Lens or camera choice

[bruno77m]

Hi all,

I have a X-T1 with the 18-55, 56 1.2, summicron 35 and samyang 12. For what lens would you go next ?

I'm actually thinking about the 23 1.4 or the X100T.

What do you think ?

Thanks

[mdm]

If by any chance you'll choose X100T, your next question could be: "what camera should I take with me?"

[bruno77m]

Yes good one. Maybe the 23mm would be a better choice. And a cheaper one...

[Guest welshkc]

I grabbed the 18-135 and now leave everything else at home. It is a bit slow for really low light but the ISO and OIS more than make up the diff.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[quincy]

First you should think about why you want a new lens, what you would use it for, and why you can't do it with those you already have. When you found answers to those questions and you come to the conclusion that you need a new lens it's usually pretty easy to find the right one, especially in the Fuji system.
 
Until then I recommend the 100-400, it's a great lens and will expand your spectrum.
 
About XF 23 F1.4 R vs. X100T: see Zack Arias' blog post about Fuji lenses, somewhere in the lower part of the posting. It's mainly about having a second body as backup, or for whatever reason.

[bruno77m]

It would replace the 18-55 and i like to shoot wide open. I know i miss the long end, but this is for later...

I will read it thanks.

[aceflibble]

Depends what you're photographing. You've got an very-wide, a medium, and a short telephoto prime, and then you've got the zoom for speed or as a back up or whatever you consider the zoom to be. You could fill out the wide end a bit with a 16mm, because there's quite a gap from 12mm to 35mm, or you could expand your reach and go for something like the 90mm or 50-140. Really depends what you shoot and which you'll get more use from.

As far as the 23mm vs x100T goes, that just depends on whether you think you'll get tired of swapping lenses, and how sharp you expect 'wide open' to be. The 23mm f/1.4 is sharper at f/2 than the X100S/T lens is at f/2, and of course you can open it up an extra stop on top. I think of the X100S/T as being an f/2.8 camera, because f/2 is quite soft. But it is really convenient to have that focal length on its own dedicated body, with no lens swapping and the leaf shutter. There's no clear, obvious winner out of those two. One is technically higher-quality, the other is far more convenient.

But if you're considering the 23mm, I'd think hard about the 16mm. That will bridge the gap between the 12mm and 35mm a bit more evenly. (The 16mm angle of view is basically halfway betwen the two; the 23mm is closer in view to the 35mm, obviously.)

The only lens mentioned which I'd advise against, almost regardless of what you shoot, is the 100-400. It's a fine lens, but unless you're trying to photograph wildlife or spy on celebrities, it's a bit pointless. Equivalent 152-408mm is real long. That's a tight headshot at the widest end and rare bird-hunting at the long end. It would expand your lens range more than any other lens, sure, but if you mostly shoot landscape, or street, or weddings, or portrait, sports, events... well, pretty much anything normal, then it's just going to be a big, heavy lump in your camera bag.

[bruno77m]

I manly shoot landscape, architecture, concerts, cars and peoples and i shoot a lot in low light.

Just look in lightroom of which focal i use most when i use my 18-55. It's 18mm and 55mm. Almost no photos in between...so i think i don't need a 23mm...

[mdm]

when i use my 18-55. It's 18mm and 55mm. Almost no photos in between..

 

when I use my 50-230 it's 50mm or 230mm, that's why I'd like to see 200f2...

[aceflibble]

Sounds like the 100-400 would definitely not be for you. And yeah, 23mm is kinda in between. A lot of people only really shoot at the longest or widest ends of their zoom range. 

So, I'd consider the 16mm. It's f/1.4 so you've got low light covered, it's close to the wide end of that zoom range—you've already got the 56 for the long end—and it's pretty distortion-free, compared to most similar wide-angle lenses, so it's pretty good for architecture and casual/environmental portraits. (Of course you'd ever use it for a formal headshot, obviously.)

[bruno77m]

I'm gonna have a look at that 16. Thanks

[EddieX]

I say you should go for the 16mm 1.4 as well.

[Immanuel]

I manly shoot landscape, architecture, concerts, cars and peoples and i shoot a lot in low light.

Just look in lightroom of which focal i use most when i use my 18-55. It's 18mm and 55mm. Almost no photos in between...so i think i don't need a 23mm...

 

This could also have to do with not being good at exploiting the opportunities of a zoom. I am like that too. I do not enjoy zooming with that lens. I have no idea if I would enjoy it with another zoom. It might in part be a tactile thing.

[Sella174]

How about a manual focus tilt & shift lens for architecture?

 

Related question, but also not quite: Does anyone have any experience regarding those T&S adapters available on eBay?

[Tommyboy]

Based on your shooting list, I also recommend the 16mm f/1.4.

 

If you want a second camera, the X70 is worth a look. No viewfinder, but a tilt screen and a 28mm in a tiny package. No need to choose bodies; you'd bring both. 

 

Good luck with your decision. 

[bruno77m]

Thanks for your answers

[Leighton]

For the price, EVERYONE should own the 35mm f2.

[bruno77m]

For the price, EVERYONE should own the 35mm f2.

I have the Leica summicron 35mm f2 for now

[MSW]

 

Hi all,

I have a X-T1 with the 18-55, 56 1.2, summicron 35 and samyang 12. For what lens would you go next ?

I'm actually thinking about the 23 1.4 or the X100T.

What do you think ?

Thanks

 

Except for the X100T reference this is not a "Fuji Question".  One sees the same question on UglyHedgehog almost daily except pertaining to Nikon or Canon.  

Here is my suggestion:  If you use Lightroom or some other image file management software that let's you view and maybe even sort by EXIF data take a look to see what local lengths predominate among the images you have made. If you are zooming all the way out to 55mm with the 18-55 (like 50%) chances are you want a longer focal length.  If 50% of you5 images are between 30mm and 40mm well you NEED a 35mm prime.  Tec, etc.

[bruno77m]

Except for the X100T reference this is not a "Fuji Question".  One sees the same question on UglyHedgehog almost daily except pertaining to Nikon or Canon.  

Here is my suggestion:  If you use Lightroom or some other image file management software that let's you view and maybe even sort by EXIF data take a look to see what local lengths predominate among the images you have made. If you are zooming all the way out to 55mm with the 18-55 (like 50%) chances are you want a longer focal length.  If 50% of you5 images are between 30mm and 40mm well you NEED a 35mm prime.  Tec, etc.

And the 23mm 1.4 it's not Fuji related ?

Yes I looked in Lightroom. With the 18-55 almost all photos are 18mm or 55mm

[Biker T3]

Just ordered the 27mm pancake, for my x-t10, also have 18-55 and 50-230 but am looking for ultimate portability, I hope I wont be disappointed with the image quality, any thoughts?

[quincy]

Good center sharpness at f/2.8, bad in the corners. But if you use that "shallow" depth of field, your corners don't have to be sharp most of the time anyway. Best center sharpness between f/4 and f/5.6, still good at f/8. Corner sharpness maxes out between f/5.6 and f/8. f/8 also seems to be the best compromise between depth of field, center sharpness and corner sharpness for landscape, city or other architectural stuff where you need a normal field of view. Mine is sharper than my 18-55. Enough with sharpness. If you're used to the image stabilization of your two zooms, you might get blurred images in the first weeks until you adapt to holding the camera steady or using faster shutter speeds. I don't see any real problems with chromatic aberrations, distortions, coma, purple fringing etc. It's a bit susceptible to shooting against the sun or other bright light sources.

Fast but noisy autofocus motor which moves the inner lens barrel out of the lens (~5 mm) for close focusing, really small and light, smooth running but grippy focus ring, all plastic exterior, but good build quality. Aperture is also pretty audible with my sample. It was not clear to me when I bought it, but it's definitely not just a toy, it is a serious small lens, and that's why it's not as cheap as other manufacturer's pancakes.

Edited August 12, 2016 by quincy

[David Thompson]

The great outdoors requires a long lens, somethings you just don't get too close too, waterfalls, bridges, safari animals, 100 - 400 is it! Zoom is the thing unless you know what you are doing before you do it!

Then have a prime!

[bradsarno]

Just ordered the 27mm pancake, for my x-t10, also have 18-55 and 50-230 but am looking for ultimate portability, I hope I wont be disappointed with the image quality, any thoughts?

I recently got the 27mm pancake to add to the 18mm and 18-55mm. The 27mm is simply astounding, a very useful focal length, tremendously sharp, makes the camera SO compact and light. I'm getting tons of use out of it.  It may be the cheap one in the XF collection, but its performance is stellar. 

 

B

[johant]

The 27mm is a great performer. I sold it for three reasons; too clinical rendering, slightly longer than I wanted, and the lack of an aperture ring. The third reason is more a slight nuisance than a real issue.

Definite pros of the 27mm are that the lens is really sharp, and that it's nicely small.