Thanks for that. Still so frikking stumped. The range they do is all appealing, and their road map is littered with the range I like. 14 to 60mm. But what!!
the 35 decked me out in low light. Drunk and handheld still gives crispy images, but always felt a bit cramped, and the OVF adjustment always got on my nerves.
27mm, yes please...oh wait, no aperture ring. Balls (I know, I know) but it's a killer.
Leaving me with the ideal 23mm. Now that's interesting, till I found out how big it is. I can't really complain, but I really liked the lightweight setup with the 35mm and even wished for a bit smaller.
I'm going through that "one lense" only phase, so this complicates things a bit.
Why oh why couldn't they just produce that 23mm f2.0 on the x100.
Maw wide yo! fast and close.
I know I know, and you'll be 100% right. But I wanted to try a lightweight system and it feels like the 23 will destroy that ethos, as tempting as it is.
On the other hand...the x100t is pretty much ideal...
Thanks for that. Still so frikking stumped. The range they do is all appealing, and their road map is littered with the range I like. 14 to 60mm. But what!!
the 35 decked me out in low light. Drunk and handheld still gives crispy images, but always felt a bit cramped, and the OVF adjustment always got on my nerves.
27mm, yes please...oh wait, no aperture ring. Balls (I know, I know) but it's a killer.
Leaving me with the ideal 23mm. Now that's interesting, till I found out how big it is. I can't really complain, but I really liked the lightweight setup with the 35mm and even wished for a bit smaller.
I'm going through that "one lense" only phase, so this complicates things a bit.
Why oh why couldn't they just produce that 23mm f2.0 on the x100.