Got my 10-24MM Fujinon Zoom in the mail today...a used Amazon find that I was skeptical about, but turned out to be a great by from what I can see so far.

First glance confirmed that it was a little used lens, no fading paint and no "grime" on anything. All the glass looked super clean...dust and scratch free. One thing I noticed right away was how big and heavy this lens is compared to my 18-55MM "kit" lens. Nothing too drastic, but I guess I was thinking it would be a "proportional" change based on the smaller focal length of the lens....not so, another camera lesson learned.

First subject in my path was my trusty dog Wilson, he never dissapoints...other than a little cropping, no edits on this photo...

Then there's the the tried and true "quartering headwind" shot of the ole 180...the wide angle makes the spinner look even longer!


Caught the mechanics outside of their natural "break-time" habitat running up a trusty Bell47 after some engine work...




Overall very impressed with this lens. I'm gonna take some shots soon to compare the image quality with my 18-55MM zoom lens...It seems like the blues come out so much more vibrant with this lens, but I'll see...

Soon I'll use it to contribute to the spirit of this thread

That looks like a ripper, Bart! Nice shots...especially like your dog.

Wide angle lenses will tend to make the sky more blue, btw. I can't explain why, I just know it happens. If you really want to make the sky go crazy, get a circular polarizer filter. Because it's such a wide lens you'll have to get one that won't vignette, but I'm sure someone makes one that will work.

And ya, size and weigh are usually the trade off for good performance. Keep the front element super-clean and scratch free...imperfections show up much more dramatically on wide angle lenses.

Fun fun fun!

Here's an example of the extra pop a circular polarizer can add.

Hammer wrote:Here's an example of the extra pop a circular polarizer can add.

Have to be careful though. I sometimes like to back it off the peak polarization just a tad otherwise you run the risk of it looking like it has some post-production contrast added in. "Shitty HDR" some call it, though it's not actual HDR, which required multiple exposures.

Some of my videos have overdone polarizing on the sky, ends up looking like bad post vignetting.

example:

Not bad but not great:


Pretty bad:

bart wrote:Soon I'll use it to contribute to the spirit of this thread

Nice, Bart. Looks like a solid choice. I've run that cheap Sigma 10-20mm f/4 on my Canon for years and it's a workhorse, though a little soft around the edges. Point is, that's a good useful zoom range.

Hammer wrote:Here's an example of the extra pop a circular polarizer can add.

Hey, I recognize that hangar, I've always imagined that there is some cool old airplane in there...like a forgotten Jenny or Travel Air or something.

I can't remember if I have posted this on BCP or not. I took it with my Fuji XF14mm f2.8R. I love the wide angle shots except it is difficult to exclude the prop arc, struts, and wheel. Also, it makes everything appear as if you're flying at altitude whereas, like in this case, I was quite low.

Alex

PS: No polarizer

^^^ Very nice Alex. Is that in Oregon??

Bart:

Yes. In Oregon. Lake Billy Chinook near Madras Oregon.

Alex

Hammer wrote:Here's an example of the extra pop a circular polarizer can add.

Has anyone found a source for gel filters? A screw on filter is not an option for my fisheye and I havnt been able to find any on Amazon that will ship to Alaska. And after an excessively long order from B&H on my genie mini I refuse them.

AK_Logan wrote:Has anyone found a source for gel filters? A screw on filter is not an option for my fisheye and I havnt been able to find any on Amazon that will ship to Alaska. And after an excessively long order from B&H on my genie mini I refuse them.

Buy some ND gels on Amazon. Then try this guy's technique:

http://nofilmschool.com/2014/06/add-fil ... o-any-lens

B&H has never been anything but great for me. Did they not indicate that something was backordered?

Zzz wrote:

AK_Logan wrote:Has anyone found a source for gel filters? A screw on filter is not an option for my fisheye and I havnt been able to find any on Amazon that will ship to Alaska. And after an excessively long order from B&H on my genie mini I refuse them.

Buy some ND gels on Amazon. Then try this guy's technique:

http://nofilmschool.com/2014/06/add-fil ... o-any-lens

B&H has never been anything but great for me. Did they not indicate that something was backordered?

None of the sellers will ship to alaska. Even the prime ones. They always say nope


My canon lens has a gel filter holder built in.

AK_Logan wrote:

Hammer wrote:Here's an example of the extra pop a circular polarizer can add.

Has anyone found a source for gel filters? A screw on filter is not an option for my fisheye and I havnt been able to find any on Amazon that will ship to Alaska. And after an excessively long order from B&H on my genie mini I refuse them.

Try Pictureline in Salt Lake City. http://www.pictureline.com/

They ship via USPS and flat rate is the same to AK as anywhere else.

AK_Logan wrote:My canon lens has a gel filter holder built in.

That's cool. Is it built in to the mount base or the business end?

Zzz wrote:

AK_Logan wrote:My canon lens has a gel filter holder built in.

That's cool. Is it built in to the mount base or the business end?

Built in to the mount. They put them in a lot of the L series lens.

AK_Logan wrote: A screw on filter is not an option for my fisheye

This seems to be a universal frustration with owners of lenses with any serious convexity of the objective element. I started researching how i could attach a threaded filter to my little m4/3 fisheye and the options leave a lot to be desired. It would really be nice to not have to use gels at the mount.

There are solutions like this that are designed for specific lenses that then allow 145mm thread-on and "66" matte-type bracket filters to be used.

I wish there was a smaller version of this. 145mm makes for a massive front end.

145 on the front would make it almost a tripod only lens at that point! That is a nice setup but I didn't even humor my self and price out a decent 145mm filter.

AK_Logan wrote:145 on the front would make it almost a tripod only lens at that point! That is a nice setup but I didn't even humor my self and price out a decent 145mm filter.

Me neither. Cringe.

Screwing around with my $249 Rokinon 7.5mm f/3.5 (post corrected for distortion) while out flying today:







Not as wide-- the $268 Lumix 14mm f/2.5 Aspherical:

Those look pretty good to me Zane!