Building out a versatile but useful kit for a trip

[andrewv8]

Hey guys,

 

I'm going on a fairly significant trip this winter and the current rebates make it seem like a great time to add a lens to my kit.  I currently have a small kit: XT10, 18mm f/2, 35mm f/1.4, and a small mefoto tripod.  I have always wanted a 23mm f/1.4 but given that I already have the 18 and 35, I think I'd be better suited to get something longer... like the 56mm, 60mm, or 90mm just to have a little more reach.  I don't know what I'll see or want to capture but I think I'd feel a bit naked going in with nothing longer than a 50mm FOV.  Obviously I've heard awesome things about the 56 and 90.  I've heard kind of bad stuff about the 60mm but it's so much cheaper and has the benefit of being smaller and lighter.  So... what do you guys think?  

 

Best,

Andrew

[RogerGW187]

Hello Andrew,

Don't turn your nose up at the 60mm. It might not focus as quickly as either of the newer lenses -- although it's quicker than it used to be after recent firmware releases -- but it gives excellent quality in a light and inexpensive package. See here for some examples (not the first), taken with an X-T1 on a monopod.

It's an ideal focal length for portraits and its close-up abilities are superior to the other two lenses. Magnification on the 56mm is 0.09x, on the 90mm is 0.02x but on the 60mm is 0.50x (not actually macro, therefore, despite Fuji's misleading description).

I hope you enjoy your trip. Where's it to, might I ask?

Roger

[andrewv8]

Thanks for the reply @RogerGW187.  I guess for me it's not really about portraits.  I just want a lens with some more reach there are some things you can't do with a 28 or 50mm FOV, sometime you can't walk any closer.  I think the 1.2 would also be pretty nice to have...  I'll be going to Germany and Egypt.  

[RogerGW187]

> I'll be going to Germany and Egypt.

 

An interesting combination. I suspect you'll be doing plenty of 'candids' in the latter.

 

Roger

[Tikcus]

for travel (i aint looked at the included lens in the offer)  depending on budget

 

If you were going to carry around 3 lenses I'd consider something along these lines,

 

1 - XF18, XF35, XF55-200

2 - XF16-55, XF55-140, +1.4 Tele converter.

 

If you do not shoot much at long focal lengths you may want to consider the XC 55-230 to complement your kit, it's cheap and works great in good light (in my opinion).

[jlmphotos]

It all depends on what you are going to photograph.  I am a landscape/travel stock guy.  I do not shoot people.  Actually, I hate shooting people. period.

My "light" kit which I just tried and was very happy with is my 16mm 1.4, the 18-55, and the 55-200.  I have other lenses, but honestly, i really enjoyed just these three.   I go from a 35mm/FF equivalent of 24mm to 300mm.  If I want to go wider I also have th Zeiss 12mm which provides a 18mm FF field of view.

But I was away for four days at the beginning of this month and only used the above three in combination and I was very satisfied.

Hope that helps a bit.

[plaidshirts]

I think the 56 f1.2 would round out your kit perfectly. I've found that my favorite pictures are consistently taken with the 56. It has reach without being too long.

[Jürgen Heger]

In most cases I only have two lenses with me, one on the camera and one in a small bag around my waist.

 

For daylight I use the 18-55. It is light weight and small and I have no complains about the image quality. I find it very convenient that I do not have to change lenses when I want to change focal length. Typically I have the 23 with me for low light situations. This is what I had with me when I visited LA.(I am living in Germany.)

 

For indoor shootings at low light, I take the 23 and the 56.

 

The 55-200 is my wild life, hm, ok, zoo lens. Then I also take the 23 with me.

 

At the moment I am wondering if I need the 16 and/or the 35. The 16 to be wider but I am not sure if I am prepared to go clother to the action than with the 23. For landscapes I find that wide often is too wide.

 

The 35 is a focal lenght that I use a lot with the 18-55. So may be I want it as a prime.

 

However, I am not sure if I ever want to carry more than one additional lens with me.

 

Edited: Typo corrected.

[cug]

For quite about a year I used XF14, XF35 and a manual focus Minolta M-Rokkor 90mm f/4 as my kit. It was light, small, unobtrusive and optically great. Fuji basically lets you decide whether you want fast or small or even something in-between. 

 

Kits I use:

• XF23, XF56, X-T1
• XF14, XF35 (either f/1.4 or now f/2, I own both), X-T1, sometime I add either 56 or the above mentioned 90
• X100T + TCL-X100

I think I could easily live without the 56, but would love to have a slightly faster 90. The XF90 is a super nice lens but seems to big for my taste. I might get an f/2.8 Leica at some point and live with manual focus. Not a problem on the big viewfinder of the X-T1.

 

Right now I'm in London and have X-T1, X-E2 + XF23, XF35 f/2 and XF56 with me. Nice kit, but I took the wide and the long lens only because I was planning an environmental portrait shoot - that unfortunately didn't happen. Could have used just the XF35 f/2 or the f/1.4 and be done with it.

[Tikcus]

cug, if you don't want the 56, i'd gladly take it off your hands

 

for 90% of my photography, I only seem to use the 35/1.4, but having the XC-55-230 in the bag is a nice option for taking shots of wildlife during the day.

When the 100-400 is released, I can see my kit being

 

35/1.4 + XF100-400.

 

I don't own anything wider, but I'm tempted to get the XF-18 for the odd time i can't back off enough with the 35

[cug]

Maybe ... NOT. I like the 56 and use it from time to time. I use it actually a lot more than the 23. The 23 makes no sense to me somehow. It's just too heavy and big for an all-day-lens for my personal taste. That's probably why I never really got into the 35mm FoV - I like the X-T1 use better than the X100T and hate the size of the XF23 in comparison to the X100T or even the XF35 or XF18. Don't care how good it is, it's just too big. The

 

56 is a special purpose lens, therefore not that much of a problem and I use it often enough, but would pick either the 35 or the 90 if I didn't have the 56.

[andrewv8]

If I can get the 90 for $800 out the door, the 56 for $750 out the door and the 60mm for $500 out the door does that color anyone's opinion? (USD)

[cug]

Personally I'd go for the 90, but it's a matter of personal style - do you rather get closer or do you often work in constraint space? Then the 56 is the more versatile option. Optically, I love my 56, although I wish it had slightly smoother OoF rendering - exactly what the 90mm has. Still, for all it's worth, this difference doesn't matter too much in the real world - it's more important that the lens fits what you like to do with it.

 

I find a three lens kit with a wide spread to be the best for me. But again, that's a personal thing. Some people like to have a continuous zoom range from 16 to 140mm (APS-C), others take two fast primes and do the rest with sneaker zoom. You pick what works for you.

[Leoncius]

my travel gear : 10-24mm for landscapes and buildings, 35mm for people, and 90mm for animals and flowers 

 

my gear at home: 10-24mm, 23mm, 35mm, 56mm, 90mm

[darknj]

The most versatile lens in the X system is still the 18-135mm F3.5-5.6. Hard to beat its coverage and the 5 stops OIS is quite impressive and can get you super spoiled.

 

Now if you prefer primes, you really can't go wrong with the 90mm F2. Quite decent reach and competing among the sharpest lenses that we currently have, if not the sharpest.

 

I would advise against the 56 1.2, the 35mm F1.4 would serve you quite well in low light situation already and the X-T10 holds ISO 6400 quite nicely, only exception is if you really plan to do portraits that where it really shine.

 

The 60mm is rather a small package all rounder, you can do a bit of everything and I personally like the closer focus distance, while it's not a 1:1 macro lens but it is good enough to be used as one and does an "okay" job as portrait, just don't expect it to be fast. It will be a bit faster than the 35mm F1.4 but not by much.

[andrewv8]

Thank you all for the responses!  My deal on the 56 was expiring so I nabbed it.  Little worried it won't be long enough but the 1.2 was so seductive, especially because the electronic shutter on my xt10 will let me shoot it wide open.  To be honest I sort of felt like I generally tend to work closer to my subjects and the 90 might become a specialty lens for me while the 56 might be something I could use more often.  Slightly concerned about the minimum focusing distance though... didn't realize how far it actually was.  Anyhow it will show up tomorrow so we will see.

[quincy]

Slightly concerned about the minimum focusing distance though... didn't realize how far it actually was.

Just a short note: the 0,7 m cfd will give you exactly a tight headshot (with about 6 mm DOF at f/1.2).

[andrewv8]

56 just arrived.  It just feels like a much more serious lens... the way it shoots, the images it produces, the general heft.  It really is big though, especially on my XT10 and the focus is pretty slow, I was surprised I felt that way coming from the 18 and 35.  I'll post more thoughts soon.

[Torturro]

When travelling - I use 14, 23, 56.

[gordonrussell76]

I believe the OP wanted to add one lens to compliment his existing lens, from the following options 56, 60 and 90.

 

Personally and while I love and own the 90mm and its a fabulous lens, its a large lens.

 

1) I would add the 60mm, he has the X-T10 so most of the adverse criticism of this lens being slow to focus can be ignored, I honestly notice no difference between this lens and the 18 and 35mm now.

 

2) Which brings me to my second reason the 60mm renders and colours the image in a very similar way to his existing glass. The 56 i find more clinical and less warm. Not a bad thing as its purely subjective, but if he wants his images to sit well together the 60 will get him there with less effort.

 

3) This is a travel kit having the versatility of the 60 in his kit will serve him well, it will allow macro shots plus it pack smaller and lighter.

 

4), Its also very versatile as a portrait lens for those of you interested I actually like it over the 56 as I can get in really close if I want to do abstract stuff like just an eye or over filling a frame etc, I think it gives more creative options for portraits out the box. The 56 is an amazing lens but its more of a I want to take a standard blow your mind magazine spread portrait. I find that the 60 serves the travel/street portrait better, in the same way that the 18 mm is a better street/travel lens than the 10-24mm, 14 or 16mm for my money.

 

My current go to street kit that I walk around london with at all times is X-T1, 18mm/35mm/60mm. The other advantage of this set up is that even the X-T1 while a decent size camera most people think its a flim camera when I have those lens in situ as they are so small. Soon as the 18-135mm goes on there people start getting a little more wary.

 

G