The Fabulous Fuji X owners thread

macvisual said:
Sorry for my ignorance, what does 'GSE' stand for ?
Click to expand...
Graphite Silver Edition. If I'm perfectly honest I wish it was more silver (like the XT10) than gunmetal so it had the ultimate retro look, but I guess you can't have everything ;)
 
snerkler said:
Been loads on the used market for several weeks now, great time to buy one at the mo. WEX had a deal for a further 10% off a couple of weeks ago when I bought mine which made them even better value. I'll not be upgrading until the XT2 GSE comes onto the used market ;)
Click to expand...

I'm with you on that one bro!
 
chrism_scotland said:
Anyone using the 60mm? Appreciate its an older lens now and not seen as "cool" but ditching the 16-55 so would like to cover off the long end, 56mm is obviously amazing but don't really "need" the f1.2
Click to expand...
A bit slower to focus than some other lenses, but nice and sharp.

If you're interested in a trade, I'm still looking for a 16-55.
 
Ah hah I'm tempted by a 16-55mm too just for the ease of use. Having the 23, 35 and 56 is great but I only have one body to put them all on.

To think I passed on one for £520 when Chris was selling in the summer makes me hurt a little inside.
 
JYC said:
Ah hah I'm tempted by a 16-55mm too just for the ease of use. Having the 23, 35 and 56 is great but I only have one body to put them all on.

To think I passed on one for £520 when Chris was selling in the summer makes me hurt a little inside.
Click to expand...

Just out of interest, I tested my 16-55/2.8 up against my 18-55/2.8-4 at various focal lengths and apertures yesterday (just shooting the houses in my estate). To my surprise, the 18-55mm was sharper at the edges at all focal lengths, whilst the 16-55 was on a par on the middle until 35mm when it showed an advantage. At 55mm, the central portion of the image was significantly sharper on the 16-55. Was a bit disappointed by the edges though, looks like the auto-correction has removed a lot of CA.
 
manualfocus-g said:
Just out of interest, I tested my 16-55/2.8 up against my 18-55/2.8-4 at various focal lengths and apertures yesterday (just shooting the houses in my estate). To my surprise, the 18-55mm was sharper at the edges at all focal lengths, whilst the 16-55 was on a par on the middle until 35mm when it showed an advantage. At 55mm, the central portion of the image was significantly sharper on the 16-55. Was a bit disappointed by the edges though, looks like the auto-correction has removed a lot of CA.
Click to expand...

Thanks for that, this thread could do with more posts like this to combat GAS. :D
 
Barrysprout said:
Thanks for that, this thread could do with more posts like this to combat GAS. :D
Click to expand...
I briefly owned a 16-55. I thought the image quality improvement would compensate for the extra weight and lack of IS. Wrong! After a few days of unscientific testing I returned the lens and have gone back to my 18-55. I just did not see the point of it (the 16-55) except the water resistance. And I naively expected it to have internal zooming, as its sister the excellent 50-140 does. Wrong again.
 
Stephen L said:
I briefly owned a 16-55. I thought the image quality improvement would compensate for the extra weight and lack of IS. Wrong! After a few days of unscientific testing I returned the lens and have gone back to my 18-55. I just did not see the point of it (the 16-55) except the water resistance. And I naively expected it to have internal zooming, as its sister the excellent 50-140 does. Wrong again.
Click to expand...

That's it keep them coming! Now talk down the X-T2 before I part with my X-Pro2 to order one!
 
JYC said:
Ah hah I'm tempted by a 16-55mm too just for the ease of use. Having the 23, 35 and 56 is great but I only have one body to put them all on.

To think I passed on one for £520 when Chris was selling in the summer makes me hurt a little inside.
Click to expand...

I know!! I will be listing my one later but suffice to say it'll be dearer than that one was! Brilliant lens but not really suited to the X-Pro 2
 
I tried the 16-55 out recently. It's a lovely well-built lens but the thing I noticed most is that you cannot get away with using low shutter speeds as you can the 18-55. I could see through the EVF the lens not steadying when I depressed the shutter half way, and I had to use a fast shutter speed. With the 18-55 I can shoot down to 1/30 and still get an in-focus image.

Personally, I do believe that the Fuji lenses really benefit from OIS. If the 18-55 can have OIS and not be overly big and heavy, and still relatively fast (f2.8 - f4) then this technology could be incorporated within the primes - 35, 56, 90 etc.

Stephen L said:
I briefly owned a 16-55. I thought the image quality improvement would compensate for the extra weight and lack of IS. Wrong! After a few days of unscientific testing I returned the lens and have gone back to my 18-55. I just did not see the point of it (the 16-55) except the water resistance. And I naively expected it to have internal zooming, as its sister the excellent 50-140 does. Wrong again.
Click to expand...
 
manualfocus-g said:
Just out of interest, I tested my 16-55/2.8 up against my 18-55/2.8-4 at various focal lengths and apertures yesterday (just shooting the houses in my estate). To my surprise, the 18-55mm was sharper at the edges at all focal lengths, whilst the 16-55 was on a par on the middle until 35mm when it showed an advantage. At 55mm, the central portion of the image was significantly sharper on the 16-55. Was a bit disappointed by the edges though, looks like the auto-correction has removed a lot of CA.
Click to expand...

18-55 is probably the best value lens in the lineup, although I'd still like to try the 16-55...
 
I've just had a reply from the UK distributors for RRS gear. They are based in Holland - don't ask.
They don't have stock in but will get me a price. I'm sure it will be more than the cheapo Chinese knock offs on e-Bay, but the quality is reported to be excellent.
@Mr Perceptive ...are you interested? Anyone else looking for a good bit of gear?
Let me know and I'll ask them for a price - absolutely no commitment at present.
 
mickledore said:
I've just had a reply from the UK distributors for RRS gear. They are based in Holland - don't ask.
They don't have stock in but will get me a price. I'm sure it will be more than the cheapo Chinese knock offs on e-Bay, but the quality is reported to be excellent.
@Mr Perceptive ...are you interested? Anyone else looking for a good bit of gear?
Let me know and I'll ask them for a price - absolutely no commitment at present.
Click to expand...

Yes!!!! But price dependant
 
Thanks for the posts re the 16-55 being no sharper than the 18-55mm as I've been considering one due to the weather sealing, but would've hoped that the 16-55mm would have been significantly better so it's not worth the extra then by the sounds of it. Think I'll stick with my idea of getting the 18-135mm as my walkabout then, and then maybe a fast prime for those times I want something with subject isolation.
 
They don't have stock in but will get me a price. I'm sure it will be more than the cheapo Chinese knock offs on e-Bay, but the quality is reported to be excellent.
Click to expand...

I have dealt with this company, they are Markins dealers too and item came quickly.

Reckon with current exchange rates you won't get much change out of 200 quid for that L-Plate, sure our friends in the far east will make one soon
 
Last edited:
Through coincidence, I just found myself in a scene similar to the one we looked at earlier... To compare, here's my 55-200@200 - one wide open, one at f8.

2016_1018_13024200.jpeg


2016_1018_13025200.jpeg

I dunno, these are SOOC so no post-sharpening etc, plus slightly further distance I think...


Edit: forum compression ftl... Give me a while to sort Flickr links...
 
Last edited:
tijuana taxi said:
I have dealt with this company, they are Markins dealers too and item came quickly.

Reckon with current exchange rates you won't get much change out of 200 quid for that L-Plate, sure our friends in the far east will make one soon
Click to expand...
They are appearing but the copies do not have the sliding Base plate that the RRS have. It could be important if you want to use remote control in portrait mode. I went through several cable connectors on the T1 and had to make do with a less than perfect set up at the end. Now with the sliding pate there us room for a 90° connector which the T1 couldn't really handle.

Of course if is now possible to screw a cable release onto the shutter button. I'm doing that at present and it works well.
 
macvisual said:
What are you not liking about the XP2 Colin can I ask ?
Click to expand...

Purely down to the handling Pete. I know I won't benefit any with the X-T2 for the type of shots I take but since picking up another X-T1 it just feels right.

mickledore said:
I think it's the fact that he hasn't got one that is the main problem:confused:
Click to expand...

??? I'm sure I do you know, in fact there is photographic evidence in the classified section.
 
XP and XT bodies are very different, fantastic that Fuji makes two types.

I really want the AF improvements and the focus stick, not sure resolution or IQ bothers me that much, I am at the 'good enough' point with the X-T1. Simply cannot justify it on price grounds though :(
 
I would say that resolution and IQ are very important to me if I were considering (which I am!) upgrading to the new bodies. The focus stick looks great and certainly the AF performance should be much better (XT1 isn't great for action), but I would not part with so much money unless:

1. Resolution was much better (which it should be with a 24MP sensor)
2. High ISO performance was better
3. Dynamic range was better
4. All these factors meant that overall IQ was better.

For reference I can refer to my RX1R and my GF's Nikon D5200, both of which have better resolution and detail in the images thanks to their sensors.

JYC said:
XP and XT bodies are very different, fantastic that Fuji makes two types.

I really want the AF improvements and the focus stick, not sure resolution or IQ bothers me that much, I am at the 'good enough' point with the X-T1. Simply cannot justify it on price grounds though :(
Click to expand...
 
I agree that for the money IQ should be better, not just AF performance and the new stick :)

But I just meant that for me as a rank amateur it doesn't make a huge difference to the photos I can take, whereas the AF performance does have an enormous impact.
 
addicknchips said:
I wonder if there is some sample variation on the 16-55's? I haven't used the 18-55 much, but I found the 16-55 much nicer.

Anyway - here's a comparison video. Image samples kick in after about 18 minutes..
View: https://youtu.be/v9UHwPPbk08
Click to expand...

I suspect youre right, remember as well that I was testing on landscapes...for portraits the 16-55 is clearly sharper.

Edit: at least that's the case with my copies.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top