The Fabulous Fuji X owners thread

:agree: Does seem bit of a beast along with the 120mm macro against the 55-200mm. I beginning to wonder is there much difference between the Fuji's and DSLR's. I sold my XT1 due to the delay of the 100-400mm. Be interesting to see how it compares when fully released against lenses like the Sigma 50-500mm etc.......... Weight is a issue for me, even when I use at home for bird photography.
 
Last edited:
So much for the old adage 'size doesn't matter' eh?

Read some comments about the x-t10 with v1 firmware still being a nicer system to use with regards to menu's etc than the x-tq with v4. Not planning on spending much time in the menus though but it would have been nice to see the newer menus brought forward aswell.

Not long now!!
 
Wow!

Trying to shoot Damsel flies with my 55-200 this morning makes me think that the 100-400 can't come soon enough. It looks like I'll have to start weight lifting in advance of getting it . I wonder how it's going to feel hand held?
 
:)
Swanseajack said:
:agree: Does seem bit of a beast along with the 120mm macro against the 55-200mm. I beginning to wonder is there much difference between the Fuji's and DSLR's. I sold my XT1 due to the delay of the 100-400mm. Be interesting to see how it compares when fully released against lenses like the Sigma 50-500mm etc.......... Weight is a issue for me, even when I use at home for bird photography.
Click to expand...

Luckly I don't need a lens that long,the 50-140mm is about as heavy as I want to go :)
 
Hi guys. New to fuji system and thinking of joining it. Questions.

With regard to kit lenses I'm confused....
I see the XT-1 comes with the 18-55.
The XT-10 appears on amazon currently as two different skus.

A: with 18-55 for £799
B: with 16-50 for £599

1: Can you guys comment on each lens? I gather the kit lenses on fuji X are quite good?

2: Is the 16-50 new and exclusive only for the XT-10?

3: Is the 18-55 worth it over the 16-50?

4: I take it both have optical image stabilization?

5: What do the following acronyms mean on X mount:

R
XF
LM
APD
XC
WR - Assume this is weather resistant

6: When is the 35mm f2 coming out and will it be cheaper than the 35 f/1.4 and faster/quieter to focus?

7: Is the 16-55 f/2.8 lens a different animal to the above two other kit lenses? Ignoring better bokeh, is IQ better?

8: These two lenses, 50-230 vs 55-200. Is the 55-200 twice as good being twice the price?

9: Any primes 70/75mm in the pipeline for lens roadmap?

10: Do you think Fuji will ever go down the IBIS route?

11: Any ex M43rds owners adopted Fuji and have anything to say about it? Regrets? Prefer it?


I'm toying with the idea of going to Fuji from m43rds but I'm attracted to the Olympus IBIS on the OM series cams.


Thanks so much
 
I'll answer what I can and hope other, more knowledgable people pick up the slack.

I have the 18-55mm kit lens and it's very good. The XF lenses are of a better build quality than the XC lenses but I've heard very good things about the XC ones, especially the 50-230mm. The advantage of the XF over the XC kit lens, other than the build quality, is speed. The XF is f2.8-4 whereas the XC is f3.5-5.6 and yes, both have OIS. No, the 16-50mm isn't exclusive to the X-T1 as it's the same mount obviously and can be bought separately.

Not sure on the acronyms but WR is definitely Weather Resistant. 'X' is obviously the system, not sure of what 'F' and 'C' actually stand for, if anything.

The 16-55mm is f2.8 all the way through so faster and, as a result, quite a bit heavier.

The difference between the 55-200mm & the 50-230mm is similar to that between the 2 mentioned above, build quality and speed.

All that said, I've just had a look on WEX and they're offering the X-T10 with 18-ffmm & 55-200mm for £999 which seems a pretty good deal to me.

Hope this helps.
 
Xf lenses other than the 27 tend to have an aperture ring, xc don't?

Lm stands for linear motor (better focussing)

The new 35 should be next year and should be smaller quicker quieter than the 1.4

The 16-55 will be much better IQ than the kit lens, it's also twice the price and twice the size.

There's a 90mm prime available soon.

@minnnt know anyone who's used every system?
 
I have owned the 16-50, 18-55, 55-200 & 50-230mm and for me there is not much difference in IQ if any, unless pixel peeping to the extremes.

I found the extra 2mm on the wide end useful on the 16-50, although I don't shot wide often. The 50-230mm was a little quicker focussing in good light over the 55-200mm, when light dropped the 55-200mm was better. I also prefered to alter aperture on the body with the XC lenses rather on lens with the XF. Not sure if this has changed with recent firmware upgrades.

As Marc has stated the XF lenses are better built over the XF ones, with things like metal mounts, better finish etc...........

It's been said many times that Fuji dont make a bad lens and in IMO thats true. I have owned a good few of the lenses after owning 5 different bodies and chopping and changing lenses regularly. I haven't owned the newer f2.8 zooms, my only feeling is they may feel a little heavy on the XT10.

The 16-55mm doesn't come with OIS/VR so maybe an issue for your needs.

As to the Amazon prices, I would go for the XT10 with the 16-50mm and if your not happy, you could pick up a used 18-55mm for the saving made. I bought my last one for £230 which was brand new from a split kit.
 
Last edited:
clicktor said:
1: Can you guys comment on each lens? I gather the kit lenses on fuji X are quite good?

2: Is the 16-50 new and exclusive only for the XT-10?

3: Is the 18-55 worth it over the 16-50?

Thanks so much
Click to expand...

Both those zooms are excellent bits of glass, they just have housings that suit different needs. You will not tell them apart in pictures at all. The 16-50 has nothing to do with the XT10, it's been around for yonks. The differences are in feel of zoom/ focus and the amount of manual over riding you have - nothing on the XC, The XF offers aperture and an off switch for the OIS. OIS on both is very good.
 
I had an Olympus OMD E-M10 and tbh the X-T1 knocks spots off it. The Olympus was super sharp though but as an overall system the Fuji is much better for me personally. The OIS lenses are excellent.
 
Alan Clogwyn said:
Both those zooms are excellent bits of glass, they just have housings that suit different needs. You will not tell them apart in pictures at all. The 16-50 has nothing to do with the XT10, it's been around for yonks. The differences are in feel of zoom/ focus and the amount of manual over riding you have - nothing on the XC, The XF offers aperture and an off switch for the OIS. OIS on both is very good.
Click to expand...

The X-T10 16-50 kit has a "II" designation (16-50mm XC II) implying it's different to the 16-50 that came before though. I imagine it'll be very good still.

minnnt said:
I had an Olympus OMD E-M10 and tbh the X-T1 knocks spots off it. The Olympus was super sharp though but as an overall system the Fuji is much better for me personally. The OIS lenses are excellent.
Click to expand...

Bit unfair comparing the E-M10 to the X-T1. Much better handling and IBIS on the E-M1, although the sensor is the same as the E-M10.
 
But i didn't own an em1 so how could i compare those two cameras??? @clicktor asked if there were any ex m4/3 owners who now own an xt1... Which i am and which i do, so i answered and compared the two cameras in question.

Could have just said b****r all then he would have had even less idea.
 
I came from an E-M1 to an X-T1 after 7 years with Olympus (before that I was Canon 5D), and much prefer the Fuji. The major benefit of the Oly is the IBIS. The major benefit of the Fuji is the analogue-type controls, which mean I don't have to try to remember what I've assigned which button to. The Fuji lenses are sharper than the already-sharp Oly lenses, but naturally bigger and heavier. Less high-ISO noise on the Fuji, although you can easily get rid of most of the Oly noise in PP.

Both are great systems - but I'm into landscapes and the Fuji image just has that something extra about it for that purpose.
 
The problem even with CSC is the bigger the sensor,the lager lens will be if you want fast & constant apertures in the lens,and again if you need longer zoom or even fixed lens with fairly reasonable apertures the lens are going to be big,at the moment their no way round it :)
 
simonblue said:
The problem even with CSC is the bigger the sensor,the lager lens will be if you want fast & constant apertures in the lens,and again if you need longer zoom or even fixed lens with fairly reasonable apertures the lens are going to be big,at the moment their no way round it :)
Click to expand...

Some manufacturers can and maybe do save a bit of bulk and weight and maybe cost too by making less good lenses and correcting issues with lens profiles either in camera or in post capture processing. Dunno if this is the case in Fuji land but certainly it happens in MFT and Sony A7 land.
 
woof woof said:
Some manufacturers can and maybe do save a bit of bulk and weight and maybe cost too by making less good lenses and correcting issues with lens profiles either in camera or in post capture processing. Dunno if this is the case in Fuji land but certainly it happens in MFT and Sony A7 land.
Click to expand...

But even most of the lens for the Sony FF are quite big,the longer they get,and the smaller zooms tend to have an constant F4 aperture,i wonder how big an say 24-70/85 would be with an fixed aperture of F2.8 :)
 
Dunno about the A7 lenses being quite big. I only own two native lenses, the 28-70mm and 55mm f1.8 and both are verging on tiny, light too... for FF lenses.

I'm sure Canon do this too don't they? I think so or if they don't do it in camera at least there are lens profiles which make quite an impact. I remember being quite shocked at the improvement in distortion of my Canon 20-35mm shots. That was an old lens and I don't know how much Canon rely on software corrections for newer lenses or how much they use post capture corrections to keep size, weight and cost down.
 
Unfortunately the twin pack Sandisk 16gb 80mbps cards I ordered were out of stock... But they gave me 2 32gb 95mbps cards instead... Not bad service
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top