Articles from Lightmancer

The long and the short of it

nobody@ipernity.com (Lightmancer) — Thu, 04 Dec 2014 12:22:16 +0000

Lightmancer has posted an article:

Back in the depths of the last Millennium, when film was what you put on your camera and hipsters were low-slung jeans, I used to shoot a fair bit with longer lenses. Money was too tight to mention back in those days so if I wanted to snap a deer in Bushey Park or Derek Randall scuttling his way to another century for Lavinia Dutchess of Norfolk's XI against the Visitors, I would reach for my trusty Centon 500mm.

This was a cadadiopteric (mirror) lens, made in Korea, with a fixed aperture of f8. Mirror lenses are characterised by being smaller than telephotos of equivalent focal length. They achieve this by bending the light into a z-shape and bouncing it into the camera by dint of a distinctive circular mirror arrangement mounted in the centre of the lens front element. This is responsible for some interesting effects, of which more later.

I bought my Centon new, in a leather case. It came with three filters in the lid, one of which was supposed to be in place at all times to allow accurate focussing. There was a UV, an ND2 and a... something else which I can't quite remember. The whole thing was the size of a large tin of potatoes and about half the weight of same. The clever bit was that it could be mounted to pretty well any SLR of the time by means of a T2 mount; a sort of universal screw mount for "dumb" connections like this lens, or a telescope mount, etc.

I would mount the lens to my SLR du jour (A Pentax Program A springs to mind), plant the pairing on a tripod with a motordrive and a cable release, prefocus upon a suitable target - a wicket, say, or a branch - and lounge back in my deckchair. Thus set up I managed some passable shots, within the limitations of the lens.

Fast forward to today. I am happily up to my hips in the exceptional and ever-expanding Fuji X system, with a native lens range that currently tops out at 300mm equivalent with the 55-200 XF zoom (360mm if you go for the cheaper and slower XC 50-230) - handy for things like air-shows, but not really enough for serious long-distance shooting. I have bleated for some time to anyone that would listen that a 1.4x teleconverter would be REALLY useful, but to date nothing is forthcoming.

There is a "Super Tele Photo Zoom Lens" on the most recent roadmap, but that is currently sitting out in the second half of 2015, which as we all know is aeons away in the impatient world of digital photography. When it comes, unconfirmed rumours speak of a 120-400mm zoom - personally I have my doubts, for reasons of weight and cost. I am more inclined to expect something around the 300mm mark at the top end - I don't really care about the other.

So in the meantime, what to do? I have been making use of an old Tokina SD 400mm f5.6 telephoto, which gives me a convenient 600mm (or an improbable and as yet untried 1200mm with a doubler, and the loss of two stops of light). This is a bulky and heavy lens, complete with a tripod collar. Weighing 1.1kg on it's own, when mounted to my X-T1 with vertical grip, it tops out at 1.8kg which is quite enough for a man of my age, thank you very much. The version I have is in Olympus mount, by the way, with a decent Kipon adaptor to convert it to FX mount.

The lens is manual focus, of course, and has no way of communicating aperture to the X-T1 so I tend to shoot it in aperture priority mode, stopping down (if necessary) before the exposure. I usually shoot wide open, anyway, letting shutter speed and auto ISO take care of the overall exposure in all but the brightest conditions.

All that said, and mounted on a tripod, it delivers more than passable images. My test subject here is the Pirbright Village sign, on the green. It co-operated by keeping stock still for my benefit, so I returned the favour by mounting my camera on a sturdy Manfrotto tripod for the purpose. For the purposes of this exercise I then compared the "old lady" with the (relatively) new kid on the block, from Samyang.

In the summer of 2014, a new long lens option arrived, courtesy of Samyang and sold under that name, or Rokinon in other markets. The catchily-named Reflex f6.3 300mm ED UMC CS is a mirror lens just like my old Centon. It's made in Korea too. It seems a bit more sophisticated than the old 500 though, boasting 9 elements in six groups, including one ED element. Critically it tips the scales at a much less backbreaking 315g. In the hand it is about the size of the Fuji 56mm, but a bit lighter.

The Samyang 300mm comes with a dirty great bayonet hood that is almost as long as the lens again. It is reversible for storage, but although it undoubtedly improves contrast it makes handling or mounting the Samyang with the hood reversed a slippery process. In fact, with no aperture ring and a body that is comprised almost entirely of the focussing ring grip, it is generally tricky to handle this lens without the focussing mechanism racking in and out as you do so.

Once you get past this hand-wringing exercise and mount the lens to the X-T1, it makes a seductively handy package. I say seductive, because you will immediately want to try to shoot handheld. Now, unless your middle name is Gitzo, I would defy you to focus and hand-hold this lens firmly enough to get a sensible, consistent result. It CAN be done, as the Guildford images attest, but only in optimal conditions and with great patience. That wide focussing ring is once again the problem; the slightest shift in your grip on the lens and you have lost that focus that you have tried so hard to nail.

So preferably not hand-held, then. Stick it on a tripod or even a monopod and you are in a different world of stability. The Pirbright shots compare the results from both the Tokina 400mm "traditional" telephoto and the Guildford shots show the field of view of the 300mm in comparison with the stellar Fujinon XF 35mm. The Guildford shots also demonstrate one of the other attributes of a mirror lens - the circular, doughnut-shaped out-of-focus highlights that are a signature characteristic of the lens design. Some like the effect, some hate it. I am reminded of the old adage - "The optimist sees the doughnut, the pessimist sees the hole in the middle, the realist eats it." You can't have a mirror lens without doughnuts, so be realistic.

Top, Tokina, bottom Samyang:

The same sign for comparison purposes, from the same vantage point, with the Fujinon 60mm:

The Guildford shots. The Samyang 300mm compared with the Fujinon 35mm:

Bottom line. The Samyang 300mm is a lot of focal length for the price, but not without cost. The cost comes in the form of the necessity to mount it securely to focus accurately, hold steadily and arrive at sharp, blur-free images. That means you will need to dust off that tripod. "Ye cannae fight the laws of physics" - again. This is not a lens for the handheld-only, spray and pray brigade. To get the most from it you have to handle it with care, and move at it's pace.

Where it does score, and score significantly, is that it is by any standards a cheap, lightweight long lens solution for the Fuji X system where there is as yet no home-grown substitute. Comparing it with the likes of the Tokina (many other legacy long-lenses are available, in more mounts than you can imagine) it also acquits itself well. It delivers a very similar end result, albeit via a slightly smaller aperture and with no chance to change same. It's not a knock out, however, since the Tokina and it's ilk can be picked up these days for relative pennies even with an adaptor. They are even cheaper than the cheap Samyang, are very robust and simply handle better, to my tastes at least.

The Samyang 300mm is therefore what it is - a mirror lens with all the advantages and disadvantages of the type - that provides a cheap and workable long lens solution for the Fuji X system. It's not the only game in town, but it has size and weight advantages that will endear it to some. I suspect it will sell well for a while - until, say, Mid-2015... - but that there will also be plenty on the secondhand market as those who have bought it to try find it just a bit too fiddly and demanding to use in the "real world".

Did I mention I picked mine up secondhand...?

Fujinon XF 18-135mm First Impressions (Updated)

nobody@ipernity.com (Lightmancer) — Fri, 07 Nov 2014 15:02:05 +0000

Lightmancer has posted an article:

I picked this lens up from my friendly local crack dealer, London Camera Exchange in Guildford, with £250 off courtesy of the Fujifilm offer on the X-T1. It didn't take me long to take it out for a quick wander. The results are what you see here, plus some real-world shooting in London a couple of weeks ago.

Full disclosure - I'm writing this review as a dedicated user of prime lenses. I have never been a big zoom user, although I do "get it", and I already have the 18-55 and 55-200. In real-world terms the 18-135 (35mm equivalent 28-205-ish) is a "superzoom", and as such is designed to cover a range of focal lengths. In Fuji-prime-world, it "replaces" not only the 18, 23, 27, 35, 56 and 60mm focal lengths but also the 18-55 - probably it's closest competitor in focal length terms. So, is this a jack of all trades - or a master of none?

First Impressions:

This is a chunky lens. It tips the scales at just under half a kilo (490g) which makes the 18-55 at 310g look like Twiggy. In fact it's not much lighter than the 55-200 which comes in at 580g. In terms of size it comes neatly between the two, thus:

Fit and finish:

Finish is what we have now come to expect from Fuji - solid, chunky and well-made. The barrel extends when zooming and is clearly plastic. There are two vents on the underside for the WR capability, but otherwise it is familiar territory for anyone who has used a Fujinon lens before; nicely weighted zoom, aperture and focus rings with the finely milled "dust trap" grips. There is some resistance to zooming out to 135mm but otherwise everything is smooth. Held face down there was no zoom creep. The lens hood is a petal-type affair as we have seen on the 18-55 and others, although this one is significantly bigger, as befits the 67mm filter thread. It's not a tight fit, and I feared I might knock it out of true, although this didn't happen today. The only other controls on the lens are the familiar aperture/auto and OIS sliders in the same place as on it's older siblings.

Mounting on a camera:

I bought this lens to fit on my X-T1, thereby giving me a weather-resistant DSLR capability - ideal for Frimley in the Autumn. It fits, of course, on the other cameras in the X stable, balancing surprisingly well on the X-Pro1 but looking (and feeling) more than somewhat top-heavy on the X-E1.

Fair to say, however, I wouldn't try it on the X-T1 without the vertical grip attached. Together the body and lens would make a substantial dent in the floor if dropped - I wouldn't recommend it.

Trying it out:

Now, there is nothing scientific about the following shots. I have simply set out to use the 18-135 as I would in real-world conditions. For the purposes of this exercise, I left it mounted on the X-Pro, just because I could. I used it (mostly) in aperture priority mode, wide open. A couple of the shots are in Program mode - the slider switch is quite easily knocked as you heft the weight of this lens. On the X-Pro I used it solely in EVF mode; it would work with the optical viewfinder at the wider settings, but I didn't see the point for today's exercise. All shots are uncropped unless clearly stated and have received no PP. The camera was set to "vivid" throughout; the mono conversions were done using Topaz Labs.

Subject matter is my desk, followed by the local cemetery, a short walk away. The statues stand still and were ideal for the purpose. It was an overcast but mild day; when it rains I'll take it out with the X-T1 for a "wet test".

So, first meet Tigger. He holds my business card, for I can never remember my 'phone number:

And again with a 100% crop:

This at 1/80 sec at an equivalent focal length of 206mm.

Now off to the graveyard.

These shots illustrate the difference in angle of view between 18mm and 135mm; they are taken from the same spot in each instance:

And these the difference between 55mm (the top end of the 18-55mm) and 135mm in practice:

...the second shot is not a crop of the first.

Another at the 18mm end:

..

.and 135mm. I've converted this shot to mono, and done a 100% crop. This was wide open at f5.6 and shows "interesting" blur in the OOF highlights:

...more noticable in the mono renditions:

Here's a bit of gratuitous greenery:

And some plinth action:

And finally what wander through a churchyard is complete without a bit of a gargoyle:

Real world use:

A short while after this initial try-out I took the lens up to London for a look at the "Blood Swept Lands and Seas of Red" installation at the Tower of London. It was a good choice for such an outing, given that it was not possible to get too close, the weather was unpredictable and showery and the crowds impatient and constantly moving; no chance to take your time over an arty composition, believe me.

To my surprise, the petal hood was actually quite effective at keeping the drizzle off. I have bought an adjustable rubber one, but it may not see much use unless global warming provides us with a monsoon season. I wiped the worst of the moisture off the barrel every so often, and kept the camera (the X-Pro in this case - I wasn't expecting heavy rain when I set out for the day) covered when not in use. When in use my Peaky Blinders-style cap kept the worst of the rain at bay (and away from my spectacles).

The 18-135 is a flexible lens by any standard and this type of use is where it comes into it's own. The ability to zoom from wide to a quite respectable tele meant I could frame accurately and not have to worry about exposing my sensor to the rain with multiple lens changes. In terms of performance, the OIS came in handy in the variable light to give me a decent result.

Afterward, we walked back towards The City. Again, the 18-135 provided perspectives that I would have to have been carrying two or more lenses to obtain.

Verdict:

Overall, as a committed "prime person" I am surprised by the extent to which I like this lens. It isn't as sharp as the primes, but it acquits itself well in real-world use. I was surprised how well it matched with the X-Pro1, although for me at least that isn't the intended body. I toyed with the idea of selling off the 18-55 as surplus to requirements, but the weight of this lens in comparison means that the 18-55 still has a place in the bag for a day spent wandering around in the city if I don't want to carry all those extra grams. I like the handling, and although I haven't really challenged either the OIS or the WR yet, I don't doubt they will do the job.

In really bad weather I'll attach the collapsible rubber hood - although the petal hood acquitted itself well at the Tower on a drizzly Autumn day I suspect that it won't really protect that big front element from wayward drips and splashes in a downpour. My lens wears a filter already and I would advise anyone else to do the same. This isn't the cheapest, fastest or lightest lens on the block, but it is a damn useful range of focal lengths in a handy package and deserves to sell like the proverbial hot cakes.

Well done, Fuji - another winner.

Under cover

nobody@ipernity.com (Lightmancer) — Wed, 22 Oct 2014 11:58:51 +0000

Lightmancer has posted an article:

The average urbanite is today largely untrained in the art of the umbrella. Ladies of a certain height are hazardous to eyeballs since they wield their umbrellas at eye-level with a certitude born of a heady mixture of misplaced entitlement and pig ignorance. The only defence against these rainy-day harpies is a hat or cap with a stout brim, "Peaky Blinders" style. A special circle of Hell should be reserved for those of either gender who persist in using broken umbrellas with exposed spokes; an open invitation to impalement.

A stout but compact micro-umbrella is an asset in any man's arsenal, to ward against the unexpected shower. It is particularly beneficial when produced unexpectedly to keep one's companion dry in the dash from the car to the restaurant entrance.

A golf umbrella should never be used in built-up areas. It should only ever be deployed in open spaces where it's use will not inconvenience others, such as open-air concerts and picnics. Above all, remember that it is actually a small, rapidly erected dwelling - one should never try to walk with one without the aid of an experienced banksman.

A Gentleman should own a stout, full-sized umbrella, preferably of the solid stick variety. He should master it's use, both furled and unfurled, for support, protection, cab-hailing, general admonishment and occasional self-defence. He should never use it in a selfish or uncouth manner, and should share it gladly. An umbrella is a statement, that it's wielder is neither wet nor to be trifled with.

Photographers have a love-hate relationship with the umbrella. On the one hand they keep you and your equipment dry, whilst on the other they render one hand effectively useless, so unless you have a willing associate, they are more of a hinderance than a help.

They are a two-edged sword in front of the lens, too. Like bicycles, they can be photogenic but they can also be a source of great frustration, particularly when you are behind a phalanx of them on a rainy day.

My advice is to embrace the umbrella in all it's awkward glory; make it your friend, and occasional companion.

Or, to put it another way, keep one for a rainy day...

How to hood a Fujinon XF 27mm 2.8

nobody@ipernity.com (Lightmancer) — Fri, 10 Oct 2014 08:30:34 +0000

Lightmancer has posted an article:

Let's be honest, one of the great advantages of the 27mm is its diminutive size. It is a pancake lens - albeit more of a drop-scone than a crepe - and hence small enough to be quite discreet in use, particularly when teamed with one of the smaller bodies, the X-A1, or X-M1 as here. It is however, alone in the Fuji lineup in being supplied without a lens hood. Is this because it is superlatively good at resisting lens flare?

Sadly not. "Ye cannae fight the laws of physics" as a Scotsman once/will said. It is by no means horrendous, but flare is there, under specific circumstances.

So, there are times when a hood would be handy, particularly in the raking Autumn sunshine. I've been experimenting with two screw-in E-39 alternatives, both of which do the job, and both of which I happened to have already in my photographic man-drawer.

The first is a Leica 12550 hood designed for the 50mm Elmar-M. By far my favourite lens on Leica M bodies, the tiny Elmar - which is collapsible - does actually happen to be superlatively good at flare resistance, so this hood tends to be kicking around doing nothing. Option 2 is a generic, slotted hood bought on eBay for my now long-gone X-10 so also underemployed at the moment.

In use I'd say that both cut flare, the Leica slightly more than the slotted. They are both the same depth, and neither produces any noticeable vignetting, which is good considering that the Leica hood in particular is designed for a 50mm lens not a 40-equivalent.

Aesthetically the Leica hood is a very good match, albeit it looks a little odd because it is so far inboard of the edge of the lens. The milling looks almost identical, however, as if the hood and lens were designed together. The slotted hood, which is larger in overall diameter, doesn't look quite so odd in that respect, but the slots are rendered totally useless and it adds considerably to the overall volume of the lens. Both can be left in place, with a hood (push-on for the Leica, clip-on for the slotted) on the end, but they add significant depth to the body and lens combination - fine if you are throwing them in a bag, not so great in a belt pouch.

There's no outright winner here yet, and I am still swopping and experimenting, but I thought you might like a look, and to read my musings thus far.