Living with the Fujinon 16mm f/1.4 Lens

In the fall of 2022 I added the 16mm f/1.4 lens to my lineup. I had great expectations for this lens, given my experience with the Fujinon 56mm f/1.2. In most areas, I was not disappointed.

The lens is capable of very nice sharp detail, even in a near-macro sort of mode, due to its very short minimum-focus capability. At the same time, it can shoot an excellent 24mm equivalent field of view – a “wider” angle view, somewhat reduced by the crop factor of 1.5. For my taste, 24mm is about as wide as I want to go, anyway. I’m rarely shooting panoramic landscapes, rather I’m much more likely to be shooting family outings and less broad nature scenes.

One area where the 16mm does not keep pace with the 56mm is low light photography. The f/1.4 wide open aperture of the 16mm seems close to the f/1.2 aperture of the 56mm, but in actual usage the difference seems bigger.

The 16mm seems to perform more closely to the Zeiss f/1.8 lens that I have in my current trifecta, at least when doing substantially dim light photography. The impression I have about the two lenses in this comparison does not stem from any technical measurements, but instead comes from my experience while post processing batches of photos from each lens. It seems that the low light shots from the Zeiss are about as labor intensive to color-correct as are the ones from the Fuji, when shooting conditions include very low/dim light.

This may also be a comparison that is affected by the spectrum of light I have had available to me in some of the batch runs. Very narrow spectrum light is a real chore to color correct in post, and relative to that endeavor the 16mm f/1.4 seems closer to the Zeiss f/1.8 than to the 56mm f/1.2. Since I do a fair amount of low light photography, the 56mm remains my favorite for this purpose. Given better lighting conditions, the two beasts become almost equal for me.

From my perspective, in good lighting conditions, the 16mm is somewhat superior to the Zeiss, as the former clearly shows (in my opinion) – a greater resolving power than the latter.  This makes sense, because some of the Fuji crop sensor lenses are actually full frame lenses, which explains why they are so big.  Using a full frame lens in a crop sensor lens mount setup causes the lens to grab the best resolving part of the lens: the center part.  I think the 16mm is in this category, but am not sure.


Living with the Fujinon 56mm f/1.2 Lens

Over the past year, I’ve been using the Fuji 56 f/1.2 almost exclusively in my photography. It’s easily the best lens I’ve ever owned, bar none. The other night, during the lunar eclipse, my wife and I travelled to a remote spot away from the city lights. We were still close enough to the city to see the faint glow of some streetlights, signs, and stoplights. I dialed the 56 mm lens down to an apurture of f/1.2, pointed the lens in the direction of the glow, and tilted the camera’s LED panel so that my wife could see the display on the back of it. “It looks like it’s daylight! Wow!” was her response. She suspected that I really had some sort of night-vision camera I hadn’t told her I had purchased.

But no, the camera was the same old Fujifilm X-T2 I’d been toting around for a couple years. The 56mm Fuji lens could just gobble up the light. It worked pretty good for the moon, as well. The lens has some nagging little drawbacks, however, notwithstanding the fact that I’ve put it on a crop sensor camera (the X-T2) – and the effective focal length is a hefty 85 millimeters. It means I often have to back away from my subjects (what is sometimes called sneaker-zoom). But, that’s not the downside for me.

It’s the manual focus that’s the nagging point with the 56. It can hit the focus spot-on perfectly, with patience. It almost seems to have two different focus points, meaning that as you turn the ring, the focus gets to a point that is almost spot-on perfect, but if you turn it just a little bit further, it seems to go thru a less focused bit, and then is finally perfect. Sometimes I am tricked into stopping at the first “almost spot on” turn of the ring. Maybe the “less focused bit” is only in my imagination, because we’re really splitting hairs at that moment.  Maybe it’s my old eyes, my incorrect perception, or just a funky copy of the lens, but to me and my eyes it’s what it seems to be doing. 

Still, I want the best the lens can deliver, so I fuss with it until I have the perfect focus.  There is a lot of turn right at the point of focus, which means I tend to go back and forth, trying to get it absolutely perfect, instead of having a single turn position that is the best focus position.  It takes more time, but with patience you get there.

Maybe it’s backlash? It might be, because the issue seems to get better if you “come into” the focus from the opposite direction.  So, I have learned to turn past the focus point(s), and return slowly from the other direction. Anyway, with patience enough to continue to the perfect-focus spot from the “almost perfect” turn position of the focus ring, one can get spectacular results.

I make a big deal about the focus, but really – in spite of that nagging little detail – this is the best lens I’ve ever had.  Its IQ (image quality) and low light performance and color are outstanding enough to offset the focus taking more time.  It wouldn’t work (at least for me) for fast action wildlife in manual focus mode.

When, I slap my wide angle lens onto the camera, I get a serious degradation in quality (my wide angle IQ is far inferior to the 56). But, I am always happy to see the fast-focus to near-perfection, with no mirage in between, when I use the wide angle lens. It’s soooo much less tedious than the 56mm in this way.

I find myself using the 56 mostly for people shots.  It seems to be a focal length that works well for people shots, albeit I have to back away from them sometimes in order to not show quite as much detail.  The 56 mm Fuji lens is talented enough to make that a consideration!  All in all, it’s a keeper, even with the focus being such that it’s more time consuming to use it.  Maybe Fuji will come out with a slightly improved focus, or maybe I can trade mine for another copy.  It’s probably more trouble to do the latter than what is needed, based on the overall picture.  Either way, for the right purpose, ya can’t go wrong with this lens, IMO.

As Fuji 56 owners already know, this lens is built like a tank.  It makes many of my other lenses seem pretty wimpy in that regard.  One final thing I should add is that I take a majority of my shots with the aperture wide open or close to wide open, rarely above f/3.5, and that may be a factor in the focus situation.  I’m usually working with a shallow DOF.  Perhaps at higher apertures, the situation would change.


Slowly improving with the X-T2

It took a while to make the determination that I wasn’t able to discern whether my problems with photography had to do with my kit/gear or with my skill set. There’s the old adage about the “real” photographer who does not need any special or great gear – he can make all things happen on the merits of his skills alone.

Believing this, I kept with the outdated kit for a long time, thinking I could hone my skills. It never really happened, and now I realize that I was not able to determine what the real problems were because my older gear was hiding the answers from me. OK, so “hiding” is not the correct word to use, as the camera obviously had no malice intended for me. But, it didn’t seem to me that the gear was helping me to find the problems, and I wasn’t sure what to do to correct that issue.

Recently, I decided to upgrade my gear in a last ditch attempt to make something good happen. I thought that an upgrade to full frame status would surely make a difference in my photography, and after a lot of calculation I determined that the Nikon Z7 would fit the bill.

The problem is, I’m a little cheap when it comes to camera gear outlay. I had been buying minimal gear online (used stuff) for a small amount of money. $Two thousand for even a used Z7 was disagreeable. So … what was the next best thing?

Sticking with APS-C might be OK if I thought I had a shot at some kind of incremental improvement. After a lot of calculation, I was able to match (what many think is) good gear with my cheapo budget limits. I bought the Fujifilm X-T2.

The incremental improvement was immediately obvious to me. I bought an adapter for the Fuji so that it could use some of the glass that I already had, as a starting plan. It was clearly obvious after only a couple weeks that the same old glass I’d been using with older, less capable gear – was suddenly transformed – by a significant increment – by a system that would allow me to determine what was at fault (my gear or me).

It turned out to be both (my gear and me). My eyes are not what they used to be fifty or sixty years ago, and I rely on focus peaking for my shots. My older gear has focus peaking, but it took the Fuji focus peaking system to make me realize that the older system was not showing me the error of my ways. Additionally, I think the extra megapixels of the X-T2 really are making a substantial difference.

A reason for the incremental improvement is the larger number of focusing points available in the X-T2, combined with the great techniques that are employed by the camera to use those points, to show exactly where the DOF (depth of field) starts and ends. Such inspection may have been possible with my older gear, but it was not intuitive to me exactly how I could accomplish the task, easily and efficiently. So – my newest photos with the X-T2 are benefiting from better decisions on my part relative to aperture selection for DOF, and distance to subject for DOF enhancements.

The photo that is at the top of this page is (believe it or not) an incremental improvement over what I’d been getting from my photography. It does indeed have a depth of field problem, but the good part is that I know exactly how it happened. For other recent shots with the X-T2 see my photo repo at:

The newest X-T2 shots are all the pink/rose flower pics.

It remains to be seen whether or not I can parlay the additional knowledge gained from the X-T2 camera’s precise DOF informer and focus-peaking system – to printable results. Stay tuned.

Still Trying to get the sharp shot

Figure 1:   Still coming up short

So, I upgraded my kit to have a camera without the anti-alias filter (a Pentax K5 /iis), and a Sigma lens.   Yet, the results so far leave me still wanting that sharpness factor.  I’m using the Sigma 18-250 mm lens in the shot shown in figure 1.  Click the picture to see it in full size.  Doesn’t the detail of the pic just lack something in terms of the sharpness factor?  Do I need a full frame camera to get what I want?  Is it the lens, the camera, or the picture taker that’s at fault?

There was plenty of light, a quick shutter, apperture set at f/8 or so, focal length set to about 50mm equivalent in order to stay away from the extreme end of the len’s capability, and a steady hand.  In addition, the IBIS mech was enabled.  The shot should have been just tastey,  right?  Am I too picky?

The focus point was selected to be about the half way point of the scene (distance) – which was pretty close to the infinity mark.

Why are my best Pics coming from a KIT LENS?

Figure 1: Shot with my smc Pentax 18-55mm f3.5-6.2 kit lens.

It’s the strangest thing.  For months it seems I can’t take a sharp shot.  Recently I dug the old kit lens out of the bag (cheapest thing Pentax ever sold, probably), and shot some photos.  Finally, there was a little clarity in the photos it took.  I have a slew of older Pentax nifty fifties and a 35 mm Pentax as well as a newer Sigma zoom.  I was getting nothing.   So what’s wrong with this picture (pun intended)?  Clicking it will take the viewer to the smugmug page repo where I keep the larger size photos.

Depth of Field Ain’t so Tuff

Figure 1: The DoF (Depth of Field/Focus) equation.

Depth of Field ain’t so tuff.

Recently I needed to take some photographs of the antique glassware that my spouse collects.  This is easy with a point n’ shoot, since its depth of field is pretty good thanks to the short focal length that most point ‘n shoots have in their built-in lenses.  The point ‘n shoots usually have a wide angle (anywhere from 6 to 15 mm – but sometimes variable up to higher focal lenghs with fixed zoom offsets).

Read more about my DoF

I Suppose this VOIDS the Warranty …

Figure 1:  My Pentax K5 probably isn’t under warranty now. 

So … I guess my K5 has long been out of warranty anyway.  About a year ago the mirror-box went out of calibration. Anyway – I think that’s what happened, and I thought about sending it in for a re-cal. Subsequently the LED/Live-View screen went belly up, and finally the main board.  The cost trade-offs seemed to imply that fixing the K5 was no longer an option, so I decided I may as well take it apart and see what makes it tick.  After a dozen or so tiny little screw removals …

Read More about the K5

Bad Day for A Photo: Why is it Blue?

Have you ever asked yourself why those photoless days – the cloudy ones, are so diffused and blue?”  Probably not, because it seems to not be an important question to ask yourself.  Unless you’re me.  I love deep-diving the trivial things, it seems.

Blue light scatters, and red light is absorbed.  Actually, some blue light is absorbed, and some red light scatters, but it’s more often the other way around.  So, on a bright sunny day, all the light comes from one spot in the sky, right?  But on a cloudy day, it seems to come from every direction.  That’s because it IS coming from every direction, as a result of scattering.  When you take the red and yellow out of the color spectrum, what is left?  Well, green and blue are what remains – but it’s the blue we mostly see, because there’s not much in the clouds to reflect green light.  Water reflects blue light pretty well.  So, now you know the answer, and I’m sure you feel much more fulfilled.

Photographers hate cloudy days.  With the red and yellow all being absorbed, what is left is mostly scattered blue, and only 1/3 of the pixels in the photographer’s camera can catch blue light.  So, the camera sees 1/3 of what it could see on a sunny day.  No wonder the cloudy day pictures are dull and uninteresting.

My Favorite Simple Gimp Tricks

An overcast day is the worst sort of day for a photo guy.  The IR and the red tones are obliterated by the water vapor in the sky, and what’s left is a mono-tonish blue that uses only about a third of the pixels in your shiny new camera.  The result is often boring, but I’ll admit that creative photographers sometimes manage special photos in spite of the clouds and blue light.

Read More Gimp tricks …

Nature’s sculpture: Water Swept Grasses

Figure 1: Nature made a surrealistic sculpture, awaiting my lens

The photo in figure 1 is of water swept grasses.  Click it to see it in full size.  Nature makes some very pretty stuff by accident sometimes.  Lovely to be there to catch it.

For those wanting to see my smugmug collection of similar photos,  the link can be followed by clicking this :


Buggy for Bees – macro photos


Figure 1 : Bee shot taken with K5, Pentax 50mm /f1.4 vintage lens

Recently I started to take macro tube shots of bees in my area.  This is quite an addicting facet of photography, I must say.  I’m a rank beginner at this task, but so far have managed a few semi-interesting shots.  The picture in figure 1 is one of my favorites thus far (clicking on the photo will show it enlarged on smugmug).

Read more about the bees …

K5 Quandry

Figure 1:  Should I go mirrorless?

When I first used my K5, I was enthralled.  It was easily the most solid feeling camera I’ve ever owned.  Most cameras give me the feeling that I have glass in my hand (smile) – and that I have to be careful.  The K5 made me feel like I had a hatchet in my hand and that tossing it into a spiraling arc that ended on a cleaved tree trunk would do it absolutely no harm.

Read More …

Vintage Lens Honeymoon

Is Over.

Well, I kick-started my photography hobby for a second time recently after a hiatus of about 37 years. I bought into the theory that I could populate my lens arsenal with vintage stuff and save a bundle.  In short order I had over a dozen lenses in my possession, none made after the date they want to check on driver’s licenses in order to purchase hard whiskey.   Some were made not only that many years ago – but multiples of that many years.

Read More …

Caveats associated with Vintage Lenses

My vintage lens collection is growing by leaps and bounds.  I have gotten some good results from some of the lenses, and in some cases I find that they equal or exceed a number of currently available (newly manufactured) lenses.

However; not every vintage lens can be used safely on every camera.  I think the old film cameras must have had larger registration distances between the mirror and the rear of the lens barrel.  Certain lenses, when they are focused at some point in the direction of infinity on the focus ring, protrude from the rear of the lens mount.

Read More …

Vintage Lens Sharpness List

I’ve been collecting quite a few vintage lenses, and I consider some of them to be very good lenses, while others seem lacking.  I’ve decided to create a “Sharpness list” for these old lenses (most are older than 30 years old, and some are over 40 years old).

I should mention the methods I’m using to determine what is (at least according to my eyes) a sharp lens.   I am using an image focus comparison chart (a “fine resolution” spoked star chart), affixed to a wall, and illuminated with daylight.

Read More …

Bigger, Bolder Pictures

Figure 1:  Just one of those photos that needed more space

I’d been dabbling in the realm of photography for the past couple years, after a hiatus of almost forty years.  I wasn’t a very knowledgeable photographer back in the eighties, and really have only incrementally added to my repository of things to know in this realm of photography.

Most blog sites are (well, of course they are) – meant to be more for blogging than for photography.  I finally realized how tiring it must be for viewers who can’t really see my photos in high detail – due to size or layout or navigation restrictions, all the while I talk or write about those photos.  Subsequent to this epiphany, I set up a photo repository (on a photo site designed specifically for photos) in order to remedy that situation.  Don’t get me wrong – this blogger platform is great for blogging, but for photos it works in a more ancillary mode. The platform is more versatile if you want to run your own server, but I’d rather take the site’s photos, rather than worry about its security setup.

Technically, I could switch to another theme more suited to the photo.  But in that case I’d lose the nice textual format that is the mainstay of the blog.  It’s a bit of a catch-22. Anyway …

I started with a Kodak Brownie in the sixties, and eventually bought an enthusiast’s level Olympus film camera.  Later, when the film process became too complicated, I bought one of the first digital point ‘n shoot Kodaks.  I kept shooting my casual pics with that style of camera throughout all of the intervening years, but such casual shooting doesn’t necessarily qualify anyone as a photographer or improve their game.  The whole idea behind such a consumer camera is that one can know absolutely nothing about photography and still, at least some of the time, take reasonably usable pictures.

So, my latest adventures are blessed with more disposable time, and boy – can learning the ropes of the photographic arts dispose of quantities of that! Whilst I learn, I hope you can enjoy some of my stuff, as posted at the above referenced link.

Interval Infrared Photography of Dust


The dust level in one room of my house reached 3.5 million particles per cubic meter, where the particles were detected at a size of less than two microns (with some potentially as small as 500 nanometers) – using a Dylos 1100 (“Pro” version) electronic particle detector.  I have several detectors of various sorts. Often, the alarm on one of them is triggered in the middle of the night.  The other detectors do not have audible alarms.  In search of the cause of huge night-time spikes in the level of particulates, I used an IR camera to take shots of the affected room.

Read More

Doing Interval Photography with a Sigma SD14

Figure 1: Homemade “DIY” power adapter for Sigma SD14

I really have come to appreciate the Sigma SD14 camera that I’ve been using for over a month or so, applying it for IR photography.  It really shines there, due to the Foveon class sensor that outdistances most competitors in terms of IR sensitivity.  I have captured time-lapse photos that I believe contain as low as 1.5 microns (high mid-infrared) wavelength light.  This is ordinarily not possible with the standard Bayer sensor in most camera brands, based on the info (veracity unknown) – that I’ve come across in my internet meanderings.

Read More …

Infrared Photography with an SD14

Figure 1An unexpected explosion of infrared on my dry erase board.

Is there such a thing as an infrared bomb?  I’m hard pressed to explain the picture in figure 1, one of the first infrared photos I’ve taken with the SD14.  I had just taken the shot in figure 2 (a photo of me looking like an infrared zombie) – and had gotten up to check the camera.  Without touching the tripod, I snapped off another shot of the dry erase board that hangs on the wall behind the chair I had just vacated.  The photo of figure 1 emerged as a result.

Read More …

That Sinking Feeling (Camera Post Processing)

Figure 1: The only shot that was big screen viewable, without cringe.

I know what it’s like to be a balloon.   I had that deflated feeling once again this weekend, after a trip to the local lake.  The scene was spectacular, and was easily the most beautiful nature scene I’d personally witnessed to date.  In glee for my fortuitous presence at the scene next to the lake, at just the right moment, I snapped over two hundred photos.

Read More …

Computers should make Painting Easy?


So, computers should make painting easy, right?  That’s what I thought when I went to create a custom color for my truck.  But, the truth I found has a different description than “easy”.

I like the 1958 Buick Chieftain’s tropicana turquoise, but wanted a little lighter color than that for my antique 1984 S10 Chevy pickup truck.  It occurred to me that I could perfect the color on my computer, and transfer it to a tint mix formula for an automotive paint.  Doesn’t that seem like a reasonable thing to be able to do?

Read More


Figure 1:  Three old film camera lenses – a Tokina is mounted.

Who shoots green mode anyway?  Sure, using old film lenses limits the number of modes you can use on the K5.  For the lenses shown, only Av (Aperture priority) and M (Manual) modes are available.  But Av is about as automatic as I want in most cases.  I like to have the diaphragm and the ISO completely under my control.

Read More …

The Coyote’s Compass – and the Disintegrator

The Coyote and the Disintegrator

The coyote could navigate with uncanny ease.  North, South, East, or West – the animal could find his way easily, picking his path better than a man with a map.  For eons, the masters of the animal universe could only ponder the means by which the coyote traveled.  Or, for that matter – the birds of the sky or the fish of the sea.  They all had the ability to move without effort, in the navigation of their life paths, never missing an exit ramp, never with the slightest bit of inaccuracy.  All that man could do about this, was ponder.

(This post is an add-on to the post about old vintage lenses).

Read about the Coyote

Note: the author is an amateur photographer, and does not possess a degree in medicine or nuclear physics.  All articles are his opinion, conjecture, or short night results.

Rare Earth Plates for Breakfast?

Figure  1-3 A plate from the 20s, 30s, 40s.

I love to use old (vintage) camera lenses for my photography, but tend to stay away from the oldest ones.  Up through the sixties,  and (for some lens companies) – into the seventies and beyond – lenses were sometimes made with radioactive glass.  When this glass was marketed, the term “rare earths” was sometimes used to imply a glass additive or lens coating that contained thorium.

Read More …

Monochromatic Filter Fun – the White Towel Test

Figure 1:  The White towel test on an orange filter

So, I take my walks in parks and on green-ways, and I notice the way people dress.  The women wear bright colors often, and the guys wear the drab and dreary: gray, faded blue, and white.  I guess that’s par for the species for various reasons we won’t delve into, but I had the fleeting thought that these fellows would not look very  much different if they were photographed in black and white, versus color.

Read More …

Graphics Software for Linux

Application ColorCorrection Video ARM Arch Paint Description
DarkTable Yes No Prelim/Devel only? Mask only? Photo edit – Strong CC
Gimp Yes As Animation Yes Yes Paint/Photo Edit
Inkscape Some No Yes Yes Vector Graphics
DaVinci * Yes Yes No No Film Finishing
Krita Yes As Animation Yes Yes Strong Drawing, Also photo edit
Blender Yes As MJPEG, others Yes Yes 2D/3D Drawing, Video edit
Lightworks* Yes Yes No Mask only? NLE for Video edit
Natron Yes Yes No ? Video clip ed, multi

Table 1: Some attributes of various linux graphics software entries ** 

Note that table 1 is not at all inclusive of every known graphics software project, but is an enumeration of a few projects that I am aware of and that have some substantial following of users. 

I won’t vouch for the absolute accuracy of the feature list, as I’ve used only one of these packages very intensively, and most of them not at all. I would advise to check out the features of the various projects, and make you own determination as to which may be a good choice to try. For the most part, the items are free, so there shouldn’t be much downside to a trial and error approach to this.

Read More …

Photography On the Cheap

Figure 1: The K5 is shown with a Tokina lens from the 1980s.

I started shooting with a bridge camera about two years ago (the FujiFilm s8600).   This was an attempt to bootstrap a photography interest of mine that had started in the early eighties (with an Olympus OM-1) – but which never managed to progress past the level of a novice, and hasn’t to this day.  There was always something more important to do, other than to teach myself to use a camera.  Now retired, I am devoting a lot of time to the task of catching up with the post millennium photography world.

Read More …

A Human Powered IR Detector

Figure 1:   A low pass (visible light blocking) filter,  that allows infrared to pass thru it unblocked.

Normally, IR is invisible to the human eye.  So, how could a person detect infrared radiation with the eye?  It can be done indirectly.  In figure 1 is the low pass visible light blocking filter known to all IR photographers.   It blocks visible light (notice that it is jet black, even when held in front of a bright lamp).

The thing is, the human eye can detect IR already.  It can detect even down to the level of upper level “far” IR!

Read more …

Easy-Simple IR Detector

Figure 1:  A very simple, cheeeep, IR detector for hobby photography

Posted 06-08-2018

A lot of hobby photographers are using IR cameras, or retrofitting common cameras to do IR photography. If the camera is a retrofit, then the photo hobbyist may not know the level of IR before a shot is taken.

This easy junk box build is a way to discover at least a ball-park guestimate of how much IR is present before a shot is taken.

The nice thing about this detector is that it uses a photodiode that reaches all the way down to 1.7 um (micro-meters) in the Near IR / Mid IR boundary area. Some newer cameras may be able to take photographs in that band.

Read More …

Twisted Photons

Figure 1:  Poor depth of field, or the blowing wind?

This blog is closely related to another one of my blogs (called – which currently is targeted towards the journal-ling of experiences related to a nascent video-making hobby that I’ve recently adopted.  A first thought was to include photography as part of that site, but I’ve decided to split the two things, and make a separate blog to document any random bits of photonic decoupage I manage to produce.  WordPress makes adding a blog pretty easy … so why not? I think I have seven now, mostly with names ending in “miscellany.”

I think I may be a miscellaneous person.

I thought PhotonRain would be a good name for a photography site, but it’s apparently a name used already (by a rock band?) – as determined by a quick search that may not be accurate.  Storm Of Photons is a second choice. While that name doesn’t belong to musicians, it’s considerably less lyrical. Oh well. Ever notice that all the good names are taken already? I guess that’s what happens when you live on a rock with 7.6 billion people, and half of them are on the internet.

Read More …