Now given the discussion in the XT-3 thread I shouldn't even be posting this, but nevermind
I've been quietly putting together a Fuji X kit - X-Pro 3 and so far the 35 and 50 Fujicrons. The aim being to be lightweight and compact vs the 50R and the two zooms.
The point has come where I'm going to add a wider lens - probably a 16 and probably a slightly longer lens - the 90 maybe. Then I will call stop.
The issue I have is mainly with the 16. The two Fujicrons we have are nice, light, and not bad lenses. However, they rely on software to deal with corner softness and distortion - particularly the 35. So whilst they are good lenses to use they are a compromise. The a/f is very fast and they are well made...
With the 16 I have the choice of the almost Fujicron 2.8 or the 1.4. I'm torn. I have no very fast lens and sometimes that's really useful, particularly inside. People absolutely rave about the 1.4. But it's big and heavy vs the 2.8.
So cutting to the chase. Has anyone got real world experience of one or both of those lenses they'd like to share? Pictures? What's the AF like on the 1.4? What would you do?
I'd also like views on the 90. Thorkil posted a stunning 90 shot in the XT3 thread. Any experiences? Any examples? I'd mainly use it for portraits, perhaps some short tele stuff.
I'd really appreciate actual experience with these lenses. The 50 is a not bad portrait length on the APS-C sensor so I could just skip the 90...but it seems to be a stellar lens, too good in a way to skip. However the 16/1.4 and the 90 are both bricks compared to the Fujicrons.
You get the picture...
I've been quietly putting together a Fuji X kit - X-Pro 3 and so far the 35 and 50 Fujicrons. The aim being to be lightweight and compact vs the 50R and the two zooms.
The point has come where I'm going to add a wider lens - probably a 16 and probably a slightly longer lens - the 90 maybe. Then I will call stop.
The issue I have is mainly with the 16. The two Fujicrons we have are nice, light, and not bad lenses. However, they rely on software to deal with corner softness and distortion - particularly the 35. So whilst they are good lenses to use they are a compromise. The a/f is very fast and they are well made...
With the 16 I have the choice of the almost Fujicron 2.8 or the 1.4. I'm torn. I have no very fast lens and sometimes that's really useful, particularly inside. People absolutely rave about the 1.4. But it's big and heavy vs the 2.8.
So cutting to the chase. Has anyone got real world experience of one or both of those lenses they'd like to share? Pictures? What's the AF like on the 1.4? What would you do?
I'd also like views on the 90. Thorkil posted a stunning 90 shot in the XT3 thread. Any experiences? Any examples? I'd mainly use it for portraits, perhaps some short tele stuff.
I'd really appreciate actual experience with these lenses. The 50 is a not bad portrait length on the APS-C sensor so I could just skip the 90...but it seems to be a stellar lens, too good in a way to skip. However the 16/1.4 and the 90 are both bricks compared to the Fujicrons.
You get the picture...