Would 35mm F2 IS be too redundant?

The Dark Knight wrote in post #16884341
Well the good thing about such an inexpensive lens is I can always just buy it again in the future if I miss it.

I loved my shorty back in my canon days. I wish nikon would’ve made the same lens.. It’s so light and sharp for travel.

Why do you want a 35mm prime if your Fuji has that FOV? Im totally pleased by the results of my 100s and i also own a 6D..

Here is one:
https://photography-on-the.net …/showthread.php​?t=1376045

I would sell all your lenses, and start anew with the 35IS.

Abu Mahendra wrote in post #16884848
I would sell all your lenses, and start anew with the 35IS.

No way in hell am I selling my 24-105, that's my favorite lens.

I think 35 and 40 are redundant. I have a 24L and 50L and always felt the 35mm FL to be in the middle of nowhere for my taste.

However, I ordered the 35 f2 IS today because I was intrigued with it for video purposes. It might just be worth owning a 35mm lens for that and the odd occasion that I feel the need at weddings, which isn't too often.

Took advantage of the $50 rebate and bought it for $549 brand new.

sounds like you'll never be happy with the x100s files

couple of suggestions:
-sell the x100s and/or 40mm, 50mm and get a Sigma 35 or 35L.
-sell SL1, 18-55, 55-250, 40mm, 50mm and get Sigma 35 or 35L, keep X100s when you want to be light
-keep 6D, 24-105L, get Sigma 35. sell X100s and either downgrade to X100 or buy X-Pro1

The Dark Knight wrote in post #16884326
Since getting the Fuji, I've taken the position (that might not be too popular with Fuji fans) that the X100s's IQ is not mind-blowing. It's really good, but not much better than what's possible with the latest gen of APS-C sensors from other companies. To put it frankly, I think sheer IQ is closer to my SL1 than my 6D.

Where the X100s REALLY shines is the: (1) Hybrid VF- I like using both the OVF and the EVF; (2) JPEG output - stunning, blows my SL1 out the water, so I don't have to spend much time putting my mediocre post-processing skills to use; and (3) Ergonomics - it's such a fun intuitive camera to use, nothing like just walking around, being able to shoot discreetly one-handed.

These are the main reasons my X100s is my go-to camera, I actually look for excuses to use it. But sheer IQ is not it.

Now, to answer your question, I recently had a chance to take the 6D + 40 AND the X100s to my in-laws for some family shooting. The X100s was great and I could have shot with it mostly, but I still turned to the 6D for the more "important" staged pictures, and this is why: I was indoors, and at high ISOs (prob starting around 1600) the X100s has some aggressive NR (even with it turned down to -2) that manifests in a "waxy" look on skin. I heard the X100 doesn't have that issue though (and I am not clear whether you are looking at the X100 or the X100s). I could shoot RAW to avoid this, but if I'm gonna shoot RAW I'd rather use my 6D, I like the Canon's RAW files better and they are easier to work with in Lightroom imo. Also, I think the 6D is just more "forgiving". Dynamic range seems to be better. For example, I took a shot with the 6D that was horribly backlit, and the main subjects were obscured in shadows. No problem, shot RAW, recovered in LR. My X100s's DR is ok, but doesn't give me that much leeway to fix poor exposures.

Hope this helps a bit.

Can you send me the files in question? Your experience is honestly backwards of mine... I feel that I actually have more flexibility with my Fuji Files than I do my 6D files when it comes to pulling back highlights and adjusting shadows. At least, up until ISO800 or so. I've taken shots with the Fuji that I thought were completely useless and was able to pull them back and have a useable image.

Not saying you're wrong, just baffled why I'd see such a different outcome. Granted, my Fuji technically has a different sensor, but I thought the differences were pretty much nill between the first gen and second gen X-Trans.

If it weren't for the high ISO capability of my 6D and for the OVF, I'd sell the 6D and go full Fuji.

Thanks, The Fujifilm X-T1 looks interesting as well. I know someone who has it and its a fun camera but I'm not sure about having different camera systems and he said they don't have many lenses yet.

In many ways I see an x100 as a possible replacement for a 35 prime. If anything it looks fun

Tommydigi wrote in post #16885874
Thanks, The Fujifilm X-T1 looks interesting as well. I know someone who has it and its a fun camera but I'm not sure about having different camera systems and he said they don't have many lenses yet.

In many ways I see an x100 as a possible replacement for a 35 prime. If anything it looks fun

After this year they'll have a lens for most people's needs, heck, they already do. The only thing needed to complete it imo is a 24-70/2.8 equivalent and 70-200/2.8 equivalent, both of which are slated for release this year. They already have a great lineup of primes, a great landscape zoom, a great general use telephoto, a great walkabout zoom and a pretty good macro lens.

EverydayGetaway wrote in post #16885892
After this year they'll have a lens for most people's needs, heck, they already do. The only thing needed to complete it imo is a 24-70/2.8 equivalent and 70-200/2.8 equivalent, both of which are slated for release this year. They already have a great lineup of primes, a great landscape zoom, a great general use telephoto, a great walkabout zoom and a pretty good macro lens.

I was just looking at Fuji's site and it does appear they have a lot of lenses available and some pretty nice looking cameras. I am going to have to look into this as a lighter alternative.

I don't want to hijack this thread but I'm glad I stumbled upon this.

Tommydigi wrote in post #16885935
I was just looking at Fuji's site and it does appear they have a lot of lenses available and some pretty nice looking cameras. I am going to have to look into this as a lighter alternative.

I don't want to hijack this thread but I'm glad I stumbled upon this.

Yeah, I stumbled into Fuji mostly because I was originally interested in the hybrid VF of the X100 and X-Pro, but after playing with an X-Pro1 and X-E2 in a store I decided to give the X-E1 a try and fell in love with the thing. They really are cameras built with photographer's in mind (as silly as that sounds) and IMO the IQ is fantastic.

EverydayGetaway wrote in post #16885827
Can you send me the files in question? Your experience is honestly backwards of mine... I feel that I actually have more flexibility with my Fuji Files than I do my 6D files when it comes to pulling back highlights and adjusting shadows. At least, up until ISO800 or so. I've taken shots with the Fuji that I thought were completely useless and was able to pull them back and have a useable image.

Not saying you're wrong, just baffled why I'd see such a different outcome. Granted, my Fuji technically has a different sensor, but I thought the differences were pretty much nill between the first gen and second gen X-Trans.

If it weren't for the high ISO capability of my 6D and for the OVF, I'd sell the 6D and go full Fuji.

No, I could just be flat out wrong. I've seen your pics, your PP skills (among other things) are better than mine. I'm not a "technical" jargon guy, I usually just judge cameras on what I see and my own personal interpretations of usability and IQ.

I also believe the technical data actually supports your view, I believe the Fuji's DR is a bit better than the Canon sensor.

Honestly, all I can say is that from the RAW files I've been working with, if I bungled exposure and need to fix it, the 6D's files seem easier. But I'll definitely take some more pics with both cameras, observe more carefully, and revise this if I feel differently.

I should have added this though, I really can't praise Fuji's JPEG engine enough. I usually do some minor (or no) touching up of JPEGs from that camera, and do little PP now. It's just that the few RAW files I do do PP on, seems like the 6D's is slightly easier to work with. But the Fuji usually nails it for me in-camera.

The Dark Knight wrote in post #16885950
No, I could just be flat out wrong. I've seen your pics, your PP skills (among other things) are better than mine. I'm not a "technical" jargon guy, I usually just judge cameras on what I see and my own personal interpretations of usability and IQ.

I also believe the technical data actually supports your view, I believe the Fuji's DR is a bit better than the Canon sensor.

Honestly, all I can say is that from the RAW files I've been working with, if I bungled exposure and need to fix it, the 6D's files seem easier. But I'll definitely take some more pics with both cameras, observe more carefully, and revise this if I feel differently.

I should have added this though, I really can't praise Fuji's JPEG engine enough. I usually do some minor (or no) touching up of JPEGs from that camera, and do little PP now. It's just that the few RAW files I do do PP on, seems like the 6D's is slightly easier to work with. But the Fuji usually nails it for me in-camera.

I will say that the Fuji files seem to have much more leeway in regards to pulling back highlights over Canon, but the Canon files are easier to push the other way (shadows), so maybe that's what you observed. I get blown away with certain shots from the Fuji though when I see that a whole part of an image that I assume is lost from being blown out is fully recoverable, that pretty much doesn't happen with the Canon and as I tend to expose more the the right of the exposure comp. meter, it can be a problem with the Canon.

Tommydigi wrote in post #16885935
I was just looking at Fuji's site and it does appear they have a lot of lenses available and some pretty nice looking cameras. I am going to have to look into this as a lighter alternative.

I don't want to hijack this thread but I'm glad I stumbled upon this.

It definitely seems like Fuji is "doing it right".

I hope you didn't get the wrong impression from my post. The X100s is a lovely camera, it's the one I primarily shoot with now. IQ is terrific. It's just my opinion that it's not quite up to par with the 6D. I just mention this because there are some online reviews that I believe praise it too much imo from an IQ standpoint. But basically everything else has been great.

Also, my subjective interpretation of the IQ might come from the fixed 35mm equiv focal length. This was not a FL I used much prior to getting the X100s. Although I shot a lot in the 35-50mm range, it was usually at the longer end of this.

I'm learning to love the 35mm because it is so versatile. But, and I had this experience before when I had the EOS-M with the 22mm pancake, I think 35mm can also get a bit "boring" sometimes.

So as much as I love this camera I am still considering whether I should sell it before the replacement comes out and resale really takes a dump, and pick up one of the interchangeable Fuji models instead, because all the lenses look excellent (esp the 35mm 1.4). While 35mm equiv is a better "all-around" general lens for me, I find the 50mm equiv to be a bit more "interesting".