dmaxphil wrote:
I've never noticed much noise from my 56 (unlike the 35)
This lens looks great, but I've got the 50-140 and a nice 105mm Nikkor so it may take a day or two to try and create some justification for purchase.
I probably shouldn't say noisy, but it is not smooth either. There is some hunt happening, and you can hear and feel moving inside. I used to owe one, sold it, but I purchased a brand new one again, and it's exactly the same as the previous one.
Beside 56, I owe 18-55, which is pretty smooth and quiet, but the best of best I experienced in that department (AF) is 16-55. That lens is very smooth, with very fast focus, and almost no hunt. I hope 90 is as same as 16-55, or close to it, Fuji improves AF for every next release.
I need more reach than I've got, looks like it'll either be this lens or the 50-140. Size of the 90 and filter size are smaller than I expected. Might forego the zoom flexibility for the size and speed of the 90.
Jman13 wrote:
To me it's nearly silent. You can hear it if you're in a dead quiet room and have your ear close, but otherwise no. I don't find the 56mm to be a loud lens by any means, but the 90 is notably quieter.
After reading the comment about the 56mm, I tested my copy and find the noise to be ever so slight, if at all; certainly no impediment to its excellent classification, IMO. I also look forward to my B&H delivery tomorrow of the 90mm.
Sorry to everyone at the moment. My site is down...host lost connectivity to their entire west coast data center. They're working on the issue and hopefully everything will be up again shortly.
Some more. Like I said earlier...the bokeh is fantastic. I especially love how it stays smooth on distant subjects. Combined with the sharpness at f/2, even at a distance, things really pop.
Jman13 wrote:
Some more. Like I said earlier...the bokeh is fantastic. I especially love how it stays smooth on distant subjects. Combined with the sharpness at f/2, even at a distance, things really pop.
Paul Mo wrote:
How are you finding the Nikkor on Fuji?
I have the f/2.5 and I like it. Probably not quite as sharp as the 56, but realistically, for web and small prints you would likely not know the difference. Focusing is easy with the magnification and peaking through the evf. Meters fine. No lens or aperture info is relayed to the file, so you have to remember these if you want to add info through LensTagger.
Lens is small but with the metabones adapter it ends up being about an inch longer than the 18-55 for reference. Plus they are a bargain, I picked up a spotless copy from Keh for $150ish.
misternikko wrote:
I actually find the bokeh kind of ugly in that specific shot.
The closer ones of flowers resemble the 135L but that is to be expected since you are so close.
The 135L had that appearance no matter how close or far you were, within reason of course.
I think that however comes down to sensor size more so than lens.
I had the same reaction to that shot....ugly, nervous bokeh. The Canon 135L's bokeh would have melted that a lot more, reducing the nervousness to nothing.
rattymouse wrote:
I had the same reaction to that shot....ugly, nervous bokeh. The Canon 135L's bokeh would have melted that a lot more, reducing the nervousness to nothing.
Whereas I completely disagree. I find nothing nervous or ugly in that rendering. In fact, it looks to be a pretty close to ideal rendering.
I think you two are insane. There is nothing nervous about that bokeh. There's not a lens in this world that could make that smoother unless it actually was capable of making more blur. This is about as close to technically perfect bokeh as one can get.
This is a 100% crop of the bokeh area. There is no outlining, no double edges, no hard ANYTHING. Is it a challenging situation for bokeh? Absolutely, but it's the nature of the background at this depth of field, and this lens did about as well as can possibly be done with such a background. http://www.jordansteele.com/2015/fuji90_bokeh.jpg
BTW, the 135L would not have handled this any better. The 135L has very, very good bokeh, but when I searched through my catalog for a few images from when I had the 135L, with backgrounds from somewhat similar distances and similar mottled foliage/sunlight as in the shot above, it certainly looks no better, and to my eye looks a tad worse, but you be the judge. These are all with the 135L:
I will say there's one down side: I miss image stabilization with this lens. Because of the longer focal length, even f/2 necessitates raising the ISO quite a bit if shooting indoors without a flash, I need about 1/160s for consistently sharp shots...in dim light that's pretty high ISO. This is at ISO 5000, but pushed another half stop in post, so approx ISO 7500 or so.
