Personal gear review

[agentlossing]

UPDATE: I think I fixed it, the driver must be had for my Samsung monitor. I picked "uninstall device" in my graphics settings and the monitor switched to correct. Very weird. I remember checking for a new driver but I wasn't sure whether the one I found was the one already installed.

Still stranger, when I hooked up my laptop as an extended display to see whether the LCD panel was to blame for the weird colors, it's not: I can drag a window from the main display to the secondary one, and when it makes it to the secondary one, the colors look like they should, BUT even when part of the window is still on the main display, once more than 50% is on the secondary one, the colors shift to true and even the part that's still on the main panel shifts and looks correct. I'm boggled at the moment.

 

[Clix Pix]

Wow! I've just finished reading through part of this thread and all of a sudden I don't feel so guilty about having spent a bunch of money on camera gear over the past two years. I'm among soul-mates, I can see that!

In late November 2019 I traded in all my Nikon gear for a Sony A7R IV and three lenses.....and since that time I've gradually been adding new lenses to the "family" as needed and wanted. Actually, I've pretty much got my list completed now, just a couple more lenses to go but no hurry on those; they are more "nice to have" rather than "I must have" sorts of lenses. I will admit that I hadn't really expected to get another new camera body, too, quite this soon but when the Sony A1 came along, it was truly irresistible..... So now in 2022 it is going to be more a matter of really settling down with the "family" and truly utilizing each lens and body and getting the most from them, as well as learning what I need to learn and most importantly, working more on my technique to get better results, along with overall, just moving forward.

 

[mike3996]

My fifty review, for Leica M/LTM mount.

• Cosina Voigtländer 50 f/3.5 Classic Heliar. Still probably my favorite fifty. Easy to operate, light like a feather.
• Cosina Voigtländer 50 f/1.5 Nokton. Excellent bokeh, lightweight to carry. But sometimes I just hesitate to take it because of all the options.
• Leica Summilux-M 50 ASPH. The "perfect fifty" that is wonderfully ergonomical to operate, optically pristine, no need to stop down for sharpness. But what can I do, Nokton f/1.5 does better bokeh so that's why I sold it. Now I have another for which I paid much less money.
• TTartisan 50/0.95. A recent addition. It does f/0.95 so very well it surprises me. But then I noticed that the lens is so highly geared towards wide open shooting, it isn't that good stopped down.
• Jupiter-8 50/2. Good low-fi type of lens for me. It's not that low fidelity but because the rangefinder isn't in agreement about focus, I shoot it at f/8 for nice results, otherwise I have to use live view to focus. Excellent "softish yet 3D" look about the images. I should shoot this lens much more often than I do.

There are other 50mm lenses that would in theory offer new things in the way they render. But I am not in a rush acquiring any more.

• Zeiss ZM 50 f/1.5 C-Sonnar. For that 3D look again. Incredible stunning pop effect on the images.
• Leica Summicron 50/2. To me this is The Leica Look. All the sample pics suggest much nicer looking bokeh than what 50 Summilux does.
• Cosina Voigtländer 50/1.1 Nokton. I trust Brian when he says this lens must be the closest to Walter Mandler's Leica 50 f/1 spherical fifty that rules the earth for decades.
• Leica Noctilux f/1.2 -- when I win the lottery.
• Leica Summilux f/1.4 pre-ASPH. Interesting lens but is much money for something that will sit very closely next to the Nokton f/1.5.

 

[MoonMind]

I have a little follow-up on an exchange that went on in an image thread (sorry for that, guys) - concerning the merits of the Fujifilm 18-55mm f/2.8-4.

I've said it before and will repeat it here that I found the lowly Nikon Z 16-50mm DX to basically outshoot the revered Fujifilm zoom - and I stand by that.

However, there's one major exception to that: If you generally live on the long end of your (standard) zoom, the Fujfilm 18-55mm really shines in that respect - it produces a beautiful rendering and generally great image quality at 55mm, wide open. So, if you're more of a portrait shooter or short tele afficionado, you can really do yourself a big service by getting this lens for your Fujifilm system - and you'll be getting a solid, if not equally stunning standard zoom as a sort of bonus (I'm exaggerating a bit here, but I want to emphasise my point: The 18-55mm is truely outstanding at its long end!).

I'll still be moving on my Fujifilm setup as soon as I'm able to complete my Nikon Z DX system (everything I need for that is on the roadmap, announced or has already arrived - I'll be able to post about this come summer, I guess). But that's *not* because the Fujfilm gear doesn't have its merits, on the contrary. I just don't use it a lot anymore (mainly because I like my three go-to Z combos so much), so it'll be of much better use in different hands.

M.

 

[DeeJayK]

I have a little follow-up on an exchange that went on in an image thread (sorry for that, guys) - concerning the merits of the Fujifilm 18-55mm f/2.8-4.

I've said it before and will repeat it here that I found the lowly Nikon Z 16-50mm DX to basically outshoot the revered Fujifilm zoom - and I stand by that.

However, there's one major exception to that: If you generally live on the long end of your (standard) zoom, the Fujfilm 18-55mm really shines in that respect - it produces a beautiful rendering and generally great image quality at 55mm, wide open. So, if you're more of a portrait shooter or short tele afficionado, you can really do yourself a big service by getting this lens for your Fujifilm system - and you'll be getting a solid, if not equally stunning standard zoom as a sort of bonus (I'm exaggerating a bit here, but I want to emphasise my point: The 18-55mm is truely outstanding at its long end!).

I'll still be moving on my Fujifilm setup as soon as I'm able to complete my Nikon Z DX system (everything I need for that is on the roadmap, announced or has already arrived - I'll be able to post about this come summer, I guess). But that's *not* because the Fujfilm gear doesn't have its merits, on the contrary. I just don't use it a lot anymore (mainly because I like my three go-to Z combos so much), so it'll be of much better use in different hands.

M.

As someone who's only recently come to the Fuji X system, I'm a bit surprised to hear the 18-55 zoom spoken about as "revered" (even if just to poke holes in that assertion a bit). I don't own one and haven't shot one, but had gotten the sense that the 18-55 was the "ordinary" kit lens and that the true wide-standard standout was the (larger and more expensive) 16-55 f/2.8.

Are there other Fuji lenses that you feel similarly punch above their weight?

- K

 

[mnhoj]

One of my favs of the lesser was the 18 F2. I'm not the best judge of character but I'd call this one with a lot that I like.
The XC zooms don't have the appeal of aperture rings but perform well. I didn't try the XC35 but I believe it's the same optical formula as the XF.
The Sigma trio of F1.4 lenses have recently added x-mounts. These are great optically and I had often wished they were included.
I think all the rest punch pretty hard. Fuji makes great lenses.

 

[DeeJayK]

One of my favs of the lesser was the 18 F2. I'm not the best judge of character but I'd call this one with a lot that I like.
The XC zooms don't have the appeal of aperture rings but perform well. I didn't try the XC35 but I believe it's the same optical formula as the XF.
The Sigma trio of F1.4 lenses have recently added x-mounts. These are great optically and I had often wished they were included.
I think all the rest punch pretty hard. Fuji makes great lenses.

The only zooms I own are the 16-80 f/4, which I'd classify as "capable, but not outstanding", and the little XC 15-45, which I feel definitely outperforms its price in terms of output and covers a FL range I find very usable, although the lack of the aperture ring, the power zoom and its plasticy feel diminish the "fun" factor to some degree.

I'll have to keep an eye out for the 18/2, although the FL is not my favorite.

- K

 

[mnhoj]

I wouldn't get it then. I find it charming but I really enjoy the FL. The old 35 1.4 is probably my second fav. And the old 60 macro.
The AF on these lenses aren't nearly as refined, the aperture rings are a bit looser and they don't have the corner sharpness of the newer designs but I really like their output.

 

[DM Larson]

I have loved my Fuji lenses, but number one is probably the 14mm. It was eclipsed in praise when the 16mm f1.4 came out and so it doesn't get much attention, but dang it's a nice lens.

 

[davidzvi]

The only zooms I own are the 16-80 f/4, which I'd classify as "capable, but not outstanding", and the little XC 15-45, which I feel definitely outperforms its price in terms of output and covers a FL range I find very usable, although the lack of the aperture ring, the power zoom and its plasticy feel diminish the "fun" factor to some degree.

I'll have to keep an eye out for the 18/2, although the FL is not my favorite.

- K

You know I HATE power zooms, but I picked up the 15-45 because who else has a 22.5-## stand zoom?

 

[MoonMind]

As someone who's only recently come to the Fuji X system, I'm a bit surprised to hear the 18-55 zoom spoken about as "revered" (even if just to poke holes in that assertion a bit). I don't own one and haven't shot one, but had gotten the sense that the 18-55 was the "ordinary" kit lens and that the true wide-standard standout was the (larger and more expensive) 16-55 f/2.8.

Are there other Fuji lenses that you feel similarly punch above their weight?

- K

Well, maybe it was a bit of hyperbole - shall we say "most lauded kit lens ever"?

M.

 

[mike3996]

You know I HATE power zooms, but I picked up the 15-45 because who else has a 22.5-## stand zoom?

Panasonic has that 20-60 kit zoom, a real beauty as well.

And Canon also has a 15-45 zoom for EF-M mount.

 

[John King]

You know I HATE power zooms, but I picked up the 15-45 because who else has a 22.5-## stand zoom?

David, the Olympus FTs 11-22 (22-44 in 135 format terms) f/2.8 - 3.5 was (is) a superb lens. The 'twin' of the 14-54, and every bit its equal optically, and weather sealed.

In mFTs land, there are the Panasonic 8-18 and now Olympus 8-25, both excellent lenses.

 

[mnhoj]

I really enjoyed that one too.

I have loved my Fuji lenses, but number one is probably the 14mm. It was eclipsed in praise when the 16mm f1.4 came out and so it doesn't get much attention, but dang it's a nice lens.

 

[tonyturley]

David, the Olympus FTs 11-22 (22-44 in 135 format terms) f/2.8 - 3.5 was (is) a superb lens. The 'twin' of the 14-54, and every bit its equal optically, and weather sealed.

In mFTs land, there are the Panasonic 8-18 and now Olympus 8-25, both excellent lenses.

I had both the 14-54 MK II and 11-22 at one time, as well as the ZD 50-200, all on the MMF-3. Excellent IQ, all of them, but large, very large, to me at least. I ended up selling all of them to people who seemed happy to get them.

 

[davidzvi]

Panasonic has that 20-60 kit zoom, a real beauty as well.

And Canon also has a 15-45 zoom for EF-M mount.

David, the Olympus FTs 11-22 (22-44 in 135 format terms) f/2.8 - 3.5 was (is) a superb lens. The 'twin' of the 14-54, and every bit its equal optically, and weather sealed.

In mFTs land, there are the Panasonic 8-18 and now Olympus 8-25, both excellent lenses.

I guess I remember seeing the P20-60 release/reviews, forgot about that one.

The Canon 15-45 sounds like it would be the same as the Fuji, but it's not. Canon is a 1.6, not 1.5 crop. So that's a 24-72mme.

The others are more true wide lenses that stay wide or just hit normal in the case of the O8-25. But the PL8-18 and O8-25 are in a different class, WAY different price range, and neither is a standard zoom (wide to at least a little telephoto).

 

[drd1135]

As someone who's only recently come to the Fuji X system, I'm a bit surprised to hear the 18-55 zoom spoken about as "revered" (even if just to poke holes in that assertion a bit). I don't own one and haven't shot one, but had gotten the sense that the 18-55 was the "ordinary" kit lens and that the true wide-standard standout was the (larger and more expensive) 16-55 f/2.8.

Are there other Fuji lenses that you feel similarly punch above their weight?

- K

The 18-55 2.8-4 was a very good kit zoom. Good kit zooms also make your camera look better.

 

[rayvonn]

And the old 60 macro.

To my mind, that's the one that punches above it's weight. It's almost ignored (because it doesn't have a sexy F1.XX aperture/ it's not 1:1 macro?) but in practical terms of every day photography, those factors are not an issue. As owners of such lenses know, there are so many other uses besides macro such as landscape, portraits and general every day photography. And, this being the important factor for me, the rendering to my subjective eye is really nice. And as a side issue, the bokeh, if that's a requirement, really is up there to compare with the best. Alas, the people who seem to be aware of all this are dealers who don't seem to have dropped their prices for this not talked about lens, but I'd always reccomend it as it offers something different to the rest of the Fuji lineup.

 

[DeeJayK]

To my mind, that's the one that punches above it's weight. It's almost ignored (because it doesn't have a sexy F1.XX aperture/ it's not 1:1 macro?) but in practical terms of every day photography, those factors are not an issue. As owners of such lenses know, there are so many other uses besides macro such as landscape, portraits and general every day photography. And, this being the important factor for me, the rendering to my subjective eye is really nice. And as a side issue, the bokeh, if that's a requirement, really is up there to compare with the best. Alas, the people who seem to be aware of all this are dealers who don't seem to have dropped their prices for this not talked about lens, but I'd always reccomend it as it offers something different to the rest of the Fuji lineup.

I've read that the original Fuji X lens trio (18/2, 35/1.4 & 60/2.4 macro) are considered to have some special "magic" by many Fuji folks. That seems to be borne out by the recommendations here.

It's interesting to me that two of the other lenses mentioned in this thread (the 18-55mm f/2.8-4 and 14mm f/2.8) were the fourth and fifth lenses produced for the system. Do you figure that this is because many folks have used these since there weren't other options initially? Or is there something special about the old Fuji X lenses that the new lenses are missing?

- K

 

[mnhoj]

For me this is a good point. The early lenses were my Fuji "glorious" days shooting with an X-E1. The newer gear was better but my enthusiasm and wonder had been lost a bit. I returned to these lenses later and felt some of the magic but I never quite got all the way back there.

I've read that the original Fuji X lens trio (18/2, 35/1.4 & 60/2.4 macro) are considered to have some special "magic" by many Fuji folks. That seems to be borne out by the recommendations here.

It's interesting to me that two of the other lenses mentioned in this thread (the 18-55mm f/2.8-4 and 14mm f/2.8) were the fourth and fifth lenses produced for the system. Do you figure that this is because many folks have used these since there weren't other options initially? Or is there something special about the old Fuji X lenses that the new lenses are missing?

- K