Pages: 1 ... 5 6 [7] 8 9 10   Go Down

Author Topic: Fuji X Lenses  (Read 70328 times)

Ken Bennett

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1752
    • http://www.kenbennettphoto.com
Re: Fuji X Lenses
« Reply #120 on: April 17, 2015, 08:53:39 am »

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.
Logged
Equipment: a camera and some lenses.

armand

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3308
    • Photos
Re: Fuji X Lenses
« Reply #121 on: April 17, 2015, 09:09:47 am »

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.

armand

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3308
    • Photos
Re: Fuji X Lenses
« Reply #122 on: April 17, 2015, 09:31:29 am »

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.

armand

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3308
    • Photos
Re: Fuji X Lenses
« Reply #123 on: May 20, 2015, 10:36:28 pm »

armand

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3308
    • Photos
Re: Fuji X Lenses
« Reply #124 on: May 22, 2015, 09:40:36 am »

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

BJL

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 6418
Camera further from a subject shows a bit more of the sides
« Reply #125 on: May 22, 2015, 10:30:56 am »

. . . 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.
Logged

Slobodan Blagojevic

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 14436
  • When everyone thinks the same, nobody thinks
    • My website
Re: Fuji X Lenses
« Reply #126 on: May 22, 2015, 10:43:19 am »

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.

Petrus

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 909
Re: Fuji X Lenses
« Reply #127 on: May 24, 2015, 07:26:16 am »

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...
Logged

Slobodan Blagojevic

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 14436
  • When everyone thinks the same, nobody thinks
    • My website
Re: Fuji X Lenses
« Reply #128 on: May 24, 2015, 11:23:28 am »

Oh, boy, aren't we smart!

Petrus

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 909
Re: Fuji X Lenses
« Reply #129 on: May 24, 2015, 12:00:00 pm »

Oh, boy, aren't we smart!

At least some of us are.  ::)
Logged

Slobodan Blagojevic

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 14436
  • When everyone thinks the same, nobody thinks
    • My website
Re: Fuji X Lenses
« Reply #130 on: May 25, 2015, 12:20:17 pm »

... 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.

Rand47

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1536
Re: Fuji X Lenses
« Reply #131 on: May 25, 2015, 01:14:37 pm »

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
Logged
Rand Scott Adams

BJL

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 6418
Fuji X Lenses -- where a medium telephoto lens is about 70mm, not 105mm
« Reply #132 on: May 25, 2015, 04:11:18 pm »

... 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!
Logged

Slobodan Blagojevic

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 14436
  • When everyone thinks the same, nobody thinks
    • My website
Re: Fuji X Lenses
« Reply #133 on: May 25, 2015, 04:43:26 pm »

... 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.


Petrus

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 909
Re: Fuji X Lenses
« Reply #134 on: May 26, 2015, 01:55:59 am »

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.
Logged

BJL

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 6418
angle for the tech savvy, or magnification as with binoculars
« Reply #135 on: May 26, 2015, 10:53:33 am »

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.
Logged

Petrus

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 909
Re: angle for the tech savvy, or magnification as with binoculars
« Reply #136 on: May 26, 2015, 12:01:57 pm »

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...
Logged

AFairley

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1486
Re: Fuji X Lenses
« Reply #137 on: May 26, 2015, 12:42:21 pm »

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
Logged

Petrus

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 909
Re: Fuji X Lenses
« Reply #138 on: May 26, 2015, 12:51:43 pm »

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.
Logged

BJL

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 6418
Re: Fuji X Lenses
« Reply #139 on: May 26, 2015, 01:37:55 pm »

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.
Logged
Pages: 1 ... 5 6 [7] 8 9 10   Go Up