The Fabulous Fuji X owners thread

ukaskew said:
No comparison shots from me, but it basically comes down to whether you want the convenience of a workhorse zoom that has better AF, or something a bit special (that has acceptable, but not fantastic AF).

I guess it depends on what other kit you're using to shoot weddings, but if you're covered for focal lengths anyway I would go with the 56mm 1.2 all day long. I'm shooting all my weddings next year with the 23mm 1.4 and 56mm 1.2, with an 18-55 in the bag just incase something goes horribly wrong.
Click to expand...

I have no experience with either lens, but that's about the same advice I'd offer. Really depends on your other gear. I'd only personally choose the 16-55 if I had nothing better within that range, you say you have the 35 F2? I would just get the kit lens 18-55 to cover wides, and save a bit extra to have the 56 1.2
 
ukaskew said:
No comparison shots from me, but it basically comes down to whether you want the convenience of a workhorse zoom that has better AF, or something a bit special (that has acceptable, but not fantastic AF).

I guess it depends on what other kit you're using to shoot weddings, but if you're covered for focal lengths anyway I would go with the 56mm 1.2 all day long. I'm shooting all my weddings next year with the 23mm 1.4 and 56mm 1.2, with an 18-55 in the bag just incase something goes horribly wrong.
Click to expand...

Thanks for that. I bought it for a family camera tbh so i don't have to lug my Sir around everywhere. I don't have an 85mm for weddings, and the canon one is far to slow.
I'm pushing towards the 56mm, but i just don't want to regret it and wished that i had that zoom range... Oh i don't know!!! I hate life
 
You're going to use the wider range for group shots mostly right? The Fuji 18-55 2.8-4 is plenty good enough for that, you'd surely use the 35 F2 for anything else in between 35-55. I've seen comparison reviews between the 16-55 and the 18-55 and there's very little in it bar that constant 2.8. I would definitely go that route and get the 56, i think you'll regret not doing that more so
 
Cagey75 said:
You're going to use the wider range for group shots mostly right? The Fuji 18-55 2.8-4 is plenty good enough for that, you'd surely use the 35 F2 for anything else in between 35-55. I've seen comparison reviews between the 16-55 and the 18-55 and there's very little in it bar that constant 2.8. I would definitely go that route and get the 56, i think you'll regret not doing that more so
Click to expand...
I think you're right. Im just a sucker when it comes to buying the better glass. Ive just read some reviews on the kit lens and checked out some comparisons and your right, there isnt much in it at all. I think I've made up my mind now. Thankyou :D
 
Bulli1987 said:
I think you're right. Im just a sucker when it comes to buying the better glass. Ive just read some reviews on the kit lens and checked out some comparisons and your right, there isnt much in it at all. I think I've made up my mind now. Thankyou :D
Click to expand...

The Fuji 'kit lens' is vastly superior to most other brand's kit lenses. It's a solid little workhorse in it's own right. I've seen some wonderful images shot using it. Including wedding images.
 
That's a stunning camera. The thing about the Fuji is, it looks good and also makes you want to pick it up and shoot with it.
 
Cagey75 said:
The Fuji 'kit lens' is vastly superior to most other brand's kit lenses. It's a solid little workhorse in it's own right. I've seen some wonderful images shot using it. Including wedding images.
Click to expand...
TBH there's a number of "kit" lenses now that are excellent and really a kit lens should not be interpreted as an inferior lens anymore. I bought th Olympus 12-40mm f2.8 as a kit lens, the Sony 16-50mm f2.8 as a kit lens, you can buy the Nikon 24-120mm f4 as a kit lens, Fuji 18-55mm , Fuji 18-135mm etc etc.
 
snerkler said:
TBH there's a number of "kit" lenses now that are excellent and really a kit lens should not be interpreted as an inferior lens anymore. I bought th Olympus 12-40mm f2.8 as a kit lens, the Sony 16-50mm f2.8 as a kit lens, you can buy the Nikon 24-120mm f4 as a kit lens, Fuji 18-55mm , Fuji 18-135mm etc etc.
Click to expand...


I already pretty much said this here the other day. They're only called 'kit' lenses because they come bundled in ... kits. This one is still better than many of the others.
 
badboy1984 said:
I see what you mean, but lots of Nikon user sell their 24-120 f4 kit lens lol.
Click to expand...
As do Fuji 18-55mm owners, but it doesn't make them a bad lens ;) I had the Nikon 24-120mm f4 and 24-70mm f2.8 pro lens and in terms of sharpness I couldn't see a difference.
 
I bough the 24-120 f/4 as a separate lens, not as part of a kit. Lighter and more versatile than the 24-70 f/2.8 and far better than the old variable aperture 24-120. Got VR over the 24-70 as well.

badboy1984 said:
That's a stunning camera. The thing about the Fuji is, it looks good and also makes you want to pick it up and shoot with it.
Click to expand...

Looks even better in black on black! Funny how fashions change, with plated top and bottom plates being superseded by painted black ones ( which paint wears off to reveal the brass underneath [more often sanded off to give the illusion that the camera's been used by a pro...]) then crackle finish black then back to painted silver!
 
Jelster said:
Love the detail and colours of the Fooj....

DSCF1332 by Steve Jelly, on Flickr
Click to expand...
TBH there's not a lot of fine feather detail there, but it is at 3200 ISO so it's very good considering. Also, still a nice shot though.
 
Last edited:
snerkler said:
TBH there's not a lot of fine feather detail there, but it is at 3200 ISO so it's very good considering. Also, still a nice shot though.
Click to expand...
Have you seen the original on Flickr ?

Feather detail is there in the bit that's actually in focus. But 400mm that close up is never going to give much in the way of DOF.
 
2 xt1 for sale in classified mate [emoji106]
 
Do anyone use a portable mini tripods with there camera with a prime on as like a small one on outing than taking the big mongrotto out
 
Jelster said:
Have you seen the original on Flickr ?

Feather detail is there in the bit that's actually in focus. But 400mm that close up is never going to give much in the way of DOF.
Click to expand...
I have yep. I guess my definition of fine feather detail and yours is different ;) :p I'm not knocking the image though so apologies if you took it this way, it was complimentary to the detail at 3200 ISO (or so I thought). Really to get fine feather detail you have to have great light and low ISO.
 
Last edited:
rookies said:
Do anyone use a portable mini tripods with there camera with a prime on as like a small one on outing than taking the big mongrotto out
Click to expand...
Heard u like a small one :LOL: Monfrotto do little tripods get one of them mate
 
Mean smaller so it sits on a wall or something

Lastly I forget to ask how low of a shutter speeds people been able to do hand held.
 
rookies said:
Mean smaller so it sits on a wall or something

Lastly I forget to ask how low of a shutter speeds people been able to do hand held.
Click to expand...
Don't ask Nuzik this question :p
 
rookies said:
Lastly I forget to ask how low of a shutter speeds people been able to do hand held.
Click to expand...

Still spec chasing ........

This really depends on the OIS on the lens, some better than others, and how steady you hands are, difficult to say, but with nerves of steel I have had decent results, but when I'm rushing, like a man desperate to get the shot, in the excitement I'd be lucky to get it in focus, let alone blurry
 
Also depends on focal length, the longer the focal length the harder it becomes - because it will be more sensitive to slight movement and cause motion blur.
 
Mr Perceptive said:
Still spec chasing ........

This really depends on the OIS on the lens, some better than others, and how steady you hands are, difficult to say, but with nerves of steel I have had decent results, but when I'm rushing, like a man desperate to get the shot, in the excitement I'd be lucky to get it in focus, let alone blurry
Click to expand...

Let say I have been able to shoot with the sony at 1 secs but that the slowest I go most of time just a bit faster.. SO what yours if you can help as I like to know how well the OIS are.. Mind you the primes dont have OIS
 
rookies said:
Let say I have been able to shoot with the sony at 1 secs but that the slowest I go most of time just a bit faster.. SO what yours if you can help as I like to know how well the OIS are.. Mind you the primes dont have OIS
Click to expand...


Depends what lens on Sony... lots of variables tbh
 
rookies said:
SONY A7ii with the 55mm Prime. So what fuji can do that speed ;)
Click to expand...

rookies said:
Let say I have been able to shoot with the sony at 1 secs but that the slowest I go most of time just a bit faster.. SO what yours if you can help as I like to know how well the OIS are.. Mind you the primes dont have OIS
Click to expand...

I can't believe it, my 2000th post on TP and I'm spunking it on replying to @rookies

What does it matter, even if I got a crisp 1 second shot on the Fuji, or any camera, I could not do it reliably, and I suspect that you can't either, unless you lock all your joints like a robot with the brakes on.

It's a pretty stupid question, and really if that's your deciding factor on whether to change to Fuji or not, I'd suggest that you stay with Sony because it's obviously perfect for your shooting needs.

Why shoot at 1 second without a tripod?? Or why not increase the iSO
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top