The Fabulous Fuji X owners thread

Hi,

if anybody has the cash and is looking for a new Fuji 50-140mm f2.8 with the 1.4x TC, Amazon UK currently have it on for £1319 plus cash back brining it down to £1194.
Everywhere else seems to have it on for £1469. - Only one left now.
:D
 
Last edited:
Rizvan said:
Hi,

if anybody has the cash and is looking for a new Fuji 50-140mm f2.8 with the 1.4x TC, Amazon UK currently have it on for £1319 plus cash back brining it down to £1194.
Everywhere else seems to have it on for £1469. - Only one left now.
:D
Click to expand...
It is a great deal but annoyingly for me I already have the 1.4 tc :(
 
ASH said:
So where am I going wrong? I can control the shutter speed but not the aperture. Does it only work with lenses with no aperture ring?
Click to expand...
Correct. In other words the 27mm and both XC lenses.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ASH
I took this one at a pre-wedding shoot this morning. The reason for posting is I'd like you to take a look at the branches on the left hand side of the frame please. Do they look odd to you?


Jessjohnsp1wms by Ryan Jarvis, on Flickr

In particular the one bottom left corner.....
 
ryanyboy said:
I took this one at a pre-wedding shoot this morning. The reason for posting is I'd like you to take a look at the branches on the left hand side of the frame please. Do they look odd to you?


Jessjohnsp1wms by Ryan Jarvis, on Flickr

In particular the one bottom left corner.....
Click to expand...
Well, you were at a very wide aperture (f2) for a longish focal length of lens (90mm), and I don't know how close those branches were to you, so to me they just look very out-of-focus, as I would expect with such a shallow depth of field.
 
G.K.Jnr. said:
Just one more autumn shot from me of some trees/foliage at the far end of our garden.

X-T2, 55-200mm Lens, 1/500th @ F5.6, ISO-200, Handheld.
Autumn (13)-03352 by G.K.Jnr., on Flickr

:ty: for looking.,(y) :fuji:

George.
Click to expand...
Those are sparklingly-sharp George, and it just shows what a good lens the 55-200 really is.
 
Stephen L said:
Those are sparklingly-sharp George, and it just shows what a good lens the 55-200 really is.
Click to expand...


Many thanks Stephen, much appreciated.(y)

George.
 
G.K.Jnr. said:
Just one more autumn shot from me of some trees/foliage at the far end of our garden.

X-T2, 55-200mm Lens, 1/500th @ F5.6, ISO-200, Handheld.
Autumn (13)-03352 by G.K.Jnr., on Flickr

:ty: for looking.,(y) :fuji:

George.
Click to expand...
Lovely foliage George. Looks like you have the same issue with me. When I first saw this I thought wow, massively oversharpened but then when I clicked through to flickr it's fine. Dunno what it is with the way my computer renders this site with specific shots/sizes, but all my pics look oversharpened on my computer when I transfer them to here. I've just tried safari as I thought it might be something with chrome, but safari's the same. Bloody computers :lol:

Anyway rant over, nice pic (y)
 
ryanyboy said:
I took this one at a pre-wedding shoot this morning. The reason for posting is I'd like you to take a look at the branches on the left hand side of the frame please. Do they look odd to you?


Jessjohnsp1wms by Ryan Jarvis, on Flickr

In particular the one bottom left
Click to expand...

Apart from the couple and immediate area it looks out of focus in a very weird way, bit like they depicted the alternate universe in Fringe
 
Last edited:
ryanyboy said:
I took this one at a pre-wedding shoot this morning. The reason for posting is I'd like you to take a look at the branches on the left hand side of the frame please. Do they look odd to you?


Jessjohnsp1wms by Ryan Jarvis, on Flickr

In particular the one bottom left corner.....
Click to expand...
Just looks like 'funky' bokeh to me. I've found that lenses sometimes do this, but yet to figure out why. I'm sure it's something to do with it being a certain subject at a specific distance with a specific DOF but just not figured out exactly what yet ;)

Nice image btw, the pop of those people is impressive. Have you done any PP to accentuate this? Any chance you would mind sharing the original so I can see the pop SOOC please as this lens could be on my hit list with pop like that.
 
Last edited:
Rizvan said:
But if we are talking 35mm FF terms the standard 50-140mm equates to 75-210mm without the TC and with the 1.4x TC it'll be 105-294mm..... surely that's good enough?
Click to expand...


I'm comparing it directly to the Fuji 55-200 though, which is in around 80-300 equiv, and you keep the 3.5-48 aperture. With the 50-140 + TC you're stopped down to F4 max I believe, and you're just shy of the 300mm. It's no better or worse is what I mean, but triple the cost.
 
ryanyboy said:
I took this one at a pre-wedding shoot this morning. The reason for posting is I'd like you to take a look at the branches on the left hand side of the frame please. Do they look odd to you?


Jessjohnsp1wms by Ryan Jarvis, on Flickr

In particular the one bottom left corner.....
Click to expand...


personally i would crop in from the left, to omit the branches. I don't think they add anything but distraction. You have isolated the couple nicely besides though.
 
Cagey75 said:
I'm comparing it directly to the Fuji 55-200 though, which is in around 80-300 equiv, and you keep the 3.5-48 aperture. With the 50-140 + TC you're stopped down to F4 max I believe, and you're just shy of the 300mm. It's no better or worse is what I mean, but triple the cost.
Click to expand...
Would be interesting to compare the IQ of the 55-200mm vs 50-140 +TC.
 
Stephen L said:
Well, you were at a very wide aperture (f2) for a longish focal length of lens (90mm), and I don't know how close those branches were to you, so to me they just look very out-of-focus, as I would expect with such a shallow depth of field.
Click to expand...

Yep, all in keeping with my usual style, just thought that OOF area around thew branches looked weird.

tijuana taxi said:
Apart from the couple and immediate area it looks out of focus in a very weird way, bit like they depicted the alternate universe in Fringe
Click to expand...

Ha ha, yeah I think it looks weird too.

snerkler said:
Just looks like 'funky' bokeh to me. I've found that lenses sometimes do this, but yet to figure out why. I'm sure it's something to do with it being a certain subject at a specific distance with a specific DOF but just not figured out exactly what yet ;)

Nice image btw, the pop of those people is impressive. Have you done any PP to accentuate this? Any change you would mind sharing the original so I can see the pop SOOC please as this lens could be on my hit list with pop like that.
Click to expand...

Yeah, you could be right. I'll keep my eye on it though.

Thank you. I'll pop up the SOOC raw in a mo....
 
snerkler said:
Would be interesting to compare the IQ of the 55-200mm vs 50-140 +TC.
Click to expand...


I'd love to see direct comparisons too. I don't think i'll ever own the 50-140, there's many other lenses I would buy first if I had the funds. But for sheer curiosity. if anyone happens to have both? doubtful maybe
 
Cagey75 said:
personally i would crop in from the left, to omit the branches. I don't think they add anything but distraction. You have isolated the couple nicely besides though.
Click to expand...

I've kept the framing as is so that the OOF area on the left could be discussed.
 
Miss out on the last xt2 today even thou I email them on say they didn't see my email till after they sold last camera grr

No one want to send be a raw to try these preset in lr people talking about pls?
 
rookies said:
Miss out on the last xt2 today even thou I email them on say they didn't see my email till after they sold last camera grr

No one want to send be a raw to try these preset in lr people talking about pls?
Click to expand...

I got some boring cat RAWs if you want to try one, pm your email
 
ryanyboy said:
I'm not sure why any sane photographer would have used one to be honest. But no, is the answer ;)
Click to expand...
Initially I thought there was some Rim lightning on them. But upon closer inspection it wasnt. I was about to edit the post. I also didn't realise how bright it was there until I saw your RAW
 
snerkler said:
Lovely foliage George. Looks like you have the same issue with me. When I first saw this I thought wow, massively oversharpened but then when I clicked through to flickr it's fine. Dunno what it is with the way my computer renders this site with specific shots/sizes, but all my pics look oversharpened on my computer when I transfer them to here. I've just tried safari as I thought it might be something with chrome, but safari's the same. Bloody computers :LOL:

Anyway rant over, nice pic (y)
Click to expand...


Many thanks Toby, much appreciate your comments.(y)

"I honestly don't know what happens, when this one came up on the sight I thought exactly the same that it looks over sharpened even though the original was shot in RAW then converted to DNG with very little sharpening added in LR (4.4). It was then transferred from LR to PS (CS6) for a bit of tidying up etc with no more sharpening added, and then uploaded to Flickr as a full res JPG. The transfer to TP was at 800 x whatever and that's it nothing more"

"Strangely enough but totally different :- I uploaded a shot last week of the tuning pegs etc of a Fender Strat' guitar that was shot on my D810 ("this is not meant in any way as a dig at Nikon"), the shot is framed virtually as close to its maximum size as possible and then exactly the same PP work added. The shot as you would expect on Flickr is silly sharp but when viewed on the forum it looks decidedly soft. Now this image was shot under controlled studio flash conditions using a 105mm Micro Nikkor Lens. This I can't figure out why either"

George.
 
G.K.Jnr. said:
Many thanks Toby, much appreciate your comments.(y)

"I honestly don't know what happens, when this one came up on the sight I thought exactly the same that it looks over sharpened even though the original was shot in RAW then converted to DNG with very little sharpening added in LR (4.4). It was then transferred from LR to PS (CS6) for a bit of tidying up etc with no more sharpening added, and then uploaded to Flickr as a full res JPG. The transfer to TP was at 800 x whatever and that's it nothing more"

"Strangely enough but totally different :- I uploaded a shot last week of the tuning pegs etc of a Fender Strat' guitar that was shot on my D810 ("this is not meant in any way as a dig at Nikon"), the shot is framed virtually as close to its maximum size as possible and then exactly the same PP work added. The shot as you would expect on Flickr is silly sharp but when viewed on the forum it looks decidedly soft. Now this image was shot under controlled studio flash conditions using a 105mm Micro Nikkor Lens. This I can't figure out why either"

George.
Click to expand...
Different rendering.
I have a photo of my son that looks different in photo viewer on my pc to PS to Flickr to chrome the colours are incredibly different it's odd. So it would be acceptable to think that different program would render differently maybe...
 
rookies said:
Miss out on the last xt2 today even thou I email them on say they didn't see my email till after they sold last camera grr

No one want to send be a raw to try these preset in lr people talking about pls?
Click to expand...
Remind me later and I'll email one to you. I think I've still got you email address somewhere.
 
Nuzik said:
Different rendering.
I have a photo of my son that looks different in photo viewer on my pc to PS to Flickr to chrome the colours are incredibly different it's odd. So it would be acceptable to think that different program would render differently maybe...
Click to expand...
Totally reasonable to expect that yeah, but what I don't get is why the same site renders differently for different images posted by different folk. I'm sure it must be something to do with the upload size/resolution/quality to flickr and then the size of the image transferred onto here, but just not sure what.
 
snerkler said:
Thanks for this Ryan, much appreciated. Looks like it has nice pop SOOC then, the people are well isolated and defined from the background. Definitely a lens to add to the wishlist.
Click to expand...

I picked up the 90 F2 and the 50-150 F2.8. Guess which one I don't use and don't think I will use much :D
 
snerkler said:
Totally reasonable to expect that yeah, but what I don't get is why the same site renders differently for different images posted by different folk. I'm sure it must be something to do with the upload size/resolution/quality to flickr and then the size of the image transferred onto here, but just not sure what.
Click to expand...


My thoughts exactly, I'd have thought that my shots from different cameras (apart from more pixel count) would render exactly the same. My workflow is exactly the same for everything ie RAW to DNG, Then WB/Exposure points/ Contrast etc etc in LR, Bit of sharpening in LR. Over to PS to tidy up then upload as JPG to Flickr at full res. Exactly the same programs and workflow regardless of what the images were shot on.(y)

George.
 
Where this profiles in LR for the Fuji Raw I just can't find it
 
I took this one at a pre-wedding shoot this morning. The reason for posting is I'd like you to take a look at the branches on the left hand side of the frame please. Do they look odd to you?
Click to expand...

This might be a rare sighting of the phenomenon sometimes known as the "snerkler painterly effect"
 
Last edited:
tijuana taxi said:
This might be a rare sighting of the phenomenon sometimes known as the "snerkler painterly effect"
Click to expand...
Nah, this is the snerkler funky bokeh effect ;)
 
When I bought the X-T2 I wanted to know if it could replace my 7D2 for wildlife. This was shot with the 100-400 and 1.4EX.

Crested Tit by Steve Jelly, on Flickr

This is JPG, straight from camera, just resized in PS. I have to say I'm quite pleased... I'll play with the RAW file when I have more time.
 
Are the Fuji 55-200 a snappy lens at AF indoor like now when lamps are on?

As on my current sony 70-200 it sometime sluggish and miss focus
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top