of them are not SOOC. Rico Pfirstinger thinks it goes soft at f/2.0 similar to an X100. Which is kind of at odds with it being sharper at that than the XF 23mm which is a beast even up to f/1.4 (the XF 23mm is sharper than the X100's lens at f/2.0). If Rico is wrong that would make me very happy.
|
|
#
?
Oct 21, 2015 21:27
|
|
|
Borachon posted:Ross Kennedy also made a nice page on astrophotography with a fuji. You'll find that the 12mm + XT-1/X-E2 are quite capable of getting great astro shots under 30" which is when I started seeing some trails. I even did 20" shots on a very clear moonless night and they were great with post processing.
|
|
#
?
Oct 21, 2015 21:30
|
|
|
I'm just waiting for Fuji to announce that 33mm f/1.0 lens. Looks like they've finally made a decision to sell it, according to rumors.
alkanphel fucked around with this message at 13:36 on Oct 22, 2015 |
|
#
?
Oct 21, 2015 23:58
|
|
|
Do the MTF charts on Fuji's website for the 35mm 1.4 and 35mm 2 tell us anything about how they compare optically? I'm guessing not really, since they're both probably done at max aperture, which is obviously different for the 2 lenses. But as someone that doesn't really know what I'm looking at, it seems like the 2 may be sharper in the center, but less sharp in the corners compared to the 1.4.
|
|
#
?
Oct 22, 2015 01:18
|
|
|
What old school prime lens / adapter combo should I get for my new-to-me A6000? I'd like something compact in size, with a focal length 35mm or shorter, and something around f1.8/1.4. I'm primarily looking for a walk around lens that works well at night in the city.
|
|
#
?
Oct 22, 2015 04:06
|
|
|
Fujirumors says new X-T1 Firmware will turn the video button into a Fn button. Such a simple change that will make the camera better, they should have thought of it from the get-go. Aaaand I pre-ordered the 35mmF2. I will need a cave to go cave diving with.
|
|
#
?
Oct 22, 2015 14:50
|
|
|
God drat that leaked XF lineup. 8mm? 33mm 1.0?  I cannot wait for this wedding season to wrap so I can actually find a work gap in which I can ditch my remaining canon gear and swap over to Fuji entirely
|
|
#
?
Oct 22, 2015 15:19
|
|
|
I haven't done too much research since yesterday, but my preliminary findings are that I'm screwed on trying to photograph the Milky Way on November 22nd. Not only is the Galactic Center definitely not visible, but the moon is going to be 2 or 3 days out from a full moon. Nailed it.
|
|
#
?
Oct 22, 2015 16:01
|
|
|
Animal posted:Fujirumors says new X-T1 Firmware will turn the video button into a Fn button. Such a simple change that will make the camera better, they should have thought of it from the get-go. Aaaand I pre-ordered the 35mmF2. I will need a cave to go cave diving with. I love more and more how they're telling video to go gently caress itself.
|
|
#
?
Oct 22, 2015 16:45
|
|
|
Olympus makes the video button an Fn button as well and it makes sense because you can still use it as such (and by default it is set to video iirc) but you can also use it for something else. I imagine Fuji will be the same.
|
|
#
?
Oct 22, 2015 16:50
|
|
|
spankmeister posted:Olympus makes the video button an Fn button as well and it makes sense because you can still use it as such (and by default it is set to video iirc) but you can also use it for something else. I imagine Fuji will be the same. Oh okay! Phew!
|
|
#
?
Oct 22, 2015 17:44
|
|
|
I actually have the Fn button on my Xpro set to video, because that camera is permanently set on RAW+jpeg with a B&W profile so having it be WB like my X-E2 would be pointless. I have never actually used video.
|
|
#
?
Oct 22, 2015 18:12
|
|
|
Bizzaro Quik posted:I love more and more how they're telling video to go gently caress itself. As an extension to the above, I believe it has been a frequent request from users who don't use video or just want another function button for whatever, given you can rebind them rather quickly. I don't use video at all and have been waiting for them to finally do this. I recall that Fujifilm have said they understand that their video implementation in these cameras is not up to scratch and it's something they're working to improve. More was said on this, but I don't recall the specifics.
|
|
#
?
Oct 22, 2015 18:27
|
|
|
I'm using the video button on my E-M5 Mk.1 for the ghetto focus peaking mode.
|
|
#
?
Oct 22, 2015 18:59
|
|
|
Danoss posted:As an extension to the above, I believe it has been a frequent request from users who don't use video or just want another function button for whatever, given you can rebind them rather quickly. I don't use video at all and have been waiting for them to finally do this. Do you know why video on Fuji's is so bad? Is it the sensor, or the software side of things? I'm sure it's probably a mix of both I take it?
|
|
#
?
Oct 22, 2015 19:15
|
|
|
Bizzaro Quik posted:Do you know why video on Fuji's is so bad? Is it the sensor, or the software side of things? I'm sure it's probably a mix of both I take it? Software. It's just half baked like something they threw in out of spite because someone told them they had to. The sensor could do video just fine I'm sure
|
|
#
?
Oct 22, 2015 19:22
|
|
|
timrenzi574 posted:Software. It's just half baked like something they threw in out of spite because someone told them they had to. The sensor could do video just fine I'm sure Gotcha. What a shame.
|
|
#
?
Oct 22, 2015 19:46
|
|
|
I would actually really like it if I could do double duty with Fuji video because you have no idea how many idiots specify "DSLR video" in their assignment specifics because people have no concept of how good camcorders can be and they just equate DSLR Video = HD Film look because youtube.
|
|
#
?
Oct 22, 2015 21:21
|
|
|
Bizzaro Quik posted:Do you know why video on Fuji's is so bad? Is it the sensor, or the software side of things? I'm sure it's probably a mix of both I take it? I don't know for sure, but I also think it's likely to be a combination of the two.
|
|
#
?
Oct 22, 2015 23:48
|
|
|
Soopafly posted:What old school prime lens / adapter combo should I get for my new-to-me A6000? I'd like something compact in size, with a focal length 35mm or shorter, and something around f1.8/1.4. I'm primarily looking for a walk around lens that works well at night in the city. I like Minolta SR mount stuff; maybe it's just because of the Minolta --> Sony continuity. There are some definite gems among the rokkors. rokkorfiles.com has a pretty good breakdown of the best quality glass the company produced in that era. The 24mm f2.8 is probably the best accessible, wide SR lens you can find easily today. There was also the crazy 24mm f2.8 VFC which allowed for adjustment of the field curvature of the plane of focus, so it could focus sharply on a curved plane. Could be useful for certain landscape photography applications. A 24mm is practically a 35mm equivalent so I understand your preference for wider lenses but the 58mm f/1.2 - PG (I've found the f/1.4 to be quite a good performer, too) is probably the best lens in the lineup that you can find easily today. Like a lot of the older MF stuff from any company, wider-angle and telephoto (and especially zoom) lens quality is not what it is today, so sticking to the normals is going to give you the most bang for your buck. The 45mm f/2 MD was widely produced and is super cheap, and I would guess that the sample variation led to some issues, but my copy is tack sharp across the (~68mm FOV) frame on my a6000. It's one of my favorite lenses. Basically the strengths of old MF adapted lenses on mirrorless are that you can get fast glass for cheap, they were made for 35mm image circles so on crop sensors they are often very sharp, and focus peaking is as good if not better than split image pentaprisim rangefinders. Nikon, Canon FD, and especially Olympus OM glass are all also popular candidates for adapting. Keep in mind that adapters are cheap, so you can pick and choose if you want. I've got my eye on picking up an OM Zuiko 24mm shift lens someday. Edited for clarity. SMERSH Mouth fucked around with this message at 02:31 on Oct 23, 2015 |
|
#
?
Oct 23, 2015 01:31
|
|
|
OM glass is the best for manual focusing. The lenses have nice grippy focus rings that stick out and are easy to use and the aperture rings are on the front of the lens as opposed to crammed to the back. Once you get used to OM glass, everything else will feel like crap. Maybe there's better glass as far as image quality goes (though not many), but the ergonomics are huge.
|
|
#
?
Oct 23, 2015 02:09
|
|
|
OM is definitely a good mix of being cheap, great optics, and having a pretty diverse catalog. I also think they look pretty cool as well. The DOF scales are also identical to my Leica gear so I always liked that. too.
BitesizedNike fucked around with this message at 03:15 on Oct 23, 2015 |
|
#
?
Oct 23, 2015 03:13
|
|
|
OM glass has a neat cold look on my a6000. It's hard to describe, I should put up some test shots. The focusing feel etc is really nice too. The lenses I picked up have been fairly expensive but there's a workhorse 50/f1.4 that's usually real cheap. They've also got a couple of good macros which is otherwise lacking in e mount.
|
|
#
?
Oct 23, 2015 07:32
|
|
|
Just reading back on some of the conversation I missed, I have an x100t now and an xt1 with a 16-55 f/2.8 and 23 f/1.4. Happy to do some comparison shots at various apertures if anyone has requests.
|
|
#
?
Oct 23, 2015 09:01
|
|
|
hnnnggggh dat 350mm f/2.8 
|
|
#
?
Oct 23, 2015 12:01
|
|
|
Just a quick shout-out to Olympus, they're packing some awesome poo poo into the next E-M1 firmware: http://www.43rumors.com/jamie-macdonald-has-the-new-v4-0-firmware-on-an-e-m1-and-is-taking-requests-from-users/
|
|
#
?
Oct 23, 2015 13:54
|
|
|
Still no focus peaking on the Mk.1 EM-5 
|
|
#
?
Oct 23, 2015 15:16
|
|
|
Hey hey, pictures. Both are taken with an a6000 at 1600 ISO on "lightbulb" white balance, RAW, then routed through Lightroom and Photoshop with no edits except resizing/exporting to JPG. This is a Sony E 55-210 at 186mm, 1/40 sec at f 6.3. loving hand shake.  This an Olympus OM 180mm 2.8 prime, at 1/200 sec (which my calculator thing says should be the same exposure). Sorry about the framing difference.  I should do this with a tripod, the shake is distracting on the first one. Also something about the JPGs or the export process or something's reduced the effect, the OM picture is dramatically colder in the LR preview. I've got the I like the fringing/chromatic aberration, others probably wouldn't. e: vv No yeah, for sure, I was just commenting about the OM glass because it was something I noticed, or at least noticed in the two ones I've gotten, for someone considering getting them. zachol fucked around with this message at 17:43 on Oct 23, 2015 |
|
#
?
Oct 23, 2015 17:26
|
|
|
zachol posted:Hey hey, pictures. Both are taken with an a6000 at 1600 ISO on "lightbulb" white balance, RAW, then routed through Lightroom and Photoshop with no edits except resizing/exporting to JPG. Some lenses render cooler/warmer due to coatings and or material used in the elements. A fixed color temp setting will not always look the same from lens to lens.
|
|
#
?
Oct 23, 2015 17:37
|
|
|
MMD3 posted:Just reading back on some of the conversation I missed, I have an x100t now and an xt1 with a 16-55 f/2.8 and 23 f/1.4. Happy to do some comparison shots at various apertures if anyone has requests. How do you like the 16 - 55?
|
|
#
?
Oct 23, 2015 17:48
|
|
|
It's also possible the camera may be doing lens corrections with the EF lens and not the OM lens.
|
|
#
?
Oct 23, 2015 19:06
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 8, 2024 07:26 |
|
|
Wengy posted:Just a quick shout-out to Olympus, they're packing some awesome poo poo into the next E-M1 firmware: I am so hype for this 
|
|
#
?
Oct 23, 2015 19:07
|
|