The Fabulous Fuji X owners thread

yamahatdm900 said:
lol knowing which paper will suit a picture is always a struggle for me.
Click to expand...
Yeah, I wonder if there's a guide for which paper (or type of) suits a particular genre? Matt textured for landscapes, high gloss for mono etc?

I may look to get some samples with my next order. Need more frames first though!
 
Ian W said:
Can't go far wrong with either tbh, I use both and recently made use of the voucher and cash back offers to complete my set by acquiring a 16-55mm.
Click to expand...

Thanks Ian. I'd read they were both very good lenses which is why I was struggling to pick one haha. I've started considering the 14mm f/2.8 now too. I've got the 18-55 so I'm wondering if 14 and 18-55 would be better as there's no overlap like with the 10-24 and 18-55. Plus the 14 is a bit cheaper and lighter too.
 
Carl Hall said:
Thanks Ian. I'd read they were both very good lenses which is why I was struggling to pick one haha. I've started considering the 14mm f/2.8 now too. I've got the 18-55 so I'm wondering if 14 and 18-55 would be better as there's no overlap like with the 10-24 and 18-55. Plus the 14 is a bit cheaper and lighter too.
Click to expand...
If you’ve got the chance and funds, I would go for the 10-24. It’s the one lens which has stayed with me all my Fuji life.
 
Carl Hall said:
Just sold one of my Canon DSLR lenses and now I find myself hankering after a new Fuji lens before the £100 off voucher ends after the weekend. Trouble is I don’t know which one! Thinking either the 55-200 or the 10-24 for use mainly with landscapes. Currently have the 18-55 and 23 f/2. Too many choices! Lol.
Click to expand...

Ian W said:
Can't go far wrong with either tbh, I use both and recently made use of the voucher and cash back offers to complete my set by acquiring a 16-55mm.
Click to expand...

Carl Hall said:
Thanks Ian. I'd read they were both very good lenses which is why I was struggling to pick one haha. I've started considering the 14mm f/2.8 now too. I've got the 18-55 so I'm wondering if 14 and 18-55 would be better as there's no overlap like with the 10-24 and 18-55. Plus the 14 is a bit cheaper and lighter too.
Click to expand...

Stephen L said:
If you’ve got the chance and funds, I would go for the 10-24. It’s the one lens which has stayed with me all my Fuji life.
Click to expand...

I still haven't ditched my full frame Nikon gear, but recently added the 55-200 to my small Fuji collection, having had to borrow one a couple of times when travelling. My other two Fuji lenses are the 10-24mm and the 16-55mm. I previously owned the 18-55 and the 14mm 2.8 - both subsequently sold on. Nothing wrong with either of them - the 18-55 came as part of a kit with my old X-T20 - I convinced myself last Black Friday that I deserved the 16-55 and with the double cashback at the time it was a very good price. It's a super lens, but MUCH heavier and bulkier than the 18-55mm that you already own and in a lot of cases you probably won't see a noticeable increase in IQ - or not enough to justify the price anyway. The 14mm I picked up at a good price second hand and my rationale was that the 2.8 aperture would be great for astro photography - and it likely would be, but (a) I do astro maybe once or twice a year at the most and (b) the 16-55 gives me that 2.8 aperture, albeit not quite as wide.

Without a doubt, the most versatile and useful Fuji lens you can have for landscape is the 10-24mm - hands-down, no contest! It's relatively small and light, has OIS, happily takes my Lee 100mm filters without vignetting. It is superb. If I had to pick one camera/lens combo for a trip from my collection - including my Nikon D800 and wide range of lenses - it would be the X-T3 plus the 10-24. I've just done a metadata check in LR and 60% of my photographs were taken with the 10-24, 35% with the 16-55 and under 5% with the 55-200. To be honest I expected the 10-24 to be closer to 80% but the figures still tell the story.
 
psybear said:
Without a doubt, the most versatile and useful Fuji lens you can have for landscape is the 10-24mm - hands-down, no contest! It's relatively small and light, has OIS, happily takes my Lee 100mm filters without vignetting. It is superb.
Click to expand...


:agree: The 10-24mm is “Excellent” on all counts. If you’re happy with a constant F4 maximum aperture which for landscape photography you should be, then in my opinion its the lens to go for. (y)

George.
 
I must admit, the 10-24 is on my list, it'll have to wait a while though.
 
yamahatdm900 said:
I'm thinking about getting a 23mm but unsure whether to go for the f1.4 or f2? Has anyone got both?
Click to expand...

Had that debate myself. Went for the 1.4. After all it can shoot at F2. The other 23 can’t shoot at 1.4. And it’s proved to be a bit special.
But I don’t need weather resistant. YMMV
 
yamahatdm900 said:
I'm thinking about getting a 23mm but unsure whether to go for the f1.4 or f2? Has anyone got both?
Click to expand...
Perceived wisdom is that the 23mm f2 lens is the weakest of the f2 lenses iq wise. Not to say it’s bad. On the plus side it is smaller and weather resistant.
 
yamahatdm900 said:
I'm thinking about getting a 23mm but unsure whether to go for the f1.4 or f2? Has anyone got both?
Click to expand...


I had both to compare at one time and went for the F1.4 version. The 23mm F1.4 is better optically even when used at F2 its better than the 23mm F2 wide open. The 23mm F2 is faster at auto focus and is weather sealed. My advice for what its worth would be to go for the 23mm F1.4. (y)

George.
 
trevorbray said:
Had that debate myself. Went for the 1.4. After all it can shoot at F2. The other 23 can’t shoot at 1.4. And it’s proved to be a bit special.
But I don’t need weather resistant. YMMV
Click to expand...
Stephen L said:
Perceived wisdom is that the 23mm f2 lens is the weakest of the f2 lenses iq wise. Not to say it’s bad. On the plus side it is smaller and weather resistant.
Click to expand...
G.K.Jnr. said:
I had both to compare at one time and went for the F1.4 version. The 23mm F1.4 is better optically even when used at F2 its better than the 23mm F2 wide open. The 23mm F2 is faster at auto focus and is weather sealed. My advice for what its worth would be to go for the 23mm F1.4. (y)

George.
Click to expand...

Thanks Guys my original thought was the f1.4 had one a few years back and loved it then just wondered what the f2 was like, so looks like its going to be the f1,4

Mr Perceptive said:
I have both!! (Well my wife had the F2, I have the F1.4) IMO you get what you pay for, the IQ of he F1.4 is better but if you want WR then it has to be the F2

You coming back from Sony??
Click to expand...

Cheers David, looks like it:rolleyes:. The Sony is a stunning camera and for what I do it seems ideal but I don't really enjoy using it. I borrowed a mates X-T1 and a few weeks back and realised how much I missed it. Since then been telling myself the Sony has better IQ (it does), it will cost me to change back (it will) but I don't get the enjoyment from it as I do the Fuji.
 
yamahatdm900 said:
Thanks Guys my original thought was the f1.4 had one a few years back and loved it then just wondered what the f2 was like, so looks like its going to be the f1,4



Cheers David, looks like it:rolleyes:. The Sony is a stunning camera and for what I do it seems ideal but I don't really enjoy using it. I borrowed a mates X-T1 and a few weeks back and realised how much I missed it. Since then been telling myself the Sony has better IQ (it does), it will cost me to change back (it will) but I don't get the enjoyment from it as I do the Fuji.
Click to expand...

That's my thoughts as well, I still toying with a GFX, but with a sensible hat I should also consider A7Rii/iii but the Sony just doesn't have that 'Pick me up and use me' appeal. (The GFX concerns me with the cost and weight if the glass)

Not bought a body of lens for myself for over s year now, maybe I should just carry on with what I have and spend the money going places (and on A2 printer!!)
 
Mr Perceptive said:
That's my thoughts as well, I still toying with a GFX, but with a sensible hat I should also consider A7Rii/iii but the Sony just doesn't have that 'Pick me up and use me' appeal. (The GFX concerns me with the cost and weight if the glass)

Not bought a body of lens for myself for over s year now, maybe I should just carry on with what I have and spend the money going places (and on A2 printer!!)
Click to expand...

Your totally right David I gave in to the GAS. The weight of the Sony lens was another reason I suddenly realised how little photography ive done in the last few months more my thought than the Sony but it wasn't helping.
Like you I had been lusting over the GFX for a while now and decided the Sony was the sensible half way choice, it probably is for a lot of people but not for me.
Thats probably the sensible option just should have taken that advice myself :)

Saying that I do fancy a decent printer myself just wonder how much I would use it? :thinking:
 
yamahatdm900 said:
Your totally right David I gave in to the GAS. The weight of the Sony lens was another reason I suddenly realised how little photography ive done in the last few months more my thought than the Sony but it wasn't helping.
Like you I had been lusting over the GFX for a while now and decided the Sony was the sensible half way choice, it probably is for a lot of people but not for me.
Thats probably the sensible option just should have taken that advice myself :)

Saying that I do fancy a decent printer myself just wonder how much I would use it? :thinking:
Click to expand...

I am a real convert to printing, it's great to see and have control from viewfinder to print. The problem is that modern monitors are so big that A4 prints just seem so small!! Currently I have a Canon Pro-100 and print most things A3, though I'm doing a project at the moment where each image is printed 8in x 8in square format.
 
Mr Perceptive said:
I am a real convert to printing, it's great to see and have control from viewfinder to print. The problem is that modern monitors are so big that A4 prints just seem so small!! Currently I have a Canon Pro-100 and print most things A3, though I'm doing a project at the moment where each image is printed 8in x 8in square format.
Click to expand...

Thought about getting an A3+ printer quite a few times. Ive been round the houses a few times on my thoughts of getting a printer dont print a great deal as it always seem a chore to send them off unless you got a few to do at the same time, know its not an easy question to answer but roughly what sort of cost per print do you think you get?
 
yamahatdm900 said:
Thought about getting an A3+ printer quite a few times. Ive been round the houses a few times on my thoughts of getting a printer dont print a great deal as it always seem a chore to send them off unless you got a few to do at the same time, know its not an easy question to answer but roughly what sort of cost per print do you think you get?
Click to expand...

Decent Paper makes the print , approx £2 an A3 sheet, then add ink. I'm refilling Canon cartridges with ink from OctoInkJet which is supposed to be identical. Enough ink for 8 sets of cartridges worth is approx £85, so total is just over £2 a print.

Lots of useful info on Nigel Dansons YouTube channel and that of Jose Rodriguez - the you tube printing guru

Printing is more satisfying than using a Song menu!!!!
 
Last edited:
Mr Perceptive said:
Decent Paper makes the print , approx £2 an A3 sheet, then add ink. I'm refilling Canon cartridges with ink from OctoInkJet which is supposed to be identical. Enough ink for 8 sets of cartridges worth is approx £85, so total is just over £2 a print.

Lots of useful info on Nigel Dansons YouTube channel and that of Jose Rodriguez - the you tube printing guru

Printing is more satisfying than using a Song menu!!!!
Click to expand...

Thats not bad at all lot cheaper then I thought although you got to add the cost of the printer, would probably go for an A3+ myself mainly because of the size. You didn't go down the continuous ink feed route then?
 
yamahatdm900 said:
Thats not bad at all lot cheaper then I thought although you got to add the cost of the printer, would probably go for an A3+ myself mainly because of the size. You didn't go down the continuous ink feed route then?
Click to expand...

No Continuous Ink Systems for the Canon Pro-100

The Pro-100S was £259 from WEX on Black Friday
 
On the other hand I found home printing (with Epsom A2+ printer to be an expensive PITA! Too much time/ink wasted on calibration, then too much ink for cleaning nozzles when ever the printer gets switched back on.
 
yamahatdm900 said:
You rate the Canon then? I just bookmarked then people you mentioned on You Tube.
Click to expand...

For the money it's good, but you also need to calibrate your monitor and use the colorectal printer profiles. I'm currently using Fotospeed paper and their genetic profiles, when all my inks are OctoInkJet,I'll get custom profiles created by Fotospeed.

Canon does have a 26" paper length limit, so may limit some panoramas,but currently loving the output.

But @Craikeybaby does have a point, but personally I think it's worth it and you can easily experiment with different papers much more choice than online print services.
 
Mr Perceptive said:
For the money it's good, but you also need to calibrate your monitor and use the colorectal printer profiles. I'm currently using Fotospeed paper and their genetic profiles, when all my inks are OctoInkJet,I'll get custom profiles created by Fotospeed.

Canon does have a 26" paper length limit, so may limit some panoramas,but currently loving the output.

But @Craikeybaby does have a point, but personally I think it's worth it and you can easily experiment with different papers much more choice than online print services.
Click to expand...

I got a colourmonki so I do profile my monitor probably not often enough, it does appeal will have to give it some serious thought and New Years sale soon....
 
Excuse me for posting this in here but thought it might interest some. Was in my local camera shop and heard a rumour that the X-H1 body is going to be on sale for £1230 from the 24th, then there is the £230 cash back...
 
G.K.Jnr. said:
I had both to compare at one time and went for the F1.4 version. The 23mm F1.4 is better optically even when used at F2 its better than the 23mm F2 wide open. The 23mm F2 is faster at auto focus and is weather sealed. My advice for what its worth would be to go for the 23mm F1.4. (y)

George.
Click to expand...

Mr Perceptive said:
I have both!! (Well my wife had the F2, I have the F1.4) IMO you get what you pay for, the IQ of he F1.4 is better but if you want WR then it has to be the F2

You coming back from Sony??
Click to expand...


How do the 2 compare at f/4 and smaller? Looking at Jessops (and yes, I know there are better places to buy from but J's came up first on Google!), the f/1.4 is £829 and the f/2 is £409 - is the difference worth anywhere close?
 
Nod said:
How do the 2 compare at f/4 and smaller? Looking at Jessops (and yes, I know there are better places to buy from but J's came up first on Google!), the f/1.4 is £829 and the f/2 is £409 - is the difference worth anywhere close?
Click to expand...


From my personal findings the F1.4 version is optically better at every camparable stop.(y)

George.
 
Ian W said:
Yeah, I wonder if there's a guide for which paper (or type of) suits a particular genre? Matt textured for landscapes, high gloss for mono etc?

I may look to get some samples with my next order. Need more frames first though!
Click to expand...

I tend to use FineArt Pearl for the majority of prints in b/w or colour with good contrast or occasionally PhotoRag Pearl for prints with particularly warm tones. The pearl papers have a slight lustre to the finish which I prefer over the pure matte of the PhotoRag standard, but I know a lot of landscape photographers like the PhotoRag standard.
 
Sniffer said:
Just catching up on the thread and this made me choke on my mince pie! Autocorrect comedy at its finest!
Click to expand...
All the colours of the rectum
 
ashtennisguru said:
I tend to use FineArt Pearl for the majority of prints in b/w or colour with good contrast or occasionally PhotoRag Pearl for prints with particularly warm tones. The pearl papers have a slight lustre to the finish which I prefer over the pure matte of the PhotoRag standard, but I know a lot of landscape photographers like the PhotoRag standard.
Click to expand...
Yeah, I appreciate the matt finish won't suit all prints. Will check out the pearl too. Cheers.
 
Stephen L said:
All the colours of the rectum
Click to expand...


That'll be just pink then... (Sorry, had a colonoscopy yesterday and made the mistake of looking at the video screen!) :sick:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top