Bokeh Monster: Fujifilm XF 18-135 OIS review

I almost painted my iMac with a mouthful of cheese and wine when I read the following:

“The weather sealing suggests this lens is intended for the adventure enthusiast, however in our opinion, a plastic exterior does not portray rugged durability.”

and this:

“On the street its all about discretion. Sadly this lens is not very subtle (especially when extended / zoomed in). If there was ever a lens suited to the stereotypical tourist, camera and lens dangling around their neck, the 16-135mm definitely fits the bill.”

not to mention this:

“Catching the sail boat on the remarkably calm morning was good use of the telephoto end of the lens. Shot purposely wide open at F5.6 the image is a little soft (especially in the corners). An unfortunate property which has plagued the lens throughout all the test images so far. ”

and this:

“Once you sum up all the points from the widely varying situations we tossed its way, it has to be said, although it performed admirably, it is terribly boring and with little character. It does what it does with no surprises.”

Overall, Bokeh Monster gave the lens a pass, but with numerous, salient, provisos. As a Fujifilm X user, and reader of many reviews, this sort of article is refreshing. Yes, you could pick on Bokeh Monster for begging for less DOF in a lens that obviously won't give it, but you can't pick on Bokeh Monster for NOT pandering to Fujifilm like Zack Arias, nor shilling a product. This is an approved read, if not a perfect endorsement for this new lens.

Original article: FUJINON XF 18-135mm F3.5/5.6 WR OIS - Reviewed

JR 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.

Helios 44M-4 58mm f/2 review

Dave 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

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.

View fullsize

View fullsize

View fullsize

Fujifilm XF 14 VS XF 18

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.

Fujifilm XF 18-55 vs XF 35

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.