The Fabulous Fuji X owners thread

Cagey75 said:
Interesting development on the third party lens front. Viltrox - who just recently released an AF 85mm 1.8 for the Fuji system, have 3 more offerings on the way. The purists will say 'why buy these when Fuji have similar or better' - but the budget minded, like me, love to see some competition. The 56 1.4 for example, at the right price might tempt me because the Fuji 56mm is that bit out of reach right now. It would have to be priced in or around the same as the Fuji 50mm F2 and be as quick and sharp. Also this 33mm 1.4, if it has fast and silent focusing could serve a KO to the 35 1.4 Fuji. If we are to go by the 85mm 1.8, reviews on that one have been mostly positive and it has been suggested by some as a good alternative to the 90mm, for less than half the price new.

https://www.fujirumors.com/new-imag...d-56mm-f-1-4-autofocus-lenses-for-fujifilm-x/

11-1.jpg


Odd that they all look much the same, but what we also learned from the 85mm is their lenses are built like tanks, all metal, very sturdy and don't feel in any way cheap or tacky. Note the 'E' on two of them, this is for Sony APSC - these are specifically made for APSC unlike the 85 which was a full frame lens. This should make them lighter and smaller.
Click to expand...

But if the 56 is the same price as a Fuji 50, is the extra stop really worth the drop (I assume) in IQ?
 
Cagey75 said:
One from earlier today - The 16mm should never be accused of being near macro or anything of the sort, BUT, you certainly can get close - this hoverfly was very accommodating, actually bumped the hood off the flower he was on more than once as I kept edging closer. What the lens does do fantastically well is what I would deem to be 'environmental macro' - where you are including much more of your subject's surroundings, and I really like this type of image. More so than intense close ups of a bug's eyes only in fact.

f/8, ISO 800, H-1 + 16 1.4
Calm hover by K G, on Flickr
Click to expand...


Very nice close up Fujigraph, well composed with good colour.

George.
 
Cagey75 said:
You can't go wrong with any of the Fuji primes really, the 35F2 or 50F2 would compliment your WA zoom nicely. I might go for the 50F2 myself, looks a cracker. If you preferred the 50mm look on your FF camera then the 35mm might be better for you. There is a 1.4 35mm also but it is slower to focus, noisier and lacks weather sealing.
Click to expand...

Thanks for the recommendations, both look pretty good!

Craikeybaby said:
The 35mmf2 would probably be a good bet.
Click to expand...

Could be a good shout, the 56 1.2 looks pretty awesome too.
 
cambsno said:
But if the 56 is the same price as a Fuji 50, is the extra stop really worth the drop (I assume) in IQ?
Click to expand...

It'll have to be cheaper new, or prove to be excellent wide open, then it'll matter. Also closer focusing would be a benefit to it, something they failed with on their 85, the Fuji 90 is much better in that respect
 
Last edited:
Mr Perceptive said:
Hold down trash can for 3 seconds and press rear command dial and it instantly takes you to SD card format.
Click to expand...

This is what I've been doing to clear both cards, only pity is you can't select to format both at once
 
Mr Perceptive said:
Hold down trash can for 3 seconds and press rear command dial and it instantly takes you to SD card format.
Click to expand...

Just tried this on my X-T3 and nothing happened, but if I press the trash can button on its own, I get 3 options 1 Delete file 2 Select image 3 All images, which is a format.
 
Any left eye shooters using the X-T2 please? Do you find it OK?

Thanks,AL
 
Dangermouse1964 said:
Just tried this on my X-T3 and nothing happened, but if I press the trash can button on its own, I get 3 options 1 Delete file 2 Select image 3 All images, which is a format.
Click to expand...


That worked, cheers for that, saves a bit of hunting when on the go.
 
dancook said:
Fujigraphs.. hah :D
Click to expand...

Just one thing, and it's certainly not a nit-pick, more a Fuji thing - but if you are using LR to process? then I would set the default sharpening down to about 20, by default for some unknown reason Adobe have it set to 40 for Fuji sensors and this causes some unwanted artifacts at times in backgrounds. To counter this further I mask sharpen or use the selection brush for specific areas [like say the dog's faces] so's not to affect the oof areas
 
Last edited:
Cagey75 said:
Just one thing, and it's certainly not a nit-pick, more a Fuji thing - but if you are using LR to process? then I would set the default sharpening down to about 20, by default for some unknown reason Adobe have it set to 40 for Fuji sensors and this causes some unwanted artifacts at times in backgrounds. To counter this further I mask sharpen or use the selection brush for specific areas [like say the dog's faces] so's not to affect the oof areas
Click to expand...

Sure thing, thanks, though I'll probably use the Fuji for only a little while longer before going back to my own cameras.

Al1944 said:
Probably the cutest dog on the planet :)
Click to expand...

And on their way to being most photographed :)
https://www.instagram.com/yuffnewt2cute/
 
dancook said:
Sure thing, thanks, though I'll probably use the Fuji for only a little while longer before going back to my own cameras.



And on their way to being most photographed :)
https://www.instagram.com/yuffnewt2cute/
Click to expand...

It's just something to note even when testing as some find the images over sharpened and artifacts in what should be smooth areas. I wish Adobe wouldn't force that over sharpening, it's had newer Fuji owners rethink the system.
 
A quick heads up, I have 2 x mint lenses in the classifieds 16-55 & 100-400
 
imattersuk said:
Processing is spot on in my opinion, suits the object perfectly
Click to expand...

Thanks, Pete :thumbs: I appreciate the feedback :)

Out of curiosity , how come you`re shifting those two. Are you leaving us?
 
Paulie-W said:
Thanks, Pete (y) I appreciate the feedback :)

Out of curiosity , how come you`re shifting those two. Are you leaving us?
Click to expand...
No mate I hardly use the 16-55 as most of my work is corporate events indoors so I use the primes for low light stuff.

As for the 100-400 I intended to get a lot more into motorsport but i'm struggling to find the time so it's sitting there in the box winding me up lol
 
imattersuk said:
No mate I hardly use the 16-55 as most of my work is corporate events indoors so I use the primes for low light stuff.

As for the 100-400 I intended to get a lot more into motorsport but i'm struggling to find the time so it's sitting there in the box winding me up lol
Click to expand...

I thought we`d lost you for a moment there, mate ;)
Fair enough though. I was the same in my Nikon days. Got all excited about a 150-600, for motor sports and wildlife, but it never worked out. I think I`m better at "stuff" than anything else (unfortunately).
 
Paulie-W said:
My daughter found this old typewriter in a charity shop today (I had the camera), so figured it deserved a pic. Marmite processing, but hey ho ;)

T2 with 23 1.4 @ f2
Old School Work Station by Paulie-W, on Flickr
Click to expand...

Nice still life style Fujigraph, PP wise I think it works well on this type of shot.

George.
 
Paulie-W said:
I thought we`d lost you for a moment there, mate ;)
Fair enough though. I was the same in my Nikon days. Got all excited about a 150-600, for motor sports and wildlife, but it never worked out. I think I`m better at "stuff" than anything else (unfortunately).
Click to expand...
Maybe we should set up an "out of your comfort zone" challenge ?

I'm crap at "stuff", can't be arsed with all the lighting but really ought to try harder
 
Cagey75 said:
<snip> Also closer focusing would be a benefit to it, something they failed with on their 85, the Fuji 90 is much better in that respect
Click to expand...

Blimey, it must be bad.... The one thing I find that lets the 90 down is the close focus distance, I usually end up putting both tubes on to get close with the 90mm.......
 
Last edited:
Jelster said:
Blimey, it must be bad.... The one thing I find that lets the 90 down is the close focus distance, I usually end up putting both tubes on to get close with the 90mm.......
Click to expand...

Well prime lenses in that region rarely have very good close focusing capabilities in general - no matter the system. 60cm is actually very good for the 90mm and 0.2x is also not bad magnification - the Viltrox is 80cm and 0.12x - not near as good but very much in line with 85mm lenses from other manufacturers. One good thing about the 90 also is that you can snap a Raynox 250 on front and get 1:1 macro, the filter thread is too large on the 85 Viltrox for this.

Look at the Sony 85mm 1.8, that only gets to 80cm with 0.13x mag, so the Fuji 90mm is better than average - it's not meant to be anything close to a macro but I would call that decent close focusing for the FL

If you want more extreme close focusing the 16mm is your only man, can focus down to 15cm [some have suggested it's even close when manual focusing] with 0.21x mag. Very impressive for a WA lens, of course it gives a quirkier angle of view than longer lenses but it's very fun to use
 
Last edited:
It was a bit of a flippant comment Keith, I just noticed that the CF distance was too far away to be really useful when shooting bugs & stuff. Stick some tubes on and it's great!! ;)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top