The Fabulous Fuji X owners thread

G.K.Jnr. said:
The "Vanguard Alta Pro" was the last tripod that I purchased Sir, I wanted somethin' that was easier to take about rather than the heavy studio units that I have. It's a lovely well made bit of kit, very sturdy, and very versatile. I'd thoroughly recommend these units.(y)

George.
Click to expand...

The Alta Pros look a nice bit of kit. The rotating centre column may be useful in some circumstances.

I looked at some of the Manfrotto Befree reviews and whilst it was a decent tripod it wasn't the best reviews Id seen although they seem recommended on here. There are so many out there now its quite hard to choose.

Its a shame there are so little camera shops on the high-street now to have a play with some before you buy. Nearest one to me is a Jessops/Calumet Photo which is a 60 mile drive to Manchester.

Think I might go for the Alta pro and keep mine for taking on flights where its more likely to get damaged and the lighter weight helps.
 
Last edited:
gad-westy said:
Something else I have a dilemma with.

When deciding on my Fuji lens line up, at the longer end, I wanted something fairly lightweight for landscapes but I also wanted something fast for outdoor photos of the kids and in particular motorsport. At the time I opted for the 55-200 and the 90mm prime in preference to the 50-140 to cover both.

Now that I have had the 55-200 and the 90mm for a few weeks, I'm already starting to wonder if it was the right move. The 55-200 is indeed fine for landscapes, nice IQ etc but on the occasions I've tried to use it for anything that moves, I'm finding the AF too slow. The 90mm is absolutely wonderful in every way but I can see it isn't going to see much action. Too long for indoors and will likely only go out with me when I know it's going to be used. For motorsport (mainly rally, it might be fine, not sure yet). So I'm pondering selling both and going for a 50-140. On the face of it, it seems like a good move. I always used to have a 70-200 when using DSLR's and they got a lot of use. On the other hand, my move to fuji was about lightening the load, and a 50-140 doesn't do that so well. Anybody faced a similar dilemma? I realise I'm probably the only one who can answer this but you know how it is...

Oh, and another question while I'm on. I got my X-T2 with the 18-55. Was a good deal and the lens has a deserved reputation... but I don't think I'll have any use for it. I have a 16mm, 23mm and 35mm. If I travel with one lens only, the 23mm works well or I have an X100T. So I'm pondering chopping that one in too. Anybody done so and regretted it?
Click to expand...
I sold my 18-55mm and have retained the 10-24mm, 35mm and 55-200mm lenses which are light and small enough for my needs. On a very rare occasion I'll find that the 35mm is a stitch too long, but that's a very rare occasion. I may yet end up switching the 35mm for a 23mm to solve that issue.....but then I may need a longer prime also.....s*** [emoji848]
 
Ian W said:
I sold my 18-55mm and have retained the 10-24mm, 35mm and 55-200mm lenses which are light and small enough for my needs. On a very rare occasion I'll find that the 35mm is a stitch too long, but that's a very rare occasion. I may yet end up switching the 35mm for a 23mm to solve that issue.....but then I may need a longer prime also.....s*** [emoji848]
Click to expand...

Thanks Ian. I'm a big fan of 23mm(35) focal length so that was a real priority when I bought my lenses. I went for the 1.4 version so that it would offer something beyond what I could already do with the X100t. 35mm was bought as I liked the idea of having a WR lens and it's nice and small for carrying around. I wasn't sure I'd end up keeping that one but I actually really like it. It's been used a lot. So with the 16, 23 and 35, I feel I've got my typical wide-standard range covered nicely with lenses I really like. The 18-55 is really nice and OIS can be handy but I feel it's £ value could be put to better use. I just worry that one day, I'll be planning a big hike or something and wish I still had it. My initial idea had been to carry an 18-55 and 55-200 when I wanted to travel light but I just like the primes soooo much :)

What do you think of your 55-200? I'm not really enjoying mine that much. I think it's purely the AF speed as I cannot really think of anything else wrong with it. I think I've perhaps just got used to lightning fast 70-200's. But the weight...
 
gad-westy said:
Thanks Ian. I'm a big fan of 23mm(35) focal length so that was a real priority when I bought my lenses. I went for the 1.4 version so that it would offer something beyond what I could already do with the X100t. 35mm was bought as I liked the idea of having a WR lens and it's nice and small for carrying around. I wasn't sure I'd end up keeping that one but I actually really like it. It's been used a lot. So with the 16, 23 and 35, I feel I've got my typical wide-standard range covered nicely with lenses I really like. The 18-55 is really nice and OIS can be handy but I feel it's £ value could be put to better use. I just worry that one day, I'll be planning a big hike or something and wish I still had it. My initial idea had been to carry an 18-55 and 55-200 when I wanted to travel light but I just like the primes soooo much :)

What do you think of your 55-200? I'm not really enjoying mine that much. I think it's purely the AF speed as I cannot really think of anything else wrong with it. I think I've perhaps just got used to lightning fast 70-200's. But the weight...
Click to expand...
I know what you mean. I've never missed the 18-55mm yet and doubt I will tbh.

Re: the 55-200mm, I really like it. It's compact and light enough, certainly sharp enough. I use it mainly as a tele option for landscapes though so the speed is less of a factor. On the occasions I've used it for taking shots of my son, I'm sure the lens performs fine but any issue is more with my technique or selected focusing mode.
 
gad-westy said:
Something else I have a dilemma with.

When deciding on my Fuji lens line up, at the longer end, I wanted something fairly lightweight for landscapes but I also wanted something fast for outdoor photos of the kids and in particular motorsport. At the time I opted for the 55-200 and the 90mm prime in preference to the 50-140 to cover both.

Now that I have had the 55-200 and the 90mm for a few weeks, I'm already starting to wonder if it was the right move. The 55-200 is indeed fine for landscapes, nice IQ etc but on the occasions I've tried to use it for anything that moves, I'm finding the AF too slow. The 90mm is absolutely wonderful in every way but I can see it isn't going to see much action. Too long for indoors and will likely only go out with me when I know it's going to be used. For motorsport (mainly rally, it might be fine, not sure yet). So I'm pondering selling both and going for a 50-140. On the face of it, it seems like a good move. I always used to have a 70-200 when using DSLR's and they got a lot of use. On the other hand, my move to fuji was about lightening the load, and a 50-140 doesn't do that so well. Anybody faced a similar dilemma? I realise I'm probably the only one who can answer this but you know how it is...

Oh, and another question while I'm on. I got my X-T2 with the 18-55. Was a good deal and the lens has a deserved reputation... but I don't think I'll have any use for it. I have a 16mm, 23mm and 35mm. If I travel with one lens only, the 23mm works well or I have an X100T. So I'm pondering chopping that one in too. Anybody done so and regretted it?
Click to expand...


Do you have the latest firmware installed for the camera and lens?

The 10-24/18-135/100-400 (+ telecons if required) covers pretty much every eventuality, even if the lenses aren't the fastest (widest aperture) on the block.
 
Ian W said:
I sold my 18-55mm and have retained the 10-24mm, 35mm and 55-200mm lenses which are light and small enough for my needs. On a very rare occasion I'll find that the 35mm is a stitch too long, but that's a very rare occasion. I may yet end up switching the 35mm for a 23mm to solve that issue.....but then I may need a longer prime also.....s*** [emoji848]
Click to expand...
I’m something similar. In my bag are the 10-24 (normally on the camera, the 55-200 (seldom used), and the 50mm. I own the 18-55, like it, but rarely use it. Very often I take my OM Zuiko 100mm with reducer, giving me a 75mm as well. In that case, I leave the 55-200 at home.
 
Nod said:
Do you have the latest firmware installed for the camera and lens?

The 10-24/18-135/100-400 (+ telecons if required) covers pretty much every eventuality, even if the lenses aren't the fastest (widest aperture) on the block.
Click to expand...

Yeah, latest on each. Haven't checked all my lenses but did check that one. It's not that bad actually, it's just that the 35mm f/2 and 90mm f/2 etc are just instant with AF. The 55-200 just seemed to struggle with stuff that I thought wasn't very taxing at all. It's a nice lens though, I like the construction and no complaints about IQ and the OIS system.

That lens line up you quote is very sensible but I'm an awkward customer I'm afraid. I was very keen on the 10-24 but I like my astro and really needed something much wider of aperture so bought a Samyang 12mm. Once I'd decided to get that, I felt that I didn't really need an ultrawide zoom as I don't really shoot that wide all that often. 18-135 looks great but quite big and I just like primes for most things. 100-400 very much on the wishlist. Totally unnecessary for me but I'd like one. It's just a touch further down the priority list and if I'm being honest with myself, I'd be better off hiring one when I need one. But I rarely take the sensible route.
 
Last edited:
The XF60mm f/2.4R lens arrived today from Fooji re-furb store, took the dog out for a few miles walk and found this. I charged the battery last night as I haven't used the X-T1 in many months.


Droplets;



Droplets by APM Photography, on Flickr

XF60mm - iso 400 - shot @ f/4
 
macvisual said:
The XF60mm f/2.4R lens arrived today from Fooji re-furb store, took the dog out for a few miles walk and found this. I charged the battery last night as I haven't used the X-T1 in many months.


Droplets;



Droplets by APM Photography, on Flickr

XF60mm - iso 400 - shot @ f/4
Click to expand...

Still got it though Peter, really great to see posting new shots.
 
gad-westy said:
Yeah, latest on each. Haven't checked all my lenses but did check that one. It's not that bad actually, it's just that the 35mm f/2 and 90mm f/2 etc are just instant with AF. The 55-200 just seemed to struggle with stuff that I thought wasn't very taxing at all. It's a nice lens though, I like the construction and no complaints about IQ and the OIS system.

That lens line up you quote is very sensible but I'm an awkward customer I'm afraid. I was very keen on the 10-24 but I like my astro and really needed something much wider of aperture so bought a Samyang 12mm. Once I'd decided to get that, I felt that I didn't really need an ultrawide zoom as I don't really shoot that wide all that often. 18-135 looks great but quite big and I just like primes for most things. 100-400 very much on the wishlist. Totally unnecessary for me but I'd like one. It's just a touch further down the priority list and if I'm being honest with myself, I'd be better off hiring one when I need one. But I rarely take the sensible route.
Click to expand...


Pretty much any AF lens achieves better and faster focus than I could MF! The Fuji 55-200 is noticeably faster than the 50-230 but is also heavier (and sharper!)

I have a D750 and an f/2.8 14mm for wide field astro but don't usually take that rig on holiday. I'm planning to take it in September though since we'll be on the South coast of Crete (very little light pollution looking South) with a good view of the Milky Way.

The 3 lens Fuji kit is on 3 bodies all but eliminating lens changes. The 10-24 is well suited to the X-Pro1 for landscapes, the 18-135 (yup, a bit big and heavy BUT a LOT smaller and lighter than the Nikkor 24-120!) is on the X-T1 as a walkaround and the 100-400 is on the X-T2 for static birds (I don't have the skill for BiF and the lens is a bit too slow for that anyway!) and other long distance stuff. Suits me well, even if zooms are a bit of a compromise.
 
gad-westy said:
Out of interest, do any of you X-T2 users use the in camera raw processing feature much? I quite like the idea of it but I'm finding it a bit frustrating and I'm wondering if I'm doing something wrong. Is there some way of previewing changes without creating the new image first? And can I apply a few changes at once before creating the new image?
Click to expand...

Yes, I use it all the time. You press Q after your settings and the image you are shown is a preview, if you don't like what you see you press back to alter your settings. My only gripe with in camera editing is being unable to crop - if you use the feature it defaults to 3:2 for the new image even if you originally shot square or 16:9.
 
Alan Clogwyn said:
Yes, I use it all the time. You press Q after your settings and the image you are shown is a preview, if you don't like what you see you press back to alter your settings. My only gripe with in camera editing is being unable to crop - if you use the feature it defaults to 3:2 for the new image even if you originally shot square or 16:9.
Click to expand...

I'm starting to get the hang of it. I suppose I just find it a little frustrating that there's a fair bit of guesswork to it. Like I may decide I wanted harsher blacks and whites on a particular simulation but I'd have to create it first and then try again if I don't like it. It's good to have it there but maybe a little clunky.
 
gad-westy said:
Yeah, latest on each. Haven't checked all my lenses but did check that one. It's not that bad actually, it's just that the 35mm f/2 and 90mm f/2 etc are just instant with AF. The 55-200 just seemed to struggle with stuff that I thought wasn't very taxing at all. It's a nice lens though, I like the construction and no complaints about IQ and the OIS system.

That lens line up you quote is very sensible but I'm an awkward customer I'm afraid. I was very keen on the 10-24 but I like my astro and really needed something much wider of aperture so bought a Samyang 12mm. Once I'd decided to get that, I felt that I didn't really need an ultrawide zoom as I don't really shoot that wide all that often. 18-135 looks great but quite big and I just like primes for most things. 100-400 very much on the wishlist. Totally unnecessary for me but I'd like one. It's just a touch further down the priority list and if I'm being honest with myself, I'd be better off hiring one when I need one. But I rarely take the sensible route.
Click to expand...
I think it depends what you shoot and how. If like me you have an interest in landscapes, often under challenging conditions, it makes sense to base your approach around quality zooms. If you mainly shoot indoors, especially in a studio, primes probably make more sense, and if you're big on bokeh, they're compulsory. But you'll have to print pretty big to see a significant difference between the 18-55mm and the primes in terms of brute resolution.
 
mickledore said:
Mine seems fast enough on the T2...


Joey Thompson by Frank Yates2010, on Flickr
Click to expand...

Cheers. I think it would be fine for panning. I've never really had a problem with panning with any lens. Stuff moving quickly towards the lens (mainly children but birds too) or away from it seems to trouble it more. The 90mm gives a great keeper rate in that scenario but the 55-200 seems to struggle to keep up with the pace.
 
gad-westy said:
Cheers. I think it would be fine for panning. I've never really had a problem with panning with any lens. Stuff moving quickly towards the lens (mainly children but birds too) or away from it seems to trouble it more. The 90mm gives a great keeper rate in that scenario but the 55-200 seems to struggle to keep up with the pace.
Click to expand...
Well I never shoot children (though there are some that deseve it!). Mainly use mine for the very occasional motor sport outing when it performs quite satisfactorily. I've given up on wildlife but suppose I'd go down the 100.400 if I was to go back there.
Really I don't get full use out of the 55.200. I'd sell it but just now and then I'm glad I have it.
 
dave.hallett said:
I think it depends what you shoot and how. If like me you have an interest in landscapes, often under challenging conditions, it makes sense to base your approach around quality zooms. If you mainly shoot indoors, especially in a studio, primes probably make more sense, and if you're big on bokeh, they're compulsory. But you'll have to print pretty big to see a significant difference between the 18-55mm and the primes in terms of brute resolution.
Click to expand...

I've just got very used to seeing the world in traditional focal lengths, basically 24mm, 35mm and 50mm. I used to love 28mm as well but it always seems piggy in the middle so I don't miss shooting that. I cannot argue with technical or practical merits of zooms and if I was shooting an event, I'd prefer them but everything I do is just for me now and I cannot see a scenario where I'd grab the 18-55 over one or two primes.

The other factor there is that I'd quite like to convert an XE-1 to infrared and if I do so, I'll likely grab a 16-50 to go with it as I understand it's one of the few fuji lenses that doesn't suffer too much in the way of hot spots. So if I end up with one of those in the collection, I suspect the 18-55 be even harder to justify keeping as I'd have another lightweight zoom that I could grab if I ever felt the need. The only thing bugging me is that I have read of several people buying 18-55's again after regretting selling them. It is a lovely lens I must admit.
 
mickledore said:
Well I never shoot children (though there are some that deseve it!). Mainly use mine for the very occasional motor sport outing when it performs quite satisfactorily. I've given up on wildlife but suppose I'd go down the 100.400 if I was to go back there.
Really I don't get full use out of the 55.200. I'd sell it but just now and then I'm glad I have it.
Click to expand...

In an ideal world I'd keep it. It's perfect for taking up a hill. It just doesn't quite satisfy all the uses I'd hoped for it.
 
I struggled with processing this one, taken against the setting sun at the weekend, and it's by no means perfect but again I have been impressed by the shadow recovery on my new X-T2. I think I'm now firmly in the Fuji camp :)


01 Gate by Andrea Thrussell, on Flickr
 
Manxmaid said:
I struggled with processing this one, taken against the setting sun at the weekend, and it's by no means perfect but again I have been impressed by the shadow recovery on my new X-T2. I think I'm now firmly in the Fuji camp :)


01 Gate by Andrea Thrussell, on Flickr
Click to expand...
Looks like you nailed it to me! There's a tiny bit of haloing here and there, but that's pretty much unavoidable in this situation. It would probably look more filmic if the highlights were pulled down less, but then you wouldn't get the colour in the sky. No, I'd call this a win and leave it at that...
 
dave.hallett said:
Just a simple picture of me annoying an innocent man using only an X-T10 :). I'd like to have a good explanation as to why this was shot at ISO 1600, but I don't. I even thought I checked I'd set it to 200 at the beginning of the afternoon... took me about an hour to notice... :eggface:


Outside the new Westgate by David Hallett, on Flickr
Click to expand...


Luckily, the grittiness that the high ISO has imparted to the scene really suits it! Saved you ages of adding "film grain" in PP!!! :D (I always liked heavy grain in this sort of image and used to push FP4 to silly ASA values to get golf balls.)
 
gad-westy said:
I've just got very used to seeing the world in traditional focal lengths, basically 24mm, 35mm and 50mm. I used to love 28mm as well but it always seems piggy in the middle so I don't miss shooting that. I cannot argue with technical or practical merits of zooms and if I was shooting an event, I'd prefer them but everything I do is just for me now and I cannot see a scenario where I'd grab the 18-55 over one or two primes.

The other factor there is that I'd quite like to convert an XE-1 to infrared and if I do so, I'll likely grab a 16-50 to go with it as I understand it's one of the few fuji lenses that doesn't suffer too much in the way of hot spots. So if I end up with one of those in the collection, I suspect the 18-55 be even harder to justify keeping as I'd have another lightweight zoom that I could grab if I ever felt the need. The only thing bugging me is that I have read of several people buying 18-55's again after regretting selling them. It is a lovely lens I must admit.
Click to expand...

Got quite a few lenses I rarely or never use, probably most of them, but you never know when you might want one.
Always happens just after you have sold that particular lens, so for the sake of a few quid might as well keep them for posterity.

Mainly leave the 18-55mm attached with the 14mm in the bag, good travel combo and even share the same hood.
Got 23mm, 35mm and 50mm amongst others, use them so sparingly actually forgot I had the 35mm until I found it when tidying the cupboard out.

My advice would be hang on, see what you use regularly rather than what you think you might then decide
 
tijuana taxi said:
Got quite a few lenses I rarely or never use, probably most of them, but you never know when you might want one.
Always happens just after you have sold that particular lens, so for the sake of a few quid might as well keep them for posterity.

Mainly leave the 18-55mm attached with the 14mm in the bag, good travel combo and even share the same hood.
Got 23mm, 35mm and 50mm amongst others, use them so sparingly actually forgot I had the 35mm until I found it when tidying the cupboard out.

My advice would be hang on, see what you use regularly rather than what you think you might then decide
Click to expand...

:plus1: To that Sir, “sound advice” (y)

George.
 
I find it hard to understand people not having the 18 55 it is such an useful range and outstanding quality for a short zoom.
Unlike many people I never cared to use lenses wider than 28mm on FF.
When I need wider I prefer to stitch, as I can then choose the projection to suit the subject.
 
Terrywoodenpic said:
I find it hard to understand people not having the 18 55 it is such an useful range and outstanding quality for a short zoom.
Unlike many people I never cared to use lenses wider than 28mm on FF.
When I need wider I prefer to stitch, as I can then choose the projection to suit the subject.
Click to expand...
I'd agree, if you can utilise the focal length and aperture available to get the shot you want.

For me, the money was better off in my pocket as my needs are served as well from my other lenses. All horses for courses really...
 
Dave70D said:
Two more from yesterday


Texting by Dave, on Flickr



Nailed by Dave, on Flickr
Click to expand...

Two very nice Fujigraphs Sir, particularly liking the mono shot with its good composition, full range of tones, and great use of aperture giving a short DOF.(y)

George.
 
Terrywoodenpic said:
I find it hard to understand people not having the 18 55 it is such an useful range and outstanding quality for a short zoom.
Unlike many people I never cared to use lenses wider than 28mm on FF.
When I need wider I prefer to stitch, as I can then choose the projection to suit the subject.
Click to expand...

I think it is simply because for each 'key' focal length that that lens covers, I feel that I either have a better option or an alternative. If it was the only lens I had that covered that range, I wouldn't feel short changed in any way as you rightly say, it's a wonderful little lens. But if I'm shooting around the house or just out and about, I'm happy with 23mm. If I'm out for a landscape shoot, I'll have a few lenses with me anyway. So my only really use would be when I want to travel light and don't know what I'm likely to want to photograph. That's definitely going to happen but I'm not sure it will happen often enough for me to not put the money (£250?) to better use elsewhere. Not decided yet though. Going to give it a few weeks I think before making my mind up.
 
G.K.Jnr. said:
Just a simple Fujigraph taken in my studio of a Choisya Ternata flower using a 105mm Macro Lens with three Studio Flash heads, each with a largish Soft Box fitted against a Black Paper backdrop.

X-T1, 105mm Micro Nikkor (D) Lens, 1/125th @ F11, ISO-200, Multi Studio Flash.
Choisya Ternata (1)-02909 by G.K.Jnr., on Flickr

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

George.
Click to expand...

That`s a beautifully taken photo George, the black BG really does enhance the flower :)
 
dave.hallett said:
Looks like you nailed it to me! There's a tiny bit of haloing here and there, but that's pretty much unavoidable in this situation. It would probably look more filmic if the highlights were pulled down less, but then you wouldn't get the colour in the sky. No, I'd call this a win and leave it at that...
Click to expand...

Thank you, Dave. It was shot against the sunset and I almost binned it after my first attempt at processing, but tried again yesterday as I loved the way the horses came over to me and 'posed' and I did a better job yesterday. I wish I could lose the haloing and the banding in the sky but I'm asking a lot of the RAF file and my PP skills are not advanced. I will probably return to it in future once I've got more used to the Fuji files and latest PS and LR. Thank you again, and I'll trying tweaking the highlights and see how it looks.
 
Dave70D said:
That`s a beautifully taken photo George, the black BG really does enhance the flower :)
Click to expand...


Thank you kindly Sir, I sure do appreciate your reply.(y)

George.
 
G.K.Jnr. said:
Just a simple Fujigraph taken in my studio of a Choisya Ternata flower using a 105mm Macro Lens with three Studio Flash heads, each with a largish Soft Box fitted against a Black Paper backdrop.

X-T1, 105mm Micro Nikkor (D) Lens, 1/125th @ F11, ISO-200, Multi Studio Flash.
Choisya Ternata (1)-02909 by G.K.Jnr., on Flickr

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

George.
Click to expand...
Very nice George, can you expand a little on the Nikon 105mm macro lens please, is it the older or newer version etc...?

Regards;
Pete
 
macvisual said:
Very nice George, can you expand a little on the Nikon 105mm macro lens please, is it the older or newer version etc...?

Regards;
Pete
Click to expand...


Thank you kindly Sir, I sure do appreciate your reply.(y)

“It’s the slightly older version (D) lens, auto focus (on Nikon) but non stabilised”

George.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top