If you have the 18-55 and the 35 f/2 what would your third and final lens be

[Hermelin]

What 3rd lens would be the best complimenting lens? 

[Sluw]

What 3rd lens would be the best complimenting lens? 

Depends on what you want to shoot and what your other wishes are (weight, aperture etc). Could either be a longer lens like the 90mm, 55-200 or 50-140 or a wide-angle like the 10-24, 14 or 16mm.

[mdm]

Depends on what you want to shoot and what your other wishes are (weight, aperture etc). Could either be a longer lens like the 90mm, 55-200 or 50-140 or a wide-angle like the 10-24, 14 or 16mm.

 

I'd insist on 55-200.

[frankinfuji]

Yes - to get a significantly different range and look, I'd go for the 55-200.  It covers the next zoom range from current zoom, and you have the 35mm prime when you want compact/sharp/narrow DOF.

[Lumens]

No such thing as a "Final Lens"!!  Are you kidding?  I am always looking forward to my next lens.  I must also go with the 55-200.  I have the 18-55 + 55-200 and they are truly my go-to lenses.  Now if most your photography is landscape then possibly the 10-24, but only if you are very heavy on landscapes.

[lleo]

I own the 18-55 and the 55-200, it's the perfect kit. They're complementary. I don't know why Fuji guys produced lenses that get over each other, 55-200, 50-140 and 100-400. In my case one lens starts where the other ends. Getting the 50-140 it would be completely unuseful. The 100-400... yes I'd have other 200mm to use, expecially today that I went shooting seagulls. Fortunately I was quite close, but other 100mm at least would have been useful.

The problem is I don't need the first 100mm. True that's 2,8, but to me it doesn't worth the huge extra cash.

I'll probably complete my set with a Samyang 12mm and maybe, in the future, I'll get a 8mm fisheye but only as last lens since it's particular and not for daily use.

In the meantime I'm enjoying a bunch of manual lenses.

Edited August 15, 2016 by lleo

[Jürgen Heger]

The choice of a lens is always a personal thing and depends on your style of shooting. May be it helps if I describe my yourney.

- 18-55 came with the camera, is my daylight general purpose lens

- 55-200 came two weeks after I bought the camera because I was missing the reach that I was

used from my point & shoot. IMHO this lens is a very good compromise in quality,

reach, speed, weight and price. It is/was my zoo lens.

- 23/1.4 my low light lens. In some low light situations 2 stops better than the 18-55 are

really helpful. Some times I wonder if I need a 35 mm lens. But instead of changing

lenses I prefer to zoom with my feet or to crop from the 23 mm. I am sure, at one

point my GAS will win and I will buy a 35.

- 56/1.2 for portraiture and bokeh ("Ah, the bokeh" as Milandro would say )

In real life I use it much less than I wanted to. It gets it's time when I am

shooting a concert from in front of the stage.

- 18/2.0 planned as stealthy street lens. In fact, I think it is not that much less

conspicuous than the 18-55. So I do not use it a lot any more.

- 12/2 Samyang, for people in narrow environments, people with a lot of background, landscape

- 100-400 as better zoo lens and to satisfy my GAS. The quality is very good but the thing

is very heavy, I mean, really really heavy compared to other Fuji equipment.

At the moment I am a little bit torn between the comfort of the 55-200 and the

longer reach of the 100-400 and I carry both with me when I go to the zoo.

Stupid, I know.

 

BTW, for me the difference in quality between all the lenses I have mentioned is so small that it will never really improve (or degrade) the overall quality of any picture I have taken. But then, I am more into composition, light, timing and colors than the last bit of sharpness.

Edited August 15, 2016 by Jürgen Heger

[Warwick]

I'd get a wide-angle. Your zoom starts from 18mm so the 16 would be a bit close. Maybe a samyang 12mm would be far enough apart? Unless you like taking close-up pictures of birds or wildlife or far-away things, in which case a telephoto would be more your thing. I'm not a big telephoto user - I like to shoot people and I like to get close and interact with my subjects. Long lenses make me feel like a voyeur.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Edited August 15, 2016 by Warwick

[honda23]

14mm f2.8 or 55-200

[Hermelin]

I'm thinking of a portrait lens (although the 35 works pretty well for this and probably the 18-55 @ 55)

The upcoming 50 f/2, or 56 f/1.2 or 60 f/2.4. Pros and cons with all of them

 

50 f/2

+light and discreet (one of the main reasons that I switched to Fuji from Canon)

+Probably gonna be WR

+Probably fast AF

-Maybe unnecessary when you already have the 35 f/2 and 18-55.

 

60 f/2.4

+Macro and portrait lens in one

-Slow AF and not useful for moving objects

 

56 f/1.2

+super fast aperture

-big and heavy

[frankinfuji]

I'm thinking of a portrait lens (although the 35 works pretty well for this and probably the 18-55 @ 55)

The upcoming 50 f/2, or 56 f/1.2 or 60 f/2.4. Pros and cons with all of them

 

50 f/2

+light and discreet (one of the main reasons that I switched to Fuji from Canon)

+Probably gonna be WR

+Probably fast AF

-Maybe unnecessary when you already have the 35 f/2 and 18-55.

 

60 f/2.4

+Macro and portrait lens in one

-Slow AF and not useful for moving objects

 

56 f/1.2

+super fast aperture

-big and heavy

 

The 60 f2.4 is much better with the latest firmware.  Still not a lens for action shots or low light use - but a decent portrait lens that is compact and a good price.

 

56 f1.2 gets great results - but it costs a lot more in weight and $'s

[Hermelin]

The 60 f2.4 is much better with the latest firmware.  Still not a lens for action shots or low light use - but a decent portrait lens that is compact and a good price.

 

56 f1.2 gets great results - but it costs a lot more in weight and $'s

Fast enough with the X-T2 for candid shots at parties and that kinda stuff?

[Warwick]

If you are at a party with the 60mm lens, it would have to be a party in a very big room, or else you would have to be standing right over in the corner with your back against the wall to get anything more than face shots or head-and shoulders at best. I'd take the 23mm f1.4 to a party, or the 16mm f1.4: they would give you low-light capability, plus they would be wide enough to allow you to get a bit of context into your shots.

 

 

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Edited August 16, 2016 by Warwick

[Hermelin]

If you are at a party with the 60mm lens, it would have to be a party in a very big room, or else you would have to be standing right over in the corner with your back against the wall to get anything more than face shots or head-and shoulders at best. I'd take the 23mm f1.4 to a party, or the 16mm f1.4: they would give you low-light capability, plus they would be wide enough to allow you to get a bit of context into your shots.

 

 

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Well I'm talking outdoor party

[mdm]

I think your 35f2 will do for the outdoor party.

[jlmphotos]

For me it would be the 55-200 or the 16 1.4

[Larry Bolch]

I'm thinking of a portrait lens (although the 35 works pretty well for this and probably the 18-55 @ 55)

The upcoming 50 f/2, or 56 f/1.2 or 60 f/2.4. Pros and cons with all of them

 

60 f/2.4

+Macro and portrait lens in one

-Slow AF and not useful for moving objects

Lovely for portraiture. Shot a bunch over the weekend.

 

Super lens for hockey. From the boards on one side, I focused upon the goal and did a test shot or two. At f/4.0 the boards opposite were in focus. In the foreground, the players were in focus until they over-ran the frame. I shot from just inside the blue line at one end and centre ice was still in focus. Absolutely no need for autofocus. Not one single frame culled due to lack of sharpness. Using zone focus, the camera was very responsive.

 

Beyond centre ice, 60mm was a bit too short. With the OVF, my X-Pro1 was a dream camera. I could not only see what was in the frame, but what was developing outside the frame, increasing my keeper rate significantly. This would be the ideal rig for basketball, volleyball, gymnastics and any other indoor sports. I greatly appreciate my autofocus when it is appropriate. However, manual focus is there for a reason, and many subjects best lend themselves to it.

 

Ballistic toddlers in full-lurch are often mentioned as impossible. Very simple—zone focus again. At f/5.6-8.0 you are using the lens at its sharpest, and the zone is wide enough to easily enclose your high-velocity crumb-snatcher. Keep a reasonably consistent distance, and keep shooting. There is no need whatsoever to actually focus on the kid. Everything in the zone will be sharp. The 60mm lets you keep a comfortable distance and still get tight detail. 

 

[jigesh]

90mm f2: portraits and medium tele would be my suggestion.

[Hermelin]

90mm f2: portraits and medium tele would be my suggestion.

Just realized that the 90 is not more expensive than the 56. It's actually a cheaper. I think it would be a better complimenting lens than the 56 to the 18-55 and 35 f/2, as it would give me a medium tele lens.

 

Is the AF faster on the 90 compared to the 56?

Downsize is that it's a big big lens, but slightly smaller than the 55-200.

[jigesh]

Yes, AF is good and accurate. It's not really that big or heavy in my personal view (but then I also use D4s, D810); and slightly bigger size than 56mm f1.4 makes it more convenient to handle it and easier to remove from/attach to the camera body.  I had both 56mm f1.2 and 90mm f2 at one point, now only 90mm. 56mm f1.2 is a great lens, I had no complaints, I just wanted to spread my focal lengths a bit more apart and hence sold it (may buy again in future, one never knows). 90mm also is WR unlike 56.

[Hermelin]

I tried the 90 on the X-T2 (they had a pre-showing before release) in the store yesterday and wow, the 90 is beautiful.

Not as big as I imagined, and more useful focal length than I imagined. I just took pics of people in the store basically but this would be great for taking portrait and action shots of my kid running around. And because the faster AF than the 56 (from what I've been told) it's more suitable for action shots.

[darknj]

The XF 90 is really a beautiful lens, I prefers its rendering over the 56 F1.2 for portraiture work.

 

While the AF speed is much higher than the 56 F1.2, I am not that certain of its speed if you have kids running around and actively trying to dodge your photo taking. Also, the focal length means you have to be further away, like a good 3m away if you want wider waist level shots for most adults.

It's not an easy focal length to get used to, at least not for me.

[gaelmckeon]

I say get the Samyang 12mm f/2 (fantastic lens), AND a longer lens. Samyang, used, won't set you back very far, and it's also quite small in the bag. I dropped mine on concrete, (dented the mount-filed it flat)  and it's still ticking and super sharp...

[Hzam]

There will never be a third lens for me. It boils down to what type of photography you are into. In your case, i would sell the

18-55mm and only go with these three lenses. 16mmf1.4 , 35mmf2 and either the 56mmf1.2 or 90mmf2. To me the 56mmf1.2, is great. Renders great bokeh wide open but the autofocus is quite quirky. I will go with the 90mmf2 instead or best wait for the 50mmf2 in future. These 3 lenses will pretty much cover your needs.

 

For me, i have set sight on these five lenses for my needs, 16mmf1.4 , 23mmf2( if it renders great image quality as 35mmf2, if not, i will fallback to the f1.4 instead) , 35mmf2, 50mmf2 and 90mmf2. Happy shooting!! 

[Hermelin]

There will never be a third lens for me. It boils down to what type of photography you are into. In your case, i would sell the

18-55mm and only go with these three lenses. 16mmf1.4 , 35mmf2 and either the 56mmf1.2 or 90mmf2. To me the 56mmf1.2, is great. Renders great bokeh wide open but the autofocus is quite quirky. I will go with the 90mmf2 instead or best wait for the 50mmf2 in future. These 3 lenses will pretty much cover your needs.

 

For me, i have set sight on these five lenses for my needs, 16mmf1.4 , 23mmf2( if it renders great image quality as 35mmf2, if not, i will fallback to the f1.4 instead) , 35mmf2, 50mmf2 and 90mmf2. Happy shooting!! 

That's a good 3 lens combo, but I'm only gonna be wanting to spend a lot on one lens (as for now). 16 + 56 or 90 are 2 expensive lenses. 18-55 + 35 + 90, is only one expensive lens.

And 18-55 lens will be good for travel and also if I wanna do some video recording because of the OIS. Another plus is the OIS for landscape night shooting.

 

The 16 is however a very exciting lens and if I would go for primes only I might reconsider my bugdet

Edited August 21, 2016 by Hermelin