Which 3 primes combo is your ideal setup?

[Fiatlux]

If I wanted to replicate my other systems' 3 primes kit, it would be 18, 35 and 56 or 60 (i.e. 28/50/90 equivalents), with a 14mm added when a 4 lenses kit is allowed.

 

Trouble is, I have the 18-55 and I know the 18 f/2.0 is a bit weaker than the zoom (not at f/2 of course). I could therefore be tempted to go for a 16/35/56 or 60 trio instead. Advantage is that this would save me the purchase of the 14mm.

[citral]

That was kind of my thought, until I realized the 18-55 never got mounted since I got the 35 except for "utility" shots (ie visiting a house to buy and taking pics of the interior). So I'm carrying useless weight all the time for no real benefit, the 18 would be better for that. I think the slight IQ difference in corners don't matter at all for utility shots like interiors, whole big buildings or even groups, the point of interest is not in the extreme corners and if I manage to get some slight out of focus areas on such a wide angle the prime might as well be more pleasant, the 18-55 is nothing to brag about in this area.

[olli]

16, 23, 35. I'm two thirds of the way there. Now it's just a matter of waiting until the new wears off the 16 and it starts appearing in the Fuji deals.

[mart46]

16, 35, 56

 

However, I'm really looking forward to getting the 90 - so I think I might need 4 in the bag

[Nero]

This is heavily biased due to my general preferences in locations and topics as a photographer, so it will not be the most versatile or best option for many people, but the three primes which are always in my bag are the 23, 27, and 35. I know those are clustered tightly together in focal length, but here is why. The 23 is on my camera most of the time. The 35 has a certain magic to it and is the perfect step up in terms of field of view for me. The 27 is so small and compact that in a way it transforms the camera into a totally different form factor for street shooting. The 18 would also do that, but my preference at the moment just happens to be between the 23 and 35 for street photos. 

 

If I get more comfortable shooting with non-pancake lenses in the street, then I could see myself going for either the 16 or something longer than the 35 depending on my subject on a given day.

 

I have looked at the 56 and it just doesn't fit my style of shooting enough to justify buying one at that price even though it is a beautiful lens, but sometimes I do carry an adapted Helios 44-2 if I want that focal length on hand and it cost me about $70 for a really nice copy.

[citral]

It totally makes sense Nero, you're not alone

[GB27]

Mine actually 14 - 23 - 56

 

+ 50-140

 

And later 90

[silvaticus]

14 - 35 - 60

have them all - love them all, small yet stellar IQ!

[Azimuth]

Impossible decision.

 

I currently use the 14mm, 35mm and 60mm.

 

If I were traveling around the world, however, the 23mm would have to sneak in somehow. The only one it could really replace, though, is the 35mm, which is just to useful for shooting my family shots to ever give up.

 

Maybe 4 primes, or 3 and a zoom?

[Roozle3]

16,35,90..... I could do anything with those lenses

[Steve C]

In a sense, 14, 23, 56.  In reality, I have the 14mm and the original 56 and the X100s.

[brainchill]

If I have to choose 3 it would be the 14, 23 and 56 with an honorable mention for the 35 .... 

 

From all the excellent Fuji Primes, if you can only carry 3 in your bag, which are they?

 

Pick 3 from choices below:

14, 16, 18, 23, 27, 35, 56, 60, 90mm

 

Mine is 14 / 35 / 56.

[benjaminthomson]

14 23 56.

 

I like the looks of the 16 but i don't need shallow DOF at a wide angle.

 

Also really love the character of the 35 but that focal length can feel like a bit of a compromise sometimes. Too tight for environmentals, too wide for head and shoulders type shots.

[alanob]

For now 12, 18, 35. In future 16, 35, 90. 35 is really something special.

[Antony]

For me it's probably 23mm, WCL and TCL - best of all it's the most compact 3 lens setup as well.

[macrobernd]

If I have to limit to 3 lenses I would take 16 - 23 - 35 because I am shooting landscape and street. The 56 is a fantastic lens but a bit to close for my purpose when restricting to 3 primes only.

It would find the way into my bag when there is enough space for my x100t. Then I would leave the 23 at home

[hiZis]

I actually have 23 and 56 and currently thinking which wide angle to pick. I'll probably go with 14, as 16 is a bit cumbersome and not too wide.

[GoetzSB]

14,23,56

 

14 (21mm FF) - the widest focal length that still looks natural. For landscape, architecture, interiors

 

23 (35mm FF) - just the most versatile, beloved focal length. Feels like my natural view of the world.

 

56 (85mm FF) - the portrait lens that can still be used for totals, architecture elements.

 

All three fuji variants are excellent lenses (even if the sensor is not up to architecture photography)

 

Why not the "standard lens" 35 (50mm FF)? - Never understood why it is has been called standard. I could never relate to this focal length. For me it is too narrow for situational photography and too wide for portraits.

[brian]

What I have is already my ideal setup:

 

14, 27, 56

 

14 - classic wide angle of view, without introducing extreme distortion. Makes viewer feel like you're in the scene.

 

27 - perfect normal field of view (focal length == sensor diagonal), very compact, super-sharp. Unlike 23 that I often found a tad too wide, or 35 that I found a bit too narrow. Images feel very natural.

 

56 - classic portrait perspective, shallow depth of field. Great for focussing on details and removing all distractions

 

Seldom commented on observation: field of view covered by each of these lenses is almost exactly half the previous one. i.e. 27 is almost exactly half as wide as 14, and 56 is almost exactly half as wide at 27, making it easy to visualize what you'll get by switching from one lens to another in this setup.

[Minimax]

I do have 18 and 35, was looking at the 56, but will go for 60.

Simply because this is a great lens which is very compact. AF speed is no isdue for me.

 

In the meantime I use a Zuiko 50, 1.4 via adapter - great lens

[mjrod1985]

16, 23, 56... My current combo... Can't wait to add the 90!

[Antoine B]

I'm torn. I have 16, 23, 35 and 56.

Taking more than 2-3 lenses out with me is overkill, I find.

It means I have to carry a bigger bag and I start looking like 'the photographer' rather than just enjoying what I'm doing and having a camera with me.

I take what I can fit in my Billingham Hadley Digital - a camera with a lens on and 1-2 extra lenses

The 16 and 23 are definitely part of my kit

But I can't decide between 35 and 56

I like natural photography, close to what the human eye sees, but I'm torn between which of those 2 lenses are most useful

 

 

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

I know exactly what you mean... 

The 35mm is so nice it has to be there.

 

23mm? mmmm tough call: I use that focal all the time on my X100s, so maybe yes?

On the wide side, 16 or 14mm? I love the wideness of the 14mm, but the latest test shots I saw from the 16mm are just great: very interesting to see the capacity for smooth bokeh with such a wide focal. 

Then what to do about the 56mm? I didn't properly try it yet, but it seems a wonderful lens... 

 

Final call, if only 3 primes can stay? 

Jeez, you're killing me... 16mm, 35mm, 56mm

[sine qua non]

Currently using 14, 23, 56 and happy with the coverage.

[darktiger]

35mm, 56 and 90

[Dis]

Single prime 23/1.4

 

Two primes 23/1.4 & 56/1.2

 

Three primes 16/1.4 & 35/1.4 & 90/2

 

Four primes 16/1.4 & 23/1.4 & 56/1.2 & 90/2

 

My real setup 16/1.4 (coming soon) & x100s & TCL-X100 & 56/1.2 & 90/2 (coming soon)