>FUJIFILM 23mm f/1.4 R Can any Fuji friends with this lens

If you've actually lurked a bit more you would've known this retarded thread doesn't belong here fuckstain.

Just fuck off.

>>3036361
It's shit
A larger sensor offers much better wide angle performance.

>>3036361
It's awesome, IQ is excellent, low light performance is superb, absolutely wonderful for travel photography. AF is fast as far as I'm concerned, just a great all rounder

Fuck the haters, they are sonycucks and idiots.

23mm f1.4 is the only lens I use, I'll post pics later as I'm in work.

File: 32242324165_0204fbda7c_b.jpg (282KB, 1024x683px) Image search: [Google]

282KB, 1024x683px

>>3036388
Yeah I like it, I bought a used one for $400 which was a total steal

File: 30745298804_771de9c87f_b.jpg (177KB, 1024x768px) Image search: [Google]

177KB, 1024x768px

>>3036361

File: 32242323335_5d9e94d601_b.jpg (123KB, 683x1024px) Image search: [Google]

123KB, 683x1024px

>>3036427

File: 31432178433_da23a9c4fb_b.jpg (222KB, 1024x683px) Image search: [Google]

222KB, 1024x683px

>>3036427
Here's a portrait

File: 32123586671_8a795349a7_b.jpg (152KB, 1024x683px) Image search: [Google]

152KB, 1024x683px

>>3036427
Not sure why the exif data isn't showing up. Lightroom must have messed with my settings again

>>3036374
A lens is is worse than a sensor? Whoo laddy, what in the fuck are you smoking?

>>3036361
Got one for 650€, it is my favourite lens. It has good enough image quality at all apertures and distances. Nice smooth transitions. Focus is a little on the slow side comparing to the 23/2, but I've never had any actual problems. Only downside is the size on smaller bodies, but on my xt1 it balances well enough.

>>3036426
Congratulations on your new lens! I got mine for £380, I'd never spend more than 400 - but you got a great deal.

I'll agree with >>3036450 it's a little on the T H I C C side, but it feels so good in the hand, like a real lens should. The focal length is perfect for travel, can't find a single fault with mine.

Fujibros--

How much of the 18mm f/2's bad reputation (focusing speed mainly?) was down to the bodies? Is it any better on an x-pro2? I should likely go to a shop and try one out; but that'll hardly say anything about low light ISO5000 like you'd shoot at f/2.

>>3036455
>>How much of the 18mm f/2's bad reputation (focusing speed mainly?) was down to the bodies?
Not much.
It's down to the lens being the worst lens in the lineup. A large part of it is the first gen motor. The optics are the poorest of any lens in their lineup too. It has huge problems with CA and sharpness. The 18-55 with OIS is better on all fronts but lens speed and size.

I'd wait for the MKII.

>>3036456
A truly terrible lens

http://fujifilm-x.com/x-stories/4-years-passed-by-eric-bouvet/

>>3036456
>>3036457

God damn, I knew it was bad, but not that bad, sounds like sony's terribad 16mm.

Has anyone made a good aps-c or larger mirrorless pancake yet?

>>3036455
18mm is Fuji's shamfur dispray lens. I'm a big Fuji fan, but after trying it, I was quite surprised how crap it was. I also had the 35mm f2 which I was playing with, and ironically I normally go for 28mm eqv. lenses, but the 18 was such a let down. The 35mm doe... what an awesome lens. Pointless if you have the 23...

>>3036456
Cheers. I'll wait for the mk2, and/or for an appropriately discounted used copy to appear.

>>3036457
>marketing material from manufacturer
>anything with "stories"

If there were any of the optics' characteristic flaws in these photos, they'd've been edited out pre-publication.

>>3036464

Speaking of 35mm, the older 35mm f 1.4 is supposed to be pretty mediocre from what I read too. Any experience with it?

>>3036468
It's OK, but nowhere near as popular as the 35 f2 - I think they even go for more on ebay that the 1.4! It's a small lens, and for the size it gives incredible IQ. Very snappy auto-focus, and I'm so tempted in getting one but I'm literally torn since I have the 23 1.4.


The 23 f1.4 has snuffed out any gear lust I have, there is little point in getting anything else as it just works on so many subjects.

You can't really go wrong with ANY fuji lenses - they're all amazing.

I prefer the old lineup as they're optically corrected and just have something special in their rendering. The autofocus hunts in low light, but i'm more of a manual focus guy.

The new f2 lineup have the advantage of being small, "weather resistant" and have lightning fast autofocus.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1Pf-DHzf6rg

>>3036464
Sounds like you just suck with 28mm equiv and blame it on the lens my man

>>3036500
Sorry fampai, but I exclusively shot with a 28 on a film camera for nearly a decade so that assertion goes into the bin of stupid.

>>3036502
post pics

File: CNV00020.jpg (649KB, 1818x1228px) Image search: [Google]

649KB, 1818x1228px

>>3036504

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	FUJIFILM Corporation
Camera Model	Frontier SP-3000
Camera Software	FUJIFILM Corporation FEII software
Maker Note Version	0130
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	72 dpi
Vertical Resolution	72 dpi
Image Created	2016:06:12 11:57:53
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	1818
Image Height	1228

>>3036515
Scan is shit. Thank my local Boots.

File: 016665daf5a11f80731545d9006ffa48e659a4142e (2).jpg (53KB, 719x480px) Image search: [Google]

53KB, 719x480px

Are the focus rings any good? I was thinking of getting one of the interchangeable lens Fujis. I have an OG x100 and the focus by wire kills me, mostly because it's got a weird almost mouse acceleration type feel to it.

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	Apple
Camera Model	iPad mini
Camera Software	9.3.2
Sensing Method	One-Chip Color Area
Focal Length (35mm Equiv)	33 mm
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution	72 dpi
Vertical Resolution	72 dpi
Image Created	2017:03:01 15:10:23
Exposure Time	1/15 sec
F-Number	f/2.4
Exposure Program	Normal Program
ISO Speed Rating	320
Lens Aperture	f/2.4
Brightness	-0.1 EV
Exposure Bias	0 EV
Metering Mode	Spot
Flash	No Flash Function
Focal Length	3.30 mm
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	2301
Image Height	1536
Exposure Mode	Auto
White Balance	Auto
Scene Capture Type	Standard

>>3036518
If you pick up a new body the af is 100 times better than the x100. But the focus ring on the 23/1.4 is pretty decent

>>3036521
Nice, cheers. I wasn't thinking new-new, XT-1 maybe, something like that. The digital split image sounds great if the manual focusing feels okay, another step closer to making digital shooting feel a bit more like film shooting. I guess maybe it works better with a lens with hard stops on the focusing?

>>3036523
https://jonasraskphotography.com/2014/08/31/x-vintage1-my-fujifilm-x-t1-review-part-two/

>>3036518

It is all the terrible focus by wire with accelerstion right?

Wish it was a customizable dial...

>>3036483
>You can't really go wrong with ANY fuji lenses - they're all amazing.

18mm is shit, 10-24mm really lacks all high frequency resolution, 27mm doesn't have an aperture ring and gave me really strange rendering of high contrast edges. 35mm 1.4 is sub-par in terms of CA and softness below f/4 for the price it commands, even used for some reason. 35 2.0 was... I guess I'd say really unenthusiastic? I can't find a good way to put it. Wide open fairly sharp... (damn well should be at f/2.8 equivalent) ...unless you're focused below 3m away where it gets soft in a very strange way.

>>3036361
Good Fuji lenses are the 60mm macro, 23mm 1.4, 56mm just because it's special, 55-250 was by far my favorite. A fucking gem. Sublime aperture, stabilization and focusing speed.

>>3036518
Fuji is 100% focus by wire, and it feels terrible. One of my reasons for returning to Canon but FF with CY lenses and a sigma for my walkaround.

I love my 23 1.4. Sharp, nice bokeh, adequate focus speed and good accuracy. (On an X-Pro2.)

I also have the 56 1.2 (non-APD) and that's even better, but much less versatile.

For a wide, I currently have the Rokinon 12/2 and it's pretty good for the money. I don't shoot ultrawide very often but when I need an UWA I NEED a UWA, so cheap and sharp suits me perfectly.

>>3036711
There's no 55-250, do you mean the 55-200 or the 50-230? I got the latter for free when I bought my XP2 (part of a camera expo special deal) and I've been pleasantly surprised with it. It feels really cheap but the optical quality and OIS are a cut above similar lenses for DSLRs. I'm planning on eventually getting the 50-140, and expected to have to get one pretty soon after buying my XP2, but the 50-230 has actually been doing well enough that I may just stick to renting the 50-140 when I really need it.

F U J I

>>3036711
>Good Fuji lenses are the 60mm macro

opinion discarded

>>3037173

Will Fuji ever make a good macro?

>>3036450
Yes, wide angle designs are much more difficult as the sensor gets smaller and you need an ever decreasing flange space to prevent bulky, low quality retrofocal designs.

>>3037262
>will fuji ever make a good lens
Is a better question

>>3037272

>will fuji ever make a good lens

Aren't most of them decent enough? I mean, they have vignetting issues and require lens profile corrections, but they are all passably sharp, at least in the center, right?

>>3037280
Nearly all have to be stopped down past f5,6 to start to get remotely sharp towards the edges, their transmission is typically half a stop less than the aperture, the 56 1.2 is t1.5, dropping to 1.7 with apd! Spherical aberrations errywhere, no future due to tiny image circle, massively overpriced.

>>3037280
>>3037280
You're reasoning with the local sonygger - don't expect any kind of rational response.

>>3037282
I'm sure they're smart enough to make up their own mind, all the information I've posted can be verified with a quick google search.

Unless of course logic and proof weren't what you were after ;)

>>3037281

So it sorta sounds like I was right. not L glass, but good for the majority of casual photographers, if a little overpriced.

I mean, it isn't like anyone is buying a mirrorless body for its performance or professional shooting.

>>3037283
>I'm sure they're smart enough

No it's just rabid blind fanboyism. The funny thing is that I have no issues with Sony, I'm impressed with their stuff - but someone has to be a turd in the punchbowl and shit on other people's preferences.

>>3037272
>fuji 6400 iso 1/15s f5.6
>sony 6400 iso 1/20s f5.6
>same exposure
defend this fuji cucks.

>>3037290

Aren't Fuji ISO designations quite off compared to everyone elses?

>>3037291
Yeah, they lie about them by nearly a whole stop so they could be put side by side with full frame and claim there's hardly a difference.

Why trust a company that labels things differently purely to confuse the consumer into thinking they have a better quality product than they actually do.

Also notice how fuji don't allow dxo to test their x mount stuff any more. Fuji currently pay dxo to stay away.

I'm not a fanboi of any brand, what I will do is call out shit companies on shitty things they do to their customers.

>>3037173
The 60mm is good. The bad things are the focus motor, it's erection problems and the infinite focus throw in MF.
>>3037262
No.

>>3037281
Nearly every lens ever made has a T-stop slower than its mathematical aperture. There's a reason cine lenses are marked in T-stops and not F-stops.

Anyway, way to nitpick the 56 apart based on issues that are irrelevant to its intended use. It's a portrait lens meant to be shot wide open. The edges and corners will be out of focus anyway, and half a T-stop doesn't matter because you're still getting f/1.2 DoF. It's extremely sharp where it needs to be, and renders good-looking images.

>>3037298
>still getting f1.2 dof
Lol, no, you're on crop, it's more like f2.

And yeah, t tends to be slower than f, by .1 or .2, not the .5's+ fuji manage. Sony 55 1.8 and 28 f2 both have t values that match their f values, so we know compact, high quality, non lossy, small, fast mirrorless lenses are possible.

The sony 55 1.8 is designed as a portraiture lens, it's sharp at the edges wide open, has a larger image circle and is sharper than anything fuji have.

>Fuji pay dxo not to test their shit

I love this meme

>>3036429
lol terrible
sony a6000 with kit lens would do better

>>3037290
>>3037291
>>3037292
Pro tip: ISO is not actually a standard.

>>3037292
>Also notice how fuji don't allow dxo to test their x mount stuff any more. Fuji currently pay dxo to stay away.

Anything to prove that shit? No? Thought so. Dxo doesn't test fuji because their sw can't understand xtrans sensor data.

Fuji is by far the most user friendly company out there. They actually listen their customers.

>>3037299
You don't apparently know how dof or circle of confusion work. The dof of xx/1.2 is what it is. The APPARENT dof depends on object distance and size of the projected image. If you shoot with the same lens on ff and crop on the same settings and same distance and crop the ff picture to match the smaller sensor, the apparent dof is the same. Knowledge!

Zeiss (not sony) 55 1.8 has pretty good sharpness and amazing amount of spherochromatism that make color pics wide open look like ass.

It's kind of funny how (talentless hacks) people get so hung up on gear and lens sharpness when those should usually be the least of their worries considering the quality of the pictures they produce.

>>3037449
>Pro tip: ISO is not actually a standard.

It literally is my dude.

>>3037449
>Dxo doesn't test fuji because their sw can't understand xtrans sensor data.

Then why not just use one of their non-z-trans bodies?

Seems like a poor excuse.

>>3037449
>If you shoot with the same lens on ff and crop on the same settings and same distance and crop the ff picture to match the smaller sensor, the apparent dof is the same.

Yes, but that is not how lenses are usually compared. Instead of comparing 35mm on crop and cropped 35mm on ff, the 35mm on crop is usually compared to a 50mm on FF. If both lenses are F 1.8, the depth of field will be considerably different.

Knowledge!

>>3037449
>ISO is not actually a standard.

So....what do you think the "S" stands for in ISO?

>>3037454
Well, there is an iso standard considering film speed and digital interpretation of it, however the electrical amplification and the way to determine the numerical values are all over the place. There's 5 different ways in the standard to calculate these values and it's up to the manufacturer to decide what to use.

>>3037456
So because some firm doesn't care to test some line of products this crazy conspiracy theory with no base in reality is much more likely to be true!

>>3037460
Whoopdy fucking doo. The dof is still the same. Bokeh whores are the worst.

>>3037461
>>3037454
Read up: http://theonlinephotographer.typepad.com/the_online_photographer/2012/09/why-iso-isnt-iso.html

>>3037475
>The dof is still the same.

But it isn't unless you are comparing the same focal lenght and then cropping the FF. Which is flat out retarded.

>>3037468

I feel like I've written this exact sentence on /p/ several times in the past.

>>3037475

Not new info, dude. Just because it's five standards doesn't mean it's not a standard.

>not getting 200mm dof with normal lens FOV
4x5 master race, get on my level digifags

>>3037492
f6.3

File: 305 f2.5.jpg (96KB, 785x588px) Image search: [Google]

96KB, 785x588px

>>3037526
>not shooting 300mm f2.5

>peepers

Fuji has amassing lenses and there's nothing you sonikonanon fags can do about it.

>>3037528
Oh wow you found one lens which is rare, expensive, and technically worse than half frame due to it never being intended for artistic photography of any kind
Gj f a m

>>3037575

they're like $400 on fleabay my man.

>>3037578
That's because those are all covered in fungus, friend
Not to mention it only works well with one 4x5 camera which is a total shithouse of a camera

I'm a 4x5 shooter btw but your reasons are retarded. I would rather shoot MFT with 0.95 lenses if I wanted borkheh

>>3037629
Please adopt a trip. I'l like to follow your posts more closely.

>>3037667
Fuck you

>>3037629

Your speedgraphic snapshits don't make you a "4x5 shooter" my man.

File: IMG_5492-768x432.jpg (80KB, 768x432px) Image search: [Google]

80KB, 768x432px

>>3037629
>MFT w/ 0.95

Yea, don't you love aperture equivalency?

>>3036374
>>3037272
So what you're saying is that instead of using this excellent lens on a fuji camera, you should plonk a larger sensor on it? You make so much sense.

>>3037449
>iso is not a standard
Not officially, but why have it different to every other mfg except to confuse the customer?

>their sw can't do xtrans
You believe that dxo can't shoot a test chart because xtrans? Lol, you dumb.

>you don't know how dof works
Ok, so if we're taking the "same" photo with your fuji 56mm on crop and my sony 55 on ff, do we stand in the same spot? No, you have to move back, thus increasing the dof. Why am I cropping my image to apsc size, sony aren't permagimped like that.

>zeiss not sony
Nope, it's a zeiss design but made by sony

It's funny how those that don't know shit flock to fuji.

>>3037456
Because it's a lie, why don't they just use the little bit of sw from iridient that turns rafs into raws that work right in every image sw package including dxo?

>>3037468
Yeah, there's the way everyone else does it, which keeps sunny 16 looking like it should, or there's the underexposed fuji way. Again, why be different on a standard?

>>3037475
It's not the first time a company has done all they can to stop their objectively worse product getting slated.

>the dof is still the same
No you fucking clown shoes, just look at 2 photos from different lenses, notice how the longer lens has more compression and smoother bokeh? You can have that too with a larger sensor.

>>3037491
But never answered why you'd buck the trend except to confuse the consumer.

>>3037575
>kodak aero ektar
>no good for photography
Lol, spot the new kid.

>>3037733
No, I'm saying if you want decent wa performance, your best option is to sell all your fuji gear.

>>3037715
Anti sony fags will defend the pen f even though it costs more despite the quarter size sensor and dying format.

>>3037715
>f2.4 equivalent
>larger

File: standards.png (24KB, 500x283px) Image search: [Google]

24KB, 500x283px

>>3037758

>But never answered why you'd buck the trend except to confuse the consumer.

This is why.

>>3037768
Theres not 15 iso standards though, there's the one everyone but fuji use and there's the one fuji use.

No one said a new standard should be made, there's no reason to choose one over another, except to mislead the customer.

Why support a company that deliberately misleads you?

>>3037774

There are five different standards my man.

>>3037758
funny that fuji users take more and better photos

>>3037774
Because the whole argument is irrelevant to all except gearfags and noobs who don't know how to use their shit? And because people enjoy using their products? Why do you (especially sony-) fags care so much about what other people do?

>>3037492
just wait for my gfx large format speed booster.

>>3037777
No, there's the one everyone uses and then there's fuji.

>>3037779
Not on this board they don't

>>3037799
If it's irrelevant, why not stick to the industry standard? The sole purpose of this is to make fuji look better relatively in high iso tests, why else would they do that? It's like buying a vw based on it's emission ratings in a 2012 parkers guide.

>ISO in the digital age

It's just a fucking brightness control you utter fucking spergs.

Fuck off to DPR the lot of you.

>>3037820
This right here, no one gives a fuck about ISO when you get the results you want.

>>3037820
>It's just a fucking brightness control

So give me one reason why not to go with the industry standard? Why do all fujicucks turn this question into "it's arbitrary so it doesn't matter", despite everyone else saying it's a set standard. You are the sovereign citizens of the camera world.

>>3037821
again, so why not give the same iso as every other mfg? Why change it?

>>3037822
triggering faggots for attention to gain market share seems to work
its why sony hired an autist

>>3037822
Why do sonyggers have such a hard on for defending their consumer choices? They are giving money to sony to shill for them? Seems pretty sad.

>>3037834
What's my question got to do with Sony?
this is just Fuji vs everyone else.

>>3037822
Which standard? Not that you're capable of grasping this but they can do whatever they fucking like as long as middle grey is somewhere within an agreed range. If they want to set their metering to protect highlights who the fuck are you to say they're wrong.

Again. The information you seek is on DPR. Not here.

>>3037836
>they can do whatever they fucking like

yes, but you are still ignoring the question, WHY would Fuji decide on a different standard to EVERYONE else. What logical reason would they have to do so? This was a conscious choice by Fuji.

And Fuji don't underexpose unless you use their DR saving modes, which works the same as any other brands tonemap mode. the wonky iso is irrelevant here.

>>3037837
>metering

Seriously, do your own fucking research.

>>3037839
please explain what metering has to do with an arbitrarily assigned value.

Why is it team Fuji have such problems processing logical issues.

>>3037837

Hey buddy

Are you saying that if I turn off the DR "saving modes" (200% at 400iso and 400% at 800iso) then I won't have to shoot at +1 expo comp??

>>3037842
What I would say before that is, don't shoot in meme jpeg modes.

>>3037846

I shoot in RAW + jpg

>>3037840
It's your question that's illogical - I already told you everything you need to know to work out why they do it for yourself. If you want to feel triggered about it there's not a lot I can do.

You realise all Fuji raws come with a raw exposure bias instruction?

Why do you think that is?

File: Screen Shot 2017-03-12 at 14.33.39.png (1MB, 1712x558px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 1712x558px

>>3037846
Jpegs are not a meme.
Left is raw, right is JPEG.
Look at how godly the Fuji skin tones are, I had to shoot 30 head shots like this recently and If I only used raw, would have to hand edit each one to get nice skin tones.

I will post a few.

File: Screen Shot 2017-03-12 at 14.36.21.png (1MB, 1718x574px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 1718x574px

>>3037859
This time jpeg is left, raw is right.

I shoot JPEG + Raw and normally use the raws for wildlife, abstract, nature, landscapes, cityscapes and architecture.

Then JPEG for portraits, I just make sure to get it right in camera.

File: Final test.jpg (2MB, 2794x1446px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 2794x1446px

>>3037860
Left is raw, right is JPEG

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop CC 2017 (Macintosh)
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	144 dpi
Vertical Resolution	144 dpi
Image Created	2017:03:12 14:42:33
Color Space Information	Uncalibrated
Image Width	2794
Image Height	1446

>>3037822
>You are the sovereign citizens of the camera world.


That's right, feels good nigga.

>>3037837
Why don't you ask them about it since you're so obsessed with this most egregious of injustices of all time?

>Sonyautist:

>B-BUT T-THE ISO!! THE ISO!!!
>MUH B-BINS!!
>D-DOF!!!
>F-F-FUJI C-KEK!!!

>Fuji users:

*Outside actually taking pictures*

>>3037867
Except well, you.

Cuckold.

>>3036468

It's a pretty magical lens desu. Love the results.

Don't love the slow as fuck AF/focus hunting and how goddamn loud the thing is. Not just the AF motor but constant aperture chatter.

>>3037861
>>3037860
>>3037859

This is bait, right?

File: 4E5FC1F2-9D9B-4A7B-849A-2CF1EDB2BE17-1970-0000029F6473C87A_tmp.jpg (637KB, 1333x2000px) Image search: [Google]

637KB, 1333x2000px

>>3037888
I can see where he's coming from, just a little bright for my tastes.

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:

Image-Specific Properties:

>>3037888
Not bait in the slightest, I'm sharing my workflow with you.

The skin has better tone and better dynamic range, this is a fact. To them to look that good in post is extra work I'm not being paid for nor do I need to do.

I'm not saying Jpeg for everything, but it certainly has it's place.

File: FUJIFILM.png (990KB, 1280x720px) Image search: [Google]

990KB, 1280x720px

kek fujoos got a lot more to worry about than iso cheating

>>3037907
What's troubling you now moop?

>>3037865
I did, the fuji rep responded that he didn't know there's any difference.

>>3037905
All those shots look like trash tier trash tho famalam

>>3037920
Mind posting some of your portraits so I can get some pointers? I did say I had to shoot 30 crew headshots in 20min, It's not like this is high-end fashion lol. And I'm talking about skin tones, nothing more.

>>3037930

Not him, but I tjought the skin tone looked better in the raw. Jpeg looked orange. I had to go try a second computer to make sure it wasn't just bad calibration.

>>3037934
>>3037930

Oh and part of the reason your raws aee off is probably the color profile.

Adobe applies it's own terrible color profile which seems to ruin every image it touches. Just change it back to your cameras and they will most likely look better.

File: DSCF3064-2.jpg (461KB, 1920x1280px) Image search: [Google]

461KB, 1920x1280px

>>3037934
I'm looking at them on a 100% Adobe RGB screen and they are not orange.

Skin tones and colour are not the same thing, if you honestly think the RAW has more flattering skin tones you are either a Sonynigger or just very new to portraits.

The point is, I can take 30 headshots in 20min and give them to my clients within a day with tiny touch-ups to the JPEG rather than starting from scratch with 30 raws. Can I make the RAW's look great, you bet ya, am I being paid to do post, not at all.

This is about the larger idea of a simpler workflow for people who are working with GB's of data and not just snapshits of your cat.

>>3037935
I thought you may say that, here is the RAW with fuji's profile and my next post will be the jpeg.

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	FUJIFILM
Camera Model	X-Pro2
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop Lightroom 6.8 (Macintosh)
Maximum Lens Aperture	f/1.4
Sensing Method	One-Chip Color Area
Focal Length (35mm Equiv)	53 mm
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution	240 dpi
Vertical Resolution	240 dpi
Image Created	2017:03:12 18:25:16
Exposure Time	1/1000 sec
F-Number	f/1.4
Exposure Program	Manual
ISO Speed Rating	200
Lens Aperture	f/1.4
Brightness	7.7 EV
Exposure Bias	0 EV
Metering Mode	Average
Light Source	Unknown
Flash	No Flash
Focal Length	35.00 mm
Color Space Information	sRGB
Rendering	Normal
Exposure Mode	Manual
White Balance	Auto
Scene Capture Type	Standard
Sharpness	Hard
Subject Distance Range	Unknown

>>3037943

dude I am not the guy you are arguing with but these portraits are fucking horrible, I would recommend you just shutup because you are making yourself look like an idiot.

>>3037861

This one is particularly awful, I cant even pick one good thing about it. and for the love of kek I hope this wasnt a paid gig lool.

File: DSCF3064.jpg (477KB, 1920x1280px) Image search: [Google]

477KB, 1920x1280px

>>3037943
And here is the JPEG.

>>3038070
I dont think you understand what this is.
I shoot behind the scenes for movie and tv creators and these portraits are just crew headshots. I'm using them purely to show how the skin tones look, if you can't look past that, suck a dick lol.

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	FUJIFILM
Camera Model	X-Pro2
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop Lightroom 6.8 (Macintosh)
Maximum Lens Aperture	f/1.4
Sensing Method	One-Chip Color Area
Focal Length (35mm Equiv)	53 mm
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution	240 dpi
Vertical Resolution	240 dpi
Image Created	2017:03:12 18:25:11
Exposure Time	1/1000 sec
F-Number	f/1.4
Exposure Program	Manual
ISO Speed Rating	200
Lens Aperture	f/1.4
Brightness	7.7 EV
Exposure Bias	0 EV
Metering Mode	Average
Light Source	Unknown
Flash	No Flash
Focal Length	35.00 mm
Color Space Information	sRGB
Rendering	Normal
Exposure Mode	Manual
White Balance	Auto
Scene Capture Type	Standard
Sharpness	Hard
Subject Distance Range	Unknown

>>3038283
Looks overly pink and smoothed, looks fucking awful in every way mate.

>>3036468
it's great, meant to have slightly sharper centre results at F2 and doesn't get that softness in close focused pictures that the new ones get.

Aperture chatter didn't bother me but you need to get used to the slightly hesitant AF

>>3036429
what the fuck is with this focus and why is she so underexposed? Absolute trash.

>>3038286
Show me your stuff and stop shit posting, lol.

File: 74105-fa6a6d1a9cd9616c36bb713a117f6b24.jpg (20KB, 300x300px) Image search: [Google]

20KB, 300x300px

Any of you tried the Meike 28mm f2.8 for x mount? I got mine 2 weeks ago and it's honestly a great little lens on the XPRO2. Don't get me wrong it has it's flaws but for personal work and not paid, it's a fantastic £60 pancake.

ANYONE GOT THE NEW 50mm f/2???

Thinking it would be a great travel portrait lens on an xpro2

>>3038299
Don't need to prove I'm a chef to know I'm eating cat shit.

>>3038327
I thought so, haha!

>>3038326

>f 2
>portrait

Not really.

Isn't that what the 56mm is for?

>>3038343
>overpriced
>not sharp at the edges until f7.1
>t1.5
>slow af

It's a joke of a lens, the apd version drops to f1.8, fuji are as accurate with their apertures as they are with their iso values. You're being lied to.

>>3038349

Don't need edge sharpness for portraits, and it has the sharpest centers of any Fuji lens.

Probably the best native choice.

>>3038351
At F2.8 the 60mm kills the 56mm.

>>3038351
>FUJI 56mm
>Tiny image circle
>soft at edges until stopped down
>nearly a whole stop slower than it's f value
>slow af

Sony 55mm
>sharp at edges from f2
>proper sized image circle
>fast af
>sharper than anything Fuji have made
>f1.8, t1.8
>cheaper

I'm sure you've heard it 100 times before, but lenses are more important than bodies, bodies change year on year, a lens will last decades. Body aside, what one of the 2 do you think is the better lens choice?

>>3038358

oh, no doubt the Sony is a better choice.

But poor anon has a Fuji, so I was trying to help him out.

The 50mm f2 is overpriced junk.

>>3038361
For the reasons I said above, OP would be best selling up ASAP so he can clamber back as much for their body and hopefully Fuji won't have announced the death of x mount by then, plummeting the price of all x mount lenses.

If you haven't seen already, Fuji have started making lenses in e-mount. it's all over.

>>3038358

your autism is giving me cancer why dont you go shot some pics? You are literally wasting all this time sony shilling in the thread and no one cares, terrible cringe.

>>3038343

The f/2 aperture is literally the last thing i am worried about, f/2 is more than enough for most portraits, I care more about the other areas of lens performance like is it nice and crispy wide open, does it have issues with softness at close focus like other lenses (or any other variation of IQ loss).

I dont want to carry around a fuckheug 56mm on an xpro2 whilst traveling, the new 50mm seems like a good option if the performance is there.

FUJI FRIENDS

>Mechanical Shutter
>Mechanical + Electronic Shutter

What the fuck is the difference??

I understand the downsides of Electronic ONLY Shutter but not MS+ES vs MS

>>3039118
Basically, if you use the shutter speeds on the camera dials, those are mechanical. If for some reason you need speeds beyond that, it falls into the ES range. MS+ES is basically there so there is an automatic switch to ES if it goes out of the MS range. Otherwise it uses MS only if within that range, and if it's MS or MS+ES. No real downsides, you still get rolling shutter bullshit with ES beyond the MS speeds.

>>3039118
>not having electronic first curtain shutter

>>3036361
It's fucking garbage. Buy a Sony if you want mirrorless instead of that reddit gwc toy.

>>3039142
pls stay in sony thread sonykek

>>3039142
>PASM dial
>idiot modes

File: IMG_0905.JPG.jpg (388KB, 1600x1066px) Image search: [Google]

388KB, 1600x1066px

The 23 1.4 is the only fuji lens I own, so don't have a whole lot to compare to. It always sits on my xt1 and I leave it in my bag constantly. Honestly it's the only lens I really need when doing street, travel, even just around the house stuff. It's got fast AF, it's sharp wide open, it's just a great lens to have. My only complaint is that it does not have a very close minimum focusing distance.

>>3039873
Cute doggo and you are 100% correct.

>>3038300
what grip is that ?

>>3038300
I love your camera Anon
Does it charge with USB?

>>3040003

I have an XT-10 and yes it does.

>>3040005
This makes me so erect

>>3040003
>>3040005

I thought everything charged over usb?

What about usb charging while in use?

>>3038326

Get the 90 F2.

https://jonasraskphotography.com/2015/05/25/the-fujifilm-xf-90mm-f2-review/

>>3040246
im not an upgrade junkie who buys a new body every year, so i dont have fancy newfangled features like usb charging
im sure everything probably does by now

>>3040246
>I thought everything charged over usb?

My Nikon DSLR's DRAIN over USB, weirdly enough:
Leave them connected too long and the battery goes flat.

>>3037281
are you dense? the APD part is a built-in filter, of course its transmission is going to be lower

>>3038283
>being this lazy

I can edit large volumes of RAWs in a matter of hours with excellent results. Maybe you should just get gud so your workflow isnt shit

>>3042373
Every other stf lens producer have a dual diaphragm design to avoid that exact issue, they're charging an extra £450 over the basic version for a method that's gimped as fuck for smooth bokeh.

Gg fuji.

>>3042588
That's nice, so can I.
But I can also spend those hours living life if my camera can do the job just fine.

>>3038300
Whats that grip?

>>3038300
can you share some photos taken with that lens?

>>3036372
why so angry dude?

>>3040000
>>3040003
>>3044739
Not my camera, just a random google image of the lens I was talking about on a fuji camera, I use mine on an XPRO2.

>>3045947
Will do anon, I'll be on my PC in a bit.

File: DSCF3787.jpg (1MB, 1920x1920px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 1920x1920px

>>3045947
I'll post a few snap-shits I've taken with the lens now. I wanted to get an idea of sharpness, falloff etc so by no means am I trying to showcase my work here.

I will also add even though it's F value is 2.8 it's T value is closer to 3.5 by no means a big deal as you would not get a 2.8 on a crop for low light anyway.

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	FUJIFILM
Camera Model	X-Pro2
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop Lightroom 6.9 (Macintosh)
Sensing Method	One-Chip Color Area
Focal Length (35mm Equiv)	48 mm
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution	240 dpi
Vertical Resolution	240 dpi
Image Created	2017:03:28 14:53:32
Exposure Time	1/60 sec
F-Number	f/1.0
Exposure Program	Manual
ISO Speed Rating	200
Lens Aperture	f/1.0
Brightness	-0.9 EV
Exposure Bias	0 EV
Metering Mode	Average
Light Source	Unknown
Flash	No Flash
Focal Length	32.00 mm
Color Space Information	sRGB
Rendering	Normal
Exposure Mode	Manual
White Balance	Auto
Scene Capture Type	Standard
Sharpness	Hard
Subject Distance Range	Unknown

File: Screen Shot 2017-03-28 at 14.53.12.png (2MB, 1070x1052px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 1070x1052px

>>3047528
a 100% crop of the above image.
I am blown away by this lens when you keep in mind its £60. Most of my tests are shot at F5.6

File: Screen Shot 2017-03-28 at 14.58.23.png (2MB, 1436x1478px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 1436x1478px

>>3047531
A wide open test at F2.8, again for £60 I really can't complain.

File: DSCF3703.jpg (551KB, 1920x1080px) Image search: [Google]

551KB, 1920x1080px

>>3047532
Last one from me, if you would like to see more shots there is now a flickr group for the lens

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	FUJIFILM
Camera Model	X-Pro2
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop Lightroom 6.9 (Macintosh)
Sensing Method	One-Chip Color Area
Focal Length (35mm Equiv)	48 mm
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution	240 dpi
Vertical Resolution	240 dpi
Image Created	2017:03:28 14:51:45
Exposure Time	1/1000 sec
F-Number	f/1.0
Exposure Program	Manual
ISO Speed Rating	200
Lens Aperture	f/1.0
Brightness	3.9 EV
Exposure Bias	0 EV
Metering Mode	Average
Light Source	Unknown
Flash	No Flash
Focal Length	32.00 mm
Color Space Information	sRGB
Rendering	Custom
Exposure Mode	Manual
White Balance	Auto
Scene Capture Type	Standard
Sharpness	Normal
Subject Distance Range	Unknown

File: Screen Shot 2017-03-28 at 14.49.59.png (108KB, 274x248px) Image search: [Google]

108KB, 274x248px

>>3047535
100% crop of the above image.