Approve the Cookies
This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies and our Privacy Policy.
OK
Index  •   • New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
Guest
New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
Register to forums    Log in

 
FORUMS Other Digital Cameras Fuji Digital Cameras 
Thread started 06 Jan 2013 (Sunday) 14:29
Search threadPrev/next
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

STICKY: Fuji Users Unite - Post your comments, questions and images here

 
urbanfreestyle
I am a squirrel who loves rubbing bottles and I have Nuts in my drawers, too!
Avatar
2,046 posts
Gallery: 9 photos
Likes: 226
Joined Dec 2013
Location: Exeter, Devon
     
Jul 22, 2018 06:10 |  #7771

I've been trying to sell my 18-55 2.8-4 for £400


Facebook (external link)
Canon 1D Mk IV | Canon 50mm 1.8 Mk1 | Sigma 'Bigma' 50-500 | Fuji XE1 | Helios 44/m | 50mm 1.4 | Manfrotto 055CX PRO3 | 3LT Mohawk ballhead | Lubitel 2 med format camera |

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)
EverydayGetaway
Cream of the Crop
Avatar
10,498 posts
Gallery: 7 photos
Likes: 3537
Joined Oct 2012
Location: Bowie, MD
Post edited 10 months ago by EverydayGetaway.
     
Jul 22, 2018 08:47 |  #7772

At this point I really do think you just complain about anything Fuji does for the sake of stirring the pot...

AlanU wrote in post #18667749 (external link)
I failed to mention I have no interest in 12mm -15mm since I have not interest in serious landscape and astro photography . The cheaper LAOWA 12mm is fine for the fun budget lens that is quite capable to bridge the gap of having a very UWA angle prime lens.

I use 16-35mm on a full frame for events photography and for general use. Fuji 8-16mm would be equiv to a 12-24mm on full frame and that doesn't hit the semi wide angle sweet spot of a 35mm on FF for me when using a UWA zoom. Using the 35mm range at f/2.8 on a full frame with incredible high iso capability is a potent tool that provides very clean files and has the versatility of providing similar dof compared to a Fuji f/2 prime lens (f/2 x 1.5 - approx f/3 equiv FF dof) but ranges from 16mm to 35mm!! 10-24 f/4 is pretty lame for versatility unless your shooting wideopen and have remote flash and heavily rely on bounce flash for indoors receptions.

Using a GM16-35mm on a Sony A7Riii is also very cool. If you want more "reach" you can use Sony "crop mode" at 35mm (approx 52.5mm reach) and still achieve 18.66MP at a crop factor of 1.5!!!!! Fuji cannot do this. My Sony A7iii is only 10.66MP in crop mode :( but still decent on a crunch!!

Selection of tools always must be methodical. Now it seems clear to me I can achieve more shallow dof with f/2.8 glass with FF and achieve cleaner files at high iso. I really was looking forward in purchasing the 8-16mm f/2.8 but not any more!

If you have "no interest" in 12-24mm, then why are you even commenting on it? Just stick with their 10-24mm (15-35mm equivalent) that they've already had on the market for years.

If you "need" the longer end more, then why were you planning on buying it ever regardless of the price? That seriously makes no sense to me.

AlanU wrote in post #18667753 (external link)
So far it appears Fuji glass has gotten more and more expensive. If I look at the Canon price trend the initial cost is high but as years go by the price goes down even when there isn't a newer revision.

Yes, they sure do keep getting more and more expensive... they should come out with some cheaper f2 primes in the most used focal lengths with the same high optical quality of their more expensive faster lenses... :rolleyes: :lol:


Fuji X-Pro2 // Fuji X-T1 // Fuji X-100T // XF 18mm f2 // XF 35mm f1.4 // XF 60mm f2.4 // Rokinon 12mm f2 // Rokinon 21mm f1.4 // XF 18-55mm f/2.8-4 // XF 55-200mm f3.5-4.8 // Rokinon 85mm f1.4 // Zhonghi Lensturbo ii // Various adapted MF lenses
flickr (external link) // Instagram (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
bones519
Senior Member
Avatar
347 posts
Gallery: 110 photos
Likes: 761
Joined Dec 2011
Location: Ontario, CAN
     
Jul 22, 2018 09:31 |  #7773

My little 'place of Zen' in the park near my home.


HOSTED PHOTO
please log in to view hosted photos in full size.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
AlanU
Cream of the Crop
7,123 posts
Gallery: 87 photos
Likes: 1013
Joined Feb 2008
Location: Vancouver, BC
     
Jul 22, 2018 10:29 |  #7774

EverydayGetaway wrote in post #18667925 (external link)
At this point I really do think you just complain about anything Fuji does for the sake of stirring the pot...

If you have "no interest" in 12-24mm, then why are you even commenting on it? Just stick with their 10-24mm (15-35mm equivalent) that they've already had on the market for years.

If you "need" the longer end more, then why were you planning on buying it ever regardless of the price? That seriously makes no sense to me.

Yes, they sure do keep getting more and more expensive... they should come out with some cheaper f2 primes in the most used focal lengths with the same high optical quality of their more expensive faster lenses... :rolleyes: :lol:


Huge influx of Fuji lovers questioning the price point of the new 8-16mm lens.

Since you question me please take some notes :-P The 12-24mm was an interest before I saw the price. I shoot a lot with a Full frame 24mm prime as well as a fuji 16mm (24mm f/2.1 FF equiv). The logic I had was I could compromise the 12-24mm range because Fuji is offering an f/2.8 zoom that is equiv to a full frame f/4.2 dof. Also Fuji is not my primary system for critical events as it's my fun camera system. The 10-24mm provides the range that seems to be a standard sized UWA but it's consumer line f/4 has a deep dof more like f/5.6 wide open using a full frame. In fact I was itching to trade it in for a new 8-16mm but price wise was a shocker!

For more serious shooting having 35mm range is quite beneficial as a zoom is more versatile getting a tad more reach. Using 1 body to cover that range plus a second to suit longer tele needs is a great combo. The 12-24mm would be a decent range but it's still like shooting with f/4 glass (FF equiv) for just under $3000 CDN! That's where the Cost/versatility ratio is very poor. Several hundred more a GM 16-35 f/2.8 with Sony product is worth the extra. Their bodies have image stabilization, f/2.8 for low light, incredible high iso performance and state of the art eye tracking.

If I want to stretch and use my A7iii in crop mode I can achieve 24-52.5mm but settle for 10.66 mega pixel files. That is very cool especially if you have a 18.84 mega pixel files if you use an A7Riii in crop mode!!!

If the 8-16mm fuji lens was just a tad more expensive than the 10-24mm I wouldn't be mentioning the methodical $$ expenditure of versatility, price and application.

There is plenty of more alternatives that make more sense in my situation if I spend about 3 G's on a fuji system.


5Dmkiv |5Dmkiii | 24LmkII | 35mm f/2 IS | 85 mkII L | | 16-35L mkII | 24-70 f/2.8L mkii| 70-200 f/2.8 ISL mkII| 600EX-RT x2 | 580 EX II x2 | Einstein's
Fuji X-T2 w/battery booster | 16mm f/1.4 | 56 f/1.2 | 50-140 | TT685
Sony A7iii w/ Sigma MC-11 adapter | GM16-35 f/2.8 | Tamron 28-75 f/2.8 | GM70-200 f/2.8 |Sigma Art 24 f/1.4 | Godox V860iiS

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
AlanU
Cream of the Crop
7,123 posts
Gallery: 87 photos
Likes: 1013
Joined Feb 2008
Location: Vancouver, BC
     
Jul 22, 2018 11:16 |  #7775

Two Hot Shoes wrote in post #18667828 (external link)
XF 8-16/2.8 is €1999 here including taxes. More than I thought by a couple of hundred and still not sure if I get a front lens cap included or is that a €24 optional extra.

I bought new trainers yesterday, my luck is in.

12mm of focal length might not sound like much but the difference from 8mm to 16mm is huge. Much more huge than say 80-96mm. I've been waiting for this for over a year using the 14mm or the 12mm but always wanted Fuji to make a rectilinear 8mm and it's only f/2.8.

Funny calling it overpriced when the reviews say it's near optically perfect, corner to corner wide open, more funny when you consider Sonys pricing of it's lenses, the GM85/1.4 is a whopping [US] $1800. For a standard focal length 1.4 prime, not a specialist lens. OK then. Even Canon is 'only' charging $1600. Speaking of canon they charged $3000 for their 11-24 lens and that was an F/4 lens. It's come down in price a little lately in fairness to only $700 more than the 'overpriced' Fuji 8-16/2.8. At the end of the day it's an 8mm Rectilinear lens @ 2.8 that is near optically perfect, to my eyes for my wants that's worth every penny.

Wait, the extremely wide 8-16mm F/2.8 is overpriced & the not nearly as wide Sony GM16-35/2.8 isn't - even though it's more expensive. OK then, perspective. For the same 'reach' I can and have cropped in post, same thing.


Last year or so Fuji glass was getting cheaper with all the rebates going about, remember the rebate on the 16mm f/1.4. This year they are giving those of us who asked a few lenses for specialist applications, Gota love Fuji for being open there.

I love that colour and the green on the hood is a great nod to Fuji's old broadcast lenses, more please & I agree the price is on point, although no one would complain if was half the price for the same IQ.

Yes. Value = (Quality + Price)/Customer Application.

Bingo:

I do get your point and indeed a niche lens. Using f/2.8 glass wideopen the eyes typically focus on the center of the image. In Fuji's case f/2.8 is approximately f/4.2 equiv on full frame. Perhaps Fuji should have made the 8-16mm f/1.8 instead!!!! Now that would justify the cost of that lens!

This all comes down to application. It's very easy to create a lightroom preset for any UWA lens and manipulate any pin cushion distortion. I do see some satisfaction having a file "straight" looking. I have my reason how I cannot justifying the 8-16 for my particular use.

Many astro shooters would appreciate the cheap manual prime alternatives to get good results. Getting a lot of "likes" on social media through a hobby is quite satisfying. For a sensible business person running a competitive photography business better find justification. Clients wouldn't care if you used a cheap overseas UWA prime or 10-24mm or $$ 8-16 f/2.8 zoom for an ultra wide shot as long as your crafty in post processing and throw some vibrance, sharpness, lens correction and good old fashion skills and composition.

Using the 16-35mm f/2.8 on a FF is just one stop faster but the benefits of low light indoor shooting due to cleaner high iso usable files. Using a Canon or Sony 16-35 f/2.8 @ f/2.8 at 35mm achieves more pleasing bokeh with FF. 35mm is semi wide and produces some distortion but a reasonable amount. My application is different from most that would use Fuji 8-16mm (f/4.2 FF equiv) for landscape and Astro and maybe a small portion of events work. Most FF wedding shooters would have a fisheye or 16-35mm f/2.8 UWA and not a canon niche EF 11-24mm.

Interesting how there are very clear advantages using a full frame sensor with f/2.8 zooms. Since I shoot both I do not pose this as a confrontational discussion. IMO all crop sensor f/2.8 zooms should have been developed as f/1.8 for incredible versatility and provide equal dof as a full frame. The issue is size and weight of such a lens. We are all getting weak and first world problems has small form factor camera systems as a solution to our laziness LOL!!!! However in some cases I see validity in small form factor for medical reasons so I'm not being insensitive to the small form factor discussion.

I'll be looking forward in seeing photos taken with POTN folks buying the 8-16mm. Happy to see Fuji create some niche lenses.


5Dmkiv |5Dmkiii | 24LmkII | 35mm f/2 IS | 85 mkII L | | 16-35L mkII | 24-70 f/2.8L mkii| 70-200 f/2.8 ISL mkII| 600EX-RT x2 | 580 EX II x2 | Einstein's
Fuji X-T2 w/battery booster | 16mm f/1.4 | 56 f/1.2 | 50-140 | TT685
Sony A7iii w/ Sigma MC-11 adapter | GM16-35 f/2.8 | Tamron 28-75 f/2.8 | GM70-200 f/2.8 |Sigma Art 24 f/1.4 | Godox V860iiS

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Two ­ Hot ­ Shoes
Goldmember
Avatar
3,065 posts
Gallery: 325 photos
Best ofs: 4
Likes: 3157
Joined Apr 2014
Location: Ireland
     
Jul 22, 2018 11:25 |  #7776

XF8-16/2.8

At one end we had the Samyang/Rokinon 12mm/2.8, that lens gives an angle of view of 98.9º & it an OK lens until you look close, then it's quite wobbly but it really cheap.

Then you have the $1000 XF10-24/4, that has a max angle of view of 110º also OK, better than the sammy in some regards but still those corners...

Finally the XF8-16/2.8, twice the price for the 10-24, but now we have 121º angle of view and a brightness of f/.28, a view that is very well controlled right out to the corners even when wide open. A lens that is rectilinear at 121º & 8mm - think about that for a min, that's very impressive and for those of us who shoot Fuji professionally it's a very welcomed addition to the lens map. Complaining about a lens cost comapired to a less complex lens that is more expensive shows that there is a lack of appreciation of the difficulty in getting a lens this wide (@2.8) to be so optically correct right the way across the frame to market. I was hoping for just this level of commitment from Fuji.

It's the same people complaining about the 200/2 and for the same reasons it's no surprise on the cost. Did you really think Fuji would offer up a lens like the 8-16/2.8 for a couple of hundred off the 10-24/4? Think about that, it's a stop wider with an increase in angle of 11º, it's much improved optically with a fast AF motor and WR. Really all for a few [hundred] dollars more...

121º rectilinear 121º rectilinear 121º rectilinear 121º rectilinear 121º rectilinear


Fuji: X-PRO2, X-T3. 16/1.4, 18/2, 23/1.4, 35/1.4, 56/1.2, 90/2, 16-55/2.8, 50-140/2.8.
Pelican, Ona, ThinkTank, Matthews Grip, Elinchrom

Gear & Discounts (external link)Instagram (external link)Blog (external link)
Coffee & Fujis (external link)YouTube (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
FarmerTed1971
fondling the 5D4
Avatar
6,055 posts
Gallery: 66 photos
Best ofs: 2
Likes: 3341
Joined Sep 2013
Location: Portland, OR
Post edited 10 months ago by FarmerTed1971.
     
Jul 22, 2018 11:31 |  #7777

I’d rather complain about the lack of filter threads.


Getting better at this - Fuji Xt-2 - Fuji X-Pro2 - Laowa 9mm - 18-55 - 23/35/50/90 f2 WR - 50-140 - flickr (external link) - www.scottaticephoto.co​m (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
clipper_from_oz
Goldmember
Avatar
2,537 posts
Gallery: 26 photos
Likes: 11088
Joined Sep 2005
Location: Melbourne Australia
Post edited 10 months ago by clipper_from_oz. (8 edits in all)
     
Jul 22, 2018 11:35 |  #7778

Currently in Saigon at the moment and when time permits I hang out on the street corners watching the scooter families go by. Ive seen as many as 6 on at once but so far my personal best is 4 on an image capture but I recon not long till I get 5.Thats of course if I dont get totalled myself which has almost happened a couple of times now and before I figured out better to shoot from behind a street pole if I wanted to stay in one piece ......


HOSTED PHOTO
please log in to view hosted photos in full size.


Clipper
5DSR,5DMkII,Fuji XPRO1,X-T1&X-T20,Fotoman 6x17cm Large Format Panorama Camera,Mamiya Universal 6x9
Canon EF 16-35mm f4 L, 17mm TSE f4 L,50mm f1.4, 24-70 f2.8 L, 70-200mm F4 L, 85mm f1.8, 100-400mm II L,
EF 400mm f2.8 IS II L, Fujinon XF18mmf2, XF35mmf1.4, XF60mm f2, XF18-55f2.8-4.5, XF55-200f4
Rodenstock, Sinar& Nikkor LF lens for Pano (75,95,150+210mm)
flickr (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
AlanU
Cream of the Crop
7,123 posts
Gallery: 87 photos
Likes: 1013
Joined Feb 2008
Location: Vancouver, BC
     
Jul 22, 2018 11:48 |  #7779

Fuji’s 200mm is truly a niche lens. If you need such a focal length it maybe the right lens. For portraits 200mm isn't really necessary. I wonder who will buy this lens on the POTN.

For my application it’s cheaper to use the 56mm or 90. Or for much more pleasing bokeh buy a sigma 135 f1.8 for my other systems.

Hobbyists with deep pockets will probably buy the 200mm more so than working photographers.


5Dmkiv |5Dmkiii | 24LmkII | 35mm f/2 IS | 85 mkII L | | 16-35L mkII | 24-70 f/2.8L mkii| 70-200 f/2.8 ISL mkII| 600EX-RT x2 | 580 EX II x2 | Einstein's
Fuji X-T2 w/battery booster | 16mm f/1.4 | 56 f/1.2 | 50-140 | TT685
Sony A7iii w/ Sigma MC-11 adapter | GM16-35 f/2.8 | Tamron 28-75 f/2.8 | GM70-200 f/2.8 |Sigma Art 24 f/1.4 | Godox V860iiS

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Two ­ Hot ­ Shoes
Goldmember
Avatar
3,065 posts
Gallery: 325 photos
Best ofs: 4
Likes: 3157
Joined Apr 2014
Location: Ireland
Post edited 10 months ago by Two Hot Shoes.
     
Jul 22, 2018 11:54 as a reply to  @ AlanU's post |  #7780

Depth of field on a wide lens, for most applications is irrelevant as so much is in focus anyway. I know for my architecture work having to not spend so much time in Ps fixing lines, particularly the ones that wobble, is worth loads so a small price to pay for me, especially as I'm selling the 10-24, Sammy 12 and 8mm lenses. I can tell you that clients really do care about some things, particularly straight lines when they are architects and rightly so it's their work.

Really 2.8 is fine these days, if you shoot your Fuji well 12800ISO is good to deliver (I have done so on many occasion with no complaints, including clients like Heineken & Molson). I think 1.8 on that lens would be huge and more heavy than it needs to be for usability but hej why not f/1 and call it a day ;-)a Like I said earlier justify the cost not to you perhaps [Value = (Quality x Price)/Customer Application] as your application is low, mine on the other hand is high for a lens like this so for me great value indeed.

I've only used my 8mm fisheye ( it's not very fishy) once at a wedding and I corrected that, needed to get a shot of five guys in two rows from inside the wedding car - turned out well. But I do love shooting wide at events when I can show so much and with a corrected 8mm I'm looking forward to next year already, for a big group I'll usually just stitch a few shots - more detail etc... For interiors rooms will get big fast at 8mm so I'd rather use the big camera and put a couple together where budget allows.

The amount of bokeh really is subjective, to the distances involved between the subject camera and background, the quality of bokeh is an entirely different thing. You say advantages in using 2.8 zooms on FF sensors advantages life less reach and a narrower DOF when trying to shoot a few rows of people so having to use higher ISO for the same exposure, sure all the advantages are one sided alright.

AlanU wrote in post #18668006 (external link)
Fuji’s 200mm is truly a niche lens. If you need such a focal length it maybe the right lens. For portraits 200mm isn't really necessary. I wonder who will buy this lens on the POTN.

For my application it’s cheaper to use the 56mm or 90. Or for much more pleasing bokeh buy a sigma 135 f1.8 for my other systems.

Hobbyists with deep pockets will probably buy the 200mm more so than working photographers.

Plenty of people with crop bodies have either a Canon or Nikon 200/2 not so hard to surmise there will be Fuji shooters who pony up for their version. I'd say many a pro will buy it if needed, I'd don't bird of do sports so it's off my cards but if I did BOOM.


Fuji: X-PRO2, X-T3. 16/1.4, 18/2, 23/1.4, 35/1.4, 56/1.2, 90/2, 16-55/2.8, 50-140/2.8.
Pelican, Ona, ThinkTank, Matthews Grip, Elinchrom

Gear & Discounts (external link)Instagram (external link)Blog (external link)
Coffee & Fujis (external link)YouTube (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
rantercsr
Goldmember
Avatar
2,977 posts
Gallery: 38 photos
Likes: 5793
Joined Mar 2014
Post edited 10 months ago by rantercsr.
     
Jul 22, 2018 12:07 |  #7781

AlanU wrote in post #18668006 (external link)
Fuji’s 200mm is truly a niche lens. If you need such a focal length it maybe the right lens. For portraits 200mm isn't really necessary. I wonder who will buy this lens on the POTN.

For my application it’s cheaper to use the 56mm or 90. Or for much more pleasing bokeh buy a sigma 135 f1.8 for my other systems.

Hobbyists with deep pockets will probably buy the 200mm more so than working photographers.

My assumption is it was made for the sports or wildlife shooters needing something fast ..

I dont think we have too many of those here on potn. Id be surprised if anyone here got it, more likely to see an 8-16 or 2.
Going to rejoin the fujilove fb group so i can see what the 200mm lens produces


I got a couple of Cameras and lenses ...Canon, Sony, Fuji, Pansonic, pentax
My portraits IG (external link)My everything else IG (external link)
MY flickr (external link)
My latest YT video -->https://youtu.be/YzJ1o​eiHm7Y (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
clipper_from_oz
Goldmember
Avatar
2,537 posts
Gallery: 26 photos
Likes: 11088
Joined Sep 2005
Location: Melbourne Australia
     
Jul 22, 2018 13:31 |  #7782

Siagon river barge. ....Very wet bridge in the monsoons with crews quarters directly underneath which are just as waterlogged


HOSTED PHOTO
please log in to view hosted photos in full size.


Clipper
5DSR,5DMkII,Fuji XPRO1,X-T1&X-T20,Fotoman 6x17cm Large Format Panorama Camera,Mamiya Universal 6x9
Canon EF 16-35mm f4 L, 17mm TSE f4 L,50mm f1.4, 24-70 f2.8 L, 70-200mm F4 L, 85mm f1.8, 100-400mm II L,
EF 400mm f2.8 IS II L, Fujinon XF18mmf2, XF35mmf1.4, XF60mm f2, XF18-55f2.8-4.5, XF55-200f4
Rodenstock, Sinar& Nikkor LF lens for Pano (75,95,150+210mm)
flickr (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Osa713
Goldmember
Avatar
1,355 posts
Gallery: 45 photos
Likes: 892
Joined Jun 2011
Location: Houston, TX
     
Jul 22, 2018 14:10 |  #7783

To elaborate on my intial comment...

Folks complaining about the price really don’t understand the value/application of the lens and it is clearly not for you. I remember complaining about the 50-140 but I looked at other brands and it made it look like a bargain.


LIGHT>LENS>BODY

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
EverydayGetaway
Cream of the Crop
Avatar
10,498 posts
Gallery: 7 photos
Likes: 3537
Joined Oct 2012
Location: Bowie, MD
Post edited 10 months ago by EverydayGetaway. (3 edits in all)
     
Jul 22, 2018 17:35 |  #7784

AlanU wrote in post #18667966 (external link)
Since you question me please take some notes :-P The 12-24mm was an interest before I saw the price. I shoot a lot with a Full frame 24mm prime as well as a fuji 16mm (24mm f/2.1 FF equiv). The logic I had was I could compromise the 12-24mm range because Fuji is offering an f/2.8 zoom that is equiv to a full frame f/4.2 dof. Also Fuji is not my primary system for critical events as it's my fun camera system. The 10-24mm provides the range that seems to be a standard sized UWA but it's consumer line f/4 has a deep dof more like f/5.6 wide open using a full frame. In fact I was itching to trade it in for a new 8-16mm but price wise was a shocker!

Oh, I always take notes, Alan, hence why I frequently have an issue with some of the things you post ;)

Firstly, the way you're talking yourself into buying things seems really odd to me. You're aware that it'd be a (in your eyes) huge compromise to miss out on that 35mm equivalent range and you're already not impressed with the f2.8 DOF on APS-C (seems silly to me to fret over DOF in a UWA lens, but I digress), so why would you desire it at all? If it's just a third "fun" system, why do you need so many lenses for it?

It just doesn't make a lot of sense to me, but let us continue...

AlanU wrote in post #18667966 (external link)
For more serious shooting having 35mm range is quite beneficial as a zoom is more versatile getting a tad more reach. Using 1 body to cover that range plus a second to suit longer tele needs is a great combo. The 12-24mm would be a decent range but it's still like shooting with f/4 glass (FF equiv) for just under $3000 CDN! That's where the Cost/versatility ratio is very poor. Several hundred more a GM 16-35 f/2.8 with Sony product is worth the extra. Their bodies have image stabilization, f/2.8 for low light, incredible high iso performance and state of the art eye tracking.

If this is how you feel then why do you shoot with Fuji at all? It seriously baffles me...

Also, aperture matters far more for light gathering than it does for DOF purposes when it comes to a UWA lens. I don't know of many people who use a UWA zoom for shallow DOF shots (if anything, a wider DOF is an advantage in a UWA lens).

AlanU wrote in post #18667966 (external link)
If I want to stretch and use my A7iii in crop mode I can achieve 24-52.5mm but settle for 10.66 mega pixel files. That is very cool especially if you have a 18.84 mega pixel files if you use an A7Riii in crop mode!!!

Given that your X-T2 has the same resolution files, this seems a pretty moot point.

AlanU wrote in post #18667966 (external link)
If the 8-16mm fuji lens was just a tad more expensive than the 10-24mm I wouldn't be mentioning the methodical $$ expenditure of versatility, price and application.

There is plenty of more alternatives that make more sense in my situation if I spend about 3 G's on a fuji system.

Show me a cheaper f2.8 zoom lens that's the equivalent of 12mm on the wide end. I'll wait.

AlanU wrote in post #18667992 (external link)
I do get your point and indeed a niche lens. Using f/2.8 glass wideopen the eyes typically focus on the center of the image. In Fuji's case f/2.8 is approximately f/4.2 equiv on full frame. Perhaps Fuji should have made the 8-16mm f/1.8 instead!!!! Now that would justify the cost of that lens!

You again don't seem to grasp how DOF works when using a UWA lens...

AlanU wrote in post #18667966 (external link)
This all comes down to application. It's very easy to create a lightroom preset for any UWA lens and manipulate any pin cushion distortion. I do see some satisfaction having a file "straight" looking. I have my reason how I cannot justifying the 8-16 for my particular use.

You're right, those profiles are easy to create... the issue is that when using a zoom lens you'd have to create one and tweak it for every single setting on the zoom. Those distortions do not stay the same at every FL. To go even further, adding in perspective distortion makes things even more complicated.

AlanU wrote in post #18667966 (external link)
Many astro shooters would appreciate the cheap manual prime alternatives to get good results. Getting a lot of "likes" on social media through a hobby is quite satisfying. For a sensible business person running a competitive photography business better find justification. Clients wouldn't care if you used a cheap overseas UWA prime or 10-24mm or $$ 8-16 f/2.8 zoom for an ultra wide shot as long as your crafty in post processing and throw some vibrance, sharpness, lens correction and good old fashion skills and composition.

Are you speaking from experience here or through assumption  :p ;-)a

Also, this argument you just made defeats about 80% of other arguments you've made in the past. I think I'll save it to my desktop for future citation ;)

AlanU wrote in post #18667966 (external link)
Using the 16-35mm f/2.8 on a FF is just one stop faster but the benefits of low light indoor shooting due to cleaner high iso usable files. Using a Canon or Sony 16-35 f/2.8 @ f/2.8 at 35mm achieves more pleasing bokeh with FF. 35mm is semi wide and produces some distortion but a reasonable amount. My application is different from most that would use Fuji 8-16mm (f/4.2 FF equiv) for landscape and Astro and maybe a small portion of events work. Most FF wedding shooters would have a fisheye or 16-35mm f/2.8 UWA and not a canon niche EF 11-24mm.

What does this have AT ALL to do with the cost of the lens? You just said most people don't need it... nobody is debating that. The people who DO need it are willing to dish out the cash for it, as Kim already said. The same can be said of the Canon 11-24mm.

AlanU wrote in post #18667966 (external link)
Interesting how there are very clear advantages using a full frame sensor with f/2.8 zooms. Since I shoot both I do not pose this as a confrontational discussion. IMO all crop sensor f/2.8 zooms should have been developed as f/1.8 for incredible versatility and provide equal dof as a full frame. The issue is size and weight of such a lens. We are all getting weak and first world problems has small form factor camera systems as a solution to our laziness LOL!!!! However in some cases I see validity in small form factor for medical reasons so I'm not being insensitive to the small form factor discussion.

You literally just said Fuji should have developed all of their zooms to be f1.8, then admitted that people using APS-C don't want extra weight and size all in the same paragraph. Slow down for a moment and think before you post ;)

AlanU wrote in post #18668006 (external link)
Fuji’s 200mm is truly a niche lens. If you need such a focal length it maybe the right lens. For portraits 200mm isn't really necessary. I wonder who will buy this lens on the POTN.

For my application it’s cheaper to use the 56mm or 90. Or for much more pleasing bokeh buy a sigma 135 f1.8 for my other systems.

Hobbyists with deep pockets will probably buy the 200mm more so than working photographers.

I can think of exactly 0 people who use a 300mm equivalent lens for portraiture. I'm sure there are people out there who do it, but I sure don't know any. I do however know several wildlife and sports shooters who use one quite frequently.

Tedium aside, here's some more shots from that airshow day with my X-Pro2 and XF 55-200mm

I really wish I would have had less DOF at 55mm, f7.1 just looks AWFUL, doesn't it? :lol:

IMAGE: https://farm1.staticflickr.com/921/29294549178_e867b8c24f_h.jpg
IMAGE LINK: https://flic.kr/p/LCEd​S7  (external link) July2018 52 (external link) by Lucas (external link), on Flickr

I thought this dude's tattoo with the little girl on his back was pretty awesome

IMAGE: https://farm1.staticflickr.com/840/42261410265_8f8a9fd926_h.jpg
IMAGE LINK: https://flic.kr/p/27ou​LUz  (external link) July2018 44 (external link) by Lucas (external link), on Flickr

Fuji X-Pro2 // Fuji X-T1 // Fuji X-100T // XF 18mm f2 // XF 35mm f1.4 // XF 60mm f2.4 // Rokinon 12mm f2 // Rokinon 21mm f1.4 // XF 18-55mm f/2.8-4 // XF 55-200mm f3.5-4.8 // Rokinon 85mm f1.4 // Zhonghi Lensturbo ii // Various adapted MF lenses
flickr (external link) // Instagram (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Two ­ Hot ­ Shoes
Goldmember
Avatar
3,065 posts
Gallery: 325 photos
Best ofs: 4
Likes: 3157
Joined Apr 2014
Location: Ireland
Post edited 10 months ago by Two Hot Shoes.
     
Jul 22, 2018 17:37 |  #7785

Just saw Sony's new G Master 400/2.8 is...... $12,000 (Canon's is only 10k!) Not overpriced, probably.
Oh and the 70-200/2.8 GM is 'only' $2600


Fuji: X-PRO2, X-T3. 16/1.4, 18/2, 23/1.4, 35/1.4, 56/1.2, 90/2, 16-55/2.8, 50-140/2.8.
Pelican, Ona, ThinkTank, Matthews Grip, Elinchrom

Gear & Discounts (external link)Instagram (external link)Blog (external link)
Coffee & Fujis (external link)YouTube (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

1,446,060 views & 8,444 likes for this thread
Fuji Users Unite - Post your comments, questions and images here
FORUMS Other Digital Cameras Fuji Digital Cameras 
AAA
x 1600
y 1600

Jump to forum...   •  Rules   •  Index   •  New posts   •  RTAT   •  'Best of'   •  Gallery   •  Gear   •  Reviews   •  Member list   •  Polls   •  Image rules   •  Search   •  Password reset

Not a member yet?
Register to forums
Registered members may log in to forums and access all the features: full search, image upload, follow forums, own gear list and ratings, likes, more forums, private messaging, thread follow, notifications, own gallery, all settings, view hosted photos, own reviews, see more and do more... and all is free. Don't be a stranger - register now and start posting!


COOKIES DISCLAIMER: This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies and to our privacy policy.
Privacy policy and cookie usage info.


POWERED BY AMASS forum software 2.1forum software
version 2.1 /
code and design
by Pekka Saarinen ©
for photography-on-the.net

Latest registered member is achamb7
697 guests, 286 members online
Simultaneous users record so far is 15144, that happened on Nov 22, 2018

Photography-on-the.net Digital Photography Forums is the website for photographers and all who love great photos, camera and post processing techniques, gear talk, discussion and sharing. Professionals, hobbyists, newbies and those who don't even own a camera -- all are welcome regardless of skill, favourite brand, gear, gender or age. Registering and usage is free.