Luminous Landscape Forum
Equipment & Techniques => Mirrorless Cameras => Topic started by: armand on September 18, 2014, 09:25:13 pm
-
I was anxiously waiting for the 16-50 2.8 with the hope that it will finally be my answer for a lighter walkaround/hiking system which has water resistance and very good quality. I am somehow disappointed by the lack of OIS; I know that Canikon don't have it either in their 24-70 but I expected Fuji to be better than this.
-
There was an interview with a Fuji engineer and he said something along the lines of they did not include OIS because it would make it much larger and heavier. So I guess like most things it is a compromise.
Alan
-
Both the 16-50 and soon to come 16. 1.4 have interest. Especially the 1.4.
My 18-55 has so been such a great lens it's hard to consider replacing it.
Paul
-
I only own Fuji prime lenses so I can't really comment on how useful OIS is for the zooms.
At first sight it does seem like an awkward move from Fuji given that all other zooms have OIS.
What would the advantage be of the new lens over the current lens?
I see WR, consistent 2.8 aperture, anything else?
Given that the 2 new zoom lenses have a constant aperture I would guess that Fuji is going to start paying more attention to video?
-
I heard a reply that they initially had it but took it away to further increase image quality :o
My hope was close to prime quality (therefore better than 18-55), slightly wider (I rarely feel the need to go wider than 24 equiv), in a WR package. I was willing to accept the increase in size and weight for this.
I'm not that convinced about video, they are quite behind now. I could dream about a new camera with a stabilized sensor though ;D
-
I could live without the OIS if I had to (I do with my Nikon 24-70 OK), but the lens is a little large for me to use as a walk around, and coupling that with the lack of OIS means that I will stick with the 18-55 and live without the extra 2mm on the wide end.
-
There was an interview with a Fuji engineer and he said something along the lines of they did not include OIS because it would make it much larger and heavier. So I guess like most things it is a compromise.
Alan
Didn't he also mention that with OIS there'd be optical compromises?
-
Honestly, why would you need a 16-55 WR lens on the Fuji camera that's already got a WR body, and the lens costs $250-350... I had my Fuji X-T1 set up next to a rock at the beach. Rogue wave drenched this camera with it's non WR lens with the equivalent of 4 buckets of sandy, salt water. Both camera and lens work perfectly to this day. (I don't expect the lens to last long term now however) If you're shooting in a torrential downpour, maybe just cover the lens with a plastic bag? Boom OIS, save your weight, and a WR lens. :o I also expect dividends from the money I just saved you.
-
Honestly, why would you need a 16-55 WR lens on the Fuji camera that's already got a WR body, and the lens costs $250-350... I had my Fuji X-T1 set up next to a rock at the beach. Rogue wave drenched this camera with it's non WR lens with the equivalent of 4 buckets of sandy, salt water. Both camera and lens work perfectly to this day. (I don't expect the lens to last long term now however) If you're shooting in a torrential downpour, maybe just cover the lens with a plastic bag? Boom OIS, save your weight, and a WR lens. :o I also expect dividends from the money I just saved you.
Because I don't want to push my luck. It might also break in the middle of a trip, etc. And I cannot see the lenses as consumables.
-
I have quite a few Fuji primes as well as the 18-55, and 55-200 zooms. The stabilization on both lenses, especially the 55-200 is nothing short of remarkable. I was looking forward to the 16-55 f/2.8 as a "24-70" for my X T-1. I know and use the high ISO capabilities of the X T-1 regularly but am incredibly disappointed that there is no OIS on the upcoming 16-55. In fact, it's likely I'll let it pass. The 18-55 is an pretty impressive lens but it's at f/3.2 by 23mm and of course at f/4 at 55mm. Every stop counts. The only thing I really miss about my (sold) Olympus OM-D was the in-body IBIS. With it, I could attach an old Leica 90mm f/2.8 Elmarit and have an F/2.8 180mm STABILIZED Leica lens. Fuji will lose significant sales of the 16-55 because of this decision, likely mine. While I am a fan of primes, I have used the "old" Nikon 24-70 on my D800E (on a tripod) with impressive results. I'd gladly pay a premium to have a stabilized version on a Fuji body.
-
Because I don't want to push my luck. It might also break in the middle of a trip, etc. And I cannot see the lenses as consumables.
Where are you headed?
Definition:
WR means Weather Resistant, for casual protection against mild water spray and dust
My take is mild protection won't protect me against some of the serious things I do. For back country work I need to take extra steps or a different system. Aloksak, cuben fiber bags, or dry bags are key, and plastic bags for shooting, a mylar golite umbrella, and a shammy. The WG3 from pentax will go anywhere, no concerns, and provide high image quality in situations other cameras would be crushed, maimed, drowned, or rendered obsolete by cold/dust, it's also 16.0 MP, and most of the images on my etsy were made with one. Great $200 5.0 Oz backup system for being out in the field with a disabled DSLR.
-
I already fine the 16-50mm rather too large. OIS would have made it monstrous (see the Pentax 645's 28-45mm). I find anything much more than the 18-55 starts to really cut into the size advantages of the Fuji Xs.
- N.
-
Didn't he also mention that with OIS there'd be optical compromises?
Now that sensor-based stabilzation has been made workable with video as well as stills, optical purism seems to suggest that route.
-
Maybe take a look at the new Samsung NX1 + 16-50mm? has OIS and is a stop faster at the wide end.
-
Maybe take a look at the new Samsung NX1 + 16-50mm? has OIS and is a stop faster at the wide end.
That's a good recommendation.
I only own Fuji prime lenses so I can't really comment on how useful OIS is for the zooms
Me too
-
Trying to do a very basic focus stacking (my first) I found out the 60 mm has a good amount of focus breathing. Another thing to pay attention to.
-
Finally I gave in and got the 56 1.2.
Sharpness and bokeh seem quite good from the first few shots.
Focus in lower light it's not as fast as some others claimed to be, it's slowish many times and with good amount of hunting. When it locks it's ok accuracy wise (pretty good considering most shots were at 1.2, 1/125 and AutoISO choosing 4000-6400).
This is still the case for a DSLR, at least for Fuji (didn't try m43).
-
the 56 seems quite sharp, even wide open. In good light it's ok focus speed wise (still not good compared to DSLRs, even with the X-T1, mostly for moving targets).
Some examples to look at the bokeh; with a little care looks good to me, but it gets "nervous" a little easier than I hoped, see next post
-
you need to watch the background
-
I wanted to post a follow up to the Fuji 56 1.2 but got taken with testing the new D750.
It's one of those lenses you don't realize how much you needed it and how awesome it is until you get it! Really, really nice. It's quite sharp wide open (as I shoot most of the times) and has character. Focus could be faster, bokeh could occasionally be better but at the end of the day it justifies its price. Definitely holds its own or more compared to the Nikon 85 1.8G. Fuji makes some really nice primes. Even the 35 1.4 is really nice despite not being so sharp wide open, a class above the Nikon 50 1.8G.
Overall the 56 it's my favorite Fujifilm lens (I have also 14 2.8, 27 2.8, 35 1.4, 60 2.4, 18-55 2.8-4, 55-200 3.5-4.8 ).
PS. I heard the 23 1.4 is in a similar class
-
I don't have the 56mm but I do have the 23mm and it is a great lens. Nice and sharp.
Alan
-
Interesting read: http://dedpxl.com/fuji-x-buyers-guide-part-2-lenses/
-
Interesting read: http://dedpxl.com/fuji-x-buyers-guide-part-2-lenses/
Thanks for the link, Armand. It was a good read. My next Fuji lens purchase is going to be the 10-24.
-
Thanks for the link, Armand. It was a good read. My next Fuji lens purchase is going to be the 10-24.
I doubt you'll be disappointed. The 10-24mm is a remarkable lens. My sample is ever-so-slightly soft around the corners at f/4, but quite acceptably sharp beginning at f/5.6. Nice microcontrast and colors. The lens has a nice, solid feel and the zoom action is smooth. The optical image stabilization works fine as long as you're shooting static subjects, and easily makes up for the f/4 maximum aperture. Lightroom and Iridient Developer both do an excellent job of compensating for optical defects (as, obviously, do the Fujifilm X-series bodies if you're shooting JPEG), so I rarely feel the need to do much manual fiddling—except to correct keystoning—even for architecturals.
-
Interesting read: http://dedpxl.com/fuji-x-buyers-guide-part-2-lenses/
Zack Arias writes from practical experience and without pixel peeping, measurebating and MTF graphs. Very refreshing!
-
Looks like the 16-55mm f/2.8 is not going to have OIS for sure which is surprising really
I've tried a few newer lenses the 16-50mm "kit lens" is actually quite good (it is what it is a non fast lens) but sharp and better than expected
I decided that bar possibly a pancake lens I probably won't invest in the system at this stage the prices are a bit too steep for me so I've ordered an A Mount to Fuji X adaptor and will combine the rendering of some of my finest Minolta glass with an XTans sensor so I would expect good things from that combination.
It also means the 16-55mm isn't needed I can simply mount my Tamron 17-50mm F2.8 and use that albeit manual focus it's usable wide open across the focal range, the 90mm Tamron also means I don't need a 1:1 macro now or a portrait lens I have fast 35 and 50mm primes too. Fuji really do need to look at their pricing a bit though on some of those lenses I'm sure they would bag more customers longer term
Maybe it's me but I'd be cautious about moving mounts and one of the great advantages of ILC's is turning into one of it's curses (for OEM makers) it unlocks a lot of glass from other makers for a far smaller outlay I have around 13 A mount lenses I can't think of any good reason to offload them to buy Fuji ones (bar AF)
-
That 90 mm might be interesting, a 135 mm equiv for portraits (or various) is appealing.
Initially I said I will not get the the 16-55 if it doesn't have OIS, but I think I'll wait to see real life performance. I doubt it will be that much better than the current 18-55 but who knows. In the mythical possibility the Fuji will get sensor-based stabilization than it doesn't matter anymore.
-
Why, oh why, did Fujinon not put a real aperture ring on this constant maximum aperture lens? I real let down to the system.
-
I doubt you'll be disappointed. The 10-24mm is a remarkable lens. My sample is ever-so-slightly soft around the corners at f/4, but quite acceptably sharp beginning at f/5.6. Nice microcontrast and colors. The lens has a nice, solid feel and the zoom action is smooth. The optical image stabilization works fine as long as you're shooting static subjects, and easily makes up for the f/4 maximum aperture. Lightroom and Iridient Developer both do an excellent job of compensating for optical defects (as, obviously, do the Fujifilm X-series bodies if you're shooting JPEG), so I rarely feel the need to do much manual fiddling—except to correct keystoning—even for architecturals.
Chris, the lens came today. An overcast day but I did take some test images with it although I don't think any are worth sharing. So far I'm very pleased with the 10-24. Its a great complement to my 18-135. LR 5.7.1 did a fine job with the images.
-
yeah, poor weather, stuck working for few more days, I had nothing better to do than buy another lens, the 10-24. The 14 remains a very nice lens but a stabilized 10-24 is probably much more versatile.
-
The 10-24 is awesome.
Not only seems sharper than I expected at lower aperture (with the advantage of the increased DOF) but the stabilization is great. I never dreamed about getting consistently sharp shots at 1/2s, and somewhere around a quarter to half sharp at 1 sec (at 10 mm).
-
I have the 14mm and I like it a lot, but I am thinking of the 10-24mm as a more versatile alternative.
Of course I wouldn't like to lose too much in terms of sharpness and micro-contrast, and I would consider a waste of money to keep both lenses... has anybody any experience? Any advice?
Thanks
-
I have both and the 10-24 is definitely more versatile. I didn't think I'll shoot much at 10 but now that I have it I do. It's a very nice walk around zoom for tight quarters or for expansive views.
The 10-24, 35 and 56 make for a very nice kit that is still lightish and will cover most shooting outside of telephoto.
-
Meanwhile: http://www.fujirumors.com/first-look-fujinon-xf16-55mmf2-8-r-lm-wr/#more-31364
I'll wait until plenty of reports will be out to compare it with the 18-55. If better I might get it (for the weather sealing mostly).
-
Meanwhile: http://www.fujirumors.com/first-look-fujinon-xf16-55mmf2-8-r-lm-wr/#more-31364
I'll wait until plenty of reports will be out to compare it with the 18-55. If better I might get it (for the weather sealing mostly).
At $1,200 it is almost double the price of the 18-55... it better be good :)
-
For some reason Fuji have really poor close focus on most of their lenses (zooms) looking at this new one again the same pattern
Still I don't doubt it will be decent but it's larger and heavier than most would like maybe they should ask Tamron to make their 17-50mm for X mount
-
I have the 10-24mm Fuji and the Zeiss Touit 12mm.
The Fuji zoom is great for handheld photos.
However, when I get really serious about image creation, I use my Touit on a tripod. Colored and B&W photos using the Touit are much MUCH better then the Fuji zoom.
-
...I am somehow disappointed by the lack of OIS; I know that Canikon don't have it either in their 24-70...
Actually, Canon has it on their 17-55/2.8 ES lens, which is a better comparison for Fuji, since both are cropped format.
-
I have the 10-24mm Fuji and the Zeiss Touit 12mm.
The Fuji zoom is great for handheld photos.
However, when I get really serious about image creation, I use my Touit on a tripod. Colored and B&W photos using the Touit are much MUCH better then the Fuji zoom.
Would care to post some examples to support your claim?
-
I have the 10-24mm Fuji and the Zeiss Touit 12mm.
The Fuji zoom is great for handheld photos.
However, when I get really serious about image creation, I use my Touit on a tripod. Colored and B&W photos using the Touit are much MUCH better then the Fuji zoom.
Well... I find the touit 12 completely overpriced for what it do. In fact I was very frustrated by the performance of this lens, compared to my Zf2 lenses on my Nikon gear; day and night. First, fuji LMO is off on tier lenses such as zeiss. Bear in mind that the fuji lenses are "good" because LMO (http://fujifilm-x.com/development_story/en/processor/) take care of a lot of things. I have been deceived big time with landscape shoots with this lens. It is good at close range thought. Hopefully, this little lens have a good resale value (for the ones who never tested it). It is maybe the lack of LMO + the awkward Xtrans combination.
So, roughly, don't go in the zeiss X line if you come from really FF CZ masterpieces. The 10-24 should be far better. Anyway, serious landscape and fuji are not friend.
Landscape + tripod out of camera ISO 200 f8
(http://i.imgur.com/WIwR5nr.jpg)
Close range cleaning stuf out of camera ISO 1250 f2.8 ... go figure...
(http://i.imgur.com/k6CVzSJ.jpg)
-
....
First, fuji LMO is off on tier lenses such as zeiss. Bear in mind that the fuji lenses are "good" because LMO (http://fujifilm-x.com/development_story/en/processor/) take care of a lot of things.
....
LMO works in jpegs only as far as I know so that's not really the reason the Fuji lenses are well regarded. Just saying.
-
LMO works in jpegs only as far as I know so that's not really the reason the Fuji lenses are well regarded. Just saying.
Well, yes, but, most raw converters automatically apply the lens corrections for the Fuji lenses. You don't have any choice in the matter, unlike with DSLRs. So it works on raw files, too, in practice.
That said, I really like all my Fuji lenses.
-
Well, yes, but, most raw converters automatically apply the lens corrections for the Fuji lenses. You don't have any choice in the matter, unlike with DSLRs. So it works on raw files, too, in practice.
Yes this is how it work. Armand seems not up to date :)
-
. . . most raw converters automatically apply the lens corrections for the Fuji lenses. . . .
One notable exception: Photo Ninja, which otherwise does an excellent job demosaicing X-Trans files I queried the company about that back in November and was told they had asked Fuji for the information required to decode the lens-correction data in the maker's notes, but had not as of then received it. Photo Ninja does offer end-users a facility for building their own lens profiles, however. Not something I'd be inclined to bother with, myself, but I was quite favorably impressed with the quality of the TIFFs emitted by the product, modulo the lack of automagical lens corrections.
-
Yes this is how it work. Armand seems not up to date :)
Not so fast! ;D
LMO is not the same thing as the default optical corrections that are applied in a raw converter.
LMO deals with diffraction and makes the lenses look sharper, the corrections applied in a raw converter apply to the optical distortion and have nothing to do with sharpness, if anything it makes it worse in the corners (reduces resolution) when correcting.
As far as I know none of the raw converters ( maybe the Silkypix provided by Fuji) apply LMO.
-
LMO is not the same thing as the default optical corrections that are applied in a raw converter.
LMO deals with diffraction and makes the lenses look sharper . . .
I know Fuji says this,
LMOs have been employed to overcome typical “diffraction phenomenon” which occur within all optical lenses when high frequency fine images become blurred when the aperture narrows. Eg: when small subjects such as tree leaves are shot using a small aperture, the focus point ends up with aberrations or becomes blurred due to the light spreading out in a ripple effect. By compensating for the optical characteristics of the lens, the blurred focus point is corrected. [fujifilm-x.com/development_story/en/developer/lens_modulation_optimiser/ (http://fujifilm-x.com/development_story/en/developer/lens_modulation_optimiser/)]
but I wonder what LMO is doing under the hood in addition to applying optical corrections based on the maker's notes metadata. I suspect the additional magic is just deconvolution sharpening, which many of the raw converters offer—at least as an option—in their sharpening controls.
-
I know Fuji says this,
but I wonder what LMO is doing under the hood in addition to applying optical corrections based on the maker's notes metadata. I suspect the additional magic is just deconvolution sharpening, which many of the raw converters offer—at least as an option—in their sharpening controls.
Well yeah, but you can do that sharpening on any image taken with any lens.
From what I'm reading LMO is probably some form of sharpening which is applied (optional) to the jpegs only. I don't think it's a bad thing if you only shoot jpeg, as I suppose it's more efective to do this sharpening at the moment of conversion to jpeg than after. If anything this should a Fuji advantage for jpeg shooter as there seems to be only advantages from it.
However my reply was to the comment that because Fuji applies LMO their lenses are better regarded. As I shoot just raw (since LR got their colors right) I don't get the benefit of LMO and most people who really talk nicely about Fuji lenses shoot raw also. Truth is many of the Fuji lenses are quite nice.
PS. the software correction of optical distortion is applied more and more, on m43, Fuji, Leica APS-C, etc.
-
Just as there was a discussion about bokeh differences between the 60 and the 56 in another post I found this comparison: http://www.prophotonut.com/2015/01/05/fuji-x-series-portrait-lenses-compared-inc-56-apd-50-140-zoom/
As far as I can see the "quality" of the bokeh seems similar between their lenses and it depends more on the DOF of a particular lens, so I guess there is a Fuji look. I can't say I'm thrilled with it but looks ok, in my limited experience you need to pay attention to the background if you really want nice bokeh. A comparison with some Nikon lenses might be interesting.
-
Results are mixed the newer 56mm F1.2 looks quite good but not amazing either esp considering the lens speed
I think my Minolta 70-210mm and Tamron 90mm F2.8 would wipe the floor with all of them for smoother rendering I've been quite disappointed with Fuji's blur quality not something I'd care about much on a standard zoom but some of these lenses are designed for portrait work. Some are not bad none are great that's a bit strange
Maybe I'm fussy but then if a 30 year old lens can do smooth rendering why can't a £1400 2014 one?
-
The blur quality is somehow linked to the size of the sensor. You can't dream much about bokeh on an APS-C sensor, or you really need to shoot a bit close range with studied backgrounds (not to messy). Fighting with bokeh on APS-C is a vast waste of time.
-
The blur quality is somehow linked to the size of the sensor. You can't dream much about bokeh on an APS-C sensor, or you really need to shoot a bit close range with studied backgrounds (not to messy). Fighting with bokeh on APS-C is a vast waste of time.
Really that's not my experience at all
We're not talking about "razor thin DOF" but the quality of rendering of the out of focus areas the problem seems to be the outlining which I can see on all the lenses (to various degrees) it's not hard to achieve a smashed out background on APS-C esp not for a head/shoulders shots.
DOF on FF will be less as you are close to the subject (with the same focal length) but the differences are not massive for this type of shooting
-
Really that's not my experience at all
We're not talking about "razor thin DOF" but the quality of rendering of the out of focus areas the problem seems to be the outlining which I can see on all the lenses (to various degrees) it's not hard to achieve a smashed out background on APS-C esp not for a head/shoulders shots.
DOF on FF will be less as you are close to the subject (with the same focal length) but the differences are not massive for this type of shooting
For head and shoulders, yes.
-
The blur quality is somehow linked to the size of the sensor. You can't dream much about bokeh on an APS-C sensor, or you really need to shoot a bit close range with studied backgrounds (not to messy). Fighting with bokeh on APS-C is a vast waste of time.
So what you are saying is that on Nikon full frame the 85 mm F/1.8G cannot produce "good" bokeh?
-
And a second question for you Hulyss: let's say you take a 200 mm F/2 lens and you mount it on a D750 and on D7100. Then you shot the same subject from the same position, which one will have more blur/less DOF?
Bokeh should be the same with the same lens, right?
-
So what you are saying is that on Nikon full frame the 85 mm F/1.8G cannot produce "good" bokeh?
Huh!? How did you derive that from what he was saying?
-
... you shot the same subject from the same position, which one will have more blur/less DOF?
Bokeh should be the same with the same lens, right?
Everything will be the same (blur, DOF, bokeh). What will change is that, in case of a crop sensor, the main subject will be bigger, i.e., fill the frame more.
-
Huh!? How did you derive that from what he was saying?
Maybe I was too subtle for an outsider to this discussion. I was referring to the fact that on Fuji the 56 mm F/1.2 has the exact DOF and FOV as the Nikon 85 mm F/1.8G on full frame, so when he said that You can't dream much about bokeh on an APS-C sensor
I extrapolated.
-
Everything will be the same (blur, DOF, bokeh). What will change is that, in case of a crop sensor, the main subject will be bigger, i.e., fill the frame more.
Again, maybe I'm too subtle these days, I should spell out clearly what I mean.
Of course the FOV will change, but if you go to any DOF calculator, such as this one: http://www.dofmaster.com/dofjs.html , and you pick let's say a 200 mm F/2.8 lens, that you will focus to let's say 100 feet or 100 meters (for the sake of simplicity), then change between APS-C and full frame and see what happens to DOF.
-
... I should spell out clearly what I mean...
... but if you go ... and see what happens to DOF.
So say what you mean, instead of sending me somewhere "to see what happens." Make your point.
-
So say what you mean, instead of sending me somewhere "to see what happens." Make your point.
DOF it's not the same.
I had the feeling some would like to verify this so that's why I only gave that link in the beginning, not to cause any extra effort.
Now if you can explain it I would appreciate it.
-
And before being accused I'm incomplete again ;) what I found for particular lens (200 mm F/2.8 ) focused at 100 meters (or feet) in APS-C you need to get closer to 82 meters (or feet) to get the same DOF on full frame.
I'm too lazy to calculate the differences in FOV when you get closer (plus it might change with the focus distance, not sure on this one as the percentages seem to stay the same).
-
Armand, it seems to me that you are challenging this concept:
You can't dream much about bokeh on an APS-C sensor
Are you saying that it isn't true? What Hulyss is saying, in a very broad-brush terms, is that cropped sensors have inherently deeper DOF, i.e., are less suitable if one is after a shallow DOF, which is one of the elements of a good bokeh (the other being the quality of rendering of OOF areas).
Now, it seems to me that you are saying that 56/1.2 Fuji lens would have the same DOF as 85/1.8 Nikon on a full-frame body? That would be correct, but only if Fuji is used one f/stop wider, e.g., f/1.2 vs. f/1.8. If the same f/stop is used for both lenses, a full frame sensor would deliver a better bokeh. Are we in agreement on that?
-
Armand, it seems to me that you are challenging this concept:
Are you saying that it isn't true? What Hulyss is saying, in a very broad-brash terms, is that cropped sensors have inherently deeper DOF, i.e., are less suitable if one is after a shallow DOF, which is one of the elements of a good bokeh (the other being the quality of rendering of OOF areas).
Now, it seems to me that you are saying that 56/1.2 Fuji lens would have the same DOF as 85/1.8 Nikon on a full-frame body? That would be correct, but only if Fuji is used one f/stop wider, e.g., f/1.2 vs. f/1.8. If the same f/stop is used for both lenses, a full frame sensor would deliver a better bokeh. Are we in agreement on that?
Yes. If you cannot get enough DOF with the 56 at F/1.2 then you cannot get it with the full frame Nikon 85 at F/1.8 either as they are identical in FOV and DOF.
I do not challenge that the full frame has an inherent advantage in providing shallower DOF.
The second part though I would like to see somebody come with an explanation as I thought the same as you until I actually checked.
PS. The second part being what I posted with the DOF calculator
-
... The second part though I would like to see somebody come with an explanation as I thought the same as you until I actually checked.
PS. The second part being what I posted with the DOF calculator
Can you specifically formulate the issue you are referring to as "the second part"? There is too much confusion going back and forth what was said or implied in which post.
-
Armand, it seems to me that you are challenging this concept:
If the same f/stop is used for both lenses, a full frame sensor would deliver a better bokeh. Are we in agreement on that?
No, I wouldn't agree based on using a 5DII and Fuji cameras. I just don't see in print that one or the other is better, just different. Because we trying to compare camera systems not just lenses. Both full frame and APS-C can deliver stunning bokeh or make you feel frazzled.
What is really interesting is the quality of the gradient as the background goes out of focus.
-
No, I wouldn't agree... Both full frame and APS-C can deliver stunning bokeh or make you feel frazzled...
David, we are in agreement, but only if by "bokeh" we assume the quality of OOF area rendering. If, however, we add another element to the definition of bokeh, i.e., the amount of blur (which is then dependent of DOF), full frame sensors would have an advantage (at the same f/stop). While you can match a full-frame bokeh of a 1.8 lens with, say 1.2 lens on a cropped body, you can not match 1.4, 1.2, or 1.0 lens, unless you have a full stop wider lens on a cropped body.
-
Armand, it seems to me that you are challenging this concept:
Are you saying that it isn't true? What Hulyss is saying, in a very broad-brash terms, is that cropped sensors have inherently deeper DOF, i.e., are less suitable if one is after a shallow DOF, which is one of the elements of a good bokeh (the other being the quality of rendering of OOF areas).
Now, it seems to me that you are saying that 56/1.2 Fuji lens would have the same DOF as 85/1.8 Nikon on a full-frame body? That would be correct, but only if Fuji is used one f/stop wider, e.g., f/1.2 vs. f/1.8. If the same f/stop is used for both lenses, a full frame sensor would deliver a better bokeh. Are we in agreement on that?
Thank you Slobodan, I need to formulate better my phrases for a better understanding :-X
I would had that the bigger surface of a 24x36 sensor also help at better transition which have impact on final rendering (and bokeh). I'm tired of those comparisons :D
-
David, we are in agreement, but only if by "bokeh" we assume the quality of OOF area rendering. If, however, we add another element to the definition of bokeh, i.e., the amount of blur (which is then dependent of DOF), full frame sensors would have an advantage (at the same f/stop). While you can match a full-frame bokeh of a 1.8 lens with, say 1.2 lens on a cropped body, you can not match 1.4, 1.2, or 1.0 lens, unless you have a full stop wider lens on a cropped body.
Yes, I think we are in agreement.
But I would go a little further and argue that while a 1.2 on a full frame will in theory absolutely give more dof than a 1.2 on an APS-C (but not necessarily better quality), in real life you probably won't see it. My eye gets more distracted by the quality of the gradient and the busyness of the highlights in the background. We are always comparing apples with oranges if that makes sense.
Here's an example. I'm starting to find that my Fuji lenses that are sharp corner to corner (and give much sharper files than the 5DII printed large) are not always what I'm looking for in terms of bokeh. I plan on getting some Rokinon/Samyang primes that are sharp in the middle 2/3 and then fall away at the edges. I think wide open they will direct the viewer's eye in a way that can't be done satisfactorily in post. The bokeh from a sharp lens has a different quality from one that is going a little soft, and I think I may sometimes prefer the lens that is gradually going soft.
David
-
Thank you Slobodan, I need to formulate better my phrases for a better understanding :-X
I would had that the bigger surface of a 24x36 sensor also help at better transition which have impact on final rendering (and bokeh). I'm tired of those comparisons :D
No, that's not what you said and I understood very well what you were trying to say.
You have something against APS-C (and Fuji in particular) and because of that you made the statement that APS-C cannot get good bokeh. This statement is inaccurate (partly because of its generalization).
The way I was trying to combat it was by giving an example where your statement was not correct: if the 56 at 1.2 cannot do that, than the 85 at 1.8 cannot do it either, which is not a commonly accepted fact.
Second clarification: we are talking here about DOF, not the quality of the bokeh which is much more subjective (incidentally with the exception of 35 F/1.4 I'm not that impressed in this regard by Fuji).
Third clarification: while full frame has an inherent advantage to give shallower DOF, on APS-C world there are means to get very shallow DOF without much effort, hence the affirmation that one can only "dream" about good bokeh is not accurate.
Fourth clarification: if you shoot a subject with the same lens at the same distance at the same aperture, the APS-C will have a narrower DOF (an interesting find, particularly for wildlife). This was not part of the original discussion but I found it's interesting as I thought otherwise.
Is it clearer for you now?
-
... Fourth clarification: if you shoot a subject with the same lens at the same distance at the same aperture, the APS-C will have a narrower DOF (an interesting find, particularly for wildlife). This was not part of the original discussion but I found it's interesting as I thought otherwise.
This is because of the difference in pixel density (or sensel size) and its impact on the circle of confusion. APS-C typically have smaller sensels (more pixels per square inch). "The depth of field can be based on when the circle of confusion becomes larger than the size of your digital camera's pixels" (source: Cambridge in Color (http://www.cambridgeincolour.com/tutorials/depth-of-field.htm)).
So: smaller circle of confusion means that you are going to notice a drop in sharpness, used to determine DOF) sooner, making DOF shallower.
Clearer? Or we are still circling around confusion? :)
-
I had hoped we would avoid this but there you go
There are 2 ways of looking at it if you don't move use the same focal length and aperture the DOF is the same (the image is cropped on the APS-C sensor thus a smaller field of view but the same DOF) For portraits you would adjust your position to "maintain the subject size" thus you are closer with the FF camera and further away with the crop body thus the distance to subject has changed so has the DOF ie less DOF on the FF camera
I think we can all grasp that. I shoot FF and APS-C though I am not unhappy with APS-C for shallow DOF subject to using the appropriate lens/aperture background distance etc
I'm interested in the quality of the rendering not how much DOF we have even a ho hum lens can product OK bokeh if the background is far enough away, likewise even a respected lens can in some cases product iffy rendering at times. Real world results count and yes it is subjective not everyone wants "super creamy smooth tastic" "bokeh". Some say aspherical elements can ruin "bokeh" though I have lenses that are quite good with these elements. Some of the older lenses I have with simpler designs do seem to be ahead here though.
Bokeh is more than aperture blades (again I have lenses with many some with less) more than elements I'm not an optical engineer but I do look at results. For some reason lenses can be great or average some even poor. The Fuji's I've used have been sharp though I have noticed an "edge" to outlines in out of focus areas on some, less so on others this can be quite subtle at times but it can be obvious too. There may be more to a lens than "bokeh" but there is likely more than just "sharp"
I don't think the XF50-140mm is bad for bokeh, but so far I've not seen it be amazing either conditions vary hugely in field use there are a lot of variations. Those samples didn't really convince if you were after creamy smooth transitions. Nikon even make a few DC specialist lenses for smoothness Sony have a re-badge Minolta STF that also does super creamy bokeh. I'm not a bokeh hard liner so I'm not rushing to get those lenses (they are undoubtedly top tier for that type of look) but rendering is important to some
-
This is because of the difference in pixel density (or sensel size) and its impact on the circle of confusion. APS-C typically have smaller sensels (more pixels per square inch). "The depth of field can be based on when the circle of confusion becomes larger than the size of your digital camera's pixels" (source: Cambridge in Color (http://www.cambridgeincolour.com/tutorials/depth-of-field.htm)).
So: smaller circle of confusion means that you are going to notice a drop in sharpness, used to determine DOF) sooner, making DOF shallower.
Clearer? Or we are still circling around confusion? :)
Aha, thanks! I did see the circle of confusion was changed but did not know why and what practical impact it has, if any. I would thinks this is valid for equal MP sensors?!
Either way, this just came out while I was looking for other things discussed earlier.
My bottom line on this is that while full frame has some advantages, it's not that clearly superior to APS-C as it is touted (and this comes from somebody who posted mostly D750 shots in the last month)
-
... while full frame has some advantages, it's not that clearly superior to APS-C as it is touted...
I recently acquired a full-frame body (Canon 6D and 24-105/4) and I was marveling about its ability to shoot reasonable portraits at ISO 16,000 in this post (http://www.luminous-landscape.com/forum/index.php?topic=94724.msg784931#msg784931).
Then I realized that, had I shot the same scene with my other combo, 60D + 17-55/2.8, I would be having more or less the same DOF, but I could have shot it at ISO 8,000, as I would be using a faster lens. In other words, a full-frame would need to have noise performance better than one stop in order to beat a crop body.
If you want your brain to explode, you can read more about so-called "equivalence" issues here (http://www.josephjamesphotography.com/equivalence/).
-
I recently acquired a full-frame body (Canon 6D and 24-105/4) and I was marveling about its ability to shoot reasonable portraits at ISO 16,000 in this post (http://www.luminous-landscape.com/forum/index.php?topic=94724.msg784931#msg784931).
Then I realized that, had I shot the same scene with my other combo, 60D + 17-55/2.8, I would be having more or less the same DOF, but I could have shot it at ISO 8,000, as I would be using a faster lens. In other words, a full-frame would need to have noise performance better than one stop in order to beat a crop body.
If you want your brain to explode, you can read more about so-called "equivalence" issues here (http://www.josephjamesphotography.com/equivalence/).
I've been trying to make a similar point here: http://www.luminous-landscape.com/forum/index.php?topic=95934.0
Granted, in the last month I mostly take out the D750, alone or with the Fuji along, but that's because I either shoot in better light, I photograph fast moving kids or I can afford to take and mostly use a tripod.
In controlled conditions I can use lenses close to their optimum and at that point the differences between lenses are not that big so the sensor can shine through, with its superior DR and color depth.
Plus when it's snowing the only weather sealed lens that I have is the Nikon 24-120 F/4 which is acceptable and doesn't really hold me back.
-
No, that's not what you said and I understood very well what you were trying to say.
You have something against APS-C (and Fuji in particular)
Not really but if you feel comfortable with you bias, enjoy. Slobodan will be more civilian than me to explain you things :)
You "combat" I do not (somehow). It is like comparing FF and MF, you can't. The bigger the sensor, the better the IQ, period. Maths and other calculations can't explain the final results (and this is a good thing). I combat ppl who always try to explain their environment with mathematics. So yea you're obliged when you are in engineering, rocket science, really "tangible" things who expressly need it. But in photography (so art) I see no place for such considerations.
Art is a place for "magic" ... at least the last bits of magic you can seek in this sick world.
The bigger your sensor, the bigger the IQ (and the tinnier is your wallet... but it's always been like that).
I combat the hype. I have been a fan boy and I came back tie between legs. I know what you are enduring ;D
In the other hand, It is easier to shoot with a DSLR (even with the weight) than any mirror less on the market. Was not sure because of the XT-1 EVF but at the end, I'm sure (and this is only my opinion).
Long story short : I have been an APS-C user for years. I started my enterprise with a DP2s ... I owned pentax gear for years, K10 K7 K5 + superb primes and zeiss, owned almost the whole SD1 system (primes mostly). One day I went to a photographer to learn more, just with my DP2s (http://www.francois-rommens-photographie.fr/ and http://www.sensual-photography.eu/index.php?lg=fr). This photographer allowed me to use MF, 4x5 and 5D2 with 90TS and said : Once you will taste bigger sensor, you'll never come back... proof in the picture. He was right. Now, especially in my workshops, I prove it "by the picture" to my patients and it always work (and will always work).
Have a close look at sensual photography and come here saying me that you can achieve the same rendering without PP with your XT-1 :D
Now I have some clients to take care of. See you later.
-
Plus when it's snowing the only weather sealed lens that I have is the Nikon 24-120 F/4 which is acceptable and doesn't really hold me back.
This is paranoia. In the Nikon line at least, the material is pretty strong and protected. All the AFS-G line can endure even rain (even if not labelled as weather sealed). I would be picky with old AI-S lenses but the modern one are just tanks. I never exposed any fuji lenses to elements but my guess is they are quite resistant too.
The only lens who got a problem with me was the Nikkor 50f1.2. Focus ring is now a bit grainy and sandy but I was playing in the desert with it for weeks so ...
Two months ago, I was shooting a new model and while returning to the car I felt with the D700 and the 180/2.8. By felt I mean "crashed hard". I slipped on a rock, the camera did a parabola in the air while I was holding the neck strap and crashed on a rock with an awesome freaky sound and all went into the river. I was crying... but guess what ? All survived and work as nothing happened. Just little cosmetics scratch. Solid stuff me say.
-
I combat the hype
That's what I'm trying to do also. I never disagreed that bigger sensor has the potential for better quality, but in less than ideal situations that potential is much smaller. You don't have to go to full frame for better quality or for bokeh you can only dream of on APS-C. I have zero experience with MF and considering the size and cost I think some travels will be more productive.
Keep in mind I bought the D750 long after the x system so psychologically I should be justifying the Nikon purchase by claiming the full frame is the only way to go; not really.
Ps. Btw, being condescending doesn't make your arguments any better
-
This is paranoia. In the Nikon line at least, the material is pretty strong and protected. All the AFS-G line can endure even rain (even if not labelled as weather sealed). I would be picky with old AI-S lenses but the modern one are just tanks. I never exposed any fuji lenses to elements but my guess is they are quite resistant too.
The only lens who got a problem with me was the Nikkor 50f1.2. Focus ring is now a bit grainy and sandy but I was playing in the desert with it for weeks so ...
Two months ago, I was shooting a new model and while returning to the car I felt with the D700 and the 180/2.8. By felt I mean "crashed hard". I slipped on a rock, the camera did a parabola in the air while I was holding the neck strap and crashed on a rock with an awesome freaky sound and all went into the river. I was crying... but guess what ? All survived and work as nothing happened. Just little cosmetics scratch. Solid stuff me say.
You might be right that I'm paranoid but I don't want to push my luck (btw the X-T1 is weather sealed, I don't think that D750 has any official claims). I have a supposedly weather sealed that's good enough, why would I risk other lenses?
Regarding the dump in river, you are the first one that I hear who has a camera that survived after went down in the river/lake etc
-
This is because of the difference in pixel density (or sensel size) and its impact on the circle of confusion. APS-C typically have smaller sensels (more pixels per square inch). "The depth of field can be based on when the circle of confusion becomes larger than the size of your digital camera's pixels" (source: Cambridge in Color (http://www.cambridgeincolour.com/tutorials/depth-of-field.htm)).
So: smaller circle of confusion means that you are going to notice a drop in sharpness, used to determine DOF) sooner, making DOF shallower.
Clearer? Or we are still circling around confusion? :)
There is really no need to mix sensel sizes to this at all. Everything related to DOF and sensor/film size can be calculated with basic geometry and/or visualized by using a ruler and a pencil. There is nothing esoteric about it, nor even a camera, film or sensor are needed at all. Just use a DOF calculator if you skipped geometry in school. Also remember that bigger formats are even better than 135, do not limit your arguments to that only...
"Bokeh" is a different matter, and is not mathematically described. Certainly part of it is dependent on the lens design and various distortions it makes. Also, it seems, it is largely something people like to argue about, bit like audiophiles argue differences in cables or other matters of trivial importance. It is a fitting subject for that, as it can not be directly measured like sharpness etc. I rather stay out of it.
Especially when all sorts of "equivalency" formulas are happily thrown into the fray. In that case jump to the start of this post...
-
I don't think we need to "measure" DOF the calculations are quite logical and easy to do we know what influences DOF. Despite the complaints it is possible to achieve satisfactory or shallow DOF on smaller formats (subject to faster apertures, distances) and not wishing to sound like a micro 4/3 user but it is not always desired to have wafer thin DOF either. It is certainly easier on a FF 35mm camera to do that, but many are quite happy anyway.
MF will NEVER be mainstream for 2 reasons cost and size whilst I don't necessarily subscribe to the ILC marketing that small is better (sometimes but not for some tasks) MF simply isn't going to be attractive to many buyers bar some pro level shooters who might make use of it.
Saying that high level results can be achieved even with crop bodies IQ has never been as good resolution is plenty high ISO performance is good enough for a lot of shooters
I played with MF in film days I remained a 35mm shooter I can't see that changing with digital much. MF is great for those who want it but it is not the panacea some suggest it is
As for Fuji some lenses like the 58mm F1.2 are designed to cater for those who want thin DOF and portraits
-
There is really no need to mix sensel sizes to this at all. Everything related to DOF and sensor/film size can be calculated with basic geometry and/or visualized by using a ruler and a pencil. There is nothing esoteric about it, nor even a camera, film or sensor are needed at all. Just use a DOF calculator if you skipped geometry in school...
Seriously!?
-
Seriously!?
Ray angles from points in focus and out-of-focus, determined by the distance, focal length and aperture. Maximum allowed circle of confusion determined from viewing distance, enlargement factor and definition of sharpness. No film, sensor, sensels needed, just paper an pencil. If you want to visualize it, use a ruler.
-
The bigger your sensor, the bigger the IQ (and the tinnier is your wallet... but it's always been like that).
Yay, the format wars have moved from the Medium Format Forum to Compact System Cameras. It was only a matter of time, I suppose. Now all repeat after me: "My sensor is bigger than yours". ;D
One day I went to a photographer to learn more, just with my DP2s (http://www.francois-rommens-photographie.fr/ and http://www.sensual-photography.eu/index.php?lg=fr). This photographer allowed me to use MF, 4x5 and 5D2 with 90TS and said : Once you will taste bigger sensor, you'll never come back... proof in the picture. He was right. Now, especially in my workshops, I prove it "by the picture" to my patients and it always work (and will always work).
Have a close look at sensual photography and come here saying me that you can achieve the same rendering without PP with your XT-1 :D
Now I have some clients to take care of. See you later.
Actually, unless all the FF photos on the sensual-photography website are shot wide open, the look of them can be achieved with an APS-C camera. Now film MF or even 4x5 is a different matter. If you want to argue that FF allows you to get shallower DOF and you absolutely need it for your images, I don't thing anyone is going to argue with you. Making blanket statements about bokeh and formats, on the other hand, is hyperbole.
All IMO of course.
-
Ray angles from points in focus and out-of-focus, determined by the distance, focal length and aperture. Maximum allowed circle of confusion determined from viewing distance, enlargement factor and definition of sharpness. No film, sensor, sensels needed, just paper an pencil. If you want to visualize it, use a ruler.
Ah, the fly in your ointment: the definition of sharpness. In my post, I actually and directly quoted an explanation for the link between "the definition of sharpness" and circle of confusion that explains the role of sensor/sensel size. I even provided a link to the relevant article, written by a guy who is technically much smarter than I am (he holds a PhD in a related discipline).
-
... take a 200 mm F/2 lens and you mount it on a D750 and on D7100. Then you shot the same subject from the same position, which one will have more blur/less DOF?
I think that comparisons like this with very different field of view are of little practical interest.
I prefer comparing formats with "the same scene", meaning with the same camera position relative to the subjects, and the same field of view (same subjects in view, at the same positions relative to the composition as a whole, same apparent sizes, etc.). This of course involves the familiar pattern of focal length adjusted in proportion to linear format size. Then there is simple guideline that is reasonably accurate (except at the extremes of very near or very far; where "very near" means magnification about 1/10 or larger and "very far" means focusing at or beyond hyperfocal distance):
With equal field of view and equal camera position relative to the subjects, the DOF is measured by the entrance pupil size, a.k.a. effective aperture diameter: focal length divided by aperture ratio.
This by the way means roughly equal lens size and weight, due to requiring the big front lens elements to be similar in size. When a lens does not give shallow enough DOF even wide open, getting less DOF on the same scene always requires "bigger glass", whether by changing lens in the same format or by changing to a larger format.
The main way that format size comes into this is that the when using a larger format and proportionately longer focal length, the entrance pupil size needed to get a given DOF is achieved with a higher f-stop, making it easier for the lens to have good control of aberrations.
-
"The depth of field can be based on when the circle of confusion becomes larger than the size of your digital camera's pixels" (source: Cambridge in Color (http://www.cambridgeincolour.com/tutorials/depth-of-field.htm)).
That measure of DOF might have its place, but it is quite different from the one that most photographers (and on-lens DOF scales) have been using for a century or more, so we should at least explain which version we are using when making claims.
That "CoC = pixel size" measures a "minimum depth of field": the distance from the plane of exact focus within which OOF effects are never to be seen, no matter how large you display the image and how closely one views it, due to any OOF effects being buried under sensor resolution limits. The far more common concept is measuring the distance from exact focus beyond which OOF effects are visible under certain viewing conditions, with a certain ratio of image size to viewing distance and a certain level of visual acuity. The latter is the version I was assuming in my previous post about entrance pupil size measuring DOF.
There is a potentially big gap between such measures of DOF and the extent of OOF effects on the background of an image. This "minimum DOF" is decreased by reducing the pixel size on a sensor of the same size, but that will have no effect on how strong the OOF effect is on subjects falling outside this "absolutely in-focus" region; in particular, smaller pixels will have no effect on how strong the OOF effects are on the background well behind the main subject, which is what people are commonly referring to of when they talk about "bokeh".
This is yet another case where "extent of background blur" and "depth of field" are not the same thing, so it is strange to read experienced photographers using "bokeh" to mean "DOF", and even strange to read "good bokeh" used to mean simply "shallow DOF". Another example is the effect of moving back from the main subject and increasing the focal length (or cropping!) to keep its image occupying the same portion of the frame. Because if you then adjust the aperture to give the same DOF, you will have more pronounced background blur. (This move also decreases how much of the background is even visible, so for two reasons backing off can be useful for reducing the effects of a distracting background. I pity the portrait photographers working in cramped studios who have to spend a lot more on cameras and lenses to achieve the "background control" that an outdoor photographer like me can usually get by just taking a few step back!)
-
...it is strange to read experienced photographers using "bokeh" to mean "DOF", and even strange to read "good bokeh" used to mean simply "shallow DOF"...
Out of curiosity, which "experienced photographers" said that?
-
Nobody said that I dislike the term "bokeh" anyway blur does the job nicely in my view
Depth of field is a technical aspect it does not always indicate how the rendering will fall it's possible to blur the background out significantly with a slower lens under the right conditions, sometimes a few stops in aperture don't make a huge difference to the background (for closer head shots esp true)
-
In response to my comment that
... it is strange to read experienced photographers using "bokeh" to mean "DOF", and even stranger to read "good bokeh" used to mean simply "shallow DOF".
Slobodan asks
Out of curiosity, which "experienced photographers" said that?
I certainly did not mean you, Slobodan! Surely you have seen this usage many times in forum discussions, and there seems to be a bit of it earlier in this thread:
You can't dream much about bokeh on an APS-C sensor, or you really need to shoot a bit close range with studied backgrounds (not to messy). Fighting with bokeh on APS-C is a vast waste of time.
Note that "close range" is good for reducing DOF, but moving further away and increasing focal length is instead more useful for increasing background blur.
-
Thanks to BJL for that comprehensive dissertation on DOF. Seeing as this thread started off discussing FujiFilm aps-c and has meandered off to the inevitable MF v FF v APS discussion, perhaps it's worth putting things into a practical DOF context.
Rather than use the term DOF in the CoC/pixel size discussion, I prefer the term 'critical focus'. It's more descriptive.
Taking as an example the Fuji 56/1.2 and comparing it to a FF 85/1.4 - both focused at 3M, Bart's on-line DOF planner gives the following DOF measurements:
<56>
f1.2: 3.70 - cms
f2 : 5.80
f8 : 23.9
<85>
f1.4 : 1.64
f2 : 2.39
f2.8 : 3.37
f8 : 9.60
For portraiture, seeing as the 'average' head will have a DOF of at least 10 inches (25.4 cms), the minimum you'll need is an aps-c at f8, anything less and you'll need to be careful where you place that focus point ...
Despite the complaints it is possible to achieve satisfactory or shallow DOF on smaller formats (subject to faster apertures, distances) ... As for Fuji some lenses like the 58mm F1.2 are designed to cater for those who want thin DOF and portraits
-
If the above table is correct, it seems that at NO POINT can an APS-C lens achieve the same shallow DOF as a full frame lens at 2.8?! It would need something like f/1.0, i.e., full three f/stops. Interesting. If you need more DOF, however...
-
Yup, I'd say that's true but you've already got razor thin depth of field (actually critical focus, since the traditional DOF will include variables such as coc diameter, viewing distance, output size, visual acuity).
Here's the link to Bart's online DOF output quality planner (http://bvdwolf.home.xs4all.nl/main/foto/dofplan/dofplan.html).
-
This is confusing. So DOF is dependent on the MPixels also not only on the sensor size?
A Nikon Df (16 MP) with the 85 mm at F/1.8 will have the same DOF as the Fuji X-T1 (16 MP) with the 56 mm at F/1.2.
If you use a higher megapixel camera, such as the D810, you will have less DOF. So for the opposite, if you need more DOF, a higher megapixel camera will be in disadvantage?! So I made the right choice choosing the D750 for landscape? :P
Something doesn't add up.
-
DOF is a measurable constant. Bokeh regroup many other constants such as transitions. The bigger the sensor (and the color depth) the better is the bokeh (quality of the DOF). Strange fact is that all those formulas are not studied in art school (maybe roughly exposed) and I wonder why ? Maybe because they teach you how to get quality product out of YOU and not of the technical side of your camera (which is just an extension, a tool).
Just to disturb armand, a simple inexpensive Mamyia ZD (22MP), when used correctly, will give you far better pictures than your D750. How ? Well... I'm sure there is some associations around you that teach photo and own MF and even LF cameras. When you will try it, taste it, you will forget about those useless/endless forum conversations.
Now you need to find the willpower to go to register in this associations and finally, discovering/testing/experimenting the wide spectrum of photography tools. The goal is to open the eyes.
But armand, your avatar represent something interesting and I think some other over here should have a look at this ;)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Myth_of_Sisyphus
"In the essay, Camus introduces his philosophy of the absurd: man's futile search for meaning, unity, and clarity in the face of an unintelligible world devoid of God and eternal truths or values."
See "God" and "eternal truths or values" as the deep meanings of photography. You'll never reach it, we'll never reach it, we'll never be able to describe nor quantify it. Today some peps think that DxO is god rofl !
This fact introduce another interesting constants such as Fatality and Resignation.
Back in the old days, I tried to convince Sisyphus, explaining him that even if he get the "truth" and the "meaning" he will not be more happy. I went to war, had children, accomplished things, got highs and downs... quite a full life, just accomplished my destiny while he was perpetually seeking ... seeking what ? This is the question I putted on the table one day he was resting. I brought him some goat cheese, wine and honey. Man... he was wreaked. His eyes was empty, stuck in time, empty of sense. He was unable to answer my question, unable to know what exactly he was seeking. He became crazy. Was a bad day, quite depressing to see a friend going this way, so far... I went on my own quest and I never seen him again.
-
Again, it's not you who is able to create confusion here. For you bigger is better and I could care less to convince you otherwise as you seem happy with this knowledge.
In my experience with both APS-C and full frame you can get good results with both and others seem to agree with it. You go become famous with the Mamyia or whatever and I'll work with my own limitations.
PS. Your bokeh statements from prior posts (or this one before editing) were a little different than this last version; you remind me of Nikon, by correcting your mistakes without actually admitting to them ;D
-
Why did we not fight over the effect film stock had on DOF in the good old days? Because nobody even thought film would matter at all, as DOF is an exact mathematical/optical phenomenon defined by a mathematical formula only.
If the sensor (film) resolution sets its own limits to sharpness, it has nothing to do with DOF calculations.
-
In my experience with both APS-C and full frame you can get good results with both and others seem to agree with it.
+1. For most people and for most applications (I am not saying for all) the differences in sensor size between MF, FF, APS-C and m43 will be completely negligible, certainly after post-processing.
-
If the above table is correct, it seems that at NO POINT can an APS-C lens achieve the same shallow DOF as a full frame lens at 2.8?! It would need something like f/1.0, i.e., full three f/stops. Interesting. If you need more DOF, however...
It's about 1.3 stops difference from APS-C to FF roughly
Micro 4/3 is about 2 stops off FF DOF wise (shallow DOF)
The obvious variable here is the "distance to subject" you have to move back further with APS-C to get the same framing, even more so with micro 4/3
Real world I get similar DOF with my Fuji X10 to a bog standard kit lens for APS-C it's close enough (not quite but near) smaller sensor but faster lens speed lots of variables here
-
It's about 1.3 stops difference from APS-C to FF roughly
Micro 4/3 is about 2 stops off FF DOF wise (shallow DOF)
Sounds about right.
The obvious variable here is the "distance to subject" you have to move back further with APS-C to get the same framing, even more so with micro 4/3
Only if you use the same focal length in the different formats, which is not the way most of us do it.
-
It's about 1.3 stops difference...
2.8
2.0 - one stop difference
1.4 - two stop difference
1.0 - three stop difference
-
I am old school in terms of photography so when one mentions one stop difference I think only of exposure i.e adjusting f stop, shutter speed and ISO and not DOF.
I agree/understand that DOF is affected/related to f stop, distance from the subject and size of the film/sensor.
If you get correct exposure at F 5.6; 1/500 sec; ISO 100 it will be the same for a FF, APS-C or 4/3 sensor.
The sunny 16 rule, with bright sunlight ISO 100 film; 1/100 sec; f 16 will provide accurate exposure.
So will ISO 200 film; 1/200 sec; f 16
So will ISO 100 film; 1/400 sec; f 8
-
I am old school in terms of photography so when one mentions one stop difference I think only of exposure i.e adjusting f stop, shutter speed and ISO and not DOF.
I agree/understand that DOF is affected/related to f stop, distance from the subject and size of the film/sensor.
If you get correct exposure at F 5.6; 1/500 sec; ISO 100 it will be the same for a FF, APS-C or 4/3 sensor.
The sunny 16 rule, with bright sunlight ISO 100 film; 1/100 sec; f 16 will provide accurate exposure.
So will ISO 200 film; 1/200 sec; f 16
So will ISO 100 film; 1/400 sec; f 8
I don't know where anyone got the 3 stops difference from it's way off the mark
-
I don't know where anyone got the 3 stops difference from it's way off the mark
It was explained in reply #99, with reference to the DOF table in reply #89.
-
The Fuji lens lineup, including the upcoming 16 F/1.4, 90 F/2, 120-400 F/4-5.6
http://www.fujifilm.com/products/digital_cameras/pdf/lenses_accessories_catalogue_01.pdf
-
I am old school in terms of photography so when one mentions one stop difference I think only of exposure i.e adjusting f stop, shutter speed and ISO and not DOF.
I'll call myself middle of the road on the old school thing...
But yes, the whole using stops to equate DOF always seemed strange to me. And I have never heard a LF shooter talk about DOF equivalents between 8x10 and 4x5. But maybe that is just my luck. But then again, my preference is proper exposure first, sharpness (focus/diffraction) second and DOF third.
-
But yes, the whole using stops to equate DOF always seemed strange to me.
I think this has more to do with format/brand cheerleading, gear fetishizing & "look at my big(ger) one" than anything else. Consumerist & identity stuff. Not that DOF control is unimportant—not at all—but seems to me it's typically invoked as a strawman argument to justify preferences held & choices made for those other reasons.
-Dave-
-
It was explained in reply #99, with reference to the DOF table in reply #89.
I read the reply and the DOF article (rather the link)
There is nothing there that says APS-C has 3 stops more DOF, as said it's just over a stop APS-C to FF a difference for certain but not really huge at the best of times
Anyway we've wasted enough time covering old ground when the original post was about lenses, but we get sidetracked into talking about formats and sensor sizes/DOF
-
Anyway we've wasted enough time covering old ground when the original post was about lenses, but we get sidetracked into talking about formats and sensor sizes/DOF
+1
I was trying to get the discussion back on track with last link that I posted.
That 90 mm F/2 (which is the one that interests me the most) looks biggish, similar to the 55-200?? That's a little too big compared to what I was hoping.
-
Anyway we've wasted enough time covering old ground when the original post was about lenses, but we get sidetracked into talking about formats and sensor sizes/DOF
Yup. This thread is getting blurry. It needs better focus.
-
Yup. This thread is getting blurry. It needs better focus.
Yeah, and the bokeh in the blurry parts isn't so good either.
-
... There is nothing there that says APS-C has 3 stops more DOF, as said it's just over a stop APS-C to FF a difference ...
Just to clarify my comment about "3 stops." It shall be taken in the context of Manoli's table provided in #89. I am repeating the table below, marking the following:
Full-frame lens @2.8 has 3.37 cm DOF
Fuji 56mm lens @1.2 has 3.70 cm DOF
i.e., still slightly more that the other lens. Hence my estimate that it would take something like f/1.0 (i.e., 3 stops) to match DOF. I said "that is interesting, if true," as I also used to believe the difference was about one stop. Apparently, there are circumstances that contradict that general assumption.
As for the relevance of all this for the thread, I think that DOF issues are very important (at least for me) when one is deciding whether to switch formats.
-
As for the relevance of all this for the thread, I think that DOF issues are very important (at least for me) when one is deciding whether to switch formats.
This thread was about Fuji X lenses though, not about switching formats...
The Fuji lens lineup, including the upcoming 16 F/1.4, 90 F/2, 120-400 F/4-5.6
http://www.fujifilm.com/products/digital_cameras/pdf/lenses_accessories_catalogue_01.pdf
The 16mm/f1.4 and 90mm/f2 both look very provising IMO.
I just hope that Fuji is not going to price them at above $1K again but I am afraid they might...
-
Just to clarify my comment about "3 stops." It shall be taken in the context of Armand's table provided in #89. I am repeating the table below, marking the following:
Full-frame lens @2.8 has 3.37 cm DOF
Fuji 56mm lens @1.2 has 3.70 cm DOF
i.e., still slightly more that the other lens. Hence my estimate that it would take something like f/1.0 (i.e., 3 stops) to match DOF. I said "that is interesting, if true," as I also used to believe the difference was about one stop. Apparently, there are circumstances that contradict that general assumption.
As for the relevance of all this for the thread, I think that DOF issues are very important (at least for me) when one is deciding whether to switch formats.
This is in that calculator only. You will not get those results in other calculators, so somewhere there an "interpretation" issue. I guess you can open a new topic to additionally explore this. Btw, this is the part that I was referring to when I said it's confusing.
PS. As similar as Manoli and Armand are, it's not quite the same thing
-
Taking as an example the Fuji 56/1.2 and comparing it to a FF 85/1.4 - both focused at 3M, Bart's on-line DOF planner gives the following DOF measurements: ...
Those numbers are very different from what I see on other DOF calculators like http://www.cambridgeincolour.com/tutorials/dof-calculator.htm
which gives
- 14cm for 56/1.2 in the Fujifilm "1.5x" format
- 14cm for 85/1.8 in 35mm format, and
- 22cm for 85/2.8 in 35mm format.
- 14cm for 85/2.8 in 1.5x format.
There the first two numbers fit the rule of thumb of just over one stop difference (1.5x in fact): adjust aperture ratio in proportion to focal length and format size to get equal DOF and equal FOV from equal distance.
The last number suggests that the numbers you give are computed with same "allowable circle of confusion" [CoC] for both formats, which is only of practical interest if you plan to display and view images at sizes proportional to the format size while viewing them from the same distance.
If instead you compare images of the same size, the ones for the smaller format are enlarged more, so the circles of confusion recorded on the sensor are enlarged more for display, and so the OOF effects are more visible: DOF decreases with this extra enlargement. To correct for that, every DOF calculator I know of allows for adjusting the CoC in proportion to format size.
-
The last number suggests that the numbers you give are computed with same "allowable circle of confusion" [CoC] for both formats, which is only of practical interest if you plan to display and view images at sizes proportional to the format size while viewing them from the same distance.
If instead you compare images of the same size, the ones for the smaller format are enlarged more, so the circles of confusion recorded on the sensor are enlarged more for display, and so the OOF effects are more visible: DOF decreases with this extra enlargement. To correct for that, every DOF calculator I know of allows for adjusting the CoC in proportion to format size.
Thank you, this was the information I was looking for.
-
Those numbers are very different from what I see on other DOF calculators ...
I did say in #89 that I prefer to use the term 'critical focus', as its more descriptive of what we're actually measuring. The reason they're different is because, as CambridgeInColour says:
An acceptably sharp circle of confusion is loosely defined as one which would go unnoticed when enlarged to a standard 8x10 inch print, and observed from a standard viewing distance of about 1 foot. […] A different maximum circle of confusion also applies for each print size and viewing distance combination..
Bart's figures are based on a max output size/ppi figure for a selected 'quality' setting. In the case of the Fuji that comes to a print size of 16x12 inches, approximately, at 291 ppi. Not 10x8. Bart's calculator is far more extensive both in the number of inputs and variables (almost to the point of confusion for us lesser mortals) as well as the consequent output.
If I were to insert the 10x8 print size the DOF does indeed change, though still not quite as deep as the Cambridge ones.
One may vary the CoC, but I believe Bart is initially using a CoC quite close to the sensel pitch of the camera. For the Fuji thats about 4.8 microns but the CoC diameter is automatically updated based on the sensor / pixel pitch, output quality requirements, print size and camera settings in [Section2]
The basic tenet is that for a given max output size the DOF will be in accordance with his calculator. Any smaller sizes will obviously have greater apparent DOF. A quick search on Bart van der Wolf's posts re DOF will explain a lot more than I'm able to do in a quick post.
Practically speaking though, and assuming an output size of A2, I've found Bart's figures far more representative of real life 'critical focus', at least as far as portraiture is concerned.
-
.... PS. As similar as Manoli and Armand are, it's not quite the same thing
Sorry, unintentional. Corrected.
-
I did say in #89 that I prefer to use the term 'critical focus', as its more descriptive of what we're actually measuring. ...
Bart's figures are based on a max output size/ppi figure for a selected 'quality' setting. In the case of the Fuji that comes to a print size of 16x12 inches, approximately, at 291 ppi. I believe Bart is initially using a CoC quite close to the sensel pitch of the camera.
I get it now: this is what I above called "minimum DOF": measuring what part of the image appears to be in focus even under the closest scrutiny, due to any OOF effects being below the resolution limits of the camera.
So this depends on pixel size as well as format (along with various aspects of the composition) and the numbers you give are comparing Fufillm's 16MP, 24x16mm sensor to what you would get with a 36x24mm sensor of the same pixel size (so 36MP) and then displaying at equal PPI and viewing from the same distance distance.
I have no problem with that as one useful way to think about DOF; it all depends on viewing intent. But some (like Slobodan) should beware of taking this as a DOF difference due to format difference alone! For example, if one compares that Fujifilm camera to the Nikon D4s, with about the same 16MP but in 36x24mm format, Bart's method would get us back to the traditional rule of DOF at equal aperture ratio differing by the format size ratio of 1.5x, and so slightly over one stop higher needed with the D4s to get equal DOF.
So, here are some options that do not require changing format or f-stop:
- if you want more "critical DOF," use a lower resolution sensor, or down-sample (or use a lens of very poor resolving power);
- if you want less "critical DOF", use a higher resolution sensor.
-
Didn't play much with it but seems interesting: http://fujifilmxmount.com/comparison/en/
-
Fujifilm 16mm F1.4 announced: http://www.fujifilm.com/news/n150416.html
I am telling myself I will not buy it but that's what I said about the 14mm F2.8 (too wide), about the 56mm F1.2 (too expensive for how often I need it, I already have the 60mm), about the 10-24mm F4 (too wide, I already have the 14) and about 23mm F1.4 (I already have the 10-24mm). They seem to be pushing a lot of "right" buttons. It is quite expensive though to buy without some actual need.
EDIT
here is a first look: http://www.fujirumors.com/first-look-xf16mmf1-4-r-wr/
-
I already pre-ordered it. My "actual need" is for a fast wide angle lens for work. I like the 14, but f/2.8 is slow for a lot of what I shoot.
-
16mm F1.4, 23mm F1.4, 35mm F1.4, 56mm F1.2.
That's a pretty compelling lineup. Add the future 90mm F2 and the 14mm F2.8 if you need wider and you'd be set with lightish and compact high quality system.
-
On another note I've been using a Voigtlander Nokton 58mm F1.4 and a Samyang 135mm F2 with the Metabones adapters (a normal one and the speed booster ultra).
Manual focus is quite easy on both X-E1 and X-T1, that is if the subject is not small kids running around.
Voigtlander can be be difficult to focus wide open, it might be some field curvature (I'm trying to avoid focus and recompose) and it is softish wide open with a nice bokeh though. It becomes quite sharp when stoping down. It does have plenty of longitudinal chromatic aberration in the right setting. With the Metabones ultra you have the FOV and DOF of a 41mm F1.0. There are a couple of posts in User critiques shot with it.
Samyang is significantly easier to focus (including on a full frame Nikon) and is quite sharp wide open. Very nice lens. As with the Voigtlander I used it mostly with the Metabones Ultra which gives you the DOF and FOV of a 96mm F1.4. A weird thing I've noticed is that on X-E1 (maybe the X-T1 also, I don't recall) is that when it gets to around F5.6 or smaller it changes the WB significantly, making it cooler and with a magenta tint.
-
Fuji lens catalogue: http://www.fujifilm.com/products/digital_cameras/pdf/lenses_accessories_catalogue_01.pdf
-
A review of the 90 mm F2.
What I found very interesting is how facial features change with focal length, I didn't realize a longer focal length tends to widen the face so it might not be the best choice for somebody with a round face. I'll have to do my own testing.
http://billfortney.com/?p=13945
-
. . . What I found very interesting is how facial features change with focal length, I didn't realize a longer focal length tends to widen the face . . .
I had not thought of that, but it makes sense that moving further from the subject makes a bit more of the sides of a subject visible, and by reducing the distance ratio between the front of face and the sides, it changes their proportion in the image size, making the sides proportionately larger. So for two reasons, the sides are more prominent. This is the compliment of the "big nose effect" when one takes a portrait from very close.
Since this is an effect of perspective (due to the different camera position) not focal length per se, I look forward to Ray's analysis.
-
It doesn't "widen" the face. It corrects (widens, if you will) the narrowing of the face that is a result of perspective distortion. If anything, it flattens the face, but mostly with longer focal lenses, 200mm and up. It is often said that about 105mm renders the face in the most natural and flattering way.
-
It doesn't "widen" the face. It corrects (widens, if you will) the narrowing of the face that is a result of perspective distortion. If anything, it flattens the face, but mostly with longer focal lenses, 200mm and up. It is often said that about 105mm renders the face in the most natural and flattering way.
Well, 105mm is a good facial portrait lens on a 135 system, but in other ways focal length really does not affect the rendering of the face ("flat", "wide") at all. Zero. Nada. IT IS ALL ABOUT THE DISTANCE THE PICTURE IS TAKEN FROM. Focal length ONLY affects the framing, assuming the face in in the middle of the frame (no WA corner distortions, that is…).
For some reason I tend to shoot attractive young ladies with 50mm Sigma Art, and wrinkled old gentlemen with 135mm DC Nikkor...
-
Oh, boy, aren't we smart!
-
Oh, boy, aren't we smart!
At least some of us are. ::)
-
... focal length really does not affect the rendering of the face ("flat", "wide") at all. Zero. Nada. IT IS ALL ABOUT THE DISTANCE THE PICTURE IS TAKEN FROM. Focal length ONLY affects the framing, assuming the face in in the middle of the frame...
Yes, of course, it is about the distance. But... that "only" changes everything. Of course focal length DOES affect the rendering of the face, albeit indirectly, WITHIN THE CONTEXT of this discussion. The context being the face not only being in the middle of the frame, but also occupying the same space within the frame (in other words, what is known as "head and shoulders" portrait). That's the constant. In order to achieve that, the only way to vary the distance (and thus "flat" vs. distorted rendering of the face) is to vary the focal length. In THAT context we are saying that medium telephoto lenses (and specifically 105mm) produce the most pleasing rendering of the head and shoulders portrait.
-
Yes, of course, it is about the distance. But... that "only" changes everything. Of course focal length DOES affect the rendering of the face, albeit indirectly, WITHIN THE CONTEXT of this discussion. The context being the face not only being in the middle of the frame, but also occupying the same space within the frame (in other words, what is known as "head and shoulders" portrait). That's the constant. In order to achieve that, the only way to vary the distance (and thus "flat" vs. distorted rendering of the face) is to vary the focal length. In THAT context we are saying that medium telephoto lenses (and specifically 105mm) produce the most pleasing rendering of the head and shoulders portrait.
Slobodan,
Well said, as usual.
Rand
-
... we are saying that medium telephoto lenses (and specifically 105mm) produce the most pleasing rendering of the head and shoulders portrait.
Slobodan, you were doing great up to and including the words "medium telephoto lenses", which seem a concise, well-understood and format agnostic description of what gives "the most pleasing rendering of the head and shoulders portrait", because we all seem to agree that what matters for this are (1) the subject distance (which determines the geometric perspective), and (2) the angular field of view (which largely determines the framing).
But I see nothing but confusion coming from then saying "specifically 105mm", particularly when that is probably not the ideal focal length for the Fujifilm X system, which is the original topic of this thread (see your own subject line). And more generally, not right for most medium format systems [probably too wide], or for the market-dominating "APS-C and smaller" ILC formats [too narrow].
Long live format agnostic descriptions!
-
... But I see nothing but confusion coming from then saying "specifically 105mm", particularly when that is probably not the ideal focal length for the Fujifilm X system, which is the original topic of this thread (see your own subject line). And more generally, not right for most medium format systems [probably too wide], or for the market-dominating "APS-C and smaller" ILC formats [too narrow].
Long live format agnostic descriptions!
Precisely because of the existence of so many different formats, not to mention the weird ones from various MFDB and "medium" format cameras, it makes sense to stick to a proven standard, which is 35mm equivalent (i.e., 24mm x 36mm). Now, you and others might argue that the standard is wrong or that it isn't or shouldn't be the standard, but as long as we do not come up with a better one, this one stays. Some manufactures even engrave it on their lenses (e.g. "35mm equiv.") some have it in their EXIFs.
-
but as long as we do not come up with a better one,
It would be so simple just to engrave 24° or 84°-6° to the lens to describe the diagonal angle of the lens when used in the intended frame size body. Or on fixed lens cameras even better. That would do away with the often misunderstood "equivalency" confusion.
-
It would be so simple just to engrave 24° or 84°-6° to the lens to describe the diagonal angle of the lens when used in the intended frame size body.
Using that angle is one well-established method for describing what is after all officially known as "angular field of view", but maybe a bit difficult for many camera users to adapt to. Fortunately there is another very widely used method of measurement, familiar to almost anyone who has used binoculars, and so very appropriate for telephoto lenses in particular: the magnification (typically about 7x to 10x for binoculars). For cameras could be defined as the ratio of focal length to image diagonal, so that the classic "normal" lens for a format is one of magnification 1x, and one might parse "2x" as "twice as long as a normal lens".
Then a typical short portrait lens is about 2x, or "twice as long as normal" (as with a 85mm with 36x24mm format and its 43mm diagonal). It turns out that most popular lens choices for portraits are in the range from 2x to 3x, or "two to three times normal". The lens that started this thread, the 90mm lens for the Fujifilm X system is on the long side at 3.2x, and Slobodan's recommended 105mm for 36x24mm format is 2.4x.
-
Using that angle is one well-established method for describing what is after all officially known as "angular field of view", but maybe a bit difficult for many camera users to adapt to.
After a while people would get used to it, and after a while it would feel like the only sensible way to describe the angular field of view, now described in all kinds of roundabout ways as "equivalent focal lengths". It is the picture angle we are actually talking about when talking about focal lengths anyway. We need the actual millimeters only when doing focus distance and DOF calculations, and nobody does that anymore...
-
It would be so simple just to engrave 24° or 84°-6° to the lens to describe the diagonal angle of the lens when used in the intended frame size body. Or on fixed lens cameras even better. That would do away with the often misunderstood "equivalency" confusion.
But you would still have the "as applied to a particular aspect ratio" problem. For example, the common wisdom is that 4/3 and m4/3 sensors have a 2x crop factor. But because the 4/3 and FF or APS sensor aspects differ, it is 20mm lens, not a 17.5mm, lens on a 4/3 camera gives the same vertical field of view as a 35mm "FF" lens
-
I take all my photographs, for angular constancy's sake, so that the diagonal aligns with the horizon. That takes care of the annoying frame aspect ratio problem.
-
But you would still have the "as applied to a particular aspect ratio" problem.
That is at most a reason to provide that angle info in the product description but not engraved on it -- just as is done with the "35mm film camera equivalent focal length". But in practice, these days most lenses are used on cameras in the formats for which they are intended; the "crop" issue is mostly restricted to lenses designed for medium format film cameras, now that "APS-C" and Four Thirds cameras are overwhelmingly used with lenses designed for those formats.
For example, the common wisdom is that 4/3 and m4/3 sensors have a 2x crop factor.
That might still be a somewhat common misconception, particularly amongst old-timers who are still most familiar with the 36x24mm format (which most photographers these days are not). But it is at best an anachronism and at worst wrong, since there is no 2x crop involved, except in the rare case that a lens designed for 36x24mm format used via adaptor.
But because the 4/3 and FF or APS sensor aspects differ, it is 20mm lens, not a 17.5mm, lens on a 4/3 camera gives the same vertical field of view as a 35mm "FF" lens
These variations in aspect ratio cause only a modest variation no more than about 10%, and this imprecision applies equally to all the proposed numerical measurements, be it a fake focal length an angle, or a magnification factor. In practice, I doubt that the small variation in the number will cause any real problems: lens choice will always give only approximately the desired field of view, to then be adjusted by changing the subject distance or cropping or zooming or such.
However this imprecision is why for most purposes, I prefer to avoid the false air of precision given by numerical statements like "105mm" or "23%" in favor of more honestly imprecise descriptions like "medium telephoto". Maybe "about twice normal" is sufficiently imprecise.
-
I take all my photographs, for angular constancy's sake, so that the diagonal aligns with the horizon. That takes care of the annoying frame aspect ratio problem.
I prefer to take all mine with the circular sensor that people keep asking for; that makes the angle unambiguously precise, and also eliminates any possible accusation of "sensor cropping".
-
As an aside: advertised focal lengths are not accurate, a 35mm lens might be anything between 33 and 38mm in reality, depending on the design. Many zoom lenses cheat at close focus distances to make construction more compact, 200mm at the closest focus is really 150mm or so.
-
As an aside: advertised focal lengths are not accurate, a 35mm lens might be anything between 33 and 38mm in reality, depending on the design. Many zoom lenses cheat at close focus distances to make construction more compact, 200mm at the closest focus is really 150mm or so.
And on the original subject of head and shoulder portraits: heads vary in size, probably 20% or more with respect to amount of hair alone (as evidenced by my portraits over the years); another example of why we should acknowledge and live with rough measurements, descriptions and guidelines here.
I like thinking of many things (format sizes, angular field of view, dynamic range ...) in "stops", because it seems to me that "half a stop" (a factor of about 20%) is often about the smallest increment that matters in many aspects of taking a photograph -- computer tweaking can then handle the fine tuning of cropping, luminance, or such.
-
Fujifilm 23 1.4
I got to use it quite a lot in a recent trip. While it does not have "special character" it is probably the first mainstream Fuji lens that does everything right (the 14 is similarly good but wider than mainstream, jury is still out on the 56).
Very sharp, even wide open when the extreme corners matter less.
Nicer bokeh than most Fuji lenses; again nothing special but honest pleasant one. It does have a little bokeh fringing but that's not unexpected.
Great aperture. Focuses quite close so even with a 35 mm equivalent you can get very shallow DOF.
Focuses fast enough for most things you would photograph with a 35. Decent for manual focus also.
Can't say I've noticed any significant distortion.
Size is decent, balances very nicely with the X-T1.
I wish it had some extra WR but it seemed to handle ok few raindrops. It is quite expensive though (even with the 200 rebate) but something that seems justified for the quality (with the rebate). You don't really have other options for the Fuji anyway.
-
After using it for about 1 week I can venture to say that the 90 F2 it's probably the first great lens for Fuji.
Really good sharpness: http://slrgear.com/reviews/showproduct.php?product=1801
Where I'm most pleased is with bokeh as it does very well for the majority of the situations, an area where I wasn't that thrilled with the average Fuji offering.
Focus is fast, probably held back more by the camera than by the lens focusing mechanism.
Also has WR for whatever it's worth; in my book it means I can occasionally shoot in the rain without worrying.
Size is manageable on the X-T1, no real problems; might be a little cumbersome on the X-E bodies.
-
+1
-
Another review of the 90: http://www.photozone.de/fuji_x/968-fuji90f2
I didn't realize is heavier than my Nikon 85 F1.8G.
-
Thanks, Armand. That's a good review. I need to hit the lottery to buy all the Fuji goodies I desire this year. ;D
If I may nit pick the review a bit I don't think the Fuji 90 compares to the Canon EF 85mm f/1.8 USM. The Fuji 90 compares much closer to Canon L glass due to build quality, weather sealing and image quality. If you think of L glass and its cost the Fuji seems reasonably priced. Unfortunately Canon doesn't have a an L lens that matches focal length and aperture to the Fuji. The EF L 135 f/2 might be close.
-
I rented the new 100-400mm over the weekend. Definitely a keeper for me, I am going to go out and place my order for one, especially now the bundle with the 1.4x is only $100 more. The lens is big but not as heavy as it looks, handles well. The IS is superb, easy to handhold, used the lens foot as a handle for shooting. I like the window on the hood so you can reach in and rotate a CP, and also 77mm so that will work with my old filters. Took it out on Sat. for drive to look for flowers was a real hazy day with clouds and fog lifting and bright and contrasty sunny condiitions.
a shot at 100mm
(https://farm2.staticflickr.com/1453/25184554885_016233861c_b.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/EntqKx)_DSF1044 (https://flic.kr/p/EntqKx) by Alan Smallbone (https://www.flickr.com/photos/aps-photo/), on Flickr
@400mm handheld
(https://farm2.staticflickr.com/1720/25184555275_4286d9b3de_b.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/EntqSg)_DSF0969 (https://flic.kr/p/EntqSg) by Alan Smallbone (https://www.flickr.com/photos/aps-photo/), on Flickr
Almost no editing on those, been waiting a long while for this lens, it was worth the weight... got to get a new bag...
Alan
-
The lens is big but not as heavy as it looks, handles well.
I see you were shooting an X-T1. How was the autofocus performance? Any additional comments on the handling? Did you also try it on any other Fuji bodies?
I plan to rent one of these myself when the weather warms up here on the East Coast. Having a 150-600mm full-frame equivalent lens for my Fuji bodies definitely intrigues me — even though it is somewhat inconsistent with my rationale for investing in the Fuji X line, which was to have something compact and light to carry around when the subject didn't justify the bulk of a full-frame DSLR.
-
Alan:
Does the IS run all the time like with the 50-140? and is it as loud? I found the IS on the 50-140 a bit noisy, only Fuji lens I have used where this is an issue. So far IS is running all the time on my other Fuji glass.
I noticed that Amazon has the lens only in stock, but B&H is still waiting for the lens.
Interesting that they can include the TC with either the 50-140 or 100-400 for only the $100.00 extra, when the TC by itself is around 449.00. The TC does a good job on the 50-140.
Bring on the X-T2, not going to get the X-Pro2 as I prefer the body of the X-T1 and the extra grip which I feel makes a big difference with the larger lenses. I just realized that the X-Pro bodies have different processing engines than the X-T1. From what I have seen from the X-Pro2 files, (all jpg) Fujii seems to have done a good job just hope that can translate to the X-T2 which I guess won't be out till 2017.
Paul C
-
I see you were shooting an X-T1. How was the autofocus performance? Any additional comments on the handling? Did you also try it on any other Fuji bodies?
I plan to rent one of these myself when the weather warms up here on the East Coast. Having a 150-600mm full-frame equivalent lens for my Fuji bodies definitely intrigues me — even though it is somewhat inconsistent with my rationale for investing in the Fuji X line, which was to have something compact and light to carry around when the subject didn't justify the bulk of a full-frame DSLR.
Yes I was shooting on a X-T1 without the battery grip. It balances well handheld if you hold it by the lens foot. The zoom ring seemed to get stiffer to turn the longer the focal length, it just might be that copy of it. Aperture ring and focus ring were smooth, the aperture ring was nice and tight. The finish was nice the lens foot is real nice and easily detached if desired. IS performance is really excellent, I was able to handhold at low shutter speeds at long focal length easily, like 1/20 to 1/30 was nice a sharp at 400mm. The zoom ring as a lock switch that will lock the zoom ring at its current position, good for travel I guess but I found it did not zoom on its own you needed to move the zoom ring and like postionable. It is also WR but since it is sunny and hot here I did not try that out.
I did not try it on any other body.
Alan
-
Alan:
Does the IS run all the time like with the 50-140? and is it as loud? I found the IS on the 50-140 a bit noisy, only Fuji lens I have used where this is an issue. So far IS is running all the time on my other Fuji glass.
I noticed that Amazon has the lens only in stock, but B&H is still waiting for the lens.
Interesting that they can include the TC with either the 50-140 or 100-400 for only the $100.00 extra, when the TC by itself is around 449.00. The TC does a good job on the 50-140.
Bring on the X-T2, not going to get the X-Pro2 as I prefer the body of the X-T1 and the extra grip which I feel makes a big difference with the larger lenses. I just realized that the X-Pro bodies have different processing engines than the X-T1. From what I have seen from the X-Pro2 files, (all jpg) Fujii seems to have done a good job just hope that can translate to the X-T2 which I guess won't be out till 2017.
Paul C
I did not notice the IS being on all the time and it was quiet. When I rented the 50-140mm I did not notice it either. I have IS set to come on only with a half press of the shutter. There is a setting in the menus to set whether IS runs all the time or only when half pressed, did you have that set?
The bundle with the 1.4x TC is a limited time bundle, it ends on April 2, and prices go back to normal. I thought I saw it on BH in stock the other day I suspect there is run on these for initial shipment. I will get my order in soon. I think the bundle is US only, I would guess to stall people from the US from ordering from Canada because of the exchange rate. When it was first announced Henry's was taking orders at $1899 Canadian for the lens but then the price quickly went up to $2195, the initial price was a bargain with the exchange rate. So then for the US they include the TC for another $100 and that makes it more attractive to US buyers, or at least for me.
I too am looking for the X-T2 and I am sure that is coming or at least I hope it is, I wish it would come out this year. I too decided not to get the X-Pro2, I started with the X-Pro1 and still have mine but I want to sell it. Too many cameras.. I would be surprised if the X-T2 had a different processing engine that the xp2, the xp1 did then they made a faster one for the X-T1, and the X-Pro2 is the next generation which is supposedly much faster. I will probably rent the X-Pro2 and give it a whirl to see how the new sensor performs.
Alan
-
I guess it's not the OIS I hear, but the internal focusing motor, which on the 50-140 seems to run all the time, at least something is running. I had my OIS set the same way only work when the shutter is pressed.
With the 50-140, when you turn on the camera, there is quite a clunk noise, and then a whirring that is heard indoors pretty easily but not so easy to hear outdoors, but something is running all the time. You can switch off the OIS on the lens and turn the camera to M focus mode and the noise is still there.
Paul C
-
Interesting Paul, I have no idea, and even in manual that is strange. Hope you can figure it out.
Alan
-
Just saw on the Fuji Rumors site the updated lens roadmap.
They have an XF 8mm listed. I wonder if this is non fisheye?
Also it seems the TC 2.0 will be shipping soon.
Paul C
-
LensRentals recent teardown of a Fuji XF 55-200 reveals the care and quality of Fuji lenses even on ones that aren't top of the line.
https://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2016/02/the-long-awaited-scary-and-amazing-fuji-lens-teardown
-
Wrong post for this, but it does disappoint me that Fuji has such leading class design (lens/camera) and Firmware support for their products, yet there is still really not a great solution for raw conversions, at least mainstream. LR has it's issues (way to easy to get a painterly file when attempting to get fine details)and so does C1 (bloated conversions with much less overall detail), I don't find that either conversion gets as good a conversion as the in-camera jpgs.
Until something happens along this line, it's hard for me to continue the Fuji Investment. Iridient can do a great job on the files, but I prefer to work more in LR and or C1 as both have much more advanced tools and controls.
And now it's clear that Fuji as two engines out there the X-pro series and the X-T Series EXR processor. So, possibly it's going to be even harder to get an improved solution for raw conversion.
I have not yet found any X-Pro2 files (raw downloads) to look at in LR to see if anything was improved over past processing.
Paul C
-
I have not yet found any X-Pro2 files (raw downloads) to look at in LR to see if anything was improved over past processing.
I think the "problem" is the X-Trans, as opposed to Bayer, sensor. Many developers have learned more and more advanced ways to process Bayer data; fewer have done a great deal with the much less common X=Trans.
-
Wrong post for this, but it does disappoint me that Fuji has such leading class design (lens/camera) and Firmware support for their products, yet there is still really not a great solution for raw conversions, at least mainstream. LR has it's issues (way to easy to get a painterly file when attempting to get fine details)and so does C1 (bloated conversions with much less overall detail), I don't find that either conversion gets as good a conversion as the in-camera jpgs.
Back in June, Adobe's release notes for Lightroom 6.1 reported that the company was working with Fuji to improve the rendering of X-Trans files:
In collaboration with Fujifilm, we are still investigating methods to improve fine detail rendering and overall edge definition.
As far as I know, there has been no further public comment on this effort from either company and I haven't detected any improvement since then in X-Trans processing. In January, after the LR 6.4 release, I posted a query on the Lightroom Journal site (http://blogs.adobe.com/lightroomjournal/2016/01/lightroom-cc-2015-4-6-4-now-available-html.html#comments) requesting a status report. Nobody at Adobe has responded.
-
I have not yet found any X-Pro2 files (raw downloads) to look at in LR to see if anything was improved over past processing.
Paul C
The latest Lr works well for me but I don't try sharpening the files like they're from a Bayer sensor.
Anyway, here's a link if you want an X-Pro 2 RAW file to try.
http://petebridgwood.com/wp/2016/02/x-pro2-render-my-raw/#more-1801
-
I'll be going in backpacking trip in few days and I'm still undecided what lenses to take so I'm curious to hear different points of view.
The area will be a lot of above treeline landscape.
The camera will likely be the X-T2 if I friend with it fast (if not it will be the Olympus E-M5ii and there the lens choices are easier as I don't have many).
The two basic options are:
1: 14mm F2.8 + 18-55mm F2.8-4 +/- 60mm F2.4
2. 10-24mm F4 + 35mm F2 + 60mm F2.4
First option will give me the range I expect to use the most plus a good and light wide.
Second option will give me a lot of flexibility on the wide end and extra weather resistance.
PS. While tempting the 55-200 or the 90 are probably too heavy for what I need.
PPS. If X-T2 I will take the RX100 mark1 as a backup
-
Armand, I love my 10-24 for IQ, OIS and WR. It's a beautiful option for grand landscapes. Its also the only WR lens in your list.
-
I agree with Ron, the 10-24mm is an excellent lens. Have a good trip.
Alan
-
Armand, I love my 10-24 for IQ, OIS and WR. It's a beautiful option for grand landscapes. Its also the only WR lens in your list.
I used it so I know what it can do but the 18-55 range might be more convenient.
While initially I thought so too but the 10-24 is not labeled as WR. The 35 F2 is.
-
The area will be a lot of above treeline landscape.
[ . . . ]
PS. While tempting the 55-200 or the 90 are probably too heavy for what I need.
Weight is always a serious issue for me, too (I suspect I'm somewhat older than you are), but every time I go somewhere without the 55-200, I'm sorry I didn't take it. Great for compressing distant landscape features.
-
Weight is always a serious issue for me, too (I suspect I'm somewhat older than you are), but every time I go somewhere without the 55-200, I'm sorry I didn't take it. Great for compressing distant landscape features.
You are not helping here :D
-
I went backpacking with a student orientation group last month. I took a pair of X-T1 bodies, the 16/1.4 and 35/2 lenses, and the 90mm. I went back and forth for a while on the 55-200 instead of the 90, but eventually figured the weather resistance and faster aperture would be more useful than the versatility of the zoom. All of it fit in an old LowePro waist pack, along with a ton of spare batteries.
The 90 got some use shooting candid portraits, but for the most part the photos (link to gallery (https://www.flickr.com/photos/wfunews/albums/72157672855954896)) are all shot with the other two lenses. Had I been shooting landscapes, I would have taken the 55-200, of course.
Backpacking and long distance hiking are my chief escapes from photography, so I don't have much experience carrying "real" gear on the trail. I was pleasantly surprised by how easy it was to wear the waist pack in front, put on my backpack, and hike with easy access to my cameras. The weight wasn't a big deal (maybe 5 pounds or so?) and the cameras performed well.
-
I'll be going in backpacking trip in few days and I'm still undecided what lenses to take so I'm curious to hear different points of view.
The area will be a lot of above treeline landscape.
The camera will likely be the X-T2 if I friend with it fast (if not it will be the Olympus E-M5ii and there the lens choices are easier as I don't have many).
The two basic options are:
1: 14mm F2.8 + 18-55mm F2.8-4 +/- 60mm F2.4
2. 10-24mm F4 + 35mm F2 + 60mm F2.4
First option will give me the range I expect to use the most plus a good and light wide.
Second option will give me a lot of flexibility on the wide end and extra weather resistance.
PS. While tempting the 55-200 or the 90 are probably too heavy for what I need.
PPS. If X-T2 I will take the RX100 mark1 as a backup
If the weight was not a huge issue, if I was younger and in better shape, I would just take the 10-24, 18-55, and the 55-200mm that would cover all that may happen.......
;D ;D ;D
Alan
-
I tried the 10-24mm recently and it's a very fine lens, I admit though I do like the Tokina 11-16mm for the extra stop at times. Biggest disappointment to me was the 18-135mm lens it's just not close to the Canon/Nikon/Sony equivalents unless I tried a bad copy it was nowhere near as good as the other makers.
-
I tried the 10-24mm recently and it's a very fine lens, I admit though I do like the Tokina 11-16mm for the extra stop at times. Biggest disappointment to me was the 18-135mm lens it's just not close to the Canon/Nikon/Sony equivalents unless I tried a bad copy it was nowhere near as good as the other makers.
Barry, in what way do you think the Canon EF-S 18-135 is better than the Fuji 18-135?? How did you compare them?
-
After all I got the 10-24, 35 F2 and the 18-55.
While they are quite close to each other it will minimize the change of lenses as, depending on the scenery, one will choose itself. The 35 is for simplicity, maybe panos and weather sealing.
Initially I got the 55-200 instead of the 18-55 but it looked just too heavy and with the extra resolution the 85mm equivalent hopefully will be good enough. I will likely miss the occasional wildlife but with the weight savings it's easier to justify bringing the RX100 as a backup.
-
Looks like Fuji added the 16-80 F4 WR on their roadmap, the lens I wanted the most. If they deliver I would be quite happy. By deliver I imply smaller (or at least not bigger) than Oly 12-100 F4 and at least as sharp.
Some might get excited by the 33 F1.0 but that will be more like specialty lens, you have to really want it (or stay only with Fuji) as there are already FF 50 F1.4 lenses which will likely be smaller and with similar IQ.
-
The 16-80mm r4 mockup looks very compact.
https://www.fujirumors.com/first-images-of-fujinon-xf-16-80mm-f4-and-xf-16mm-f2-8/
Looks smaller than the Oly
Let's hope it is less expensive too.
The 200mm F2 looks interesting
-
Looks smaller than the Oly
Olympus is 24-200mm eq that you can buy... Fuji is 24-120mm eq mockup...
-
Olympus is 24-200mm eq that you can buy... Fuji is 24-120mm eq mockup...
Time will tell. Size is just one the characteristics after all, albeit a very important one for a lens of this type. If one looks at the Nikon 16-80 F 2.8-4 for APS-C which is slightly thicker but significantly shorter and about 14% lighter than the Oly 12-100 F4, they can be hopeful. After all the Fuji will be F4 only.
If one looks at the Fuji 16-55 F2.8 than all hope is gone.
-
Size is just one the characteristics after all, albeit a very important one for a lens of this type.
Fuji Rumors has some updated size comparisons (https://www.fujirumors.com/fujinon-xf-16-80mm-f4-and-xf-16mm-f2-8-vs-other-fujinon-lenses-size-comparison/) that reportedly are more accurate than the initial ones. The 16-80mm appears roughly comparable in size to the 10-24mm in these renderings.
I use the Nikon 24-120mm f/4 on my D800E quite frequently—I find it to be a very versatile range—so I'm pleased to see the 16-80 added to the Fuji lens "roadmap."
-
Fuji Rumors has some updated size comparisons (https://www.fujirumors.com/fujinon-xf-16-80mm-f4-and-xf-16mm-f2-8-vs-other-fujinon-lenses-size-comparison/) that reportedly are more accurate than the initial ones. The 16-80mm appears roughly comparable in size to the 10-24mm in these renderings.
I use the Nikon 24-120mm f/4 on my D800E quite frequently—I find it to be a very versatile range—so I'm pleased to see the 16-80 added to the Fuji lens "roadmap."
If this is accurate it's very good news, that size is more than acceptable. It only needs to have good sharpness corner to corner in the F 5.6-11 range and decent rendering.
After all I used the 10-24 very often and the size is fine, I even combined it with the 18-55 on the last hiking trip where I took the Fuji.
-
The 16-80 F4 WR OIS is finally announced.
The weight and size are acceptable to use with a X-T2/3 for hiking/backpacking. Now the optical performance will be the main question. Should be at least in the range on the 18-55 or Nikon's 16-80 2.8-4. Based on the price I'm not sure, for Fuji is on the lower side. Weird, I'm complaining it might be too cheap.
If this is not the one than maybe the new E-M5iii will do the trick, I already have the 12-40 and the 12-100. Or a Sony A7 with the 24-105 F, or if Nikon wakes up a Z6/7 with a 24-120 F4.
-
These samples look good: https://jonasraskphotography.com/2019/07/18/fujinon-xf-16-80mm-f-4-r-ois-wr-first-look-preview/
-
Now the optical performance will be the main question. Should be at least in the range on the 18-55 or Nikon's 16-80 2.8-4. Based on the price I'm not sure, for Fuji is on the lower side. Weird, I'm complaining it might be too cheap.
My impression is that Fuji designed and priced this as a travel lens and as a default leave-it-on-the-camera lens, which is exactly how I use the 24-120mm on my Nikon D800E. It should also make a good companion for the excellent 10-24mm f/4 Fujinon, with more reach than the 18-55mm kit lens but still relatively compact and light. I suspect the claimed six stops of image stabilization is a bit of a stretch, but it sounds like this lens introduces some engineering improvements in Fuji's already quite capable OIS, which will be nice to have—especially when shooting at the long end. I'm encouraged enough to have pre-ordered one.
-
My impression is that Fuji designed and priced this as a travel lens and as a default leave-it-on-the-camera lens, which is exactly how I use the 24-120mm on my Nikon D800E. It should also make a good companion for the excellent 10-24mm f/4 Fujinon, with more reach than the 18-55mm kit lens but still relatively compact and light. I suspect the claimed six stops of image stabilization is a bit of a stretch, but it sounds like this lens introduces some engineering improvements in Fuji's already quite capable OIS, which will be nice to have—especially when shooting at the long end. I'm encouraged enough to have pre-ordered one.
That would be the concept, we'll have to see how well they managed to pull it.
This would cover most of the range that you need during hiking. You can add the 10-24 for when you need wider and the 55-200 for telephoto k the latter is an opportunity for another F4 zoom, a 80-250 or so.
For city travel add 1-2 primes.
-
These samples look good: https://jonasraskphotography.com/2019/07/18/fujinon-xf-16-80mm-f-4-r-ois-wr-first-look-preview/
not a single brick wall ;D !
-
The 16-80 f4 could be a very interesting lens... If it's got the image quality of Fuji's excellent little 18-55 f2.8-4. Unlike that lens, it's weather sealed. A little extra on the wide end (a true 24mm equivalent - the 18-55 is occasionally annoying when one forgets that it's not, and it doesn't go quite as wide as expected). Some real extra reach...
It doesn't have the f2.8 at the wide end, but I've owned two 18-55s, and I still forget they're not f4 throughout the range (it becomes f4 quickly enough that I just treat it as an f4 lens).
If the IQ is the same or better, the modest increase in size and weight is well worth it for the true 24mm equivalent, the reach at the long end and the weather sealing! Hopefully, it has the IQ of the 18-55, rather than the (decent, but nothing special) 18-135.
-
The 16-80 is out, looking to see more real world results but so far it does look disappointing. Even by their MFTs the edges don't look great: https://www.fujifilm.com/products/digital_cameras/x/fujinon_lens_xf16_80mmf4_r_ois_wr/specifications/
I still have a little hope but considering that this is the cheapest larger aperture 24-120 equiv for any system than it's not that surprising. I was hoping to be similar to the Nikon 16-80 but it doesn't look like that's going to be the case (and this was not a very high bar to start with).
-
I still have a little hope but considering that this is the cheapest larger aperture 24-120 equiv for any system than it's not that surprising. I was hoping to be similar to the Nikon 16-80 but it doesn't look like that's going to be the case (and this was not a very high bar to start with).
So far, I'd say more like the Nikon 24-120mm f/4: decent, not exceptional. As a travel lens replacement for the 18-55mm, with better reach and weather-sealed, it works for me. You could cover the same range with higher image quality with several of the Fuji primes, obviously. This is a convenience lens.
-
My travel lenses are the 18-55 and 55-200. Used them for a ploughing match I was asked to photograph for a local magazine last weekend; editor (ex national paper) v pleased and they will be centre spread in next issue. Great fun, very muddy & had to be pulled out of car park field by a tractor. I have various primes for critical work. My standard prime for portraits is the 56, great lens IMHO. I am surprised by how much I use the 90. I bought a used 14 a couple of months ago, and am pleased. When I asked the retailer why people got rid of 14s (he'd had 6 in the last 12 months) he said its 'cos they don't know how to compose with a wide angle; their loss my gain!
Best wishes,
Jonathan
-
Used them for a ploughing match
Is that anything like a Plowing Bee here in the states. The farmers all get together and and plow a field paying attention to keeping the rows straight, etc. It is a social event and local to an areas farming community. Children are in abundance riding the tractors with their fathers, mothers, or grandparents. It is great to see the traditions being passed on. No big fancy new tractors allowed, in my area the tractors are all 1959 or older. I have fond memories of the father in his 70's with is son in his 40's on dads 1936 restored Case. Biggest grins you would ever want to see, like two schoolboys on their first joy ride. Or our tractor lady, has six of them and has to haul them in on a big flat bed. Or the farmer in his 70's with a meticulously restored John Deere that he learned to drive on when he was a boy. Farmers love their tractors. Lots of photo opportunities. I greatly enjoy them and I am a city boy.
-
I guess it is like a Plowing Bee. All ages of tractor, plus horses. Lots of photo opportunities. Attached are a few samples from the recent one. The one with the two horses is titled, 'Thanks, Pal, we did a good job.'
Best wishes,
Jonathan
-
I guess it is like a Plowing Bee. All ages of tractor, plus horses. Lots of photo opportunities. Attached are a few samples from the recent one. The one with the two horses is titled, 'Thanks, Pal, we did a good job.'
Best wishes,
Jonathan
It's so refreshing to see some natural looking images that evoke the past. Nice work.
JR
-
Plowing Bee this year was postponed due to weather. Rescheduled for today. I am about to leave for event. I am looking forward to a great day.
Yes they are about the same thing, except no horses here.
Larry
-
I had a great time. Took 1100 photos that is why I have not replied sooner, only about half way done.
Attached photo is of the organizer so I took extra time with it, 2 hours. There was little to no sky that is why it took so long, recovery not a swap.
I have many more fine photos will post some when finished.
Larry
-
...
I am surprised by how much I use the 90. I bought a used 14 a couple of months ago, and am pleased. When I asked the retailer why people got rid of 14s (he'd had 6 in the last 12 months) he said its 'cos they don't know how to compose with a wide angle; their loss my gain!
Best wishes,
Jonathan
I find it much easier to compose with a telephoto than with a wide angle, although 21mm equiv is still within my reach. The problem with the 90 is that it is as big as the 55-200 so I only take it when I know why I want it instead of the 55-200 (mostly drawing and DOF) despite being the best of the Fuji primes that I've used.
The silver lining is that the new rumored X-T4 will have IBIS which will make the 90 (and all primes) more appealing for non-people stuff.
I'm still confused by the 16-80 though, the reviews are slightly less critical than initially but I cannot get a clear answer if it's as good as the 18-55. It seems that the center is sharper but the corners are worse and the wide ranges, 16-20 and 55-70, which would be half the reason to get it over the 18-55 besides WR, are the worst. For my hiking and therefore landscape use this doesn't sound good enough. I'm trying to narrow myself to one system mainly instead of 3 and none is capable so far to get out what I want.
-
I'm still confused by the 16-80 though, the reviews are slightly less critical than initially but I cannot get a clear answer if it's as good as the 18-55. It seems that the center is sharper but the corners are worse and the wide ranges, 16-20 and 55-70, which would be half the reason to get it over the 18-55 besides WR, are the worst.
I haven't performed any rigorous comparative tests, but your summary seems consistent with my subjective experience.
I've always been quite pleased with the sharpness and contrast of the 18-55mm as well as the other Fuji zooms I own, and that's not my reaction to the 16-80mm. I haven't used the 16-80mm much yet because I haven't been traveling since I acquired it, but it's clearly not in the same league as the 10-24mm or the 55-200mm and, at its best (e.g., stopped down to f/8), I think it might be comparable to the 18-55mm within the same range.
The weather sealing appears to be excellent; that's one attribute which definitely isn't a disappointment. I'm also very impressed with the image stabilization, which is more effective than any of the other Fuji zooms I've used by maybe one stop. And I like the form-factor: on an X-T3, it doesn't really feel much bulkier or heavier than the 18-55mm (although of course it actually is both).
My advice would be to wait until it becomes available as a rental—that shouldn't be long now—then try it for a week to see how it works for the kind of shooting you do. Or perhaps the OpticalLimits (https://www.opticallimits.com/) (Photozone) site will review it; I've found their analyses to be quite reliable.