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

rantercsr wrote in post #19477998
(apologies if this is a repeat, i don't think i've posted this before, or maybe i have)


i love modern tech, but .. i also really love things of the past. furniture, lamps, and electronics..

here's a 1970 Panasonic alarm clock that i bought earlier last year. its in pretty good condition considering its age, works .. most of the time. every once in a blue the numbers stop flipping. only happened three or four times in the past year i've owned it, but still, i can't rely on its alarm to wake me up for work. though i still set it

IMAGE LINK: https://flic.kr/p/2og1​sRT DSCF5934 by Randall Herrera, on Flickr

I'm a little jealous, tbh. Very cool vibe with the retro clock.

EverydayGetaway wrote in post #19478525
Honestly, the value on the 135/2 has dropped so much these days that I'm considering getting one just to see what all the fuss is about (I've never gotten the opportunity to use one). Unless yours is a pristine example, it might be worth just holding onto for the odd occasion you use it, even if you just adapt it and use it on your X-T3. I love my Viltrox EF-FX2 for using a lot of vintage glass on my Fuji's, so far as I can tell any image degradation is very minimal, and the added light is a nice bonus.

I think this was with the Rokinon 85mm via the EF-FX2, but it may have also been my old Vivitar S1 70-210 f2.8-4 (I was using both this day and frequently forget to adjust the lens info when shooting).

IMAGE LINK: https://flic.kr/p/2ofT​xEe February 2023 40 by Lucas, on Flickr

I also have the EF-FX1, but the only Canon AF lens I have is an EF-S 10-22mm which isn't technically supported by the adapter... yet it still focuses OK. I did get to use a few of my dad's lenses and they all worked really well on it, though I tossed all those shots cause I was just goofing around his house with them (a 16-35 f2.8L mk1, 50/1.4, and 24-70/2.8L mk1).

Tack sharp results. Very fine work.

EverydayGetaway wrote in post #19478525
Honestly, the value on the 135/2 has dropped so much these days that I'm considering getting one just to see what all the fuss is about (I've never gotten the opportunity to use one). Unless yours is a pristine example, it might be worth just holding onto for the odd occasion you use it, even if you just adapt it and use it on your X-T3. I love my Viltrox EF-FX2 for using a lot of vintage glass on my Fuji's, so far as I can tell any image degradation is very minimal, and the added light is a nice bonus.

I think this was with the Rokinon 85mm via the EF-FX2, but it may have also been my old Vivitar S1 70-210 f2.8-4 (I was using both this day and frequently forget to adjust the lens info when shooting).

IMAGE LINK: https://flic.kr/p/2ofT​xEe February 2023 40 by Lucas, on Flickr

I also have the EF-FX1, but the only Canon AF lens I have is an EF-S 10-22mm which isn't technically supported by the adapter... yet it still focuses OK. I did get to use a few of my dad's lenses and they all worked really well on it, though I tossed all those shots cause I was just goofing around his house with them (a 16-35 f2.8L mk1, 50/1.4, and 24-70/2.8L mk1).

Lovely shot, I'm thinking I may just keep the 5DIII and the 135L mainly because the 5DIII is not fetching much on eBay these days. I think I may get the 90 and keep the 135L and once I get a Fuji with the image stabilisation in camera I will buy the fringer and use it on Fuji. In the mean time both can stay in the bag having a rest. that way I know that set up is there if I want to play with it at any time

If you don't think you will use it, then you should sell it to fund the XF 90mm lens.

This is my story with the 135L: bought it refurbed about 15yrs ago when I used to shoot indoor athletics (gymnastics); was part of the set of 85/100/135 that I employed at max aperture. It was a difficult lens to use with both a 7D and 7D2, but when it delivered, it delivered. When I was no longer shooting indoor sports after 2015 or so, I rarely used it but kept it around since it was so nice when the shot was nailed. Used it a bit with my X-H1 but it was a focal length that was too long for indoors and not long enough outdoors. Then I got a GFX100S and started experimenting with my older Canon glass and re-discovered the 135L. I don't use it all the time, but I now use it much more often than previously; it is marvelous on the GFX.

So you never know...

What's the vignette look like when using the 135L on the Fuji GFX?

GlimmerMan wrote in post #19478549
Tack sharp results. Very fine work.

Thanks! I don't know if it's rack sharp, but I'm not a pixel peeper so good enough for me!

Funny enough, with the X-Pro3 values being so high, it's seriously a better value to just get a GFX 50S/R, either one is only a couple hundred more right now on average... It's nuts.

EverydayGetaway wrote in post #19478525
Honestly, the value on the 135/2 has dropped so much these days that I'm considering getting one just to see what all the fuss is about (I've never gotten the opportunity to use one). Unless yours is a pristine example, it might be worth just holding onto for the odd occasion you use it, even if you just adapt it and use it on your X-T3. I love my Viltrox EF-FX2 for using a lot of vintage glass on my Fuji's, so far as I can tell any image degradation is very minimal, and the added light is a nice bonus.

I think this was with the Rokinon 85mm via the EF-FX2, but it may have also been my old Vivitar S1 70-210 f2.8-4 (I was using both this day and frequently forget to adjust the lens info when shooting).

IMAGE LINK: https://flic.kr/p/2ofT​xEe February 2023 40 by Lucas, on Flickr

I also have the EF-FX1, but the only Canon AF lens I have is an EF-S 10-22mm which isn't technically supported by the adapter... yet it still focuses OK. I did get to use a few of my dad's lenses and they all worked really well on it, though I tossed all those shots cause I was just goofing around his house with them (a 16-35 f2.8L mk1, 50/1.4, and 24-70/2.8L mk1).

Man, this shot is worthy of a 'Best Of' trophy.

MatthewK wrote in post #19478864
Man, this shot is worthy of a 'Best Of' trophy.

Thanks!

The used market is a little wild, Adorama has a used x100f four almost $1,200

Not too bad, here are a couple of examples. First is the entire frame, shot at f/3.2.

Last is slightly cropped to 3x2 aspect ration, shot at f/2.2. The hound is done for the day...

I could totally live with that. Thanks!

Mischief...

IMAGE LINK: https://flic.kr/p/2obS​Kkp

PineBomb wrote in post #19476703
Are you familiar with the term hyperfocal distance? It’s similar to zone focusing but achieves the most DoF possible.

It’s helpful to explore the formula like Kim described, but in practice I never do. Instead I estimate to a certain distance within the frame as I shoot.

Formulas? We don’t need no stinkin’ formulas.

The XF16 f/1.4 has a clutch to permit manual focus. When you enable it, a distance scale on the lens barrel is revealed that will permit hyperfocal focusing without any calculations. You set the middle of the "∞" (infinity symbol) on the lens barrel to the shooting aperture indicated on the far focus side of the scale. This basically means that your far acceptable focus is set to infinity. The distance at the corresponding aperture on the near focus side of the scale is your near focus distance - everything between this distance and infinity will be in acceptable focus. The distance on the centerline of the scale is the hyperfocal distance (the distance at which you are focusing to get everything to infinity to be in acceptable focus).

You can use the scale to set the appropriate aperture to get everything in acceptable focus for a specific near-distance or focus distance. The lens is the calculator. This is also known as scale focusing or zone focusing. AF is nice, but does not teach you how to focus and AF lenses mostly do not have these scales on them any more, regardless if they have aperture rings or not. It's a bummer.

With manual focus lenses with scales on them, you can focus without ever looking through a viewfinder, as long as you can estimate distance to the subject and the desired range of acceptable focus. Just setting the aperture to f/16 is not always the best approach, regardless of the focus distance, because then diffraction crushes image sharpness.

Kirk

EDIT - The image of the XF16 that I grabbed off of B&H's website is curious. The infinity symbol is positioned at the left end of the distance scale (for example, the numbers to the right of the infinity symbol are the distances in feet (red) and meters (white)). What is sort of strange is that the infinity symbol is shown set to the near focus side (to the right side) of the focus mark. I know that some lenses have a small extension next to the infinity symbol to indicate infinity focus for IR photography (it looks like an "L" laying on its side and the tail of the L is the IR infinity mark) but usually that mark is before infinity. Strange. Anyone with an XF16 - can you confirm that the B&H image is accurate? I don't have this lens anymore.