I got my XF23mm f/2

In article .com,
Savageduck wrote:

On Jun 22, 2017, android wrote
(in ):

In iganews.com,
Savageduck wrote:

I have had my XF23mm f/2.0 for about a week now, so here is an example of
a
Jaguar public service road sign.

https://www.dropbox.com/s/xf00ayp1c8vwsaw/DSCF5048-E.jpg
https://www.dropbox.com/s/inbrrz2yfrxtg17/DSCF5049-E.jpg
https://www.dropbox.com/s/w7hqsjwn1xfspp6/DSCF5050-E.jpg

You should work with your focusing...

...er, OK!

You can thank me later...

Besides that: Did the Jag plant itself or was it placed there after
pronunciation?

I believe it was an odd sort of artistic expression.

The latter it was!
--
teleportation kills

In article ,
Bill W wrote:

On Thu, 22 Jun 2017 20:18:49 -0700, Savageduck
wrote:

On Jun 22, 2017, Bill W wrote
(in ):

On Thu, 22 Jun 2017 14:17:26 -0700, Savageduck
wrote:

I have had my XF23mm f/2.0 for about a week now, so here is an example
of a
Jaguar public service road sign.

https://www.dropbox.com/s/xf00ayp1c8vwsaw/DSCF5048-E.jpg
https://www.dropbox.com/s/inbrrz2yfrxtg17/DSCF5049-E.jpg
https://www.dropbox.com/s/w7hqsjwn1xfspp6/DSCF5050-E.jpg

Nice photos - all very sharp.

Thanks.

I assume these are SOOC?

Nope! They are slightly tweeked RAFs, mostly some lifting of shadows and
contrast.

Here is the SOOC JPEG of the first one.
https://www.dropbox.com/s/di9q6ipfdeducn4/DSCF5048.jpg

As the file
numbers ascend, they become more underexposed.

That was due to me walking around to the shady side without making any
aperture adustment. I was using Auto ISO 200-1600. The first two were at ISO
200, and the third jumped to ISO 400.

Also, aren't you supposed to show this type of lens off wide open?

I wasn’t actually thinking of showing off the lens, but more of the
quirkiness of the subject.

Are those next?

Yup!
Here is a quick SOOC JPEG, I shot 10 minutes ago. ISO 200, f/2.0, 1/40 sec.
https://www.dropbox.com/s/2k83352fnbp7ibl/DSCF5051.jpg

Still sharp in the middle. I know this was talked about here in the
past, but what, again, are all those ovals/circles mostly near the top
of the photo? Something to do with highlights peeking through the
trees?

Bokeh, that's cateyed and don't have that smooth roll off that most
experts crave...
--
teleportation kills

On Jun 22, 2017, android wrote
(in ):

In ,
Bill W wrote:

On Thu, 22 Jun 2017 20:18:49 -0700, Savageduck
wrote:

On Jun 22, 2017, Bill W wrote
(in ):

On Thu, 22 Jun 2017 14:17:26 -0700, Savageduck
wrote:

I have had my XF23mm f/2.0 for about a week now, so here is an example
of a
Jaguar public service road sign.

https://www.dropbox.com/s/xf00ayp1c8vwsaw/DSCF5048-E.jpg
https://www.dropbox.com/s/inbrrz2yfrxtg17/DSCF5049-E.jpg
https://www.dropbox.com/s/w7hqsjwn1xfspp6/DSCF5050-E.jpg

Nice photos - all very sharp.

Thanks.

I assume these are SOOC?

Nope! They are slightly tweeked RAFs, mostly some lifting of shadows and
contrast.

Here is the SOOC JPEG of the first one.
https://www.dropbox.com/s/di9q6ipfdeducn4/DSCF5048.jpg

As the file
numbers ascend, they become more underexposed.

That was due to me walking around to the shady side without making any
aperture adustment. I was using Auto ISO 200-1600. The first two were at
ISO
200, and the third jumped to ISO 400.

Also, aren't you supposed to show this type of lens off wide open?

I wasn’t actually thinking of showing off the lens, but more of the
quirkiness of the subject.

Are those next?

Yup!
Here is a quick SOOC JPEG, I shot 10 minutes ago. ISO 200, f/2.0, 1/40 sec.
https://www.dropbox.com/s/2k83352fnbp7ibl/DSCF5051.jpg

Still sharp in the middle. I know this was talked about here in the
past, but what, again, are all those ovals/circles mostly near the top
of the photo? Something to do with highlights peeking through the
trees?

Bokeh, that's cateyed and don't have that smooth roll off that most
experts crave...

Yup! The 23mm f/2 isn’t a portrait lens like the 56mm f/1.2, so when
filtered light comes into the equation, the bokeh rendering is not round,
soft, and creamy.

I believe the 23mm f/2 is going to be a nice street lens when set between f/4
and f/11, rather than a soft portrait lens. more on that later.
The 35mm f/1.4 does a pretty good job of rendering nice bokeh.

--

Regards,
Savageduck

In article .com,
Savageduck wrote:

On Jun 22, 2017, android wrote
(in ):

In ,
Bill W wrote:

On Thu, 22 Jun 2017 20:18:49 -0700, Savageduck
wrote:

On Jun 22, 2017, Bill W wrote
(in ):

On Thu, 22 Jun 2017 14:17:26 -0700, Savageduck
wrote:

I have had my XF23mm f/2.0 for about a week now, so here is an
example
of a
Jaguar public service road sign.

https://www.dropbox.com/s/xf00ayp1c8vwsaw/DSCF5048-E.jpg
https://www.dropbox.com/s/inbrrz2yfrxtg17/DSCF5049-E.jpg
https://www.dropbox.com/s/w7hqsjwn1xfspp6/DSCF5050-E.jpg

Nice photos - all very sharp.

Thanks.

I assume these are SOOC?

Nope! They are slightly tweeked RAFs, mostly some lifting of shadows
and
contrast.

Here is the SOOC JPEG of the first one.
https://www.dropbox.com/s/di9q6ipfdeducn4/DSCF5048.jpg

As the file
numbers ascend, they become more underexposed.

That was due to me walking around to the shady side without making any
aperture adustment. I was using Auto ISO 200-1600. The first two were
at
ISO
200, and the third jumped to ISO 400.

Also, aren't you supposed to show this type of lens off wide open?

I wasn’t actually thinking of showing off the lens, but more of the
quirkiness of the subject.

Are those next?

Yup!
Here is a quick SOOC JPEG, I shot 10 minutes ago. ISO 200, f/2.0, 1/40
sec.
https://www.dropbox.com/s/2k83352fnbp7ibl/DSCF5051.jpg

Still sharp in the middle. I know this was talked about here in the
past, but what, again, are all those ovals/circles mostly near the top
of the photo? Something to do with highlights peeking through the
trees?

Bokeh, that's cateyed and don't have that smooth roll off that most
experts crave...

Yup! The 23mm f/2 isn’t a portrait lens like the 56mm f/1.2, so when
filtered light comes into the equation, the bokeh rendering is not round,
soft, and creamy.

I believe the 23mm f/2 is going to be a nice street lens when set between f/4
and f/11, rather than a soft portrait lens. more on that later.
The 35mm f/1.4 does a pretty good job of rendering nice bokeh.

EF-M 22/2.0 is the standby on my EOS M and matches the FD 50/1.8, that
came with my F-1 just fine. For some unknown reason the FDn version of
said fifty don't seem to measure up to its predecessor. I can only
speculate why, but test shows that it ain't as sharp in the corners. F/4
are recommended for these lenses if you want edge to edge ultra sharp...
--
teleportation kills

On 6/23/2017 3:51 AM, Savageduck wrote:
On Jun 22, 2017, RichA wrote
(in ):

On Thursday, 22 June 2017 17:17:34 UTC-4, Savageduck wrote:
I have had my XF23mm f/2.0 for about a week now, so here is an example of a
Jaguar public service road sign.

https://www.dropbox.com/s/xf00ayp1c8vwsaw/DSCF5048-E.jpg
https://www.dropbox.com/s/inbrrz2yfrxtg17/DSCF5049-E.jpg
https://www.dropbox.com/s/w7hqsjwn1xfspp6/DSCF5050-E.jpg

--

Regards,
Savageduck

It's sharp. The 1st car shot was startling, buried like that.

I was stopped down to f/8. It seems to have a pretty large sweet spot between
f/2.8-f/11. Wide open there is a barely perceptible softness in the corners,
but for the most part that is irrelevant. For a $449 lens I am impressed, and
I think I am going to use this as my walk-around street prime for a while.

I can but think of the contrast between my Nikkor lenses, and my Fujinon
X-lenses. Amongst my Nikkor lenses used on my D300S I have a few real dogs,
and some which are surprisingly good performers. I have no complaints with
any of my Fujicon lenses. Now I have five, the 14mm f/2.8, 23mm f/2, 35mm
f/1.4, 18-55mm f/2.8-f/4, and 55-200mm f/3.5-f/4.8. I have my eye on a few
more to round out the weaponry for my X-T2.
All I can say is Fujifilm makes some very good glass.


I have the XF 18mm F2.

The 18-55 lives on the camera and is my usual "carry" for flexibility,
but I swap the alloy grip for the leather half case and the zoom for the
18 mm if I want something more pocketable.