I prefer low weight to large aperture

Many, many year ago I bought the Canon 85mm 1.2 to shoot indoor volleyball. It was a very large lens. Large and heavy. It gave me much light through the viewfinder, but I could not use that largest opening, because it gave sharpness only in a very small area.
These days, with the X-series Fuji cameras you get acceptable images with ISO 3200. That means you are able to get images even in not-to-good lighting.
My favourite wide angle has been 24 mm (135 film), or 16 mm for my X-T1. I read here that many want this to be f/1.4. I do not! I got into mirrorless cameras because of the reduced weight. I do not understand why so many want/need heavy glass fore these cameras.
I have the 14mm and the 18-55mm (sold the fantastic 55-200 mm to my brother, I found it a bit on the heavy side). I will reconsider my lens choices later this year, but I know I want the 90 mm (135). I shall wait to the end of the year and see what Fuji comes up with.
Any comments?

--

Raymond
http://www.blurb.com/bookstore/detail/1244032#author-bookshelf (my books)
http://osloray.wordpress.com/ (Image blog)
http://volleyray.wordpress.com/ (Image blog)
I agree to an extent. Fuji is already ahead of the curve by delivering the XC zooms, which are slow, light, and affordable, but, unlike the Canikon equivalents, deliver excellent IQ. Others have pointed out the three "cheaper" light primes, which round out things but are a little pricey at full retail.

I do think a fully mature set of lenses would include more 1.8 or 2.0 primes that are similar in size, weight, quality & cost to the cheaper Nikkor 1.8 D primes, like the "nifty fifty." But I think we know at this point such lenses will come late in the roadmap, if at all.
 
Raymond Wardenaer wrote:
These days, with the X-series Fuji cameras you get acceptable images with ISO 3200. That means you are able to get images even in not-to-good lighting.
I really enjoy the TAv mode on my Ricoh GR which let's me dial in my desired aperture and shutter speed letting the camera increase ISO as required to get proper exposure. This would seem to be a no-brainer for Fuji with its excellent high ISO.
Yes, you can do that on the Fuji X cameras, at least I can on my X-E2, and there is no reason why this wouldn't be available on at least the X=E1 and X-T1, but please check this for the specific camera you are after.

You can set the camera to Auto ISO, then set the shutter speed on the dial in 1 stop steps (and can fine tune it in 1/3 stop steps by using the command dial) then adjust the aperture on the ring and Bob's your uncle.

One caveat though: Exposure comensation doesn't work in this mode, which is a pity and must be an oversight by Fuji.

Some casual observers perceive this mode as being manual mode and say you just adjust the dials if you need compensation. Well, this is not manual, mode, this Auto ISO mode, and Exposure Compensation does make sense in this instance.

I do hope Fuji will enable Exposure compensation in Auto Iso mode in future firmware updates.
 
Many, many year ago I bought the Canon 85mm 1.2 to shoot indoor volleyball. It was a very large lens. Large and heavy. It gave me much light through the viewfinder, but I could not use that largest opening, because it gave sharpness only in a very small area.
These days, with the X-series Fuji cameras you get acceptable images with ISO 3200. That means you are able to get images even in not-to-good lighting.
My favourite wide angle has been 24 mm (135 film), or 16 mm for my X-T1. I read here that many want this to be f/1.4. I do not! I got into mirrorless cameras because of the reduced weight. I do not understand why so many want/need heavy glass fore these cameras.
I have the 14mm and the 18-55mm (sold the fantastic 55-200 mm to my brother, I found it a bit on the heavy side). I will reconsider my lens choices later this year, but I know I want the 90 mm (135). I shall wait to the end of the year and see what Fuji comes up with.
Any comments?

--

Raymond
http://www.blurb.com/bookstore/detail/1244032#author-bookshelf (my books)
http://osloray.wordpress.com/ (Image blog)
http://volleyray.wordpress.com/ (Image blog)
I agree to an extent. Fuji is already ahead of the curve by delivering the XC zooms, which are slow, light, and affordable, but, unlike the Canikon equivalents, deliver excellent IQ.
Isn't knocking kit lenses an outdated past-time these days? That's so 2003. I don't think it is valid to claim that the latest Canon kits lens is inferior when it comes to IQ, especially the newer STM lenses.

Here's the 18-55 STM kit at 100% with nothing to hide. Sharp and lots of details right up into the corners. I can't say I have much to complain about re: IQ for this thankfully light lens. Fuji doesn't have a monopoly when it comes to kit lenses with good IQ.



 
ISO is basically just a number in the metadata. No, the noise doesn't depend on ISO, it depends on the exposure.
I'm not sure why you're challenging what I wrote. I didn't even have noise on my mind when I made my reply, nor did I mention it. Noise isn't why I prefer not to use auto ISO in some situations.
What is important to the photographer is to select the A and T correctly because those are the means of achieving the desired image. It's very convenient to keep the ISO on auto -- it is what it is -- there is no reason to guess it, camera is capable of measuring the light.
Jared Huntr asked if there was a mode like Ricoh's TAv. I said no because there is no TAv mode that I'm aware of. I went on to say that he could adjust aperture & shutter speed and ride the ISO. I finished my post by saying there's also auto ISO. So if Jared is interested, he could set aperture, shutter speed, and auto ISO. It's basically the same thing as TAv, but with Fuji it's not an actual mode.

.

.

.
 
  • Like
Reactions: rjx
Many, many year ago I bought the Canon 85mm 1.2 to shoot indoor volleyball. It was a very large lens. Large and heavy. It gave me much light through the viewfinder, but I could not use that largest opening, because it gave sharpness only in a very small area.
These days, with the X-series Fuji cameras you get acceptable images with ISO 3200. That means you are able to get images even in not-to-good lighting.
My favourite wide angle has been 24 mm (135 film), or 16 mm for my X-T1. I read here that many want this to be f/1.4. I do not! I got into mirrorless cameras because of the reduced weight. I do not understand why so many want/need heavy glass fore these cameras.
I have the 14mm and the 18-55mm (sold the fantastic 55-200 mm to my brother, I found it a bit on the heavy side). I will reconsider my lens choices later this year, but I know I want the 90 mm (135). I shall wait to the end of the year and see what Fuji comes up with.
Any comments?

--

Raymond
http://www.blurb.com/bookstore/detail/1244032#author-bookshelf (my books)
http://osloray.wordpress.com/ (Image blog)
http://volleyray.wordpress.com/ (Image blog)
I agree to an extent. Fuji is already ahead of the curve by delivering the XC zooms, which are slow, light, and affordable, but, unlike the Canikon equivalents, deliver excellent IQ.
Isn't knocking kit lenses an outdated past-time these days? That's so 2003. I don't think it is valid to claim that the latest Canon kits lens is inferior when it comes to IQ, especially the newer STM lenses.

Here's the 18-55 STM kit at 100% with nothing to hide. Sharp and lots of details right up into the corners. I can't say I have much to complain about re: IQ for this thankfully light lens. Fuji doesn't have a monopoly when it comes to kit lenses with good IQ.

Not saying this is a bad lens by any stretch, but I will point out that most lenses are fairly good performers when stopped down to f/8. The Fuji "kit" is quite good even wide open. I don't have experience with the lens you are referring to here, but I would be interested to see how it performs wide open at 18mm and 55mm, which tend to be the worst spots for kit lenses.

--
www.500px.com/jasonshaffer0
 
Isn't knocking kit lenses an outdated past-time these days? That's so 2003. I don't think it is valid to claim that the latest Canon kits lens is inferior when it comes to IQ, especially the newer STM lenses.
That STM lens does look pretty good, thanks for the correction. Although I'd say that knocking Canikon kit lenses is more like 2012 as opposed to 2003. It's only been very recent that either has updated those lenses, and as recent as a year or two ago, at least for Nikon, the standard 18-55, although very good for the cost, could hardly boast of great edge-to-edge sharpness at all apertures. Not sure what the new Nikkor 18-55 is like, but Canon seems to have upped it's game. Competition is a good thing!

--
My Flikr stream: http://flic.kr/ps/Ay8ka
 
Last edited:
Many, many year ago I bought the Canon 85mm 1.2 to shoot indoor volleyball. It was a very large lens. Large and heavy. It gave me much light through the viewfinder, but I could not use that largest opening, because it gave sharpness only in a very small area.
These days, with the X-series Fuji cameras you get acceptable images with ISO 3200. That means you are able to get images even in not-to-good lighting.
My favourite wide angle has been 24 mm (135 film), or 16 mm for my X-T1. I read here that many want this to be f/1.4. I do not! I got into mirrorless cameras because of the reduced weight. I do not understand why so many want/need heavy glass fore these cameras.
I have the 14mm and the 18-55mm (sold the fantastic 55-200 mm to my brother, I found it a bit on the heavy side). I will reconsider my lens choices later this year, but I know I want the 90 mm (135). I shall wait to the end of the year and see what Fuji comes up with.
Any comments?

--

Raymond
http://www.blurb.com/bookstore/detail/1244032#author-bookshelf (my books)
http://osloray.wordpress.com/ (Image blog)
http://volleyray.wordpress.com/ (Image blog)
I agree to an extent. Fuji is already ahead of the curve by delivering the XC zooms, which are slow, light, and affordable, but, unlike the Canikon equivalents, deliver excellent IQ.
Isn't knocking kit lenses an outdated past-time these days? That's so 2003. I don't think it is valid to claim that the latest Canon kits lens is inferior when it comes to IQ, especially the newer STM lenses.

Here's the 18-55 STM kit at 100% with nothing to hide. Sharp and lots of details right up into the corners. I can't say I have much to complain about re: IQ for this thankfully light lens. Fuji doesn't have a monopoly when it comes to kit lenses with good IQ.
Not saying this is a bad lens by any stretch, but I will point out that most lenses are fairly good performers when stopped down to f/8. The Fuji "kit" is quite good even wide open. I don't have experience with the lens you are referring to here, but I would be interested to see how it performs wide open at 18mm and 55mm, which tend to be the worst spots for kit lenses.
 
I agree. Fuji goes for fast lenses to give DOF similar to full frame but ignores to fact that most people bought into the system because it is smaller than the one they owned.

2/18, 1.4/35 and 2.4/60 were all small and light.

the 2.8/14 is still rather compact and light. But the 1.4/23 and especially the 1.2/56 is way to heavy.

I would like to see something like: 2.8/16 or 2/23 but it is unlikely they will made such lenses. For me 300g is about the maximum weight for a lens in such a system. The 1.4/23 is 299g and I still prefer it would be a 2/23 with half the weight.

If I shoot with my Fuji XP1 I want a light system that I can carry around for hours in a small shoulder bag. If I don't care about the weight because I'm traveling by car I shoot with my Canon 6D.

--

Joachim
 
ISO is basically just a number in the metadata. No, the noise doesn't depend on ISO, it depends on the exposure.
I'm not sure why you're challenging what I wrote. I didn't even have noise on my mind when I made my reply, nor did I mention it. Noise isn't why I prefer not to use auto ISO in some situations.
What is important to the photographer is to select the A and T correctly because those are the means of achieving the desired image. It's very convenient to keep the ISO on auto -- it is what it is -- there is no reason to guess it, camera is capable of measuring the light.
Jared Huntr asked if there was a mode like Ricoh's TAv. I said no because there is no TAv mode that I'm aware of. I went on to say that he could adjust aperture & shutter speed and ride the ISO. I finished my post by saying there's also auto ISO. So if Jared is interested, he could set aperture, shutter speed, and auto ISO. It's basically the same thing as TAv, but with Fuji it's not an actual mode.

.

.
 
I would buy an XT-1 tomorrow if there was a 23mm pancake... And yes, f/2 is fine with me!
 
But the 1.4/23 and especially the 1.2/56 is way to heavy.
Compared to what? I use both those lenses on an X-T1 and they are a blessing compared to the Nikon counterparts I used to lug on a D700. Combined with the 14, that is my <1.5Kg travel kit, less than half the weight I used to carry for the same coverage. Not sure about you, but I'm absolutely stoked that I can have this much quality in such a light kit.
 
Not saying this is a bad lens by any stretch, but I will point out that most lenses are fairly good performers when stopped down to f/8. The Fuji "kit" is quite good even wide open. I don't have experience with the lens you are referring to here, but I would be interested to see how it performs wide open at 18mm and 55mm, which tend to be the worst spots for kit lenses.
It's a slow lens, that is almost wide open!
 
I was just speaking personally, not as a serious suggestion for Fuji!

I'm sure the 27mm is a good lens that pleases a lot of people, but the main reason I am giving so much consideration to Fuji is the shooting experience. That what it's all about for me. I already have an excellent camera with several good primes that produces images that please me very much, but while I am learning to get along with it, I just don't like the way it shoots. The Fujis I have handled feel like real cameras to me, but only when the aperture control is where it belongs, on a ring on the lens. If I have to change the aperture with a control wheel, I might as well stay where I am with a camera that is already paid for. So no 27mm.

I'm looking for at the most three classic primes: a 35, an 85, and maybe a 50. Fuji is rich in the 55-60 range with two nice options, and I quite liked the 35mm if I decide I want a 50mm fov. But the 35mm fov street lens I want is on the X100S ...which wouldn't be a problem if I had all the money in the world, since I really like that camera and would love to have one. But the situation kind of puts the kibosh on the traditional one body/two lens setup.

I realize having a third lens option between 20 and 30mm would probably be overkill for Fuji, but it's awkward that there is no small, light street lens with an aperture ring. Of course, what Fuji really wants is to sell me an X100S, and believe me, I am thinking about it.
 
Many, many year ago I bought the Canon 85mm 1.2 to shoot indoor volleyball. It was a very large lens. Large and heavy. It gave me much light through the viewfinder, but I could not use that largest opening, because it gave sharpness only in a very small area.
These days, with the X-series Fuji cameras you get acceptable images with ISO 3200. That means you are able to get images even in not-to-good lighting.
My favourite wide angle has been 24 mm (135 film), or 16 mm for my X-T1. I read here that many want this to be f/1.4. I do not! I got into mirrorless cameras because of the reduced weight. I do not understand why so many want/need heavy glass fore these cameras.
I have the 14mm and the 18-55mm (sold the fantastic 55-200 mm to my brother, I found it a bit on the heavy side). I will reconsider my lens choices later this year, but I know I want the 90 mm (135). I shall wait to the end of the year and see what Fuji comes up with.
Any comments?

--

Raymond
http://www.blurb.com/bookstore/detail/1244032#author-bookshelf (my books)
http://osloray.wordpress.com/ (Image blog)
http://volleyray.wordpress.com/ (Image blog)
I agree to an extent. Fuji is already ahead of the curve by delivering the XC zooms, which are slow, light, and affordable, but, unlike the Canikon equivalents, deliver excellent IQ.
Isn't knocking kit lenses an outdated past-time these days? That's so 2003. I don't think it is valid to claim that the latest Canon kits lens is inferior when it comes to IQ, especially the newer STM lenses.

Here's the 18-55 STM kit at 100% with nothing to hide. Sharp and lots of details right up into the corners. I can't say I have much to complain about re: IQ for this thankfully light lens. Fuji doesn't have a monopoly when it comes to kit lenses with good IQ.

Not saying this is a bad lens by any stretch, but I will point out that most lenses are fairly good performers when stopped down to f/8. The Fuji "kit" is quite good even wide open. I don't have experience with the lens you are referring to here, but I would be interested to see how it performs wide open at 18mm and 55mm, which tend to be the worst spots for kit lenses.

--
www.500px.com/jasonshaffer0
Here you go. Not bad at both ends at wide open:


I was surprised at their comment about the Fuji XF 18-55. I expected more from a 'premium' lens:

"The Fujinon shows a rather massive amount of barrel distortion at the short end (4.6%) so it is a bit under-designed here."
 
Many, many year ago I bought the Canon 85mm 1.2 to shoot indoor volleyball. It was a very large lens. Large and heavy. It gave me much light through the viewfinder, but I could not use that largest opening, because it gave sharpness only in a very small area.
Hi Raymond, A Fujinon APS (prime) lenses wouldn't be that fast immediately when we properly compare them to their full-frame equivalents. The Fujinon 56mm/f1.2, for example, is equivalent to a 85mm/f1.8 in terms of FoV, DoF and collecting total amount of light for a photo, as excellently explained by Tony Northrup:

I think 99% of the buyers fail to convert the F numbers when comparing APS vs FF lenses; even this reviewer here
nicely forgets about the F-number conversion. If Fujifilm wanted to make a similar lens as the Canon 85mm/f1.2, then it should be an F0.8 lens. I was not aware of these things either until recently when our own Joe Camosy (Redlion) on this forum explained why he uses a (focal-reducer) Speed Booster http://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/53846077

When you compare the sizes and weights of Fujinon prime lenses they are not smaller than their corresponding FF lenses as shown here http://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/54109810
These days, with the X-series Fuji cameras you get acceptable images with ISO 3200. That means you are able to get images even in not-to-good lighting.
ISO is another Fuji trick/cheat; Fuji ISO 3200 is equivalent to Canon/Nikon/Sony ISO1600. I was not aware of this until recently someone pointed out this phenomenon and Tony Northrup mentions that, too.

If you put the Fujinon prime lens collection into this full-frame perspective, they are not that fast immediately. Where they are great is that they all have aspheric(al) element(s) and the quality of the image that they deliver is state-of the art. In terms of shallow DoF and total amount of light per photo, no APS camera can compete against a full-frame camera. I think all the APS vs FF comparisons/reviews simply ignore the facts of physics.

I love my X-A1, and this was the reason I bought a Speed Booster following Redlion's hints. Yesterday I bought my first aspherical lens, a Voigtlander 20mm/f3.5 (sic!). f3.5 is (terribly) slow on an APS camera, but with the Speed Booster it would correspond to a 13.3mm/f2.3 Fujinon lens, which is roughly the same (with the Speed Booster, of course) as the Fujinon 14mm/f2.8.

Aspherical Voiglander 20mm (Nikon mount) on Speed Booster on a Fujifilm camera: a perfect match delivering near full-frame FoV and DoF handling.

Aspherical Voiglander 20mm (Nikon mount) on Speed Booster on a Fujifilm camera: a perfect match delivering near full-frame FoV and DoF handling.

Take care and have fun, Miki
 
Last edited:
But the 1.4/23 and especially the 1.2/56 is way to heavy.
Compared to what? I use both those lenses on an X-T1 and they are a blessing compared to the Nikon counterparts I used to lug on a D700. Combined with the 14, that is my <1.5Kg travel kit, less than half the weight I used to carry for the same coverage. Not sure about you, but I'm absolutely stoked that I can have this much quality in such a light kit.

--
William Cowan
See some of my photos at http://www.radiantphotograph.com
It's obvious that Nikon failed to round out their APS-C catalogue. But in FF terms, the equivalent to the 1,4/23 is the small, compact, and fast-focusing AFD 2/35, which is both more compact and lighter than the XF equivalent lens quoted here.

It has its share of problems: distortion, edge/corner resolution, but then again, it was a budget lens, whereas the 1,4/23 is a rather expensive lens, again, that is both larger and heavier, not to mention 20 years newer. The new 1,8/35 AFS is 5 grams heavier than the Fujifilm, a bit faster, 2/3 of the price, and even uses smaller filters.

Again, savings in weight/size/cost only come from mirrorless bodies, and even so, only when comparing to quasi-equivalent FF cameras. Premium mirrorless cost more than premium APS-C dSLRs. But they are smaller/lighter, and in the case of Fujifilm, have a better rounded-out lens system.

--
Hiking with the Fujifilm X-T1
ohm image - audio photography
 
Last edited:
But the 1.4/23 and especially the 1.2/56 is way to heavy.
Compared to what? I use both those lenses on an X-T1 and they are a blessing compared to the Nikon counterparts I used to lug on a D700. Combined with the 14, that is my <1.5Kg travel kit, less than half the weight I used to carry for the same coverage. Not sure about you, but I'm absolutely stoked that I can have this much quality in such a light kit.
 
But the 1.4/23 and especially the 1.2/56 is way to heavy.
Compared to what? I use both those lenses on an X-T1 and they are a blessing compared to the Nikon counterparts I used to lug on a D700. Combined with the 14, that is my <1.5Kg travel kit, less than half the weight I used to carry for the same coverage. Not sure about you, but I'm absolutely stoked that I can have this much quality in such a light kit.

--
William Cowan
See some of my photos at http://www.radiantphotograph.com
It's obvious that Nikon failed to round out their APS-C catalogue. But in FF terms, the equivalent to the 1,4/23 is the small, compact, and fast-focusing AFD 2/35, which is both more compact and lighter than the XF equivalent lens quoted here.

--
Hiking with the Fujifilm X-T1
ohm image - audio photography
That's not half the lens that the Fuji 23mm is. It's also double the weight with a body attached compared to the 23/X-T1 combo.

--
William Cowan
See some of my photos at http://www.radiantphotograph.com
I was slow to edit the comment, and I think I didn't mention my edit. I will fix that. Again, the new AFS 1,8/35 weighs 4 grams more than the Fujifilm, is just as sharp, and in every way the Fujifilm's equal. The bodies are the only place mirrorless provide weight savings, but again, that's because Nikon stubbornly make massive dSLRs. 35mm SLRs of the day were just as small as today's compact mirrorless cameras such as the X-T1.

EDIT: it's too late for me to edit my earlier post. Everything after the first paragraph was an edit.

--
Hiking with the Fujifilm X-T1
ohm image - audio photography
 
Last edited:
I do not understand why so many want/need heavy glass fore these cameras.
Probably You doesn't need good IQ.

When i compare the 16-50mm Zoom from FUFIFILM with my 50mm F/1.8D Nikon.
I must say the Nikon is a bit lighter. ;-)
Any comments?
With a fast Prime You have better IQ = less Noise for Videos.
When i compare the F/1.8 Nikon open Aperture with the F/5.6 from the FUJIFILM Zoom...
 
So far, the only lens in my Fuji system that seems big for what it is, is the 23mm. I'd welcome a 23mm f/2 or f/1.8 if that meant a more compact lens.

I know I can get a X100S, but I prefer to have a lens for my system, since bodies get changed out every now and then, but a lens can last a long time.

Otherwise... the 14, 35 and 56 all fit well for me, no problems there. The 18-55, I wish was a 16-50 f2.8-4, because it'd be nice to have a bit wider... but the announced 16-50 f/2.8 looks pretty giant... so I'll stick with my 18-55, and use the 14 when I need a bit more width. :)

--
http://jasonhaven.photography / http://jasonhavenphoto.tumblr.com
 
Last edited:

Keyboard shortcuts

Back
Top