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

1       2       3              120      
121
       122              579       580       end

cputeq
Registered: Jun 25, 2008
Total Posts: 6046
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: 13008
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: 2079
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: 13059
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: 28247
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: 2901
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: 6046
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: 28247
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: 13059
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: 28247
Country: Canada



jcolwell
Registered: Feb 10, 2005
Total Posts: 28247
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'.



molson
Registered: Oct 30, 2002
Total Posts: 13059
Country: Canada

jcolwell wrote:
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'.




I've got that range covered with my D800E and 14-24mm f2.8G, so I'm kind of spoiled now...



jcolwell
Registered: Feb 10, 2005
Total Posts: 28247
Country: Canada

molson wrote:
jcolwell wrote:
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'.




I've got that range covered with my D800E and 14-24mm f2.8G, so I'm kind of spoiled now...


Maybe, the Fuji lineup offers you a reasonable, lightweight "alternative" for occasions that the honking big N*k*n gear is just "a little bit too big".

That's where it fits into my EOS-dominant world. Plus, it rules when you need a discrete solution.

P.S. I think Fuji X + XF is the best "small" solution for demanding shooters who like a finder integrated into the body. As do I.



molson
Registered: Oct 30, 2002
Total Posts: 13059
Country: Canada

jcolwell wrote:

P.S. I think Fuji X + XF is the best "small" solution for demanding shooters who like a finder integrated into the body. As do I.



Agreed... I wouldn't even look at any camera that didn't have a viewfinder, unless it was also a cellular phone.



barisaxer
Registered: Feb 21, 2005
Total Posts: 577
Country: United States

A fun composit. Really liking these and will be doing more.



dovey
Registered: Feb 05, 2012
Total Posts: 120
Country: Australia

I used the Canon 5D2 again recently and really did not like the weight. Went out today to the Great Ocean Road and Bells Beach. The middle of winter and a lovely day. We all commented about the sky and clouds looking just like the opening frames of The Simpsons, and that is what the Fuji captured.
All these are straight out of camera JPGs, no sharpening etc, the originals.
The Starfish and a couple of the Cockatoo pics were with the macro setting. The ones of the surfers were from way up on the cliff, a long way away and well above them and still the kit zoom did a great job.
Loving this camera more by the day.
Really loved motor drive on this thing, will post some shots of a joey emerging from the mother's pouch later.

_S111130 by doveychicken, on Flickr

_S261181 by doveychicken, on Flickr

_S071123 by doveychicken, on Flickr

_DSF1207 by doveychicken, on Flickr

_DSF1197 by doveychicken, on Flickr

_DSF1188 by doveychicken, on Flickr



cputeq
Registered: Jun 25, 2008
Total Posts: 6046
Country: United States

molson wrote:
jcolwell wrote:
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'.




I've got that range covered with my D800E and 14-24mm f2.8G, so I'm kind of spoiled now...


Yeah I'd love to have that setup as a dedicated landscape rig, even if using filters is a pain.

Just messing around with the Minolta 35-70. Man I love Fuji JPEGs, when they "hit" (this is velvia and untouched). I tried to duplicate with RAW but failed. I'll have to shoot a color chart or something and see if I can nail down a LR preset.



xbarcelo
Registered: Nov 04, 2010
Total Posts: 661
Country: Spain

A walk on my work break with my new XF 14 2,8. I must say I'm a little underwhelmed… I was hoping to be blown away by it and it seems better than the CV 15, but not by all that much… It's got obviously a lot less vigneting and corners are better (but not perfect), but I'm not sure it's 500€ better.

















ypras
Registered: May 23, 2011
Total Posts: 55
Country: Greece

xbarcelo wrote:
A walk on my work break with my new XF 14 2,8. I must say I'm a little underwhelmed… I was hoping to be blown away by it and it seems better than the CV 15, but not by all that much… It's got obviously a lot less vigneting and corners are better (but not perfect), but I'm not sure it's 500€ better.



I am really interested in your opinion, i am an owner of the VC 15 but willing to buy the XF 14. At f11 my VC 15 is excellent to the extreme corners but when i start to open the aperture, even at f8 it starts to suffer already in the corners and edges. So it makes it usable either in a full sun day or as a tripod lens, not too versatile. Was your VC 15 like this? Don't you think that the XF 14 is more versatile?



xbarcelo
Registered: Nov 04, 2010
Total Posts: 661
Country: Spain

ypras wrote
I am really interested in your opinion, i am an owner of the VC 15 but willing to buy the XF 14. At f11 my VC 15 is excellent to the extreme corners but when i start to open the aperture, even at f8 it starts to suffer already in the corners and edges. So it makes it usable either in a full sun day or as a tripod lens, not too versatile. Was your VC 15 like this? Don't you think that the XF 14 is more versatile?


Indeed you're right. The CV 15 is not versatile and the XF 14 is. It's only that everyone is raving about it and maybe I was having unreasonable expectations… If I've got the time, I'll try to compare both in the coming days (I seem to be promising things like this and then not doing them, but I'm really strained for time!).



1       2       3              120      
121
       122              579       580       end