Clicky

Jump to content


Photo

If you only had 3-4 fuji lenses what would they be?


  • Please log in to reply
91 replies to this topic

#1 wben25

wben25

    Newbie

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 8 posts

Posted 23 February 2016 - 03:52 AM

Advertisement (Gone after free registration)

Hey all, 

 

I am pretty new to the form as I just bought my first Fuji x-E2 (actually still waiting for it to arrive). I am looking at getting 3-4 lenses but am really undecided on what to get? I used my canon gear for years and usually shot a bit of everything.. Landscape, portrait, second shooter at weddings. 

 

So, if you could only have 3-4 lenses what would you have?  And also what style of photography do you shoot?

 

Thanks for all of your help

 

Cheers and Happy shooting!!


Edited by wben25, 23 February 2016 - 04:11 AM.


#2 Nick05

Nick05

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 182 posts
  • LocationFlorida

Posted 23 February 2016 - 04:05 AM

Congratulations on the new camera. I also shoot a little bit of everything. You definitely want to get at least one of the fantastic primes. The 18-135mm is a good lens, though a little large compared to the 18-55, for an all purpose lens. It really depends on what you like to shoot. Based on what you said above, I'd go with: 10-24mm, 35mm, 90mm, and either the 55-200mm or the 50-140mm. That way you have wide for landscape, fast primes, and a zoom.

For me, if I could only choose 4:
18-135mm
35mm
56mm
100-400mm

Edited by Nick05, 23 February 2016 - 04:07 AM.


#3 Warwick

Warwick

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 321 posts

Posted 23 February 2016 - 08:48 AM

You need a wide, a normal and a telephoto.
My wide is the 16mm (but the 14mm is another good choice. Slower but wider, smaller and lighter. And the 18mm f2 is a good, small, low-priced alternative with a 28mm full-frame equivalent field of view)
My normal lens is the 35mm f2 (but you could have the slightly-wider 23mm or the 35 f1.4)
My telephoto is the 56mm, which is great for portraits (but people also like the super-sharp but bigger and heavier 90mm)
My fourth lens is a camera - the X100T. Which is why I don't have the all-purpose 23mm lens: this camera does that job and has some extra benefits besides - small, silent, fast flash sync.

This chart, from Ken Rockwell, is very useful. Bear in mind it's talking full-frame focal lengths.

d63c43df18ed9e020788d9e5dbb854c9.jpg


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Edited by Warwick, 23 February 2016 - 10:53 AM.

  • Eeuw, Lord_Vader, blessingx and 1 other like this

#4 Morgo

Morgo

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 50 posts
  • LocationAustralia

Posted 23 February 2016 - 10:50 AM

I shoot a bit of everything with my Canon gear, though mostly wildlife.
Could probably live with 5;

 

A wide

10-24

 

Fast primes

24/f1.4 or 35/f2

56/f1.2

 

Long Zooms

50-140

100-400

 

Things like the 12/f2 (samyang), 90/f2 and which ever of the 24/35 that was not chosen would be close runner ups and potential purchases later :)



#5 NSFW

NSFW

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 18 posts
  • LocationFlorida

Posted 23 February 2016 - 12:43 PM

I mostly shoot landscapes, still life, and street.

 

10-24

27

55-200

 

will likely buy the 35 /1.4 (again)

 

I also have a few fast Nikkor primes (mf) that gets used often.


David


#6 Nero

Nero

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 165 posts

Posted 23 February 2016 - 01:16 PM

I think that the 55-200 is automatically included in any list for me. The image quality is a tier above the 18-135 and it has more reach. Aside from that, there are a lot of ways I could go with this. I shoot a lot of landscape, nature, architecture, but I also shoot whatever is around me at the time.

 

One of my personal favorites for a limited travel package is:

 

10-24

35 f/1.4

55-200

 

A fair amount of the time, I go also go with a prime-heavy lineup in my bag consisting of:

 

16

23

35 f/1.4

55-200

 

For a zoom-heavy lineup, one of my favorites is:

 

10-24

16-55 or 18-55

55-200

Maybe add the 27 for street given it's cheap and adds almost zero weight.

 

I don't put too much emphasis on the WR lenses in most of my bag configurations. It's a nice feature that's an extra insurance policy for dust and moisture, but I put a great deal of trust in my bag. As of now, there's a lot of great lenses that are not offered with WR, so I treat that as an added bonus and use a bag that I have complete trust in so that a bit of bad weather doesn't keep my camera indoors.


Edited by Nero, 23 February 2016 - 01:18 PM.

  • wben25 likes this

#7 Max_Elmar

Max_Elmar

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 119 posts

Posted 23 February 2016 - 04:07 PM

Still happy with the three original lenses: 18/2, 35/1.4, and 60/2.4 - even though I have expanded my lens set, I use these the most. They fit in my smallest bag with a body! They are all still excellent lenses, even the 18/2 which some people seem to think is "not as good as the zoom" - I strongly disagree - esp. @ f2.8.

 

That being said - I often use my 18-55 zoom for the OIS and convenience when traveling. When I do that I take a Rokinon 12/2 and an ancient (1968) Nikkor-H 85/1.8 w/adapter which fit in the bag (by themselves). Both of these lenses excel in the way that I use them.

 

I certainly could see myself using a 14/2.8, 23/1.4, and 56/1.2 combo, but that will have to wait.

 

If sports and/or action, BIF photography are on the schedule, the Fuji bag gets left home for my Nikons. Sorry about that, but I still believe high-performance DSLRs (and the exotic primes that I can rent as needed) are better tools for those jobs.


Edited by Max_Elmar, 23 February 2016 - 04:10 PM.

  • Björn Nordström likes this

#8 EddieX

EddieX

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 84 posts

Posted 23 February 2016 - 04:31 PM

Right now I got my 3 lenses I want.  I think the only one that I'm missing a longer telephoto lens.  I'm saving my pennies for the upcoming release of the 120mm f2.8 macro.


2x X-T2/VPB | X-T1 | 16 ƒ1.4 | 35 ƒ1.4 | 90 ƒ2 | 18-55 ƒ2.8-4 | XF 16-55mm ƒ2.8 | XF 50-140 ƒ2.8 Mitakon 35mm ƒ0.95 | RRS |

want: XF 8-16mm ƒ2.8


#9 haroldp

haroldp

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 28 posts

Posted 23 February 2016 - 04:43 PM

My normal traveling kit is 10-24, 18-55, 55-200.

 

At home I am mostly using 14/2.8, 35/1.4, 56/1.2 and 90/2.

 

I hate changing lenses in the field, and usually travel with 2 bodies. (X-T10, and X-E1 (or X-Pro1).

 

Wiildlife and long lenses are still Nikon territory for me, and Architecturals with a Sony A7II and Leica 16-18-21 tri-elmar.



#10 khollister

khollister

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 10 posts
  • LocationOrlando, FL

Posted 29 March 2016 - 09:06 PM

I normally photograph landscape, architecture, cityscape, trains, cars, aircraft, nature. Minimal portraiture, no sports anymore, wildlife/birds is on hiatus until I pick up a 100-400.

 

So for me:

  1. 14mm or 16mm (just got the 16 - really love the 14)
  2. 23mm or 18-55 (depending on mood)
  3. 56mm
  4. 90mm or 55-200

generally, the 14, 18-55, 55-200 and a fast prime in whatever focal length you use the most (23, 35 or 56)

 

For the OP, the style of wedding photography would dictate the choice of midrange zoom or primes. I think the 14/16 and 56 are pretty much certain given the landscape & portrait statements. Obviously the 16-55 & 40-150 zooms are an option if the cost/size/weight aren't an issue. One of the tele zooms is also almost a given since just the 56 and 90 primes is a bit limiting in focal length, even for landscapes. 



#11 Marc G.

Marc G.

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 183 posts
  • LocationGermany

Posted 29 March 2016 - 09:25 PM

3-4 lenses? That's a tough one.

 

I shoot weddings, portraits and a bit of everything as private stuff.

 

35 1.4, as I simply adore this lens for the rendering, size and AF speed on the X-Pro2

56 1.2, as this is my workhorse lens, does roughly 30% of my photos.

90 2.0, as I can't live without it. Technically, the best Fuji lens out there.

16 1.4, as my wide angle.

 

At the moment, I also own the 23 1.4 and 18-55. I could live without those, to be honest. I'd miss the 18-55 quite a bit, though.

 

You could certainly get through weddings with that setup. Though, I would probably sneak in a midrange zoom, just to make sure.


Edited by Marc G., 29 March 2016 - 09:27 PM.


#12 johant

johant

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 796 posts

Posted 29 March 2016 - 10:26 PM

Three lenses?

 

Fuji 18mm f/2

Fuji 35mm f/1.4

Fuji 56mm f/1.2


  • Björn Nordström and bjorke like this

#13 Pierre

Pierre

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 75 posts
  • LocationLyon (France)

Posted 29 March 2016 - 10:57 PM

Primes : 16/35/90

Zooms : 10-24/16-55/50-140


Fuji X-T2 + 16-55 f2.8 + Samyang 12 f2

 

 


#14 Pouncer

Pouncer

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 10 posts

Posted 29 March 2016 - 11:18 PM

With my X-T1 I shoot mostly travel and family, some landscape, no wildlife or sports.

 

I have four XF lenses: 14, 18-55, 23, and 90.  I could be talked into getting a 56, but I really don't need it.

 

 



#15 johant

johant

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 796 posts

Posted 29 March 2016 - 11:21 PM

Ah yes, I probably should have added that I use a X-Pro1 body most of the time.

Sent from my SM-G920F using Tapatalk

#16 Tikcus

Tikcus

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 326 posts

Posted 29 March 2016 - 11:49 PM

Love the bumping of old stuff.

 

My 2 cents with the currently available lens, and with the intention of taking all kinds of photography

 

You'd need a wide angle, a "normal" length lens, a mid telephoto/portrait lens and a longer telephoto if you had a 4 lens setup.

 

Personally I use the 18mm F/2, 35mm F1.4 (occasional landscape, street and street portraits) and 60mm F/2.4 (Macro and portraits), and have the XC50-230 for wildlife shots, however if money was no object this is ot the combination I would buy (note I am happy with the results of this combo, and have not tested other lenses).

 

If money was no object, I would probably pick up the  23 F/1.4 to replace both the 18&35 (although I'd have to re-adjust as I can frame pretty much for the 35mm before I look through the viewfinder), the 56mm F/1.2 for all portrait work and the 100-400 for longer length wildlife and birds. If the 23mm was not wide enough for landscapes you wanted to photo, then I'd probably opt for the 16mm F/1.4 if it was wide enough then one of the 35mm lenses, the 90mm, the 60mm macro or wait for the 120mm macro.

 

If Fast glass was not important but reach and quickness to adjust to that reach was, zooms may be more appropriate, I plan on going on a safari, when I do it, I'd probably want to take 2 bodies 1 with a short zoom 16-50/18-55/18-135, and a second with the XF100-400

 

If you are not sure on what focal length you need, I'd think it is probably better to start small with a single normal (23 or 35) lens or a zoom and see what focal lengths you use, before spending money on glass you will not use, or use fujis comparison tool 


"Share what you have learnt"

 

My Flickr


#17 Tom H.

Tom H.

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 651 posts
  • LocationBelgium

Posted 30 March 2016 - 03:00 PM

I only have four: 16 1.4, x100t, 56 1.2 and 50-140. I don't really need the 50-140 to be honest, it's mostly a backup. Don't need anything else.

#18 Lumens

Lumens

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 90 posts

Posted 31 March 2016 - 02:28 PM

I keep 4 lenses in my bag.  

10-24,

18-55,  

55-200, and

27 mm pancake.  

 

The bag is small enough to carry with me on my outdoor walks - the first three give me a (full frame) focal range of 15-300 so I can shoot anything I want.  The 27 is available if decide to do some walking on the city streets.  I also carry the two extension tubes in case I see something I want to get close to.



#19 Aswald

Aswald

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1,042 posts

Posted 31 March 2016 - 04:08 PM

Hey all, 

 

I am pretty new to the form as I just bought my first Fuji x-E2 (actually still waiting for it to arrive). I am looking at getting 3-4 lenses but am really undecided on what to get? I used my canon gear for years and usually shot a bit of everything.. Landscape, portrait, second shooter at weddings. 

 

So, if you could only have 3-4 lenses what would you have?  And also what style of photography do you shoot?

 

Thanks for all of your help

 

Cheers and Happy shooting!!

 

Based on what you shoot, I'd recommend,

 

XF14mm F2.8                  for Street & Landscape (Also look at Rokinon 12mm F2)

XF23mm F1.4                  for Wedding, Street & landscape

XF60 F2.8 or XF56 F1.2  for Portrait & Wedding

XF50-140 F2.8                 for wedding, portrait and landscape

 

You'll be well pampered.



#20 wmiller549

wmiller549

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 11 posts
  • LocationLake Arrowhead, CA

Posted 31 March 2016 - 05:42 PM

This post may be rambling, but I have spent a lot of time and money trying to determine the right '3-4' lenses (for me).

 

At one time or another, I have owned all of the Fuji offerings except the 27, 50-140 & 100-400.  I may pick up a 27 eventually, but I have no interest or need for the 50-140 or 100-400. If I wanted to carry a bag of bricks around I would have kept my Canon FF 'L' kit. 

 

I shoot travel, cityscape/ landscape almost exclusively. I shot portraits professionally, but I haven't done so in a few years now.

 

My goal is to carry as little as possible, while maintaining the ability to capture most any shot I see. I also hate changing lenses on the fly. 

 

I have distilled my current kit down to three lenses:  16/1.4, 35/1.4 & 18-135.  These three lenses do just about everything I need them to do.

 

I carry two bodies - X-Pro1 and X-T1 each with a lens mounted.  The 16 and 35 are my 'fast prime, walkabout kit'.  The 16 and 18-135 are my 'landscape kit'. 

 

The 18-135 is an underrated lens. I have done some pretty extensive A-B comparisons between the 18-135 and the 18-55/ 55-200 combo and can't find much difference between them. The weather-resistance of the 18-135 (and 16) is a feature not to be overlooked for landscape photography. Not to mention that the IS of the 18-135 is at least one stop better than the older pair.  (better 'macro' too!)

 

Of the lenses that I have owned, the only two I really miss are the 56 and 90. Both of the lenses are awesome.

 

For landscapes - I highly recommend the 16mm. It offers practically no distortion and is crazy sharp (even at f/1.4!). The 14mm is great and a little wider, but it is two stops slower. That is a BIG difference if you want the lens to double as a walkabout or event lens.  The 10-24 is also great, but IMHO the forced perspective of any lens wider than the 14 make landscapes appear unnatural. (I also trend toward primes.)  You do however, need at least one zoom for landscapes, because you can't always 'zoom with your feet'. 

 

Portraits and weddings make the 56 or 90 indispensable.  

 

So -

 

Three lenses: 16, 56 and 18-135. You shoot: Landscape (16, 18-135) , Portrait (56) and Wedding (16, 56) - done, done and done.     

 

Four lenses: If you believe that an ultra-wide is a must, you can add the 10-24 or, for a lot less money, the Samyang 12mm f/2 is superb. 

 

Or, if (like me) ultra-wide is not your thing, I would go with 16, 35, 90 & 18-135.  Those three primes are killer for street/city/event and weddings. The 18-135 will be your 'Swiss Army Knife'. 


Edited by wmiller549, 31 March 2016 - 06:10 PM.

  • susanjane, Carlos C and Ms_Tex like this


 
x

Registration is free

Not registered? Really?

Discover the full potential of the Fuji X Forum... register now!
Registration is free and done in a few minutes!

As registered member you can discuss, post your questions and present your images.
And get in contact with Fuji X photographers worldwide!

We are looking forward to you!

The Fuji X Forum Team

Register Close