Gringostarr

My 2 lens combo is the 14/2.8 and 60/2.4. Nice wide angle for vistas and a combination macro for plants/flowers as well as short telephoto for landscape shots that need some compression. Those 2 ...

Why do you not use the 14/2.8 or 35/1.4 that much? Do you find yourself often using the 18-135 zoomed out but wish for a thinner depth of field from those shots?

I've found that the rule of 300 works for Fuji astrophotography so the 18mm can be kept open for up to 16 seconds without any concern for star trails. I use the 14/2.8 at a 20-21 second exposures ...

I'll second these, although either my copy has a bit less vignetting than yours or I'm not noticing as much since I would call it minor up to f2 and invisible once there. I also don't have the 35mm ...

Thanks for the heads up that it's available there since I just ordered one and then got the notification that it's shipping out today.

Forest Orchid? 60/2.4 Morro Bay Rock. 14/2.8 Waterfall on a hike near Mendocino. 14/2.8 Forest Mushrooms. 60/2.4 SOOC with the 27/2.8 Morning Otter with the 70-300 More Otter with the 70-300 An ...

Easily the favorite lens of any that I currently own or have used. It’s a light and compact*, relatively fast aperture, pseudo-macro mid-telephoto lens with a bit of the “magic” rendering that the ...

Tried all 3 and went with the 14/2.8 The 10-24 is good for a zoom but it’s not a prime, it’s also big and pretty heavy. The 16/2.8 leans heavily on in camera corrections which means the corners ...

I have my eyes on that one but I'm waiting to see how it performs with astro before making any decision, especially since it shares the same filter thread with the 70-300 which would be much more ...

(1) Excellent image quality (2) Fast aperture (3) Small and light (4) Fast, accurate, and maybe silent auto-focus

The TP thing was because some idiot started a Facebook rumor about how the same factories that make toilet paper make face masks, which isn't true, but that resulted in a lot of panic buying which ...

I'm almost the exact opposite since my core hiking/backpacking kit consists of the X-E4, 14/2.8, & 60/2.4. Those two lenses are so compact I can fit one in the belt pouch of my pack while the ...

Those samples look fantastic, looks much better than the 35/1.2 wide open IMO and I'm not seeing anything to complain about at f2 where the 35/1.2 really needed to be stopped down to f2.8 to reach ...

$780 is a hefty price for a manual focus 23mm when the new 23 1.4 WR is only $120 more.

The 60/2.4 is the most underrated lens fuji makes. If you have a new body it's AF is fine when not used in macro range, and even then it's not terrible. The 35/1.4 is great, but if you're enjoying ...

I always go hiking with 2 lenses, the 14/2.8 and either the 60/2.4 about 80% of the time or the 70-300 when I know I’ll need the zoom. Most hikes are out and backs so I’ll have one prime on going ...

This is exactly why on all my hiking or multi day backpacking trips I take the 14/2.8 along with either the 60/2.4 or 70-300 depending on how much weight I’m willing to devote to photography.

I was hesitant to get the 35 when it came out since I do love the OG 35/1.4, but this looks like a fantastic lens for a 23mm focal length. I do wish it was a 21 or 18 but a bit tighter than ...

X-T3 & 16-55 for Newcastle and Scotland. X-T3, 18/2, 35/1.4 for London. Newcastle and Scotland will have a lot of places to explore but with your family a zoom will let you stick with them instead ...

A macro lens as an everyday carry is great to have and why I pretty much always have the 60/2.4 on me, only substituting it for the 70-300 when I know I'll need the longer reach. I will say though ...