« Sigma Contemporary Trio for Fuji X | Main | The Leica M10: It's Simple »

Wednesday, 23 February 2022


Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

I use Fuji glass on my Fuji cameras almost exclusively. I say almost because there is one exception: I recently picked up the Tamron 18-300mm zoom to use on my X-S10. The lack of things like an aperture ring on the Tamron matches the modern gestalt of the X-S10.

I have a number of Sigma lenses in L-mount that I use on my Panasonic S5. But, in that case, I view Sigma as an OEM - much in the same way I would view using an Olympus lens on a Panasonic micro four-thirds camera.

The one thing that I keep reading on various forums that discuss all things Fuji, is the potential users that look only at price. The comments about how much more for the "same" Fuji lens versus the third party variant assumes a track record that has not yet been established. The Fuji X system is now 10 years old and many original vintage cameras and lenses are still in use. So the Fuji glass costs a lot compared to on-paper matches, but what if they last two to three times as long in similar use? Inexpensive substitutes can be a false economy, at least until the lenses released now turn 10 and are still working.

I'll stick with the real Fujifilm lenses.

Here are Leica lens hoods sorted by price at B&H. At these prices I suspect that they are carved out of unicorn horn by forest elves and most likely they are coated in mermaid tears to improve their magic.


I've only ever owned native lenses, for many years Nikon, in the last year Fuji. I'm primarily a JPEG shooter, and I like the native lens corrections. I've also been happy with the quality of the Nikon and Fuji offerings, except I suppose for Nikon DX, but that's another story.

I understand why you wouldn't use Sigma on Fuji, but I still don't understand why you'd use an APS-C camera. They're really not much smaller than FF mirrorless cameras, or much cheaper, and as far as I know, most mainline FF cameras have a crop option that offers APS-C (and usually square formats and perhaps some others) and the APS-C option usually offers nearly as many effective pixels as the Fuji APS-C cameras...so why mess with them at all?

(I know -- "I like the way the Fuji lenses draw." But in my heart, I think if you gave identical photos from four top cameras manufacturers, including Fuji, using their best prime lenses, and had an expert printer do his best, that nobody could really pick Fuji from Nikon, Canon, Sony, etc.)

It's a shame Nikon is not as generous with it's DX users in terms of prime lenses as Fuji.

Have you actually tried the XF 23mm ƒ/2 yet, Mike? You really must. It makes for luscious, rich black and white pictures, particularly on the older X-Trans I and X-Trans II sensors.

[Yes I own one, despite already owning the f/1.4. --Mike]

Ah, my beloved LTM (heh). The best thing about it is that when Leica moved to the M mount, they included backwards compatibility with a simple screw on adaptor for LTM lenses.

I have a Leica M 240. I have Chiyoko (Minolta), Russian, Nikon, Leica & Cosina (Voigtlander) lenses in LTM. All have their respective strengths and weaknesses, and I can choose between them as I feel they fit the circumstance.

Would I like to be able to afford a set of the latest and greatest Summicrons? Perhaps. I'm sure I would enjoy shooting with them. That said, I'd rather get a nice old collapsible 50/2 Summitar or perhaps a 50/3.5 & 35/3.5 Elmars, or a Canon 28/2.8? The 7Artisans 50/1.1 Sonnar type continues to tempt and it's even new :)

It can be wonderful to shoot the lenses made for a camera. Love my Nikkors on my D7100. But I also love my Nikkors on my Leica along with all the other lenses I have from lots of different lens companies and lens designers.

A correction and a thought.

It's L39, not M39. Pretty sure of that. I could be wrong, but.....

The problem with the "universal camera" and the universal mount in my experience is that mirrorless cameras in my experience focus with the lens stopped down. You and other people might think that it's OK, but in looking at thousands of my photos and other peoples photos, it's just less accurate than SLR or rangefinder or autofocus unless you take extra time.

I would love a camera that could utilize my arsenal of Leica M lenses, but I don't really think anyone is going to do it.

It is possible. The AF confirmation on a Z series Nikon is more accurate than focus peaking, but it only works with Nikon AF lenses.

Do you find manual focus lenses on mirrorless cameras all that usable for quick work? I find them to be fine for slow work where I can take the time for focus magnification, but for quick work, people and movement, it's inferior compared to SLR or RF.

Sorry for repeating myself so many times, but you have never responded.

I agree that Sigma offering new X-mount primes is analogous to Mike Johnston showing up with a bag of ice to an igloo housewarming party. It doesn't really make apparent strategic sense to me, either. The Fuji X primes I have are each well designed for their bodies, light, optically excellent, mostly fast-focusing, and relatively economical.

That aside, I will also say that Sigma is offering some truly excellent lenses these days. They're no longer the "cheaper" alternatives to primary manufacturers' brands.

But the 3rd-party lens game is completely different with today's digital imaging. Leica M aside, digital cameras are exquisitely complex systems of computers on the camera and on the lens. Making a good third-party lens in an auto-focus mount requires more than machining a mount collar; it's establishing a license for that lens to talk to the cameras continuously. The tighter that integration the better the lens can perform. And to that end Sigma and Panasonic are really exceeding expectations, especially in L mount lenses.

Could it be that it is safer to stick to one brand when combining lenses? Last year I bought a secondhand Panasonic 45-150mm f/4-5.6 as a cheap addition to my Olympus 12-45mm f/4.
Alas the JPEG colors didn’t match. So I bought the even cheaper Olympus 40-150mm f/4-5.6 and now all colors seem the same.
In the past I had something similar when I swopped my Nikon 60mm macro for a 50mm Carl Zeiss macro. A great lens, but what a stupid move that was. Not only were the Zeiss colors very different from all my Nikon lenses, the lens also lacked autofocus.
Both lenses were not half as convenient for macro as my current Olympus 60mm. I even used its autofocus for digitizing my old Kodachromes. With 65plus eyes and hands you shouldn’t even dream anymore of working without autofocus or stabilization.

"Sigma, which used to be a maker of grimly cheap commodity lenses" ... made me laugh because I fell in love with this hobby with one of those said grimly cheap lenses paired with a Pentax autofocus body.

That being said, the other option I had was my dad's Canon AE-1 with a 50/1.4. Only now do I know, I was wrong to be seduced by technology.


I lust after those neat little Fuji "innie" hoods like you pictured.

The GF 50mm has one. It goes nicely with the GFX100S, and keeps the ratio of sensor size to overall camera size very high.

When I had a view camera, the question was moot. Any lens that could be mounted on a proper board would work just fine, assuming the lens covered the format, you had enough bellows or assuming it could be squished close enough. I don't recall anyone complaining that there were no third party lenses for my beloved film Hasselblad.

Mirrorless changed everything. I was quite excited to be able to use my old Leica lenses on my Olympus camera. It was cool to have a stabilized 90mm (180 equiv) f/2.8. Eventually, like many but not all, I grew tired of the adapter hassles and stuck to "native" lenses.

As I worked my way through the mirrorless world, first with Olympus then Fuji, now Sony, I pretty much stuck with manufacturer's lenses. The interesting exceptions were lenses the manufacturer just didn't make. With great difficulty and some expense, I managed to adapt my trio of Nikon tilt shift lenses and frequently carried my lovely 50mm f/3.5 Micro-Nikkor since I had no macro for the Sony. Now, Sony has a pretty complete set of lenses and there are excellent third party ones as well. I've played with the Sigma's and they're nice but many have AF issues. Still there are no native tilt shift lenses for Sony.

I'm pretty happy with my collection of way too many Sony lenses.

As a long-time (about a decade) Fujifilm APS-C user (these days the XPro2), I'm with you on the lenses. The Fujifilm lenses are all really good and many are as good as anything out there. They also integrate fully with the camera (AF, AE, etc.) and generally are not that expensive.

And if we're honest, we have to admit that any difference between the Fujifilm's and the expensive lenses with the odd names is mostly in our heads. It certainly doesn't show up in the photographs or prints.

Magic doesn't come from lenses. It comes from how you use them.

I have purchased the Sigma 30mm f1.4. I would not have done this if Fujifilm had as 30mm f2.0 lens. They don't.

Notice I said a f2.0 lens and not f1.4. I have no need for these fast primes. For one they get big.

So it is Sigma not Fujifilm. I have wanted a 30mm lens since I purchased my first digital camera back in 2007.

Why, you ask? My last film camera that I purchased was a used Contax G1 with a 40mm f2.0 lens. For 40 years my normal lens was a 35mm. So I was leary of the 45mm but after one day of shoting with it I was hooked.

So even though Sigma 30mm is a f1.4 and it is big I ordered it anyway.

It's back ordered at B&H so it may be a while before I know if I did right.

For now it is the 27mm f2.8.

If there were a 27mm Fujicron I would be sorely tempted to go back to an XPro.

The comments to this entry are closed.



Blog powered by Typepad
Member since 06/2007