Recent Posts
10 months, 1 week ago 1
Posted in: Uncategorized

10 months, 1 week ago 6
Posted in: Uncategorized


Fujifilm has provided us with a boat load of fantastic lenses, maybe none better than the XF 16mm f 1.4!  Now they have expanded the very popular and loved Fujicron line (*this is my term and the term used by many fans of these great f 2 lenses, not an official Fujifilm designation!!!).  So why make another 16mm when the current lens is such a great lens???  Well below is the f 2 series including the new 16mm f 2.8 lens!  The lens hood on the 16mm f 2.8 is included, the square hood on the 16mm f 1.4 is an expensive add on.



As you can see the 16mm certainly is a good match in terms of size to the other Fujicrons.  How does it compare to the 16mm f 1.4 in terms of weight?  The f 2.8 version weights 6 3/8 ounces while the f 1.4 version weighs in at exactly 1 pound.  You can see in the photo the top of the page the physical size difference.  The 16mm f 2.8 takes 49mm filters the f 1.4 version 62mm.  Both feel great on the camera body, the f 2.8 is nice and compact like all the Fujicrons!  The f 1.4 does have a clutch focusing ring that can be use for AF or manual, a plus, but the f 2.8 version seems to focus faster and quieter!


How do they compare in terms of performance?  The short answer is that in terms of sharpness they are very, very close!  The F 1.4 has two f stops more speed so it is certainly better at those two f stops!  Duh!!!  From f 2.8 on to f 16 I would say the faster f1.4 has a tiny bit more sharpness, but in practical terms I would call it a draw.  This is my great room with both lenses, see if you can guess which is which, both shot at f 11 from a tripod.



OK, which is which?  Before I reveal that keep in mind that at f 11 any well corrected lens should be close!  The top is the f 1.4 @ f 11 the bottom the f 2.8 @ f 11.  Next is a more important difference;  what is the depth of field (bokeh) like for each shooting as close to the subject as the lens will focus and then shoot wide open!  Guess again!



This time the f 2.8 is on top the f 1.4 below.  I think you will agree that both have pretty good out of focus bokeh, the f 1.4 does, and should, be a hair softer in the background but both looked great!  Look at the Route 66 license plate for a hint as to which is which.


So which should you buy?  That’s easy, if you want the absolute best performance and size and price are not an issue for you, the f 1.4 barely wins out, but it was very close!  If a smaller a lighter system is important factor for you, the f 2.8 is very, very close to the quality of the f 1.4 version and is much smaller, lighter and less expensive.  So it’s your call, but either one is a great optic, each with their own charms, I promise you will love either one!


What will I do?  I already have, I own both of them!  Different tools for different jobs!  GAS strikes again!




the pilgrim



10 months, 1 week ago 2
Posted in: Uncategorized

More info coming soon!! Check out the website:




the Pilgrim

10 months, 2 weeks ago 4
Posted in: Uncategorized

Shot with a 24mm lens.


As we prepare to review the new Fujifilm XF 16mm f 2.8 WR lens let me share a little  of my history with lenses, please.  My professional career started in the early 1970’s at the Harlan Daily Enterprise, in Harlan, Kentucky.  Back then, correction, way back then, most photo photojurnalists carried a Domke camera bag that could accomodate two camera bodies and 4 or 5 lenses.  In that era the vast majority, (over 85%), of all pro newspaper shooters used Nikon cameras and lenses.  In fact, Nikon’s tag line back then was, “the professionals choice” and they had to prove that figure to use that line.


Remember that photojournalists wanted to use lenses that did not distort very much the way things appeared to the human eye and therefore they tended to use less extrememe lenses.  Most newspaper guys and gals carried the following lenses in their bags; a 24mm f 2.8, a 35mm f 1.4, a 85mm f 1,8 and a 180mm f 2.8.  Later the 80-200 f 4.5 introduced the zoom telelphoto to these folks!  Many also carried a 50mm f 1.4 as well for use in low light situations.  The point was that the 20mm or 18mm were both a little wide for the perspective they were seeking.


In the wide angle area photographers gravitated to either the 28mm/20mm set or the 24mm/35mm set.  The vast majority chose the 35mm and the 24mm.  The 24mm became the “standard” wide lens with just enough distorition for affect, but with out looking too out of place.  The 35mm was kind of the normal lens for people and slightly wider than the 50mm normal lens.



I’ve had a long history with the the 24mm lens and I’m very comfortable using it, so I am anxious to try out the new 16mm f 2.8 from Fuji (because the Fujifilm cameras have an APS-C sensor the 16mm is the equivilent of a 24mm.)


Stay tuned!  It’s on the way!




the pilgrim