Fujifilm X-mount Image Thread
/forum/topic/1097477/120

1       2       3              120      
121
       122              287       288       end

HelenaN
Registered: Jul 18, 2008
Total Posts: 1064
Country: Norway

Thank you! Yes, a green and blue tint. It was grayish because of fog in the background, so I decided to play with split toning in Lightroom, but I see now that I overdid it, so I have replaced the photo with one with a bit less toning.



cyra
Registered: Jan 19, 2011
Total Posts: 782
Country: Austria

Can I ask a question in between your intriguing images?

Did the firmware update get focus peaking to the X-E1 also or just to the X-Pro 1?
Sorry, it sure is mentioned somewhere in the thread but I am not through yet.



Jman13
Registered: May 02, 2005
Total Posts: 10326
Country: United States

Yes, the X-E1 has focus peaking now (and much better AF...)



cputeq
Registered: Jun 25, 2008
Total Posts: 4672
Country: United States

Had to "cheat" on my Fuji setup and finally get a second lens for my 5D3 -- 17-40L. I mean, for $550 shipped, being only a few months old (reputable seller), I just couldn't pass it up.

I've been really impressed with the 14mm, and I might still get it, but I can't shake the feeling I just like my 5D3 landscape shots better. The 'watercolor' effect on my XE1 is what pushed me to get the 17-40L (and the low price and the fact it'll use my B&W 77mm CPL)- I process the files carefully to mostly avoid exacerbating the issue, but when I'm going for as detailed as a scene as I can get, I seem to bump up against the 'watercolor' somewhat.

So, hopefully the 17-40L is a good copy. I may give the 14mm a rental and check it out -- I'm really curious to see if a pretty good zoom with a 22MP FF performs against a 16MP Xtrans with a very sharp 14mm, especially in fine foliage detail.




molson
Registered: Oct 30, 2002
Total Posts: 10401
Country: Canada

cputeq wrote:

The 'watercolor' effect on my XE1 is what pushed me to get the 17-40L


I have a lot of 17-40L images where the corners and edges of the frame might charitably be described in the same terms... hopefully your copy is better.



jcolwell
Registered: Feb 10, 2005
Total Posts: 20252
Country: Canada

The corners of my XF 14/2.8 R on X-Pro 1 are a lot better than was my EF 17-40L on 1DsIII.



apsphoto
Registered: Sep 01, 2002
Total Posts: 540
Country: United States

jcolwell wrote:
The corners of my XF 14/2.8 R on X-Pro 1 are a lot better than was my EF 17-40L on 1DsIII.



That has been my experience as well with the 5DmII and the 17-40mm. The Fuji is tack sharp.

Alan



apsphoto
Registered: Sep 01, 2002
Total Posts: 540
Country: United States

cputeq, I still use my 77mm cpl and B+W ND filters with my Fuji setup, just use step up rings, they are also let me use my Lee filters as well, a bit of overkill but it does work just fine.

Alan



cyra
Registered: Jan 19, 2011
Total Posts: 782
Country: Austria

Jman13 wrote:
Yes, the X-E1 has focus peaking now (and much better AF...)


ah, good news, thank you.

Has anyone tried long manual lenses with the focus peaking? like 300-400mm?



cputeq
Registered: Jun 25, 2008
Total Posts: 4672
Country: United States

jcolwell wrote:
The corners of my XF 14/2.8 R on X-Pro 1 are a lot better than was my EF 17-40L on 1DsIII.


Yeah call me crazy, but I'm someone who gives a rat's arse about a photo's corners, hence my okay-ness with the 17-40. As long as they're not horrible, I'm fine.

I'm a pixel peeper (it's a disease I know), but at least I peep where it counts for me, which is typically not the photo edge up against the matting

Different strokes of course. Sadly the 14mm shots are so damn good, I'll probably end up getting it too!


----



Jman13
Registered: May 02, 2005
Total Posts: 10326
Country: United States

Yeah, the 14mm is the best wide-angle I've ever used on any format. I owned and loved the 17-40L....it's a good lens. Brilliantly sharp in the center, a bit weaker on the edges and the corners get pretty soft. The soft corners I had no issues with for the same reasons you state. The weaker edges could sometimes be an issue, but not usually.

The 14mm is just amazing to me, though, as it is just razor sharp across the whole frame.



Jochenb
Registered: May 25, 2010
Total Posts: 1716
Country: Belgium

The XF 14mm certainly is very very good, but I still like the look of the Zeiss 21/2.8 distagon better. However: the Fuji has less distortion, is much smaller and lighter, has AF,...
Really a fantastic lens.



molson
Registered: Oct 30, 2002
Total Posts: 10401
Country: Canada

cputeq wrote:
Yeah call me crazy, but I'm someone who gives a rat's arse about a photo's corners, hence my okay-ness with the 17-40. As long as they're not horrible, I'm fine.

I'm a pixel peeper (it's a disease I know), but at least I peep where it counts for me, which is typically not the photo edge up against the matting

Different strokes of course.



For some subjects, the edges are important. I like to have a choice as to whether I can depict it sharply or not.



jcolwell
Registered: Feb 10, 2005
Total Posts: 20252
Country: Canada

molson wrote:
cputeq wrote:
Yeah call me crazy, but I'm someone who gives a rat's arse about a photo's corners, hence my okay-ness with the 17-40. As long as they're not horrible, I'm fine.

I'm a pixel peeper (it's a disease I know), but at least I peep where it counts for me, which is typically not the photo edge up against the matting

Different strokes of course.



For some subjects, the edges are important. I like to have a choice as to whether I can depict it sharply or not.


Me too. Especially if a crop is off-centre.



AbramG
Registered: Jan 31, 2006
Total Posts: 2436
Country: United States

I had the 17-40L and never liked it. I had the 16-35L and did like it a lot but I moved away from zooms and I use the 20mm f/2.8 from Canon which nobody likes. I think it's a very decent lens and with today's correction features within Lightroom 5 it becomes a very competent lens, and 20mm is a great ultra wide focal length for me.

That's how I know I'll like the 14mm when I eventually get it.



cputeq
Registered: Jun 25, 2008
Total Posts: 4672
Country: United States

Yeah the 17-40 is a perfect fit for me, though not perfect - Wanted an UWA, lightweight, decent IQ, 77mm filters.

I'm sure the 16-35 is better but at f/2.8 it's just overkill for me, and I wish Canon would have went with what Nikon did with their 16-35/4 VR (a pretty darn decent lens if you ask me).

I'm a fan of my XE 1 with the primes, which is why I can see myself getting the 14 eventually, just not for most landscapes.



jcolwell
Registered: Feb 10, 2005
Total Posts: 20252
Country: Canada

cputeq wrote:
...which is why I can see myself getting the 14 eventually...


We all saw this coming...



molson
Registered: Oct 30, 2002
Total Posts: 10401
Country: Canada

I've gotta quit following this thread... I'm starting to get crazy thoughts of giving the Fuji system another try.



jcolwell
Registered: Feb 10, 2005
Total Posts: 20252
Country: Canada



jcolwell
Registered: Feb 10, 2005
Total Posts: 20252
Country: Canada

Hey Cliff,

Did you see this thread? http://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/1219512/

It got a lot of flack about watercolour and etc, but no examples of comparable systems (incl. 17-40L) with better corners.

I've also posted many other comparisons of ultra-wide angle lenses. The TS-E 17/4L, 18 ZE, 21 ZE and TS-E 24/3.5L II are better in the corners (slightly), but none of the other "usual suspects" are. I'm just sayin'.



1       2       3              120      
121
       122              287       288       end