Electronic Shutter Distortion

You see reports of distortion when capturing photos of fast-moving subjects using the electronic shutter. Here’s an excellent example of what happens.

This image was captured with the XF 56mm F/1.2 wide open, ISO 200 and a shutter speed of 1/10500 on an X-T1. Thos balls were in fact spherical.

So the next time I want to shoot family members playing backyard picnic games with very shallow depth of field, I’ll definitely look into a neutral density filter.

XF 90mm f/2 Review by Jonas Rask

Reviews of the forthcoming XF 90mm f/2 → are few and far between right now. Fuji clearly hasn’t made as many pre-production units of this pro-focused lens as they did the consumer-focused X-T10. Jonas Rask has the best write-up I’ve seen to date.

... and it has a 62mm filter size just like the XF56mm f/1.2 (and the XF23mm f/1.4). By placing the 56mm and 90mm side by side it’s quite apparent that they are the same width, and and what differs is only the length of the lens.

This is a really smart move by Fujifilm. Three extraordinary, fast lenses covering a wide range of focal lengths, one set of filters. If only they were able to keep the XF 16mm f/1.4 at the same filter thread.

Compare it to an equally spec’ed full frame or even APS-C lens, the XF 90mm will still be one of the smaller options to carry around.

Jonas is right, it is one of the smaller options, but as Jonas alluded, it will depend a great deal on how you arrive at 135mm, and which of the other big guys you compare against. Here’s how things stack up against full frame Canon and Nikon lenses.

Fuji 90mm vs. DSLR 135mm, lens only

Canon actually has a really small and lightweight option at this focal length. I can’t speak to its quality, however. When it comes to Nikon, the DC-Nikkor 135mm is conspicuously absent from the US site, but is still available on nikon.ca. At f/2 on full frame, it will deliver a stop’s worth of shallower depth of field, but it will cost you in weight. Those figures do not account for body weight.

Things change when APS-C is included for either Canon or Nikon, depending on how exact we’re being with our focal lengths. 90mm is really closer to a 137mm equivalent, whereas a full frame 85mm will get to pretty close at around 129mm on Nikon’s version of APS-C (1.52x multiplier) and real close with Canon’s (1.6x mulitplier). That means you can get a lens that’s close to 135mm with an f/1.8 lens from either company for less weight than Fuji’s 90mm f/2, but what it doesn’t account for is body weight.

Fuji @ 137mm vs. APS-C DSLR kit

So going mirrorless gets you a reduction in weight, albeit a smaller one.

Finally, in an effort to be a completionist, let’s compare a Fuji X-T1 kit, with the closest we can get from Olympus, the OM-D E-M1 and M.Zuiko 75mm f/1.8 lens.

Fuji @ 137mm vs. Olympus @ 150mm

Sadly there doesn’t seem to be a 135mm equivalent in the M/43 world, Still, if you want the lightest way to 135mm and beyond, Olympus is the way to go, if you ignore the whole f/1.8 on a Micro Four Thirds thing.

I had intended this to be a quick piece pointing you to a great review, so I’ll leave you with a final word from Jonas before you checkout the rest of his review:


I get the feeling he likes it.

Fuji X series portrait lenses compared

Damien Lovegrove over at Prophotonut has posted a great comparison of Fuji’s portrait lenses.

This is not laboratory science, it is a real world A/B comparison where the results are subjective and open to interpretation. I’m not one to read MTF graphs and I believe all professional lenses made today should be reasonably sharp so my attention as always turns to how pleasing is the rendering of the scene? I want to asses both the in and out of focus bits.

Damien modestly calls this a ”mini test,” but it’s plenty to sink your teeth into. Can’t wait for my 50-140mm ƒ/2.8 to arrive at my doorstep!

Of note, Damien drew a similar conclusion as I did on the 56mm f/1.2 APD. The difference is subtle, but it’s there. I also love his 60mm f/2.4 Macro lens hood modification to combat the issues it has with flare that I too have experienced. Lots of great stuff over there.

60mm f/2.4 Macro vs. 56mm f/1.2

After weeks of testing, the most thorough “Versus” article yet—the battle of the medium telephoto—is now online.

I’m finally approaching the standard I’d like to set for all the Versus content I post on Fuji vs Fuji. This is going to mean some revisions and additions to existing articles of course, and that means more comparisons. I’ve been holding fast to shooting real things as opposed to test charts, brick walls, and staged comparison images. This keeps the image content fresh, and the testing more interesting.

This has also been the toughest comparison to make recommendations against. There are really good reasons to own each lens. Ultimately it boils down to your specific needs and your wallet.

Read more.