Generally, I cover events with a couple of trusty F-mount Nikkor Ai/S lenses. But last week I had a wine event that needed a bit more class than a Speedbooster. And, let's be honest, the EVFs can get fiddly in the dark, especially when mated to fully manual lenses. OIS would come in handy.
Read moreJR Photography: Helios 44m-5 58/2 review
Some lenses eschew raw line performance in favour of beauty and draw. My favourite Canon 35/2 LTM is one of those. The Helios 44m-5 58/2 in M42 looks to be another. In his review, Jonas Rask does a fine job of relating to what photography it is best suited. All photos in his review are shot on a Fujifilm X-Pro 1.
Sony ILCE-7r and the Leica Summilux 50 pre-ASPH
The Leica M9 which I've over-borrowed from Headfi's brilliant AnakChan, goes back in the next few days. I'll be honest and say that I didn't shoot much with it. Mainly, that is because I had to get used to, and if possible, like the Sony A7r which I purchased for its excellent live view system. I'll be honest and say that that didn't happen. I hate the Sony a7r today as much as I did when I first reviewed it. Its one saving grace is that is capable of making fine exposures.
Read moreDave Dillon Photo: Rokinon/Samyang 14/2,8 on the Fujifilm X-E1
Dave Dillon Photography has upped short but sweet review of the just-released but impressive and ridiculously-named Samyang 14mm F/2,8 ED AS IF UMC ultra wide lens for Fujifilm's X mount.
KeithLowPhoto: quick and dirty with the X-T1 and XF10-24
If either Fujifilm's next-to-market X-T1 camera or XF 10-24 ultra-wide zoom lens interests you, head very quickly over to KeithLowPhoto for an idea of how the two perform.
size comparison: Fujinon 35 F1,4 - Nikkor 50 F2 - Summicron 50 F2
Left: Fujinon 35; Middle: Nikkor 50; Right: Summicron 50
Yesterday, I opined that the 35mm F1,4 Fujinon was a 'monster'. It is.
One of the reasons I've been slow to pick up digital-age lenses is that, generally, they are much, much larger than their film-age equivalents- at least when comparing depth-of-focus equivalence. The 35mm F1,4 Fujinon covers the smaller APS-C image circle, but is longer, wider, and more voluminous than either the Nikkor 50/2 or the Summicron 50/2, both of which cover image circles roughly 2,25x the size. Of course, neither of the other two autofocus. And while neither the Leica nor the Nikon lenses have as fast a maximum apertures, their effective DOF is the same as the Fujinon wide open.
Despite its size, the Fujinon is lighter than the Nikkor by nearly 40g, and than the Summicron by nearly 13g. Of course, because it lacks focus helicoids and hardware-controlled aperture gears, for all practical comparisons, it is largely a hollow tube.
I've had very little time to test the Fujinon, but I can say that its out-of-focus rendering is, at least to these eyes, more pleasant than either the Summicron or the Nikkor. The Leica tends to over-sharpen highlight points, drawing halos and other aberrations around distant highlights. The Nikkor is much the same. (It's little surprise: the 50/2 Ai Nikkor has been called "the Japanese Summicron".) The Nikkor, however, is one of the centrally sharpest lenses I have ever used and has been the secret lens behind a number of HiFi product advertising photographs.
Fujifilm XF 14 VS XF 18
Left: Fujinon XF 14mm 1:2,8 R; Right: Fujinon 18mm 1:2
Fuji VS Fuji has continued its excellent and succinct line of comparative reviews of Fujifilm XF lenses, this time facing off the 14mm and 18mm primes. It's obvious from the comparison that at the pixel level, the 14mm lens is sharper and more contrasty. Fuji VS Fuji conclude the following:
“Given the compact size, light weight, and faster aperture, I’d say the FUJINON XF 18mm ƒ/2 was made with street photographers in mind, more so than landscape fans. The creamier bokeh also suggests it could be useful for wide-angle portraiture. In some ways, the FUJINON XF 18mm ƒ/2’s characteristics remind me of the old Nikkor 85mm ƒ/1,4 AF-D; optimized for centre sharpness and soft backgrounds. The corners and edges on that lens were terrible, much worse than the FUJINON XF 18mm ƒ/2, but the centre was sharp so it worked great for portraiture.”
Somehow, the 18mm has got a bad rep amount Fujifilm XF fans. ohm is one of those that values compactness and versatility over absolute sharpness. To that end, the 18mm is a better match. But small, reasonably sharp FF equivalents exist, too. Voigtlander's 21mm f/4 lens is more compact than the 18mm, and almost as inexpensive. On film or a modern FF mirrorless digital, it covers the same FOV at a similar DOF as the 14mm whilst taking up much less space.
When Fujifilm debut a FF mirrorless, compact-loving photographers will rejoice at the sudden bevy of FF LTM/M options.
Just picked up the Fujifilm XF 35mm F/1,4R
And my first impressions is: this thing is huge! It is actually quite a bit larger than my Nikkor 50/2 Ai and much larger than my Leica Summicron 50/2 version 4. Next to my favourite 50mm equivalent lens, the Canon 35/2 LTM, it is a monster. But autofocus is nice to have. And my wife, who has inherited my X-Pro 1, digs what she calls 'fatties'. The XF 35 f/1,4 definitely could be called a 'fatty'.
Read moreFujifilm XF 18-55 vs XF 35
Left: Fujinon XF 18-55 f/2,8-4; Right: Fujinon XF 35 f/1,4
Fujifilm X fans who are lost for reading material in the post-Christmas bloat should head over to Fuji vs. Fuji for a shoot-off featuring the popular XF 18-55 and the 35/1,4 lenses. FVF's admin does sharpness, bokeh, and depth of field comparos, all in an easy-on-the-eye format.
Fujifilm XF 10-24 F4 R OIS announced (and summarily trashed)
On paper, it looks to be a great lens. Fujirumors members already are bashing it. Too expensive. Too big. Too heavy. Where's the marked aperture intervals? Yadda yadda yadda.
First, the contention that this lens is expensive is ridiculous. Fujifilm should be free to charge whatever they want for their products. If they want the X series to be a premium set of cameras and lenses, there is only one way to ensure it: price accordingly. If you want the puppy dog and toenail photographers, make your stuff as cheaply as possible and hoard a ridiculous and uncontrollable market.
True, Fujifilm could charge less for the 10-24. They could price it according to, say, performance alone. There's a tactic. Yay! The market at work. Samyang do that. And look at how their products are lusted after. Do the Samyang thing, but in Toyota style. Literally support 60+ models of cameras, just so that you don't miss anyone. Don't have a vision of your own. Down cultivate that vision. Don't aim high. Don't design for consistency.
Go for the toenail group.
The problem is that Fujifilm is a Japanese company. Over here in Japan, the only thing that matters is large distribution. Focus in your lineup and focus on a specific market are completely foreign to Japanese corporations.
Toenails!
Fujifilm have already released a couple of cheap X cameras that prove that they are going after everyone and everything. And they have a whole range of crappy point-and-shoot cameras that, for all intents and purposes, could be made by any camera company out there. So now, Fujifilm have to answer to the toenail group.
When the X100, and later the X-Pro 1 was released, I had hoped that Fujifilm would abandon a silly past, that they would aim high and focus on perfect haptics, on simplicity, and most important, on cultivating a mature, loyal, and percipient market.