peevee1

peevee1

Joined on Mar 28, 2012

Comments

Total: 2851, showing: 801 – 820
« First‹ Previous3940414243Next ›Last »

They insist on remaking the same thing over and over again...

Direct link | Posted on Jan 6, 2014 at 20:35 UTC as 3rd comment | 12 replies
In reply to:

JEROME NOLAS: ...and a, ll I wanted is 24mm, f1.8 for decent price, well maybe later...

You mean 23/1.4 is not enough? ;-) You'll be waiting for a long long time then... It does not seem it makes sense for Fuji release lenses 1mm apart, and for 3rd party lensmakes it does not makes sense to support a system which did not have a single camera in top 20 mirrorless in 2013, even when EOS M and Pentax Q7 were there.

Direct link | Posted on Jan 6, 2014 at 19:55 UTC
In reply to:

GrahamSeventy1: The XF 56mm F1.2 R will be available in February, with a suggested retail price of $999.99 / £999.99.

That sounds about right

£999.99 = $1,639.56
or
$999.99 = £609.78

Britain being ripped off again.

"Britain being ripped off again."

Don't you deserve this? ;-)

Direct link | Posted on Jan 6, 2014 at 19:52 UTC
In reply to:

kimchiflower: Assuming it's optically excellent (which I have little doubt that it is), I think that's a fair price..... Unless you buy it in the UK, obviously.

I'm clenching in anticipation of the announced price of the m4/3 Leica 42.5mm f/1.2

"Assuming it's optically excellent (which I have little doubt that it is)"

You should have doubts. Not all Fuji X lenses are good corner to corner wide open - 35/1.4 and 18/2 come to mind. Moreover, a portrait lens (unlike macro or landscape lens) does not have to be - so at $999 I bet it is not. Probably corners are OK by f/4.

Direct link | Posted on Jan 6, 2014 at 19:51 UTC
In reply to:

jenbenn: "The XF56mm F1.2 R is less than half the size of an equivalent lens on a full-frame camera" That is debatable --an equivalent FF lens would be an 85mm 1.8. At least with respect to field of view and dof. The Canon version of such lens happens to be very comparable in size and weight to the Fuji - certainly not double that of the Fuji.iF one conisders the 50mm 1.2 L USM as an "equivalent" lens the statement might be true, however a 50mm on FF has a diffeent application than a 56mm on Aps.-CC and is not comparable. Anyway, apart from the stupid marketing taklk, a real nice lens. Hope Sony release a Zeiss 85mm for their A7r soon, though

OK, it is $1,550 on Amazon now, prices have gone back up. But I am sure it still can be found for $1,400 new on ebay from a decent seller. It has been $1,400 on ebay for months. Even seen it with 24-105/4L for $1,850. That is a huge crash in FF prices, just 1.5 years ago you couldn't buy a new full frame camera with such a lens for less than $4,000.

Direct link | Posted on Jan 6, 2014 at 19:43 UTC
In reply to:

jennyrae: what I like of lens.

56mm and 1.2

"Why are 24-70mm F2.8's just as expensive as 70-200mm F2.8 lenses. "

Because you refer to DSLR lenses made for cameras with 44-46mm flange distance, and 24mm << 46mm. No matter which way you go from the flange (or rather minimum design distance which could be a little less than flange or a little more if you want decent close focusing) at any given aperture, the more it is going to cost you. That is why 40-50mm on DSLRs and 18-20mm on mirrorless are so small and cheap.

Direct link | Posted on Jan 6, 2014 at 19:05 UTC
In reply to:

tkbslc: All those making ridiculous FF comparisons, you do realize the only FF options in this kind of body are made by Leica, right?

So we get a higher end Fuji with a 56mm f1.2 for about $2000-2500 total, depending on the body. That works out to 85mm f1.8 in FF equivalence.

Or we can buy a Leica with a Summicron 90mm f2 or 75mm f2 (both $4000 lenses) for about $11000 with body. Gee, a 1/3 a stop slower even with "equivalence".

A7r has not lenses to compete in that focal length. So far only 28-70/3.5-5.6 comes close, and no, f/5.6 on FF is not even close to f/1.2 on APS-C. Even with upcoming 24-70/4 it is going to be far behind.

Direct link | Posted on Jan 6, 2014 at 18:59 UTC
In reply to:

peevee1: How come Fuji is able to produce lenses about 5 times faster than Sony (with its Minolta division)? It has no market share at all, but in less than 2 years, it has more mirrorless lenses than Sony has in 4. And much better ones. And looks like in a year it will have a complete system, behind only m43.

It is not about the number, it is about what they are. Sony has 3 18-200 lenses, it does not make them any better than 1. Don't count 4 FE lenses also (2 of which are still in "promised" land), they are too expensive to be used on APS-C E-mount cameras.

The reality is, compared to X-mount, Sony already misses UWA prime like 14mm, fastish standard and tele zooms (like 18-55/2.8-4 and 55-200/3.5-4.8, zeiss f/4 is too slow by comparison), fast portrait prime like the just announced 56/1.2. What Fuji misses compared to Sony E ranges? Short macro, having more useful and much faster mid-range macro instead? Well, yeah, superzooms, big omission - but it is on the roadmap already.

Direct link | Posted on Jan 6, 2014 at 18:53 UTC
On Fujifilm to release X100S in solid black article (25 comments in total)

Color-engineering. ;-)

Pentax is still the king in this regard. ;-)

Direct link | Posted on Jan 6, 2014 at 18:43 UTC as 12th comment
In reply to:

mpgxsvcd: An F2.9-6.5 lens is not bright. Especially not with these tiny sensor cameras.

I bet it is f/5.6 on the f/2.9-6.5 lens very early, f/5 on f/2.8-5.6 lens (these are 2 different lenses on 2 different cameras).

Direct link | Posted on Jan 6, 2014 at 18:39 UTC
In reply to:

bizi clop: Does wifi works underwater? :)

Well, it is even too dark for f/3.9 lens over tiny sensor to work underwater.

Direct link | Posted on Jan 6, 2014 at 18:37 UTC
In reply to:

Tapper123: Still no real 1:1 macro lens. *sigh*

Something like a 100mm f2.8 true 1:1 macro would make this system much more appealing to macro shooters.

Adapters ruin sharpness which is critical for macro.

Direct link | Posted on Jan 6, 2014 at 15:55 UTC
In reply to:

smatty: @Dpreview

The new "high speed wide angle lens" only at f2.8???

We have the XF 18mm at f2 and the XF 14mm at f2.8 already.

I have a feeling that we are talking f1.4 - 1.8 here :)

16mm f/1.2 is unlikely, their 14mm is not a small lens already, and 16/1.2 would be huge. And who needs short DoF on a landscape/interior lens anyway?

Direct link | Posted on Jan 6, 2014 at 15:54 UTC
In reply to:

jenbenn: "The XF56mm F1.2 R is less than half the size of an equivalent lens on a full-frame camera" That is debatable --an equivalent FF lens would be an 85mm 1.8. At least with respect to field of view and dof. The Canon version of such lens happens to be very comparable in size and weight to the Fuji - certainly not double that of the Fuji.iF one conisders the 50mm 1.2 L USM as an "equivalent" lens the statement might be true, however a 50mm on FF has a diffeent application than a 56mm on Aps.-CC and is not comparable. Anyway, apart from the stupid marketing taklk, a real nice lens. Hope Sony release a Zeiss 85mm for their A7r soon, though

"Canon 6D $1899
Canon 85mm F1.8 usm $419
Total $2318"

Canon 6D is $1400 now, and 85/1.8 is $320. Total $1720.

Direct link | Posted on Jan 6, 2014 at 15:27 UTC
In reply to:

photogeek: Sony better hurry up with their lens lineup. If Fujifilm cameras had an articulated screen I would have switched already. No articulated screen - no deal, though.

Sony would rather introduce another lens system than actually fill out of of their 5 existing ones.

Direct link | Posted on Jan 6, 2014 at 15:23 UTC
In reply to:

ijustloveshooting: if it had an effective image stabilization like sony sel50 has, it would be my reason to switch to Fuji...a dream low light street lens, it would be...

With modern sensor resolution, IS works not just for super-slow shutter speeds. Remember, 1/FL applied to 135 film for 1000 lines of sharpness most of the time. Want the same on APS-C - divide exposure time by 1.5. Want the 4000 lines your sensor promises? Divide by 4. For 56mm lens, it is already 1/336s, not a slow shutter speed at all. And want more success rate - continue dividing.
And then there is video, which handheld is simply useless without stabilization, no matter what is your aperture.

Direct link | Posted on Jan 6, 2014 at 15:22 UTC
In reply to:

peevee1: Not even as expensive as expected. Probably corners are not sharp to f/2.8-4?

I am not complaining. Why would you think that? Just speculating based on the price and usual Fuji XF price/performance ratio.

Direct link | Posted on Jan 6, 2014 at 15:15 UTC
In reply to:

smatty: @Dpreview

The new "high speed wide angle lens" only at f2.8???

We have the XF 18mm at f2 and the XF 14mm at f2.8 already.

I have a feeling that we are talking f1.4 - 1.8 here :)

On the chart it is placed between 14mm and 18mm, so must be 16mm. And both "high speed" wording and future availability of 16-55/2.8 zoom indicate it should be significantly faster than f/2.8. Fuji hasn't released a single f/1.8 lens yet, it is possible though, but f/2 or even f/1.4 are more probable - seems Fuji product managers don't like f/1.8 much.
16/1.4 would make biggest business sense to differentiate from both 14 and 18 (and 16-55/2.8).

Direct link | Posted on Jan 6, 2014 at 14:04 UTC
In reply to:

abortabort: Filling out very nicely indeed.

Though looks like no new primes (other than the 56mm just announced) for the foreseeable future, specifically no 85/90. Still one of the best and fastest growing out there.

"Yeah but they already had the excellent 18-55mm f2.8-4, the new lens only gains a stop at the longer end (and slightly wider wider end), its a difference for sure, but is it really that necessary?"

Operationally, constant maximum aperture makes a lot of difference for A and M mode shooting. You simply set it and it does not change on zooming, you don't have to check and fix it after every zooming and this is huge for real life event shooting (not for amateurs walking around slowly taking shots of static scenes though).
16mm is very different from 18mm too.

Direct link | Posted on Jan 6, 2014 at 13:56 UTC
In reply to:

OliverGlass: whoa! That 16 to 55 2.8 is looking pretty attractive to me. The 18-55 is nice but the 16-55 is likely a better landscape and travel lens for those who want something wider.

Will probably be very heavy though.

Direct link | Posted on Jan 6, 2014 at 13:49 UTC
Total: 2851, showing: 801 – 820
« First‹ Previous3940414243Next ›Last »