The Fabulous Fuji X owners thread

Still have a Sunwayfoto L bracket for X-T2 in the classifieds if anyone is after one [emoji1360]
 
Magic, as I seem to have lost my plate that was on one of my T2's. This will help as I tend to keep one body with a Manfrotto QR plate, as I have 2 Manfrotto set ups, but my lightweight Gitzo has an Arca plate, and I tend to use that with the 10-24/35/16 lenses.
 
Just a simple Landscape/Seascape Fujigraph taken at New York USA of the familiar Statue Of Liberty. Shot actually taken from the Staten Island ferry.

X-T1, 55-200mm Lens, 1/900th @ F7.1, ISO-200, Handheld.
Statue Of Liberty (NY)-90102 by G.K.Jnr., on Flickr

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

George.
 
I appear to have acquired an X-T20, 23mm 1.4 and 56mm 1.2 :)

I've been full Sony (a7Rii) for a while but my back up bodies just sit around gathering dust, figured I may as well ditch a few of those excess Sony bits and have a Fuji in the bag on a wedding day to tinker around with as I have missed them for personal photography.

Might make the workflow a bit interesting with two entirely different systems, but will see how it goes and how they compare. I was actually considering an X-T100 but the X-T20 came out a fair bit cheaper with cashback, so a bit of a no brainer.
 
ukaskew said:
I appear to have acquired an X-T20, 23mm 1.4 and 56mm 1.2 :)

I've been full Sony (a7Rii) for a while but my back up bodies just sit around gathering dust, figured I may as well ditch a few of those excess Sony bits and have a Fuji in the bag on a wedding day to tinker around with as I have missed them for personal photography.

Might make the workflow a bit interesting with two entirely different systems, but will see how it goes and how they compare. I was actually considering an X-T100 but the X-T20 came out a fair bit cheaper with cashback, so a bit of a no brainer.
Click to expand...


That's a result in my book Sir, "ENJOY".(y)

George.
 
I have just sold all my Canon gear and I bought an X100F to replace my X100T, I have now got the itch to buy an XT-2 kit, can someone give me a good reason not to. Much as I love the F, I would like to be able to take portraits still, and think I may want a 100 - 400mm for aircraft as I am going to miss that option with the F. How important do people find the grip?

Cheers,
 
rick448 said:
I have just sold all my Canon gear and I bought an X100F to replace my X100T, I have now got the itch to buy an XT-2 kit, can someone give me a good reason not to. Much as I love the F, I would like to be able to take portraits still, and think I may want a 100 - 400mm for aircraft as I am going to miss that option with the F. How important do people find the grip?

Cheers,
Click to expand...


No reason whatsoever Sir, “Go For It” :):)

George.
 
rick448 said:
I have just sold all my Canon gear and I bought an X100F to replace my X100T, I have now got the itch to buy an XT-2 kit, can someone give me a good reason not to. Much as I love the F, I would like to be able to take portraits still, and think I may want a 100 - 400mm for aircraft as I am going to miss that option with the F. How important do people find the grip?

Cheers,
Click to expand...


I can't help you there Rick, all I can do is support George and say "Go for it!"

I have found the grip really helpful with the 100-400, it balances the combo out and it's easier to carry (IMO), and I use the 100-400 a lot as I mainly shoot wildlife.
 
Jelster said:
I can't help you there Rick, all I can do is support George and say "Go for it!"

I have found the grip really helpful with the 100-400, it balances the combo out and it's easier to carry (IMO), and I use the 100-400 a lot as I mainly shoot wildlife.
Click to expand...
I think I may end up going for the kit initially, and then add the grip and 100-400mm when I can stretch to it. :)
 
rick448 said:
I think I may end up going for the kit initially, and then add the grip and 100-400mm when I can stretch to it. :)
Click to expand...

Panamoz have X-T2 with 18-55 for £1180. Great deal!
 
I've never used the grip but even using my xt2 and 50-140 I don't feel I need it. I just hold the lens. Did rotate the tripod collar though to get it out my way.
 
macvisual said:
wOOw Ian, superb composition/content. Which lens was used?

Regards;
Peter
Click to expand...
That was the 14mm Peter. I knew the tide was going to be low and I thought I'd be shooting from the other bank. But we went down for a mooch and this view of the Shard leapt out at me. Shame the light wasn't nicer but I know what to look for next time.
 
RtMGC5G.jpg
 
So, Fuji owners...

I've had a 55-200 & the 56 for a while and the 55-200 has hardly been used because I don't do long range stuff. However, recently I've been turning to it for portraits and removing the 56 because it feels like all the 56 will do is head & shoulders. Try and get any closer and it won't focus. Sometimes I like to get in really close which the 55-200 allows me to do (stay back & zoom). However sometimes it won't focus (too close) and most of the time it's slow to focus.

Had a bit of a windfall and I'm thinking of picking up the 50-140 (I'll chop in the 55-200 at least). Question is - do I get rid of the 56 too? All I use it for is portraits and I rarely go below f2.8 as most of my portraits are window/flash lit. I find the 16, 23 & 35 much more suitable for walkabout & general use.

Anyone else stopped using the 56 and switched to something else for portraits? I did think about the 90, but I would lose some flexibility indoors.
 
If I were you, I'd certainly chop in both the 56mm and 55-200mm for the 50-140mm (provided you don't mind the extra bulk that is!).
Harlequin565 said:
So, Fuji owners...

I've had a 55-200 & the 56 for a while and the 55-200 has hardly been used because I don't do long range stuff. However, recently I've been turning to it for portraits and removing the 56 because it feels like all the 56 will do is head & shoulders. Try and get any closer and it won't focus. Sometimes I like to get in really close which the 55-200 allows me to do (stay back & zoom). However sometimes it won't focus (too close) and most of the time it's slow to focus.

Had a bit of a windfall and I'm thinking of picking up the 50-140 (I'll chop in the 55-200 at least). Question is - do I get rid of the 56 too? All I use it for is portraits and I rarely go below f2.8 as most of my portraits are window/flash lit. I find the 16, 23 & 35 much more suitable for walkabout & general use.

Anyone else stopped using the 56 and switched to something else for portraits? I did think about the 90, but I would lose some flexibility indoors.
Click to expand...
 
Ian W said:
(provided you don't mind the extra bulk that is!
Click to expand...

It'll be a car-to-bar lens :) Gave up pretending I went Fuji for weight many years ago.It's a bit like dieting. When I got down to where I wanted, I just piled it all on again :)
 
Harlequin565 said:
It'll be a car-to-bar lens :) Gave up pretending I went Fuji for weight many years ago.It's a bit like dieting. When I got down to where I wanted, I just piled it all on again :)
Click to expand...
Haha I gotcha. After a year wi th the X-T10, I now have an X-T2 which I refuse to use without the grip [emoji16]
 
Harlequin565 said:
So, Fuji owners...

I've had a 55-200 & the 56 for a while and the 55-200 has hardly been used because I don't do long range stuff. However, recently I've been turning to it for portraits and removing the 56 because it feels like all the 56 will do is head & shoulders. Try and get any closer and it won't focus. Sometimes I like to get in really close which the 55-200 allows me to do (stay back & zoom). However sometimes it won't focus (too close) and most of the time it's slow to focus.

Had a bit of a windfall and I'm thinking of picking up the 50-140 (I'll chop in the 55-200 at least). Question is - do I get rid of the 56 too? All I use it for is portraits and I rarely go below f2.8 as most of my portraits are window/flash lit. I find the 16, 23 & 35 much more suitable for walkabout & general use.

Anyone else stopped using the 56 and switched to something else for portraits? I did think about the 90, but I would lose some flexibility indoors.
Click to expand...


What do you mean by closer? Like you want to shoot up their nostrils?

Or

Do you want by closer like macro work?
 
Harlequin565 said:
So, Fuji owners...

I've had a 55-200 & the 56 for a while and the 55-200 has hardly been used because I don't do long range stuff. However, recently I've been turning to it for portraits and removing the 56 because it feels like all the 56 will do is head & shoulders. Try and get any closer and it won't focus. Sometimes I like to get in really close which the 55-200 allows me to do (stay back & zoom). However sometimes it won't focus (too close) and most of the time it's slow to focus.

Had a bit of a windfall and I'm thinking of picking up the 50-140 (I'll chop in the 55-200 at least). Question is - do I get rid of the 56 too? All I use it for is portraits and I rarely go below f2.8 as most of my portraits are window/flash lit. I find the 16, 23 & 35 much more suitable for walkabout & general use.

Anyone else stopped using the 56 and switched to something else for portraits? I did think about the 90, but I would lose some flexibility indoors.
Click to expand...

No! The 56mm is a lovely lens that just does what it does, if you can ,keep it alongside the 50-140, I did and have zero regrets :)

Although, if you never shoot it below f2.8 then I guess you might not need it. I can't remember if I have ever used mine other than wide open! :D
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top