Fuji 90mm f/2.0. Best lens under $3000?

On 2015-12-20 23:52:18 +0000, RichA said:

Wow.

http://slrgear.com/reviews/showproduct.php?product=1801

Why are you surprised? I have been telling you guys that Fuji make some
of the best value in performance lenses. The only problem is they are
X-mount only, so to experience that good glass you need an X-series
camera.

Even their XF 18-55mm, a so called kit lens is a surprisingly good performer.

....and that is matched with a 16MB APS-C system.
Smaller can be good. ;-)

--
Regards,

Savageduck

In article 2015122016592841489-savageduck1@REMOVESPAMmecom,
Savageduck wrote:

On 2015-12-20 23:52:18 +0000, RichA said:

Wow.

http://slrgear.com/reviews/showproduct.php?product=1801

Why are you surprised? I have been telling you guys that Fuji make some
of the best value in performance lenses. The only problem is they are
X-mount only, so to experience that good glass you need an X-series
camera.

Even their XF 18-55mm, a so called kit lens is a surprisingly good performer.

...and that is matched with a 16MB APS-C system.
Smaller can be good. ;-)

That's on a half frame censor. Doesn't really count! good for those that
will wants a 160mm FF equivalent though... Should i bring out the
Takumar 85/1,9... Naah, maybe another day. ;-p
--
teleportation kills

In article 2015122016592841489-savageduck1@REMOVESPAMmecom,
Savageduck wrote:

On 2015-12-20 23:52:18 +0000, RichA said:

Wow.

http://slrgear.com/reviews/showproduct.php?product=1801

Why are you surprised? I have been telling you guys that Fuji make some
of the best value in performance lenses. The only problem is they are
X-mount only, so to experience that good glass you need an X-series
camera.

Even their XF 18-55mm, a so called kit lens is a surprisingly good performer.

...and that is matched with a 16MB APS-C system.
Smaller can be good. ;-)

That's on a half frame censor. Doesn't really count! good for those that
will wants a 135mm FF equivalent though... Should i bring out the
Takumar 85/1,9... Naah, maybe another day. ;-p
--
teleportation kills

In article ,
RichA wrote:

On Monday, 21 December 2015 00:28:43 UTC-5, android wrote:
In article 2015122016592841489-savageduck1@REMOVESPAMmecom,
Savageduck wrote:

On 2015-12-20 23:52:18 +0000, RichA said:

Wow.

http://slrgear.com/reviews/showproduct.php?product=1801

Why are you surprised? I have been telling you guys that Fuji make some
of the best value in performance lenses. The only problem is they are
X-mount only, so to experience that good glass you need an X-series
camera.

Even their XF 18-55mm, a so called kit lens is a surprisingly good
performer.

...and that is matched with a 16MB APS-C system.
Smaller can be good. ;-)

That's on a half frame censor. Doesn't really count! good for those that
will wants a 160mm FF equivalent though... Should i bring out the
Takumar 85/1,9... Naah, maybe another day. ;-p
--
teleportation kills

Esthetically, I'd rather have pristine APS than non-pristine FF. Any day.

That's not photog talk. Seasoned is cool... And the results from that
lense are exquisite. I have not got around to do much more than tests
yet since I'm mainly WA guy though. You will have to wait... The sun is
up less than seven hours a day this time of year here by the 58th
parallel!
--
teleportation kills

On 2015-12-21 05:28:38 +0000, android said:

In article 2015122016592841489-savageduck1@REMOVESPAMmecom,
Savageduck wrote:

On 2015-12-20 23:52:18 +0000, RichA said:

Wow.

http://slrgear.com/reviews/showproduct.php?product=1801

Why are you surprised? I have been telling you guys that Fuji make some
of the best value in performance lenses. The only problem is they are
X-mount only, so to experience that good glass you need an X-series
camera.

Even their XF 18-55mm, a so called kit lens is a surprisingly good performer.

...and that is matched with a 16MB APS-C system.
Smaller can be good. ;-)

That's on a half frame censor. Doesn't really count!

Elitist swine!!

good for those that
will wants a 160mm FF equivalent though... Should i bring out the
Takumar 85/1,9... Naah, maybe another day. ;-p


--
Regards,

Savageduck

On Dec 20, 2015, android wrote
(in article ):

In ,
RichA wrote:

On Monday, 21 December 2015 00:28:43 UTC-5, android wrote:
In article2015122016592841489-savageduck1@REMOVESPAMmecom,
Savageduck wrote:

On 2015-12-20 23:52:18 +0000, said:

Wow.

http://slrgear.com/reviews/showproduct.php?product=1801

Why are you surprised? I have been telling you guys that Fuji make some
of the best value in performance lenses. The only problem is they are
X-mount only, so to experience that good glass you need an X-series
camera.

Even their XF 18-55mm, a so called kit lens is a surprisingly good
performer.

...and that is matched with a 16MB APS-C system.
Smaller can be good. ;-)

That's on a half frame censor. Doesn't really count! good for those that
will wants a 160mm FF equivalent though... Should i bring out the
Takumar 85/1,9... Naah, maybe another day. ;-p
--
teleportation kills

Esthetically, I'd rather have pristine APS than non-pristine FF. Any day.

That's not photog talk.

Bigger is not always better.

Seasoned is cool... And the results from that
lense are exquisite. I have not got around to do much more than tests
yet since I'm mainly WA guy though. You will have to wait... The sun is
up less than seven hours a day this time of year here by the 58th
parallel!

Perhaps you should get a working opinion on the XF 90mm f/2
http://fujilove.com/fuji-xf-90mm-f2-r-lm-wr-review-and-raw-downloads/

Start doing some low light shooting.

…and Fuji does wide primes.
http://fujilove.com/my-thoughts-on-the-fuji-xf-14mm-r/

--

Regards,
Savageduck

In article m,
Savageduck wrote:

On Dec 20, 2015, android wrote
(in article ):

In ,
RichA wrote:

On Monday, 21 December 2015 00:28:43 UTC-5, android wrote:
In article2015122016592841489-savageduck1@REMOVESPAMmecom,
Savageduck wrote:

On 2015-12-20 23:52:18 +0000, said:

Wow.

http://slrgear.com/reviews/showproduct.php?product=1801

Why are you surprised? I have been telling you guys that Fuji make
some
of the best value in performance lenses. The only problem is they are
X-mount only, so to experience that good glass you need an X-series
camera.

Even their XF 18-55mm, a so called kit lens is a surprisingly good
performer.

...and that is matched with a 16MB APS-C system.
Smaller can be good. ;-)

That's on a half frame censor. Doesn't really count! good for those
that
will wants a 160mm FF equivalent though... Should i bring out the
Takumar 85/1,9... Naah, maybe another day. ;-p
--
teleportation kills

Esthetically, I'd rather have pristine APS than non-pristine FF. Any day.

That's not photog talk.

Bigger is not always better.

Seasoned is cool... And the results from that
lense are exquisite. I have not got around to do much more than tests
yet since I'm mainly WA guy though. You will have to wait... The sun is
up less than seven hours a day this time of year here by the 58th
parallel!

Perhaps you should get a working opinion on the XF 90mm f/2
http://fujilove.com/fuji-xf-90mm-f2-r-lm-wr-review-and-raw-downloads/

Start doing some low light shooting.

…and Fuji does wide primes.
http://fujilove.com/my-thoughts-on-the-fuji-xf-14mm-r/

The Fujis of today measure up to my EOS M just. The 24MP XT2 that might
materialize next spring or summer could be interesting, for those that
are interested in half frame. I'm not. I have my M with the 22/2.0
that's easy to bring and the FD 50/1,8 is excellent as a short tele. The
larger sensor of FF and APS-H cameras brings out more from the lenses
since they have larger sensorareas to resolve on. The 1D2 files shows
that but it's not always convenient to transport. As you would imagine
the M double just fine as a backup for the 1D2, and is not going
anywhere...

Thanks for the links, but I'm not overly impressed...
--
teleportation kills

On Mon, 21 Dec 2015 06:28:38 +0100, android wrote:

In article 2015122016592841489-savageduck1@REMOVESPAMmecom,
Savageduck wrote:

On 2015-12-20 23:52:18 +0000, RichA said:

Wow.

http://slrgear.com/reviews/showproduct.php?product=1801

Why are you surprised? I have been telling you guys that Fuji make some
of the best value in performance lenses. The only problem is they are
X-mount only, so to experience that good glass you need an X-series
camera.

Even their XF 18-55mm, a so called kit lens is a surprisingly good performer.

...and that is matched with a 16MB APS-C system.
Smaller can be good. ;-)

That's on a half frame censor. Doesn't really count! good for those that
will wants a 160mm FF equivalent though... Should i bring out the
Takumar 85/1,9... Naah, maybe another day. ;-p

"half frame censor"?
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

On Dec 20, 2015, android wrote
(in article ):

In news.com,
Savageduck wrote:

On Dec 20, 2015, android wrote
(in article ):

In ,
RichA wrote:

On Monday, 21 December 2015 00:28:43 UTC-5, android wrote:
In article2015122016592841489-savageduck1@REMOVESPAMmecom,
Savageduck wrote:

On 2015-12-20 23:52:18 +0000, said:

Wow.

http://slrgear.com/reviews/showproduct.php?product=1801

Why are you surprised? I have been telling you guys that Fuji make
some
of the best value in performance lenses. The only problem is they
are
X-mount only, so to experience that good glass you need an X-series
camera.

Even their XF 18-55mm, a so called kit lens is a surprisingly good
performer.

...and that is matched with a 16MB APS-C system.
Smaller can be good. ;-)

That's on a half frame censor. Doesn't really count! good for those
that
will wants a 160mm FF equivalent though... Should i bring out the
Takumar 85/1,9... Naah, maybe another day. ;-p
--
teleportation kills

Esthetically, I'd rather have pristine APS than non-pristine FF. Any
day.

That's not photog talk.

Bigger is not always better.

Seasoned is cool... And the results from that
lense are exquisite. I have not got around to do much more than tests
yet since I'm mainly WA guy though. You will have to wait... The sun is
up less than seven hours a day this time of year here by the 58th
parallel!

Perhaps you should get a working opinion on the XF 90mm f/2
http://fujilove.com/fuji-xf-90mm-f2-r-lm-wr-review-and-raw-downloads/

Start doing some low light shooting.

…and Fuji does wide primes.
http://fujilove.com/my-thoughts-on-the-fuji-xf-14mm-r/

The Fujis of today measure up to my EOS M just. The 24MP XT2 that might
materialize next spring or summer could be interesting, for those that
are interested in half frame. I'm not. I have my M with the 22/2.0
that's easy to bring and the FD 50/1,8 is excellent as a short tele. The
larger sensor of FF and APS-H cameras brings out more from the lenses
since they have larger sensorareas to resolve on. The 1D2 files shows
that but it's not always convenient to transport. As you would imagine
the M double just fine as a backup for the 1D2, and is not going
anywhere...

Thanks for the links, but I'm not overly impressed...


I didn't think you would be. You have your own very special bias.


--

Regards,
Savageduck

On Dec 20, 2015, Eric Stevens wrote
(in ):

On Mon, 21 Dec 2015 06:28:38 +0100, wrote:

In article2015122016592841489-savageduck1@REMOVESPAMmecom,
Savageduck wrote:

On 2015-12-20 23:52:18 +0000, said:

Wow.

http://slrgear.com/reviews/showproduct.php?product=1801

Why are you surprised? I have been telling you guys that Fuji make some
of the best value in performance lenses. The only problem is they are
X-mount only, so to experience that good glass you need an X-series
camera.

Even their XF 18-55mm, a so called kit lens is a surprisingly good
performer.

...and that is matched with a 16MB APS-C system.
Smaller can be good. ;-)

That's on a half frame censor. Doesn't really count! good for those that
will wants a 160mm FF equivalent though... Should i bring out the
Takumar 85/1,9... Naah, maybe another day. ;-p

"half frame censor"?

Yup! He has cut APS-C sensors from his photographic World.

--

Regards,
Savageduck