The Fabulous Fuji X owners thread

Some basic questions about adapters (having never used them). It looks like you lose AF, certainly with the cheaper ones on Amazon. How do they affect image quality (am thinking Nikon 300mm f4 or Tamron 150-600). The AF may not be an issue as would be for aircraft so infinity is fine, and often shooting f8-f11. I just don’t see the 55-200 giving me enough reach and 100-400 out of budget. Do you need a lens with aperture ring to shoot?
 
cambsno said:
Some basic questions about adapters (having never used them). It looks like you lose AF, certainly with the cheaper ones on Amazon. How do they affect image quality (am thinking Nikon 300mm f4 or Tamron 150-600). The AF may not be an issue as would be for aircraft so infinity is fine, and often shooting f8-f11. I just don’t see the 55-200 giving me enough reach and 100-400 out of budget. Do you need a lens with aperture ring to shoot?
Click to expand...

Fringer FX pro is your only man - excellent AF adapter. I've been using one myself for a while now and found it very good. There's one in classified here going for £150 [think it's sunk to page 2 surprisingly!] - I am selling one myself but I'm not letting it go for such a steal so I'll give local sales a try. They go for up to £300 new so I'd stomp on that if I were you. You have the option of so many other 100-400 lenses and they will work just fine - once the adapter is up to date.
 
Has anyone compared the 50-140 @ 90mm 2.8 with the 90mm F2 @ F2 to see what difference there is in image quality? I have the 50-140 and love it, I realise the 90 is much lighter, but I can live with the weight of the zoom for what I need it for, I just wondered if the IQ is much different.
 
rick448 said:
Has anyone compared the 50-140 @ 90mm 2.8 with the 90mm F2 @ F2 to see what difference there is in image quality? I have the 50-140 and love it, I realise the 90 is much lighter, but I can live with the weight of the zoom for what I need it for, I just wondered if the IQ is much different.
Click to expand...

I put Fujifilm lenses into Good, Great and Exceptional categories (there are no optically bad ones!), IMO the 50-140 is great (bordering on exceptional), the 90mm is though exceptional! If you need the zoom take the 50-140 if you want the ultimate then take the 90mm.

The 90mm isn't just about sharpness, its about colour rendition, the way the bokeh is handled at F2/F2.8, the way the subject pops, it has a way of making portraits just look beautiful. its just one of those 'halo' lenses that in years to come will be revered (like the Canon 135F2, and Zeiss 50mm Planar). You need to use one in anger to 'get it'

I'm off to a wedding today, as a guest, and I know the 90mm will be welded to my camera.
 
rick448 said:
Has anyone compared the 50-140 @ 90mm 2.8 with the 90mm F2 @ F2 to see what difference there is in image quality? I have the 50-140 and love it, I realise the 90 is much lighter, but I can live with the weight of the zoom for what I need it for, I just wondered if the IQ is much different.
Click to expand...

I never really tested the 50-140 against the 90mm, but the 90 has something about it that I totally love. The subject just jumps out out the viewer when shot @f2 and everything about this lens just makes it magic imo.
 
Mr Perceptive said:
I put Fujifilm lenses into Good, Great and Exceptional categories (there are no optically bad ones!), IMO the 50-140 is great (bordering on exceptional), the 90mm is though exceptional! If you need the zoom take the 50-140 if you want the ultimate then take the 90mm.

The 90mm isn't just about sharpness, its about colour rendition, the way the bokeh is handled at F2/F2.8, the way the subject pops, it has a way of making portraits just look beautiful. its just one of those 'halo' lenses that in years to come will be revered (like the Canon 135F2, and Zeiss 50mm Planar). You need to use one in anger to 'get it'

I'm off to a wedding today, as a guest, and I know the 90mm will be welded to my camera.
Click to expand...
Dave70D said:
I never really tested the 50-140 against the 90mm, but the 90 has something about it that I totally love. The subject just jumps out out the viewer when shot @f2 and everything about this lens just makes it magic imo.
Click to expand...

Thanks guys, it looks like I am going to have to pull the trigger at some point. The Canon 135 F2 was my favourite L lens, so I am are I'll love the 90 once I pluck up the courage to jump on board. I can get a new one for £599, which looks like a bargain :)
 
Cagey75 said:
Fringer FX pro is your only man - excellent AF adapter. I've been using one myself for a while now and found it very good. There's one in classified here going for £150 [think it's sunk to page 2 surprisingly!] - I am selling one myself but I'm not letting it go for such a steal so I'll give local sales a try. They go for up to £300 new so I'd stomp on that if I were you. You have the option of so many other 100-400 lenses and they will work just fine - once the adapter is up to date.
Click to expand...

Thanks. What about IQ? Any loss like you get with a TC?
 
cambsno said:
Some basic questions about adapters (having never used them). It looks like you lose AF, certainly with the cheaper ones on Amazon. How do they affect image quality (am thinking Nikon 300mm f4 or Tamron 150-600). The AF may not be an issue as would be for aircraft so infinity is fine, and often shooting f8-f11. I just don’t see the 55-200 giving me enough reach and 100-400 out of budget. Do you need a lens with aperture ring to shoot?
Click to expand...
I’ve been using manual adapters on my cameras for 12 years. If you want to use something other than a canon lens, you have to manually focus it and stop the aperture down. The Fuji is convenient as you can stop down and leave it as the live view maintains approximately the same scene brightness. One thing to note is that a lot of lenses, particularly telephotos, focus beyond infinity. Adapters frequently air on the side of being too thin which puts the distance scale out for all lenses. It’s better than the adapter being too thick as that would prevent focusing to infinity, just like an extension tube would.

Up until I bought the 50-140, I’d been using Nikon, Olympus and mamiya 645 lenses on my x-e3. Results look pretty much identical to using the same lens on an equivalent camera, provided you can focus properly. A Nikon 14-24 f2.8 looks a little daft on an x-e3 but it did seem to work rather well. I think my 300mm f2.8 will look even more silly but ought to work pretty well too. Focus peaking and the zoom in live view functions can make mf pretty fast and reasonably accurate. A good evf is a must though. The x-e3 has such a tiny evf, I have found it quite hard in some cases as I’m used to using a D810 with a DK-17M magnifier which gives a huge viewfinder. No such luck with the x-e3 which is why I potentially see an x-t3 on the cards in the future when the used price falls.
 
Last edited:
cambsno said:
Some basic questions about adapters (having never used them). It looks like you lose AF, certainly with the cheaper ones on Amazon. How do they affect image quality (am thinking Nikon 300mm f4 or Tamron 150-600). The AF may not be an issue as would be for aircraft so infinity is fine, and often shooting f8-f11. I just don’t see the 55-200 giving me enough reach and 100-400 out of budget. Do you need a lens with aperture ring to shoot?
Click to expand...

Given your website I guess you're in Cambridge too ;-) Happy for you to try my 50-140. I had the 55-200 before and miss it dearly as I stated before. The 50-140 is just too clunky and then add on an additional adapter... not for me. As for reach, I like the compromise of 200 to be honest. It is probably not right for a Safari, but many many daily situations (including "wild" life) are possible.

I just posted 2 older pics (lizard and bird) with he 55-200 @200mm in the gallery threads (don't want to repost the pictures):
https://www.talkphotography.co.uk/threads/blue-bird-on-a-blue-morning-stellers-jay.700075/
https://www.talkphotography.co.uk/threads/blue-lizard-warming-on-the-rocks.700074/
 
cambsno said:
Thanks. What about IQ? Any loss like you get with a TC?
Click to expand...

I never used a TC with it but it has no impact on iq, there is no glass element, it's a clear pass through adapter. It is basically designed to make up the flange distance difference, as well as allow electrical contact. Some even say that Canon lenses show better iq in a Fuji, probably because they just prefer the rendering you get from these cameras.
 
Cambtrader said:
Given your website I guess you're in Cambridge too ;-) Happy for you to try my 50-140. I had the 55-200 before and miss it dearly as I stated before. The 50-140 is just too clunky and then add on an additional adapter... not for me. As for reach, I like the compromise of 200 to be honest. It is probably not right for a Safari, but many many daily situations (including "wild" life) are possible.

I just posted 2 older pics (lizard and bird) with he 55-200 @200mm in the gallery threads (don't want to repost the pictures):
https://www.talkphotography.co.uk/threads/blue-bird-on-a-blue-morning-stellers-jay.700075/
https://www.talkphotography.co.uk/threads/blue-lizard-warming-on-the-rocks.700074/
Click to expand...

Thanks for the offer, have a 55-200 on its way to me - the lens makes more sense than the 50-140 as part of the reason for moving was weight and size, plus it will be my least used lens, although may take you up on that if I get the urge!
 
The 55-200 is a good lens, it's bright enough for general wildlife no problem as it is sharp enough wide open. I would have one again if I thought I'd use it more. I have the Canon 55-250 that I use on the adapter and that works good enough for me. I would be as bold as to say it's as good as the Fuji, I would rate it higher than the 50-230 for sure [also had that one in the past] as it's sharper wide open at 5.6 than I found the 50-230 at 6.7 230mm - also the Canon , though it hunts here and there, behaves no worse
 
cambsno said:
Thanks for the offer, have a 55-200 on its way to me - the lens makes more sense than the 50-140 as part of the reason for moving was weight and size, plus it will be my least used lens, although may take you up on that if I get the urge!
Click to expand...


A wise decision in my book, I have both the 50-140 & 55-200 and much, much prefer to use the 55-200. I’ve used it wide open and well stopped down and the definition is still extremely good with the sharpest apertures being around F5.6. I’d be very surprised if you are dissatisfied with its performance.

George.
 
Just picked up the 16mm 1.4. Sits well on my X-H1 and X-T1. Looking to take it out tomorrow for a proper test.
 
Gandalf said:
Just picked up the 16mm 1.4. Sits well on my X-H1 and X-T1. Looking to take it out tomorrow for a proper test.
Click to expand...

I still have withdrawal symptoms from letting mine go. Again it didn't come out very often, but was a joy to use. Not just as a wide angle, but its close focusing properties and wide aperture makes it so versatile.
 
Well after some research and a lot (a little) soul searching I’ve decided to order the 90 F2 when I get back from the pub. :D
 
You certainly give your gear a work out Dave. I almost went with the 23mm and 90 - but the 23 is soft for close ups wide open and that's how I'd like to use it most. I hear it's a fine lens besides though. On the 90, I set my 55-250 lens to around 90mm and had a walk about today, it would be too tight for casual use for me. I won't rule it out for the future though, I would definitely like it but usage would be limited - I think I'll enjoy the 16 a little more, especially for the close up capabilities. I'll either pair it up with the 50F2, or maybe re-buy another 85 1.8 and pretend I have the 90 :D
 
Cagey75 said:
You certainly give your gear a work out Dave. I almost went with the 23mm and 90 - but the 23 is soft for close ups wide open and that's how I'd like to use it most. I hear it's a fine lens besides though. On the 90, I set my 55-250 lens to around 90mm and had a walk about today, it would be too tight for casual use for me. I won't rule it out for the future though, I would definitely like it but usage would be limited - I think I'll enjoy the 16 a little more, especially for the close up capabilities. I'll either pair it up with the 50F2, or maybe re-buy another 85 1.8 and pretend I have the 90 :D
Click to expand...

I just love trying to push my self in my music shots, I can`t wait to use the 16mm f1.4 on my indoor jazz shots and maybe get close. Then I will get the 50mm f2 back but might do it as a kit with the XPRO2 :cool:
 
Dave70D said:
I just love trying to push my self in my music shots, I can`t wait to use the 16mm f1.4 on my indoor jazz shots and maybe get close. Then I will get the 50mm f2 back but might do it as a kit with the XPRO2 :cool:
Click to expand...

The f/1.4 should be great for your indoor gigs for sure
 
Finally pulled the trigger and moved from Canon (5D2) to Fuji (XT-3). Should arrive Tues next week and I'm looking at a 18-55 on the forum at the moment to add to it. Now comes the fun of relearning a new system after 15+ years of Canon DSLR use.
 
Simon Kitt said:
Finally pulled the trigger and moved from Canon (5D2) to Fuji (XT-3). Should arrive Tues next week and I'm looking at a 18-55 on the forum at the moment to add to it. Now comes the fun of relearning a new system after 15+ years of Canon DSLR use.
Click to expand...

I switched from using Nikon for a decade to Fuji a few years ago and it was a lot easier than I imagined. There wasn't as much bells and whistles to ML cameras then [X-T1] of course, but if anything you should find the X-T3 a step up in many ways - it's an easy systems to get along with :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top