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

Hot shoes, I think that the jpegs are awesome sooc. I really feel like unless it is some kind of dynamic or important shot (Like an interior for work or a nature/city landscape) I am not going to shoot raw much with this. I am leaning toward jpeg shooting. LR and Silver efex plays nice with the already monochrome jpegs.

Does anyone here have the 14? I read up a lot on it and it seems to have like nothing but good said.

Yeah ftb, I agree, and the more I over think this the more I realize how I always hit a near counter with af even at 5.6-8 because the worst thing you can do is focus on something 12 ft away, even stopped down and then have a top closer, it is never tack sharp. In that, the AF is key especially in expediting my ninja stealth snap sessions. I think af from a time standpoint/walking away from something I can never shoot again with confidence of moving fast is a feature I need to not down play because it is a wide lens.

So that said I think I am now between the Zeiss 12 and fujinon 14. I just missed a 12 for $500, but apparently b and h sold that and the 32 for a package deal of like $900 recently? I have read on Internet Fuji lenses go on sale all the time and never pay full. I will probably get used for sure, but I would have jumped on that deal for a 12 and 32.

Nick3434 wrote in post #18257676
Yeah ftb, I agree, and the more I over think this the more I realize how I always hit a near counter with af even at 5.6-8 because the worst thing you can do is focus on something 12 ft away, even stopped down and then have a top closer, it is never tack sharp. In that, the AF is key especially in expediting my ninja stealth snap sessions. I think af from a time standpoint/walking away from something I can never shoot again with confidence of moving fast is a feature I need to not down play because it is a wide lens.

So that said I think I am now between the Zeiss 12 and fujinon 14. I just missed a 12 for $500, but apparently b and h sold that and the 32 for a package deal of like $900 recently? I have read on Internet Fuji lenses go on sale all the time and never pay full. I will probably get used for sure, but I would have jumped on that deal for a 12 and 32.

Fuji does often have rebates.

Zeiss packages for the 12+32 have been common enough, which helps with used prices. I only remember once that the 50 was included.

Is the 10-24 out because it's too big/heavy? Or you don't like zooms? Both valid reasons. Because it otherwise seems well suited to your application. Especially because it has stabalization built in (not to be underestimated if you are shooting indoors handheld at f5.6 and smaller).

Don't want zoom really, don't want F4 really, or heavy really, and it needs to fit this bill, but I want it to be something I was to use for fun as well and the compromise is where I am struggling. Last one from non fuji, but I was going back and really seeing how often I "NEED" the 14mm, not just used it.

IMAGE LINK: https://flic.kr/p/DkK8​23

IMAGE LINK: https://flic.kr/p/QkJR​jo

IMAGE LINK: https://flic.kr/p/QkJR​L5

Nick,

With a 16MP camera and cropping a fisheye will leave you little to play with as far as pixels are concerned. As you may know it's already hard enough removing distortion from a UWA lens in a tight spot. I'd assume it's extremely difficult to "de fish" a fisheye with LR or PS without heavily cropping.

I know many folks owning a fisheye getting a tonne of photos then they quickly get tired of the look and sell the lens. For weddings you may have 1 or 2 cool factor fish eye shots and that's it. I could never heavily invest in $$ on a fisheye as I'd have more of a preference to use a panoramic shot SOOC from a fuji or simply settle for a UWA.

Nick I think you should buy an X-T2 and all of your fuji lenses you desire for fun factor and interior snapshots. Seems you'd dump your canon due to form factor. The 6D high iso performance is a treat to use but the X-T2 would/should fill your gap.

I've found I've left my full frames at home on many occasions now (casual/fun/non paid). The freedom of a small camera that produces results is gratifying!!!!

An X-t2 with 35 f/1.4 and 16mm would fill your 50mm and 24mm focal lengths. That alone seems to be a great universal prime setup for many.

Since I incorporate my UWA for events photography it's second nature to use a 10-24mm on my fuji gear.

I noticed one of your interior shots with your 6d shot at f/5.6 and the chandelier had nice "light stars". Just note fuji typically does not have distinct star shapes. That is something to be concerned about if you like that look.

F2Bthere wrote in post #18257657
You mention that you want to be efficient and discrete in making your photos and don't need speed of lens, since you are shooting at f5.6.

Native lenses (and the Zeiss Tuite lenses which act like native lenses) have many advantages (EXIF data, communication with body and AF). If I were shooting under pressure and wanting to be discrete, I would find this a significant advantage. Sure, you can zone focus, but you are checking the lens, etc. If you use AF and the LCD on the back to compose (the opposite of serious camera use), you can be more low-key and discrete but still know you didn't flub the shot.

I would also think the 10-24 would be a big advantage simply because you would have more focal length options to frame your shot. And there is a huge difference between 10mm, 11mm and 12mm. A small difference is a lot at the wide end...

Not saying the lens you are considering isn't good. In fact, it is significantly more attractive to me due to the f-stop (speed matters a lot more in my world). And the results I have seen from this lens look good. So I don't think you would be unhappy with the lens if you don't mind manual controls and lack of EXIF data. It's just that native lenses might serve you better in your application.

What the Laowa offers that native lenses don't is the option to get just under 9mm with a focal reducer AND to get to 12mm with a normal converter, which is a lot of versatility with a well corrected lens. The only variable is we don't know how well it does or doesn't work with a focal reducer.

The advantages you listed aren't really advantages for the intended purpose in my opinion. Fuji lets you very easily store multiple custom focal lengths for adapted lenses, which solves the Exif issue. As for the AF, at f5.6 and 12mm the DOF is massive, you really don't even need to pay attention to your focus unless you're focusing on something very close to the camera. I like to use my 12mm for street photos because I can set it to f4 or f5.6 and set the focus via hyperfocal and just shoot from the hip, you don't get any more descrete then that.

The zoom argument is certainly viable though, there have definitely been times where the flexibility of a UWA zoom would have been awesome to have and perhaps one day I'll buy one, but for most uses (for me) the advantages of 2 extra stops and the smaller footprint of the Samyang 12mm outweigh the advantages of the zoom.

As for distortion with the 12mm... I'm certainly not a landscape or architecture guy (aside from a few occasional shots), but I have yet to be bothered by the distortion from the Samyang 12mm

Some examples from the Samyang 12mm...

IMAGE LINK: https://flic.kr/p/LSiv​oX

IMAGE LINK: https://flic.kr/p/LpU7​BA

IMAGE LINK: https://flic.kr/p/KYeu​P7

IMAGE LINK: https://flic.kr/p/KswC​xH

A small note on de-fishing the Samyang 8mm. I own one of these lenses and really it is a very nice lens to shoot with, once you get to grips with how it works. If you consider the angle of view it creates is a straight line, 180 degrees, if can be very hard to get and lines to look correct. However if you place the camera in parallel to the subject and give a little distance the horizontal lines can go very near to rectilinear. That just leaves the vertical lines. These are much more difficult to correct for so really the best results [that I have gotten] are found by running the image through a little plugin for photoshop called Fisheye Hemi. That plugin is amazing in how little it crops and how straight it gets things but only on the vertical lines. You could rotate your image by 90º but that is messing & more than I like to do. You can get good straight lines and a very wide image this way. I find that the 8mm is just too wide for most rooms as it pushes the back wall away too much, loosing any sense to dimension. I used it for a lot of shots when I shot for Coors last year as we shot in a cave with nothing but curves, it worked out well.

Of course the 12/2.8 is already rectilinear but still a wide lens so the same rule of parallel applies if you want to avoid converging lines on your x and y plane.
The 14mm I used to shoot my own house when I sold it last year. It rocks and give me to extra 2mm I needed to make the rooms work for me.


OF course as much as we love our little camera system, perhaps asking about taking a photo in the right way might help your 'big camera' issue. Explain what the images are going to be used for and suggest that the really very good job you worked so hard to create for your client deserves the attention that your 6D will give it. Most people are receptive to honesty and will be happy to oblige in my experience.

Hot shoes,

Hemi was my thoughts with the FE.

For me, the Fuji is a second system. I can see it easily being my most used system, but I get reality and that is the reason I posted 6d images on here was to illustrate shots I felt like I could or can't get with the fuji system. Mostly FL, but in reality the latitude of PP in a fuji raw file is no the same as a 6D. I am WAY cool with that. I don't expect, nor did expect to be better than a canon FF system IQ with decent glass. the pics I posted above were 2/3 I shot wit the Fuji today, the rest were with the canon as my daughter shot the fuji. The IQ is really not debatable in my eyes, but I am a realist and expected that. I never was and am not looking for the fuji to be something it is not. I don't have any "big camera" issues other than my own skill limitations (many hahaha). I love my 6d and lenses....But I REALLY love my fuji size and style and demeanor.

If I was starting from scratch, I would maybe go Fuji only and a few bodies. But I am not so I can have best of both. I don't want more fuji body than the X-e2, in fact I LOVE that it is not a DSLR or even bigger Pro body. I want a small second system that is badass. Fuji checks those boxes. But I can hand hold a 6d with a 14mm at higher ISO and get really tight bathrooms with bright lights and darker areas and get home an make a pic like that blue bathroom. Would I like to get that with Fuji? sure, but I will take close enough when I am in a situation where the 6D is at home and i have the fuji.

I basically am a for fun hobby photog that's a unique "need" for a professional aspect of challenging interiors. I do a good enough job of making sure i have my 6D when I need i, but for times that I don't know I need it and the small fuji bag is in the car, I need something clean and wide that I will also use personally alot in landscapes. I really see myself mostly shooting fuji, but having thecanon kit for when that family portrait or interior job I have clearance on matters.

The reviews on the 14 across the board are pretty darn stellar. I am thinking it is this or Zeiss 12 depending on what comes up for how much. Looks like I can get either for less than $500 used if I am patient. I just can't determine how much the 2mm matters to me.

EverydayGetaway wrote in post #18257936
The advantages you listed aren't really advantages for the intended purpose in my opinion. Fuji lets you very easily store multiple custom focal lengths for adapted lenses, which solves the Exif issue. As for the AF, at f5.6 and 12mm the DOF is massive, you really don't even need to pay attention to your focus unless you're focusing on something very close to the camera. I like to use my 12mm for street photos because I can set it to f4 or f5.6 and set the focus via hyperfocal and just shoot from the hip, you don't get any more descrete then that.

The zoom argument is certainly viable though, there have definitely been times where the flexibility of a UWA zoom would have been awesome to have and perhaps one day I'll buy one, but for most uses (for me) the advantages of 2 extra stops and the smaller footprint of the Samyang 12mm outweigh the advantages of the zoom.

As for distortion with the 12mm... I'm certainly not a landscape or architecture guy (aside from a few occasional shots), but I have yet to be bothered by the distortion from the Samyang 12mm

Sounds like something I said hit you personally. Sorry about that.

EXIF data records a lot more information than just focal length and for some of us, the information is useful.

The OP (for this subtopic) has stated that he has actually had focus issues and, if you think about it, he is photographing installations at close quarters. He is trying to do so discretely and quickly. In my experience, I have found that AF is helpful in such situations. Zone focusing works great in many circumstances, such as street. Close quarters interiors just doesn't happen to be one of those in my experience, even with an 8mm lens .

As for the two stops, I agree with you for my use, too. But the OP wants to operate at f5.6. This isn't about what is right for you. You have found that and I'm glad it's working well for your purposes. I was addressing his needs, not yours.

I don't think I said anything about the 12mm having distortion, so your statement on this I find confusing.

Not to worry. You have a great lens.

I love the Samyang/Rokinon 8mm fisheye.

Fisheye Hemi works pretty well, but maybe not to an architectural interior standard out of the box. There are tricks you can use. This is the best description and video:

http://www.lonelyspeck​.com/defish/

You can also use the Photoshop Wide Angle filter tool, which is helpful. And you can manipulate by hand, which works surprisingly well and doesn't take that long to get used to.

This review can give you some sense of the lens in practice, including for interiors. It is about the 12mm Full Frame that uses the same projection, so it's more or less directly applicable:

https://www.slrlounge.​com …venture-photography-lens/

16MP is easily enough for the stretching you need to do for website images. You could probably make reasonable prints with no real problems.

A fisheye gives a wider angle of view (180 degrees on the diagonal) than a rectilinear lens can. An 8mm rectilinear lens is not as wide as an 8mm fisheye.

To be clear: a rectilinear lens is going to be an easier way to get a rectilinear image. It won't get quite as wide, but it works out of the box.

A stitched panorama might be a good option to consider. Shoot vertically and leave some room for cropping. Practice before you need the skill .

F2Bthere wrote in post #18258312
Sounds like something I said hit you personally. Sorry about that.

Hit me personally...? Not sure what gave you that impression

EXIF data records a lot more information than just focal length and for some of us, the information is useful.

I assume you mean exact aperture? I guess I could see how that would be useful for a few people, I've just never cared enough about what the exact aperture a particular shot was taken. Is there something else the Exif would portray that I'm overlooking?

The OP (for this subtopic) has stated that he has actually had focus issues and, if you think about it, he is photographing installations at close quarters. He is trying to do so discretely and quickly. In my experience, I have found that AF is helpful in such situations. Zone focusing works great in many circumstances, such as street. Close quarters interiors just doesn't happen to be one of those in my experience, even with an 8mm lens .

I don't know, with focus peaking the time to lock accurate focus is barely any slower than AF and in my experience actually gives me more peace of mind than using AF (though I'll admit I have a background in using mostly MF lenses for several years prior to switching to Fuji).

As for the two stops, I agree with you for my use, too. But the OP wants to operate at f5.6. This isn't about what is right for you. You have found that and I'm glad it's working well for your purposes. I was addressing his needs, not yours.

I totally agree, my point was more that I think the creative usefulness of f2 could end up being more useful than you would think and the lens only gets better when stopped down anyway. I do think a bit of zoom freedom could be very useful though, but as I believe you pointed out, the difference of 2mm between 12mm and 14mm is pretty drastic and it's worth getting the extra 2mm in my opinion (as OPs main other choice seems to be the 14mm).

I don't think I said anything about the 12mm having distortion, so your statement on this I find confusing.

It wasn't you who had posted about that one, someone else had a few pages ago, I was just informing the OP of my experiences.

Not to worry. You have a great lens.

I'm well aware, and certainly not worried

*My responses in bold.

None of my response before (or now) was meant to be taken as emotional, just giving my voice to the discussion. There's no right or wrong answer here really, just about every lens in X mount is a strong contender

Nick3434 wrote in post #18258237
Hot shoes,

Hemi was my thoughts with the FE.

For me, the Fuji is a second system. I can see it easily being my most used system, but I get reality and that is the reason I posted 6d images on here was to illustrate shots I felt like I could or can't get with the fuji system. Mostly FL, but in reality the latitude of PP in a fuji raw file is no the same as a 6D. I am WAY cool with that. I don't expect, nor did expect to be better than a canon FF system IQ with decent glass. the pics I posted above were 2/3 I shot wit the Fuji today, the rest were with the canon as my daughter shot the fuji. The IQ is really not debatable in my eyes, but I am a realist and expected that. I never was and am not looking for the fuji to be something it is not. I don't have any "big camera" issues other than my own skill limitations (many hahaha). I love my 6d and lenses....But I REALLY love my fuji size and style and demeanor.

I'm honestly not sure how you figure... I shot with a 6D for a little over a year, and while it was a fantastic camera, I don't feel it was much improved over my X-Pro2 on a RAW basis (other than maybe above ISO6400). Granted, I don't pixel-peep often (really only do to check that I hit focus where I wanted), even the 16mp Fujis I think hold their own very well against the 6D in good light.

If I was starting from scratch, I would maybe go Fuji only and a few bodies. But I am not so I can have best of both. I don't want more fuji body than the X-e2, in fact I LOVE that it is not a DSLR or even bigger Pro body. I want a small second system that is badass. Fuji checks those boxes. But I can hand hold a 6d with a 14mm at higher ISO and get really tight bathrooms with bright lights and darker areas and get home an make a pic like that blue bathroom. Would I like to get that with Fuji? sure, but I will take close enough when I am in a situation where the 6D is at home and i have the fuji.

I actually feel that the X-TransII files have as much if not more DR in post than my 6D did... perhaps we are doing something differently? Where is it that you feel the Fuji is falling behind in this regard (not trying to be argumentative, genuinely curious )?

I basically am a for fun hobby photog that's a unique "need" for a professional aspect of challenging interiors. I do a good enough job of making sure i have my 6D when I need i, but for times that I don't know I need it and the small fuji bag is in the car, I need something clean and wide that I will also use personally alot in landscapes. I really see myself mostly shooting fuji, but having thecanon kit for when that family portrait or interior job I have clearance on matters.

I used to use the same line of logic, or at least, very similar. That's what brought me to the a7R/a7S for a bit to ditch the excess size of my 6D kit... then I realized I ended up using my X-E2 the majority of the time anyway. Then I realized that when I had images on my flickr gallery and I was just browsing after using both cameras for the same shoot I could seldom tell which shot was from which camera, it made it pretty clear that Fuji was the best choice for me. Obviously everyone's going to have different opinions and experiences in this regard, but switching fully to Fuji was liberating for me.

The reviews on the 14 across the board are pretty darn stellar. I am thinking it is this or Zeiss 12 depending on what comes up for how much. Looks like I can get either for less than $500 used if I am patient. I just can't determine how much the 2mm matters to me.

Again, if 2mm matters, get the Samyang. It's half the price of the Zeiss (even less used, I think mine was $230) and performs just as good if not better depending on which review you read. If you think you need AF then get the Zeiss for the peace of mind, but if possible I would rent or buy a Samyang used to try it out first, the good thing about them is if you buy one used you can always sell it off again if you're not feeling it and probably for the same cost. This goes for any other lens too actually, I do this often with lenses and bodies almost always end up breaking even, sometimes even make a profit .

My responses in bold.

I feel like this shot embodies the decision making process...

X100T

IMAGE LINK: https://flic.kr/p/Rpb3​2s

What I meant by big camera issues was the perception your clients have about you shooting with a DSLR, you mentioned it earlier, not in any way your choice of camera or how you use it.

Ok gotcha....yeah, since I got the Fuji I have been using the term "big camera" for the canon. After shooting nonstop for a week on xe2, it felt like a good way to identify it haha. Yeah, I mean in my business most guys at best will be using a $500 Best Buy point and shoot style camera/ or canon rebel with kit lens on green box. So they have those or stock photos, and yes that big camera look is still lacking in rebel shots just because of user. The problem is that a lot of people have professionally shot and bought images of work that isn't even their own because it looks nice. I think that using "stock photos" being used as impression of work your company does should be illegal and all photos on your website should be work your company was actually involved with, but that is a very unrealistic and biased opinion from someone that takes pride in that we only show projects we have done and it conveys what we can actually do.

FBI thanks for all the info and I think that I need to not be lazy and maybe learn to stitch. I also haven't even messed with the pano on Fuji, is that any Good?

Had some time to look at the new homes near us here in northern CA. Quick grabs with 14mm f2.8.