TakePictures

TakePictures

Lives in Netherlands Maastricht, Netherlands
Works as a Researcher
Joined on Sep 20, 2005
About me:

I hope you don't care about my equipment, but rather want to take a look at my photos (see link above).

Comments

Total: 125, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »
On Fujifilm makes XF 90mm F2 R LM WR official article (135 comments in total)
In reply to:

DocetLector: The only complain I have is the absence of distance and depth of field marks-
But what I have seen on first reports it seems to be a great lens

Well, there are tons of lenses out there without a distance/DOF scale that people shoot great photos with. I agree that every new lens requires some getting used to, but I doubt that DOF markings are going to be of much help here. I think Fuji chose to put markings on those lenses that people tend to use for maximal DOF, that is, wide angle lenses. I can't imagine that a studio photographer will ever use a DOF scale for shooting portraits. It might all be a matter of taste, but I for one prefer an intuitive, experience-based, approach over an exact, "scientific", approach.

Direct link | Posted on May 20, 2015 at 15:01 UTC
On Fujifilm makes XF 90mm F2 R LM WR official article (135 comments in total)
In reply to:

DocetLector: The only complain I have is the absence of distance and depth of field marks-
But what I have seen on first reports it seems to be a great lens

It depends on how precise you want to know the distance to your subject and the DOF. If I shoot portraits, I sort of "know" what DOF I get at a certain distance and a certain aperture because I have experience with my equipment. Besides, I can check this using the DOF preview button. I don't care about the "exact" distance or the "exact" DOF. I only care about what the photo looks like.

Direct link | Posted on May 20, 2015 at 13:26 UTC
On Fujifilm makes XF 90mm F2 R LM WR official article (135 comments in total)

I love the 85mm f/1.4D on my D300. I wonder whether the 90mm f/2 on an X-T1 would be a good "substitute."

Direct link | Posted on May 20, 2015 at 09:56 UTC as 5th comment
On Fujifilm makes XF 90mm F2 R LM WR official article (135 comments in total)
In reply to:

samhain: nice to see a 90 finally.

But- 7 blades, on a portrait lens?
Hmm.
Looking forward to seeing the bokeh. Hopefully it isn't lacking. That'd be a damn shame...

I wonder whether the number of aperture blades/roundness of the aperture really determines the quality of the bokeh, unless you mean those bokeh rings (but you don't see those in every photo).

Direct link | Posted on May 20, 2015 at 09:53 UTC
On Fujifilm makes XF 90mm F2 R LM WR official article (135 comments in total)
In reply to:

DocetLector: The only complain I have is the absence of distance and depth of field marks-
But what I have seen on first reports it seems to be a great lens

I don't understand the need for such a scale. Just use your experience.

Direct link | Posted on May 20, 2015 at 09:50 UTC
On Fujifilm makes XF 90mm F2 R LM WR official article (135 comments in total)
In reply to:

historianx: Can't even supply a hood. Pathetic, Fuji.

It seems DPR indicates "Hood supplied: No" by default in the specs table (they also did that with the 16mm). This is strange and confusing.

Direct link | Posted on May 20, 2015 at 09:47 UTC
In reply to:

Cheng Bao: what's the phenomena of these:
http://www.dpreview.com/galleries/reviewsamples/photos/3207741/dan_acr_iso200_f4?inalbum=fujifilm-xf-16mm-f-1-4-r-wr-samples-gallery
http://www.dpreview.com/galleries/reviewsamples/photos/3207208/dan_acr_iso200_f5-6?inalbum=fujifilm-xf-16mm-f-1-4-r-wr-samples-gallery
http://www.dpreview.com/galleries/reviewsamples/photos/3207742/dan_acr_iso200_f9?inalbum=fujifilm-xf-16mm-f-1-4-r-wr-samples-gallery

where orange lines against blue sky, I can see orange colored "halo" around lines.
Astigmatism?

Ghostbusters...?

Direct link | Posted on May 20, 2015 at 07:53 UTC
On Fujifilm XF 16mm F1.4 moves from roadmap to retailers article (228 comments in total)
In reply to:

OBI656: Fuji creates pretty good quality cams and lenses but they do not have sensor (film) ... Unfortunately. 36 mp and up is for Fiji just Science Fiction ...

You must be famous.

Direct link | Posted on Apr 16, 2015 at 20:32 UTC
On Fujifilm XF 16mm F1.4 moves from roadmap to retailers article (228 comments in total)
In reply to:

stevo23: Once again, Fuji and the lenses. This looks like a well thought out one.

I don't doubt that Nikon and Canon could make something like this for APS-C. The thing is that Fuji does actually do it and they don't.

Direct link | Posted on Apr 16, 2015 at 19:33 UTC
On Fujifilm XF 16mm F1.4 moves from roadmap to retailers article (228 comments in total)
In reply to:

OBI656: Fuji creates pretty good quality cams and lenses but they do not have sensor (film) ... Unfortunately. 36 mp and up is for Fiji just Science Fiction ...

Thank you for redefining science fiction.

Direct link | Posted on Apr 16, 2015 at 18:05 UTC
On Fujifilm XF 16mm F1.4 moves from roadmap to retailers article (228 comments in total)
In reply to:

sportyaccordy: If only they would make some 24 MP Bayer bodies... for less than $1000

See eight comments below.

Direct link | Posted on Apr 16, 2015 at 12:41 UTC
On Fujifilm XF 16mm F1.4 moves from roadmap to retailers article (228 comments in total)
In reply to:

sportyaccordy: If only they would make some 24 MP Bayer bodies... for less than $1000

Then what?

Direct link | Posted on Apr 16, 2015 at 12:15 UTC
On Fujifilm XF 16mm F1.4 moves from roadmap to retailers article (228 comments in total)
In reply to:

Aur: Fujifilm makes some of the best low to medium budget wide angle lenses right now imo, they have far less distortion than canon / nikon equivalents.

Saw some pictures of this lens, again, super controlled low amounts of distortion, just like their excellent 14mm f/2.8. Probably one of the best wide angle lenses I have seen for architecture.

Canon and especially Nikon doesn't seem to give a damn if wide angle crop lenses make architecture look totally deformed.

They don't even get their 35mm lenses right, let alone super wides. The amount of distortion on that Nikon 35mm 1.8G is a disgrace of epic proportions.

Fujifilm makes far better small size lenses.

May be true, but this comes at a price: loss of information at the borders of the frame. At longer focal lengths, correction of pincushion distortion may also make the image softer.

Direct link | Posted on Apr 16, 2015 at 12:12 UTC
On Fujifilm XF 16mm F1.4 moves from roadmap to retailers article (228 comments in total)
In reply to:

JaimeA: What is the weight of this lens?
Here is another Fuji lens without stabilization. There are many occasions when the lens has to be stopped down for additional depth of field.

http://www.fujifilm.com/news/n150416.html

Direct link | Posted on Apr 16, 2015 at 11:51 UTC
On Fujifilm XF 16mm F1.4 moves from roadmap to retailers article (228 comments in total)
In reply to:

JaimeA: What is the weight of this lens?
Here is another Fuji lens without stabilization. There are many occasions when the lens has to be stopped down for additional depth of field.

375g

Direct link | Posted on Apr 16, 2015 at 11:51 UTC
On Fujifilm XF 16mm F1.4 moves from roadmap to retailers article (228 comments in total)
In reply to:

TakePictures: Just wondering DPR: is there really no hood supplied?

Thanks! Was asking because the specifications table above says: "Hood supplied: No"

Direct link | Posted on Apr 16, 2015 at 11:42 UTC
On Fujifilm XF 16mm F1.4 moves from roadmap to retailers article (228 comments in total)
In reply to:

Aur: Fujifilm makes some of the best low to medium budget wide angle lenses right now imo, they have far less distortion than canon / nikon equivalents.

Saw some pictures of this lens, again, super controlled low amounts of distortion, just like their excellent 14mm f/2.8. Probably one of the best wide angle lenses I have seen for architecture.

Canon and especially Nikon doesn't seem to give a damn if wide angle crop lenses make architecture look totally deformed.

They don't even get their 35mm lenses right, let alone super wides. The amount of distortion on that Nikon 35mm 1.8G is a disgrace of epic proportions.

Fujifilm makes far better small size lenses.

Totally agree. Extremely low distortion levels are the true merits of the 14 and 16mm lenses. Couldn't care less about vignetting, which is way easier to correct (if necessary anyway).

Direct link | Posted on Apr 16, 2015 at 11:24 UTC
On Fujifilm XF 16mm F1.4 moves from roadmap to retailers article (228 comments in total)

Just wondering DPR: is there really no hood supplied?

Direct link | Posted on Apr 16, 2015 at 09:15 UTC as 31st comment | 3 replies
On Fujifilm XF 16mm F1.4 moves from roadmap to retailers article (228 comments in total)
In reply to:

Serious Sam: http://fujilove.com/fujinon-xf-16mm-f1-4-wr-review-2/

Looks huge on the X-T1...

Its also more than 100g heavier than the 14mm. Given the hyperfocal distance on a given distance, The 14 looks a much better choice IMO.

If that SOOC pic of the table comes from an uncorrected RAW file, distortion seems close to zero, which is impressive.

Direct link | Posted on Apr 16, 2015 at 08:39 UTC
On Fujifilm XF 16mm F1.4 moves from roadmap to retailers article (228 comments in total)

Fuji take their time and bring out one gem after the other. True 35-mm thinking in the APS-C world is rare these days. It requires some rethinking in terms of DOF, but fortunately the story is the same regarding light gathering. To me this lens is an optimal tradeoff between those two factors (given that the lens needs to stay reasonably compact).

Direct link | Posted on Apr 16, 2015 at 07:52 UTC as 37th comment | 2 replies
Total: 125, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »