Thread: Fuji 14mm F2.8

Originally Posted by stanleyk

Now if I can just resist the 14mm. Silly as it sounds, I would have preferred 24mm equivalent. I like 24, 35, and 50.

You know you aren't being forced to buy the 14mm.....right? The 23 is just around the corner.

Originally Posted by stanleyk

Now if I can just resist the 14mm. Silly as it sounds, I would have preferred 24mm equivalent. I like 24, 35, and 50.

That's pretty much what I like, with a longer television around for sometime use. I like the current 18, and feel it's a bit under appreciated. But it is a bit close to the upcoming 23. So yes, a 24 would have been nice.

Luke - the 23 is 35 equiv. I think Stanleyk means he would like a 24 equiv.

Thing is, I also have my eye on the 10 - 24. F4 is fine for my intended use.

Originally Posted by Pelao

Luke - the 23 is 35 equiv. I think Stanleyk means he would like a 24 equiv.

Well then that's really splitting hairs. the 18 should be close enough then, right? I know purists will balkl. 2 or 3 mm makes a huge difference would be the argument. I'm getting used to using the 18-55mm zoom and wondering why they bothered. There's hardly any zoom at all. I could easily do it with my feet and do it even easier with a crop.

I'm obviously overstating the point, but wishing for a 24 equivalent when you have a very good 27 equiv seems to be bordering on the insane (which in all respect to Stanleyk, I'm sure he counts himself in that group). I'd rather get to some lengths we don't have covered yet. That 10-24 looks right in the wheelhouse for me (and I like neither wide-angle, nor zoom!) and I really want some reach (bring out the 55-200 already).

I like wide. My favorite Oly lens was the 12.
With the "zoom" I'm pretty much always at 18.
The new 14 looks just right to me and not covered with the otherwise excellent "kit" that came with my X E1.
I have one on order and hope to have it in another week or so.

Originally Posted by Luke

I'm obviously overstating the point, but wishing for a 24 equivalent when you have a very good 27 equiv seems to be bordering on the insane (which in all respect to Stanleyk, I'm sure he counts himself in that group).

In Arizona, where I grew up, there was one word for rain - it either was or it wasn't. In Seattle, where I lived as a young adult, there were about 20 words for varying types and levels of rain. I understand that in Alaska, there are hundreds if words for snow. If you're not a wide angle shooter, there are two words to describe wide angle: "wide" and "angle". For those of us who are, the relatively fine differences between a 21, 24, 28, and 35mm equivalents are a BIG DEAL! Sane or insane is beside the point. I shoot a lot with 24 and 28 and see differently with them - lots more angles flying in from all corners of the frame at 24, 28 just feels natural to me, 35 is a little long and getting too close to neutral, but I can adapt. These differences matter to a wide angle shooter but are probably lost on someone who isn't. Gradations of neutral mean almost nothing to me - I just don't get along with 40 or 50 or 55 and they all sort of feel the same to me.

I'm not sure if I'll find a place for the 14mm or not, but I guarantee it'll feel a lot different to me than the 18, or than the 16 I used to use with the Nex 5.

-Ray

Originally Posted by Luke

Well then that's really splitting hairs. the 18 should be close enough then, right? I know purists will balkl. 2 or 3 mm makes a huge difference would be the argument. I'm getting used to using the 18-55mm zoom and wondering why they bothered. There's hardly any zoom at all. I could easily do it with my feet and do it even easier with a crop.

I'm obviously overstating the point, but wishing for a 24 equivalent when you have a very good 27 equiv seems to be bordering on the insane (which in all respect to Stanleyk, I'm sure he counts himself in that group). I'd rather get to some lengths we don't have covered yet. That 10-24 looks right in the wheelhouse for me (and I like neither wide-angle, nor zoom!) and I really want some reach (bring out the 55-200 already).

I suppose it's objective. I'm not sure I would label a preference as being a purist. It comes down to what you shoot and how you shoot it I suppose. Anyway, preferences are clearly individual. For example you want reach, while I won't even consider the long zoom. I just wouldn't use it.

And sure, you can zoom with your feet, but in a confined space (say a historical church, or a waterfall scene) you can end up with your butt to a wall, and the extra few mms could be critical for the shot as you want it.

Wide angle is definitely where each millimetre of focal length starts to count, especially where 1mm equals 1.5mm of our standard measure.

I have a very old 20mm Nikon lens that I use a lot. It does have some distortion and vignetting problems wide open though. I really like 24mm. It is different that 28mm but I suppose you can walk back, but it changes the perspective. It reminds me of the disagreement Stanley Kubrick had with the cinematographer Lucien Ballard while shooting the Killing. Ballard wanted to use a 35mm lens and just move the camera back. Kubrick was adamant that they use a 25mm lens. The gist of was that Ballard was thinking about coverage which you can adjust by moving back and forth, Kubrick was thinking about perspective which changes quite a bit with lenses. Of course it was easier for Ballard to light and set up using the 35 further back too. Just do a shot with a 28mm at say 4 feet from the subject and then get say a 35mm walk back until you get the same coverage. They really are different images. I like to use wide angle lenses up close.

That said, 20mm is sometimes hard to work with because of shadows. I love 24mm but I guess I'll have to make do with 20mm. I want the F2.8 so the zoom isn't really an option. That said the upcoming wide angle zoom is a very attractive looking lens. So far the images I've seen on the Fuji 14 are very good.

On the Kubrick/Ballard thing there is a great segment about it in Stanley Kubrick A Life in Pictures. That is fascinating documentary.

On a side note- Birthday Cake Oreos. I can't recommend them enough. See: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/0...n_1279659.html

Thanks for the story about "the Killing". I've only seen the movie once, but it struck me like a punch in the face. I'll watch it again with that in mind.

Oreos are disgusting. Seriously.

I want to buy one, just cannot find one