How serious is the slow focus of X-Pro1 affecting purchase decision?

Started Apr 26, 2012 | Discussions thread
brudy Senior Member • Posts: 1,510
Re: How serious is the slow focus of X-Pro1 affecting purchase decision?

Yep, we're in agreement. I also think 18mm isn't that wide and that my 10-22 isn't wide enough. There's a sigma 8-16 that I'm dying to try. I've used 15 and 12mm on film and love that uwa view. I'll have the xpro by the time the 14mm comes out and will be all over that. If you've ever seen the voigtlander 15 and 12mm lenses, you'll see how freakin tiny they can get. Slow though, at 4.5 and 5.6 respectively. I'll probably skip the 18mm in preparation for the 144 and I like the 50mm for a city/street type lens so will start with that.

You're also probably right about the size of something longer. The canon 85/1.8 is very reasonably sized though (as far as Canon lenses go). I haven't seen the fuji 60 in real life yet, only the 35 and 18. Both are a nice portable size and feel light (in a good way). I hope the rest follow suit. I'm excited to get the xpro before my next big trip and can't wait to travel with it.

RealXenuis wrote:

I think we're not far off from each other. I much prefer wide, and use the 18 at the expense of the 35 IQ, and this is still not wide enough for me (coming from the 12, the 18 feels limiting, as funny as that sounds). If they'd gotten the 18 as right as they did the 35, I would get rid of that one. But design of UWA's is much more constrained than say a 35 or 50, much more to take into account and to "get right", so I understand.

I am, too, pro smaller size/big aperture. But I find the 60, as is, pushing it as far as being able to claim "compact" size with a straight face. And 85 - with f/1.8 say - is going to be bigger. A zoom, at f/4, might be bigger than say an 85, but maybe not. The mounts are diff, etc. My point being, anything longer than the 60 will likely be as big or bigger than the 60. So if your move is toward smallness, desiring an 85 at and even bigger aperture will prob not get you there. The tradeoff is going to be size for FL, no matter how you look at it. Still, that 85 or that 70-200 will very likely be MUCH smaller than these zooms we've been mentioning. That 12-24 was relatively enormous and was "only" f/4. The Tamron 70-300 (about the same size as the 70-200 i believe) was again even more enormous. If they keep the size to even twice as long as the 60, I'd be satisfied they did what they could.

I look at it as squeezing the most versatility out of the system as a whole. When I want just compactness, the 18 does perfectly well. I rather like it, a lot. The 35 is not far off. Not quite as pocketable but for pure IQ, man, can't beat it. Still very portable. When I absolutely must have reach - say on vacay, sports etc - then I'll have the option of the (likely larger) UWA + Tele-Zoom. It's good to have options!

brudy wrote:

It's funny - I have the 10-22 for my 7D and love it (as well as the 70-200f4). I'm not anti-zoom at all. But I'm pro smaller size and larger aperture. It seems like a longer/faster prime is a glaring hole in the road map. It will be interesting to see how big the Fuji 70-200 turns out to be. If it's as big as the Canon, I wouldn't get it (and it's not even that big compared to Canon's other zooms). I'll be getting the fuji mostly for travel and walk around, so I want the kit to be smaller. FWIW, I'm strongly considering getting rid of most of my Canon stuff except my birding lenses, which the fuji will never be able to do adequately.

In terms of usage, personally I usually shoot on the wide end (except for birds), but it'd be nice to have a longer option than 60mm. To me that seems like an odd focal length. On my 7D I use the 85 for portraits, but that space between 85 and say 50-55, I don't seem to ever want it. I also use rangefinders (epson r-d1 and others) so I'm used to primes.

RealXenuis wrote:

You may be right. Personally, I wouldn't use a slightly longer/faster prime. I would still likely just use it for portrait/macro work. I haven't found that FL particularly useful for anything but. I'd be more interesting in a 200+ prime with reasonable speed. I have NO problem with the 2.4 on the 60, nor it's IQ. It's at least fantastic if not better (I also think this of the 35). I'm also one of those who has no issue with a good zoom. Think Nikkor (and really, Tokina and Tamron FOR Nikon). I, personally, don't see a lot of quality diff btwn the Tokina 12-24 i used w/my D7000 and the 18 on the Fuji, other than (of course, most importantly) character. Color mostly. The 12 was sharp at 12 and beyond. It suffered about the same (maybe slightly more?) with CA in high contrast. I felt the 12-24 was extremely useful and a great lens, but it suffered in that system b/c the D7000 wasn't as good at high ISO, where the Fuji should shine. Same with the long tele-zooms. I'd find a 70-300 IS at a reasonable f-stop MUCH more useful than a middling-length 85, even at f/1.whatever. I could make up a lot of the diff w/the 35, even with cropping, but I could never make up for subjects at + - 300 (450 FF) with say, an 85 and cropping. The 70-200 Fuji has planned should be quite useful (if done well like with nikon), even if a bit shorter than i'd prefer.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/brudy

 brudy's gear list:brudy's gear list
Fujifilm FinePix X100 Canon EOS 7D Sony Alpha a7R Fujifilm X-T10
Post (hide subjects) Posted by
(unknown member)
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow