Jack Flesher wrote: gkramer wrote:
I didn't know what "lens character" meant until I owned the Fuji 35mm f1.4. It's an older lens so it's slow, and I don't pixel peep, but it consistently produces images for me that make me smile.
Yep. For those that know what the intangible is they're looking for, it's there. Some refuse to believe it's there, usually the same folks that don't see good vs bad "bokeh." It's always been a puzzler to me, since I definitely notice both character and bokeh. (Actually one of the main reasons I sold off the Fuji MF gear was the lenses either had busy bokeh or were so clinical they had no character. Sharp as heck, and detailed files, just no juice or too busy oof areas for me )
Right, Jack. Those who don't see any particular "character" in a fine lens do so because they (we?) "refuse to believe it is there?" Sort of like those who don't see leprechauns in the woods because they don't believe in leprfeharuns... ;-)
At least I still recognize bokeh when I see it.
- - -
SGinNorcal wrote:
I guess I'm going to have to break down and try the 35/1.4. I've resisted as I have the 33 and like it. But all of you probably aren't wrong
I recommend it. It is a fine lens with excellent optical performance. It is also rather small compared to some of the other Fujifilm f/1.4 lenses — small enough that I'm happy to carry it for street photography and travel.
Will you think it is a better performer than the 33mm f/1.4? Not sure about that. My recommendation that people looking for a f/1.4 lens in this range and assuming that the newer 33mm lens will be "better" take a good close look at the 35mm f/1.4 first.
(There's a pattern among photography gear buyers of assuming that the newest thing is going to be so much better than the old thing that they dismiss the old. It isn't that simple.)
- - - zi464 wrote:
I don't think 70-300 is good idea for X-E5, even with a grip that is unbalance and won't feel good.
While I don't have experience with the 70-300 that allows me to recommend (or un-recommend) it on the basis of its performance, I think people are too quick to buy into the "big lenses on small cameras are unbalanced" mantra. I've used some good sized lenses (bigger than the 70-300) on smaller cameras and I'm fine with them. They might seem different at first, but you'll adapt and before you know it you won't die it a thought.
Jack Flesher wrote: gkramer wrote:
I didn't know what "lens character" meant until I owned the Fuji 35mm f1.4. It's an older lens so it's slow, and I don't pixel peep, but it consistently produces images for me that make me smile.
Yep. For those that know what the intangible is they're looking for, it's there. Some refuse to believe it's there, usually the same folks that don't see good vs bad "bokeh." It's always been a puzzler to me, since I definitely notice both character and bokeh. (Actually one of the main reasons I sold off the Fuji MF gear was the lenses either had busy bokeh or were so clinical they had no character. Sharp as heck, and detailed files, just no juice or too busy oof areas for me )
Right, Jack. Those who don't see any particular "character" in a fine lens do so because they (we?) "refuse to believe it is there." Sort of like those who don't see leprechauns in the woods because they don't believe in leprfeharuns... ;-)
At least I still recognize bokeh when I see it.
- - -
SGinNorcal wrote:
I guess I'm going to have to break down and try the 35/1.4. I've resisted as I have the 33 and like it. But all of you probably aren't wrong
I recommend it. It is a fine lens with excellent optical performance. It is also rather small compared to some of the other Fujifilm f/1.4 lenses — small enough that I'm happy to carry it for street photography and travel.
Will you think it is a better performer than the 33mm f/1.4? Not sure about that. My recommendation that people looking for a f/1.4 lens in this range and assuming that the newer 33mm lens will be "better" take a good close look at the 35mm f/1.4 first.
(There's a pattern among photography gear buyers of assuming that the newest thing is going to be so much better than the old thing that they dismiss the old. It isn't that simple.)
- - - zi464 wrote:
I don't think 70-300 is good idea for X-E5, even with a grip that is unbalance and won't feel good.
While I don't have experience with the 70-300 that allows me to recommend (or un-recommend) it on the basis of its performance, I think people are too quick to buy into the "big lenses on small cameras are unbalanced" mantra. I've used some good sized lenses (bigger than the 70-300) on smaller cameras and I'm fine with them. They might seem different at first, but you'll adapt and before you know it you won't die it a thought.
) 