Fujinon 50-140 2.8 lens

[Duncan_Andison]

When you click on my images here in the forum, the first eleven images were shot with the 50-140. Sharp edge to edge. There are others scattered through.  The rest of the images on the first few pages of the storefronts are shot with the 18-135. Very happy with both lenses.  I particularly loved the way the 50-140 handled the little girl and dad sitting on the park bench. Great separation and clarity.  Ya gotta get this lens!!!

 

When doing the storefronts, the 18-135 allows me a very nice zoom range.  I shoot these from my car window, and I am confined to the paths through the parking lots, necessitating a wide angle view since I am usually no more than 20 feet from the store.  The 50 widest on the other lens doesn't allow this.  edited to add more information.

 

Very nice. I love my 50-140, the IQ is breathtaking.

 

So much so, I decided to pickup a 16-55 f/2.8 in the hope it would be similar in terms of IQ. Sadly the first copy I've received has been a little disappointing. After a couple of days testing it's going back to Amazon for a replacement. I've got to admit, Amazon have been nothing but amazing to be honest. I advised them this morning I would be returning it and would like a replacement. They are picking up the duff copy and delivering a new one tomorrow!!! That's service.

 

I'm hoping the replacement is a lot better, closer to the IQ of the 50-140. If not it will go back for a refund. I don't mind paying a premium for top quality glass but not for something that seems average / poor.  I don't know, I may be just expecting to much. Here's an example of a 23mm @ f/5.6 focused on the tarmac. It would have been in the region of 1/300sec. 

[Betty LaRue]

 

When you click on my images here in the forum, the first eleven images were shot with the 50-140. Sharp edge to edge. There are others scattered through.  The rest of the images on the first few pages of the storefronts are shot with the 18-135. Very happy with both lenses.  I particularly loved the way the 50-140 handled the little girl and dad sitting on the park bench. Great separation and clarity.  Ya gotta get this lens!!!

 

When doing the storefronts, the 18-135 allows me a very nice zoom range.  I shoot these from my car window, and I am confined to the paths through the parking lots, necessitating a wide angle view since I am usually no more than 20 feet from the store.  The 50 widest on the other lens doesn't allow this.  edited to add more information.

 

 Very nice. I love my 50-140, the IQ is breathtaking.

 

So much so, I decided to pickup a 16-55 f/2.8 in the hope it would be similar in terms of IQ. Sadly the first copy I've received has been a little disappointing. After a couple of days testing it's going back to Amazon for a replacement. I've got to admit, Amazon have been nothing but amazing to be honest. I advised them this morning I would be returning it and would like a replacement. They are picking up the duff copy and delivering a new one tomorrow!!! That's service.

 

I'm hoping the replacement is a lot better, closer to the IQ of the 50-140. If not it will go back for a refund. I don't mind paying a premium for top quality glass but not for something that seems average / poor.  I don't know, I may be just expecting to much. Here's an example of a 23mm @ f/5.6 focused on the tarmac. It would have been in the region of 1/300sec.

Your 23 is very sharp front to back of the image at 5.6, I can see that. The only Fujinon prime I have is the 56. I'm a sucker for zooms. Hope your replacement lens is a good copy. Makes you wonder if sellers recycle returns until someone finally accepts them, not knowing any better.

[Duncan_Andison]

 

 

When you click on my images here in the forum, the first eleven images were shot with the 50-140. Sharp edge to edge. There are others scattered through.  The rest of the images on the first few pages of the storefronts are shot with the 18-135. Very happy with both lenses.  I particularly loved the way the 50-140 handled the little girl and dad sitting on the park bench. Great separation and clarity.  Ya gotta get this lens!!!

 

When doing the storefronts, the 18-135 allows me a very nice zoom range.  I shoot these from my car window, and I am confined to the paths through the parking lots, necessitating a wide angle view since I am usually no more than 20 feet from the store.  The 50 widest on the other lens doesn't allow this.  edited to add more information.

 Very nice. I love my 50-140, the IQ is breathtaking.

 

So much so, I decided to pickup a 16-55 f/2.8 in the hope it would be similar in terms of IQ. Sadly the first copy I've received has been a little disappointing. After a couple of days testing it's going back to Amazon for a replacement. I've got to admit, Amazon have been nothing but amazing to be honest. I advised them this morning I would be returning it and would like a replacement. They are picking up the duff copy and delivering a new one tomorrow!!! That's service.

 

I'm hoping the replacement is a lot better, closer to the IQ of the 50-140. If not it will go back for a refund. I don't mind paying a premium for top quality glass but not for something that seems average / poor.  I don't know, I may be just expecting to much. Here's an example of a 23mm @ f/5.6 focused on the tarmac. It would have been in the region of 1/300sec.

Your 23 is very sharp front to back of the image at 5.6, I can see that. The only Fujinon prime I have is the 56. I'm a sucker for zooms. Hope your replacement lens is a good copy. Makes you wonder if sellers recycle returns until someone finally accepts them, not knowing any better.

 

 

You do wonder. The ting is, I've read so many good reviews of this lens it was a massive anticlimax when I seen the results.... very poor when compared to the 50-140. I hope the new one proves this on is dud, I can't believe the one I have is right (hope not anyway).

[Allan Bell]

I am confused!     Not unusual for me though.

 

Duncan is talking about the 16-55 f2.8 above.

Posts photo from 23mm @ f5.6.

Is this from 23mm lens or from 16-55 set at 23mm?

 

Betty says this 23mm photo is tack sharp from front to back.

When I view it on my 27" iMac it only looks sharp on the plane of the low hedge near front bottom and tree branches with blossom middle left. Everything else looks soft or OOF.

 

What is going on?

 

Allan

[Betty LaRue]

Now, Allan, you just dropped me into the sea of confusion! Is it the 23mm prime or not?

 

I just viewed the image again, but this was viewed on my iPad, as before. And it still looks "very sharp" not "tack sharp". I suspect the iPad isn't the best way to evaluate images. Even so, this image's dof looks good. I don't usually get that with my zooms.

[Dyn Llun]

Lots of folks here seem to have lens problems and they are a pain but I have avoided them throughout my (long) photographic life by biting the bullet, digging (very) deep at times and buying the best. No compromises, I can't afford to waste time fiddling around, testing and sending stuff back and fore. 

 

Bryan wrote: Today I was using an ancient Asahi SMC Takumar 135mm f3.5 (m42 screw thread) with my NEX 6. The lens probably dates back to the early 1970s, but still works perfectly. It's a beautiful piece of miniature engineering, with silky smooth focus. They certainly don't make 'em like that anymore!  

 

Well yes they do, they are called Summicrons, cost an awful lot of dosh but never had a problem. I'm still using ones I bought s/h fifty years ago for my film Leicas on my new Leica digi M's. Value for money in the (very) long term.

[Duncan_Andison]

I am confused!     Not unusual for me though.

 

Duncan is talking about the 16-55 f2.8 above.

Posts photo from 23mm @ f5.6.

Is this from 23mm lens or from 16-55 set at 23mm?

 

Betty says this 23mm photo is tack sharp from front to back.

When I view it on my 27" iMac it only looks sharp on the plane of the low hedge near front bottom and tree branches with blossom middle left. Everything else looks soft or OOF.

 

What is going on?

 

Allan

 

Haha Allan..... you hit it spot on. It was the 16-55 f/2.8 at 23mm.

 

The lens was a duff un. I got a replacement today that is sharp. 

 

I posted it over on the Fuji Forum but a few people are viewing it on Retina screens which would make a soft image look razor sharp. Retina screens are a bit of a liability if you don't have a standard rez screen to QC your work.

 

Amazon were fantastic by the way. In less than 24hrs, old one picked up and new one arrived. Nice and sharp. The other one seemed all over the place

[Betty LaRue]

 

I am confused!     Not unusual for me though.

 

Duncan is talking about the 16-55 f2.8 above.

Posts photo from 23mm @ f5.6.

Is this from 23mm lens or from 16-55 set at 23mm?

 

Betty says this 23mm photo is tack sharp from front to back.

When I view it on my 27" iMac it only looks sharp on the plane of the low hedge near front bottom and tree branches with blossom middle left. Everything else looks soft or OOF.

 

What is going on?

 

Allan

 

 

Haha Allan..... you hit it spot on. It was the 16-55 f/2.8 at 23mm.

 

The lens was a duff un. I got a replacement today that is sharp. 

 

I posted it over on the Fuji Forum but a few people are viewing it on Retina screens which would make a soft image look razor sharp. Retina screens are a bit of a liability if you don't have a standard rez screen to QC your work.

 

Amazon were fantastic by the way. In less than 24hrs, old one picked up and new one arrived. Nice and sharp. The other one seemed all over the place

So glad you got that sorted! And yes as far as my retina iPad screen. I would never evaluate my stock uploads on it. Is fun to sit in front of the Telly and catch up on forum posts, though.

Allan, nobody can slip anything by you!

[Duncan_Andison]

Here's a link to the post on the Fuji Forum with a shot from the replacement lens. It hasn't bee processed but you should be able to tell this one is sharper. Looks a promising lens, I'll learn how promising when I use it properly over the next week.

 

16-55 / f/2.8 @ 23mm f/8

 

I still think the 50-140 is the better lens between the two of them though!

[Betty LaRue]

Get ready for this. Yesterday I bought some bedding flowers for my beds in front. Before planting them, I took some shots with the 50-140. I set the ugly pots on top of my brick courtyard fence, but framed the pots out. Behind them was my front yard, cars on the street, and a house.

 

I shot them at 140, 2.8. Hand held. All the stuff in the background was rendered in complete OOF soft color, as if it were a dedicated macro. Flowers sharp. My nikon 105 couldn't have done it better. Actually, I think I like these flowers better with the Fuji, because even at 2.8, there is more dof on the flowers while still keeping the bokeh. The nikon has a shallower dof, and if I stop down, I lose some bokeh.

Only difference is, of course, I can't get close to small things like a true macro, but with things like flowers, close enough.

I keep getting freshly impressed with this lens. The way it handled the flowers is big for me.

If the Fujinon macro coming down the pike renders like this, but with closer focusing, it will be some special lens.

I'll be curious to see what I can do with butterflies with the 50-140. Frankly, if I can get close enough to pretty much fill the frame with flower and butterfly. I won't need to get the macro. Butterflies and flowers make up 98% of my macro shooting.

[Duncan_Andison]

Get ready for this. Yesterday I bought some bedding flowers for my beds in front. Before planting them, I took some shots with the 50-140. I set the ugly pots on top of my brick courtyard fence, but framed the pots out. Behind them was my front yard, cars on the street, and a house.

 

I shot them at 140, 2.8. Hand held. All the stuff in the background was rendered in complete OOF soft color, as if it were a dedicated macro. Flowers sharp. My nikon 105 couldn't have done it better. Actually, I think I like these flowers better with the Fuji, because even at 2.8, there is more dof on the flowers while still keeping the bokeh. The nikon has a shallower dof, and if I stop down, I lose some bokeh.

Only difference is, of course, I can't get close to small things like a true macro, but with things like flowers, close enough.

I keep getting freshly impressed with this lens. The way it handled the flowers is big for me.

If the Fujinon macro coming down the pike renders like this, but with closer focusing, it will be some special lens.

I'll be curious to see what I can do with butterflies with the 50-140. Frankly, if I can get close enough to pretty much fill the frame with flower and butterfly. I won't need to get the macro. Butterflies and flowers make up 98% of my macro shooting.

 

Betty, take a look at the MCEX 16 Macro tube from Fuji

 

Normally you can only get to within 806mm from the front element and the subject but with the macro Tube You can get to 318mm @140 and 80mm @50.

Just remember to get full focal range (distance wise) you have to remove the macro tube.

[Betty LaRue]

 

Get ready for this. Yesterday I bought some bedding flowers for my beds in front. Before planting them, I took some shots with the 50-140. I set the ugly pots on top of my brick courtyard fence, but framed the pots out. Behind them was my front yard, cars on the street, and a house.

I shot them at 140, 2.8. Hand held. All the stuff in the background was rendered in complete OOF soft color, as if it were a dedicated macro. Flowers sharp. My nikon 105 couldn't have done it better. Actually, I think I like these flowers better with the Fuji, because even at 2.8, there is more dof on the flowers while still keeping the bokeh. The nikon has a shallower dof, and if I stop down, I lose some bokeh.

Only difference is, of course, I can't get close to small things like a true macro, but with things like flowers, close enough.

I keep getting freshly impressed with this lens. The way it handled the flowers is big for me.

If the Fujinon macro coming down the pike renders like this, but with closer focusing, it will be some special lens.

I'll be curious to see what I can do with butterflies with the 50-140. Frankly, if I can get close enough to pretty much fill the frame with flower and butterfly. I won't need to get the macro. Butterflies and flowers make up 98% of my macro shooting.

 

 

Betty, take a look at the MCEX 16 Macro tube from Fuji

 

Normally you can only get to within 806mm from the front element and the subject but with the macro Tube You can get to 318mm @140 and 80mm @50.

Just remember to get full focal range (distance wise) you have to remove the macro tube.

Duncan, that's exactly what I wanted to know. I did a search trying to find out the information you just provided, but all I got were reviews of the lens, instead of anything about modifiers that can be used specifically with that lens. Thank you!

I assume dof is reduced using it, right?

[Duncan_Andison]

 

 

Get ready for this. Yesterday I bought some bedding flowers for my beds in front. Before planting them, I took some shots with the 50-140. I set the ugly pots on top of my brick courtyard fence, but framed the pots out. Behind them was my front yard, cars on the street, and a house.

I shot them at 140, 2.8. Hand held. All the stuff in the background was rendered in complete OOF soft color, as if it were a dedicated macro. Flowers sharp. My nikon 105 couldn't have done it better. Actually, I think I like these flowers better with the Fuji, because even at 2.8, there is more dof on the flowers while still keeping the bokeh. The nikon has a shallower dof, and if I stop down, I lose some bokeh.

Only difference is, of course, I can't get close to small things like a true macro, but with things like flowers, close enough.

I keep getting freshly impressed with this lens. The way it handled the flowers is big for me.

If the Fujinon macro coming down the pike renders like this, but with closer focusing, it will be some special lens.

I'll be curious to see what I can do with butterflies with the 50-140. Frankly, if I can get close enough to pretty much fill the frame with flower and butterfly. I won't need to get the macro. Butterflies and flowers make up 98% of my macro shooting.

 

Betty, take a look at the MCEX 16 Macro tube from Fuji

 

Normally you can only get to within 806mm from the front element and the subject but with the macro Tube You can get to 318mm @140 and 80mm @50.

Just remember to get full focal range (distance wise) you have to remove the macro tube.

Duncan, that's exactly what I wanted to know. I did a search trying to find out the information you just provided, but all I got were reviews of the lens, instead of anything about modifiers that can be used specifically with that lens. Thank you!

I assume dof is reduced using it, right?

 

 

Yeah, f/2.8 is very thin.I was using 3.2 handheld down to 1/8th sec and was getting nice sharp images. 1/20th is a good starting point though if in low light.

 

By the way, the 16-55 might not be as impressive as the 50-140 but it is still really good! These two lenses will be occupying an X-T1 each for some time!

[Betty LaRue]

On further review of the extension tubes, it appears you have to be as close as 10 inches. That's not enough working distance for what I shoot. I like to be able to get the whole flower with copy space, and I sure can't put the lens that close to a butterfly! I did view some beautifully sharp images of the centers of flowers, though. But for stock, nope, I need the whole enchilada.

[Duncan_Andison]

That's a shame, looks like you might have to get that 120mm macro in the future then 

[Betty LaRue]

That's a shame, looks like you might have to get that 120mm macro in the future then 

Oh, shoot! ;)I'll wait for reviews, my usual stance. The only times I get on waiting lists are for long-awaited cameras.

[Duncan_Andison]

 

That's a shame, looks like you might have to get that 120mm macro in the future then 

Oh, shoot! ;)I'll wait for reviews, my usual stance. The only times I get on waiting lists are for long-awaited cameras.

 

 

Same for me. The only camera I'll be keeping an eye out for will be the X-T2. No so bothered with the X-Pro2 if it's going to be a range finder styled camera, I prefer the X-T styling with vertical grip. I didn't bother with either of the 16-55 or 50-140 until a few months after to see the reviews. They are now my main working lenses with the primes and 10-24 stepping in for specialist duties. 

[Betty LaRue]

 

 

That's a shame, looks like you might have to get that 120mm macro in the future then 

 

Oh, shoot! ;)I'll wait for reviews, my usual stance. The only times I get on waiting lists are for long-awaited cameras.

 

Same for me. The only camera I'll be keeping an eye out for will be the X-T2. No so bothered with the X-Pro2 if it's going to be a range finder styled camera, I prefer the X-T styling with vertical grip. I didn't bother with either of the 16-55 or 50-140 until a few months after to see the reviews. They are now my main working lenses with the primes and 10-24 stepping in for specialist duties.

Sounds like we are of like minds. I don't have a Fuji backup, although I still have my D800 (seldom used), Rx100 and RX100-3.

If the XT-2 reviews are good, I'd like to have it so I could have both cameras with different lenses mounted and not have to change in the field.

This camera and excellent lenses have injected excitement back into my photography.

[Martin P Wilson]

 

 

 

That's a shame, looks like you might have to get that 120mm macro in the future then 

Oh, shoot! ;)I'll wait for reviews, my usual stance. The only times I get on waiting lists are for long-awaited cameras.

 

Same for me. The only camera I'll be keeping an eye out for will be the X-T2. No so bothered with the X-Pro2 if it's going to be a range finder styled camera, I prefer the X-T styling with vertical grip. I didn't bother with either of the 16-55 or 50-140 until a few months after to see the reviews. They are now my main working lenses with the primes and 10-24 stepping in for specialist duties.

Sounds like we are of like minds. I don't have a Fuji backup, although I still have my D800 (seldom used), Rx100 and RX100-3.

If the XT-2 reviews are good, I'd like to have it so I could have both cameras with different lenses mounted and not have to change in the field.

This camera and excellent lenses have injected excitement back into my photography.

 

I am with you on that Betty. With a second x-T? I would sell my other zooms (except perhaps the 10-24) and go for the 16-55 and 50-140 - that would still be a manageable bag.

[Betty LaRue]

I just prepped some images that should go on sale tomorrow, Wednesday.  When that happens, take a look at the florals, mainly a red geranium and a foxglove flowering plant. The background behind the foxglove was a tree about 15 feet away behind the foxglove.  The geranium has my front yard, the street, and a house across the street, maybe an auto. The background shows nothing but beautiful OOF sunlit bokeh.

 

You'll get an idea about the excellent separation the 50-140 gives for this particular kind of image.  This effect is derived by shooting as close as the lens will focus, wide open 2.8 at 140mm for the geranium, or in the case of the foxglove, at 102mm. I had to back off to get all of the foxglove in.

[Duncan_Andison]

 

 

 

 

That's a shame, looks like you might have to get that 120mm macro in the future then 

Oh, shoot! ;)I'll wait for reviews, my usual stance. The only times I get on waiting lists are for long-awaited cameras.

 

Same for me. The only camera I'll be keeping an eye out for will be the X-T2. No so bothered with the X-Pro2 if it's going to be a range finder styled camera, I prefer the X-T styling with vertical grip. I didn't bother with either of the 16-55 or 50-140 until a few months after to see the reviews. They are now my main working lenses with the primes and 10-24 stepping in for specialist duties.

Sounds like we are of like minds. I don't have a Fuji backup, although I still have my D800 (seldom used), Rx100 and RX100-3.

If the XT-2 reviews are good, I'd like to have it so I could have both cameras with different lenses mounted and not have to change in the field.

This camera and excellent lenses have injected excitement back into my photography.

 

I am with you on that Betty. With a second x-T? I would sell my other zooms (except perhaps the 10-24) and go for the 16-55 and 50-140 - that would still be a manageable bag.

 

 

I've been busy shooting with the 16-55 today and it has returned some serious "Prime Like" images, very impressive and weather/dust resistant as well!

 

As it stands, I'm keeping my 23mm, 56mm & 60mm but the 56 could be in danger, it won't see as much use as before. I will probably keep them for low light use. That said, I can use the 50-140 at night and still get ISO 200-400 because of it's IS. The 55-200 will definitely go. 

 

At the moment, I carry the 16-55 & 50-140 attached to it's own X-T1 and the 10-24 ready to swap with one of them as and when needed. Lens changes kept to a minimum and quality set to max!

[Betty LaRue]

 

 

 

 

 

That's a shame, looks like you might have to get that 120mm macro in the future then 

Oh, shoot! ;)I'll wait for reviews, my usual stance. The only times I get on waiting lists are for long-awaited cameras.

 

Same for me. The only camera I'll be keeping an eye out for will be the X-T2. No so bothered with the X-Pro2 if it's going to be a range finder styled camera, I prefer the X-T styling with vertical grip. I didn't bother with either of the 16-55 or 50-140 until a few months after to see the reviews. They are now my main working lenses with the primes and 10-24 stepping in for specialist duties.

Sounds like we are of like minds. I don't have a Fuji backup, although I still have my D800 (seldom used), Rx100 and RX100-3.

If the XT-2 reviews are good, I'd like to have it so I could have both cameras with different lenses mounted and not have to change in the field.

This camera and excellent lenses have injected excitement back into my photography.

 

I am with you on that Betty. With a second x-T? I would sell my other zooms (except perhaps the 10-24) and go for the 16-55 and 50-140 - that would still be a manageable bag.

 

 

I've been busy shooting with the 16-55 today and it has returned some serious "Prime Like" images, very impressive and weather/dust resistant as well!

 

As it stands, I'm keeping my 23mm, 56mm & 60mm but the 56 could be in danger, it won't see as much use as before. I will probably keep them for low light use. That said, I can use the 50-140 at night and still get ISO 200-400 because of it's IS. The 55-200 will definitely go. 

 

At the moment, I carry the 16-55 & 50-140 attached to it's own X-T1 and the 10-24 ready to swap with one of them as and when needed. Lens changes kept to a minimum and quality set to max!

 

 

 

Duncan, sounds like you really have it covered.  , that is, until the 100-400 comes along.    I need to sell the 18-55.  It is never on my camera.  I have kept giving myself reasons to keep it, because it is so much finer than a typical kit lens, but when it comes down to the nitty-gritty, I use the 56mm indoors for people, and the 18-135 and 50-140 for everything else.  

 

I do have the 10-24, but haven't used it a whole lot.  If I ever take a trip in beautiful country, it will be a go-to lens, but around here and for what I've been shooting, it doesn't fit in much.  But it is such a lovely lens, I'm not about to give it up, even if it is a specialty lens for me.  I expect to use it a lot on my next trip to St. Croix coming up in the fall, God willing.  This trip should have happened first in May, then in November past.  My daughter's foot surgery didn't take and she had to have another in October.  Cast for 6-8 weeks, boot for several months, canceled trip.

Right now, her husband, my son-in-law have family issues.  His mother has brain cancer and it is terminal.  If she takes a turn when we need to go, I can see it being canceled again, as it should be.  This trip is snake-bit. This is the 3rd reschedule.

I can't wait for the T1 update due in May, possibly giving better AF results.  Hey!  It's almost May!