Which lens should I buy next?

[Jake Hall]

I need some guidance with what lens to get next for my trusty X-T1. The gap in my lineup that I'm trying to fill? Wide. I currently have the Samyang 12mm F2, XF 35mm F2 and XF 55-200. As you can see, I need something to sit between 12mm and 35mm.

 

What do I shoot? Landscapes mostly. I will also add that a huge part of my decision will be based on portability. I'm a little unconventional in this regard as a landscape shooter - I'm not really a plan-it-to-death and wait for hours kind of guy as much as I am a go for I hike with my camera and see what happens kind of guy. I'm also inclined to go out in bad weather rather than shy away from it, so WR would be nice.

 

So at this point the 23mm F2 sounds pretty good, right? Well, I'm not sure what to do about the rumoured 18mm f2 (or hopefully 16mm). See, I'd like to get only one lens to fill the gap. If I got the 23mm I still feel like I'd probably wind up wanting something between 12 and 23. Between 16/18 and 35 I'd probably be OK.

 

I'd like to get A lens sooner rather than later, as I'm really missing a wide (24/35 equiv). Can anyone speculate on when we might see the new 18mm?

 

Also, I know the 23 and 16 1.4s are out there, and while I'm sure they're stellar lenses, I'm happy to compromise a little IQ for a smaller (and cheaper) lens.

 

Help!

[Tikcus]

I'd just walk forwards or backwards

 

With the 18 and 35 there is not a lot i can't frame correctly using just my feet to zoom, the 35 F/1.4 is what i leave the house with 99% of the time (however i'm not a big landscape photographer) If I was going out to shoot landscapes, I'd probably just take the 18mm, if i had the Samyang 12mm and was going out to shoot landscapes I'd probably just take that

[Jake Hall]

I'd just walk forwards or backwards

 

With the 18 and 35 there is not a lot i can't frame correctly using just my feet to zoom, the 35 F/1.4 is what i leave the house with 99% of the time (however i'm not a big landscape photographer) If I was going out to shoot landscapes, I'd probably just take the 18mm, if i had the Samyang 12mm and was going out to shoot landscapes I'd probably just take that

I hear you. I've taken a lot of photos with my 12 and 35 and I'm confident that I need (want) something in between. I find the 35 to be a bit tight for the first composition I see, though as you said, I can usually find a way to make it work - sometimes I do just want that first composition though.

 

The 12mm is a different beast, it's great for that really wide angle perspective but walking closer won't make much of a difference at all, unless to change a foreground element. It's also amazing for Astro.

 

I think you might be right in suggesting that 18 and 35 has it covered though. Surely I don't need 2 lenses between 35 and 12. ?

 

I do like the 35equiv length though (I used to have an x100s) and I like to think the 23 f2 will come down in price soon (especially with its flaws turning most people off). The annoying thing is that I think I prefer 35mm equiv to 50mm equiv. but then, I scored the 35mm so cheap and its so good that it'd be tough to give it up!

[Warwick]

I like to think the 23 f2 will come down in price soon (especially with its flaws turning most people off)

What flaws are these? And in terms of 'most people' being turned off, I think it's now one of their best-selling lenses. Most of the reviews I've read are pretty positive too. I sold my XF23mm f1.4 to buy the F2 version and it's great: smaller, less conspicuous, faster-focussing and weather-resistant. It's on my XPro2 most of the time and I wouldn't be without it.

 

 

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[Jake Hall]

What flaws are these? And in terms of 'most people' being turned off, I think it's now one of their best-selling lenses. Most of the reviews I've read are pretty positive too. I sold my XF23mm f1.4 to buy the F2 version and it's great: smaller, less conspicuous, faster-focussing and weather-resistant. It's on my XPro2 most of the time and I wouldn't be without it.

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

That's good to hear. I may have been hasty in suggesting that most people are turned off by it, but the main flaw I was referring to are the reports that it's soft at close focusing distances under f4. Not a problem at all for me or indeed most people, just some people on the internet aren't happy about that, you know how internet-people get....

[Nick05]

When I was shooting Canon, I really liked the 24mm focal range. It is what I shot most landscapes at so I am planning on buying the 16mm F/1.4 on the next lens sale. Regarding the 23mm F/2, it is a great lens and appears to be optically corrected. The people you hear complaining about it and mostly complaining because they like to complain. It can be a little soft at F/2 when focusing at the minimum focusing distance which is quite close.

 

Since you seem to be undecided on the focal length, would you consider the 10-24mm F/4? Yes, it is a little bigger than the F/2 prime line, however it is not huge, doesn't weigh a lot, and covers the entire wide range. Instead of carrying a couple small lenses, you would only need to carry one lens so that could be the trade off on the size/weight.

[Florian]

That's good to hear. I may have been hasty in suggesting that most people are turned off by it, but the main flaw I was referring to are the reports that it's soft at close focusing distances under f4. Not a problem at all for me or indeed most people, just some people on the internet aren't happy about that, you know how internet-people get....

 

Having the x100s, which has a similar (or same?) lens, I suspect that the opinion may depend on the flash-less low-light usage. 23mm f2 simply is not up to that task im-no-so-ho. Since you are going to be using it for landscapes mostly it will be perfectly fine, with the caveat that sometimes you can get an extremely nice deal on the f1.4, due to its size and it being slow at autofocus.

[bhu]

With your lenses, consider the 18-135 as an all-purpose walk-around zoom. It is not a fast lens and is larger than all but your 55-200 but you might be able to leave the rest of your kit behind. Likewise, the 18-55 is a great lens because it is much smaller and faster than the 18-135. 

 

The 18 mk ii, 23 f/2, 35 f/2, and other prime lenses in that range might be good choices if you want to replace your current primes with something newer and more portable. The 23 f/2 is also a good all-purpose walk-around choice.

 

I use my own primes for low light shots, portraits, and wide angle but for nature photography while out for a walk, the 18-135 is a convenient way to shoot landscapes and squirrels. I do not use it indoors, though.

[jlmphotos]

16 1.4 or the 23 1.4  Though, other posters had good suggestions moving your feet (whenever conditions/location permits)  I'm too lazy.  

[mdm]

I've started with quite a wide range of FLs. 14mm was my wide, 200mm was my tele and everything in between was my normal...

However, as time went by I re-established my limits and today 23f2 is my wide, 27f2.8 is my normal and 35f2 is my tele. Well, I like to do landscapes as well, here is the recent one shot with my tele.

 

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

 

 

For me it's just right and now I don't need to go any wider in the vast majority of cases. So I vote for 23f2.

[Jake Hall]

When I was shooting Canon, I really liked the 24mm focal range. It is what I shot most landscapes at so I am planning on buying the 16mm F/1.4 on the next lens sale. Regarding the 23mm F/2, it is a great lens and appears to be optically corrected. The people you hear complaining about it and mostly complaining because they like to complain. It can be a little soft at F/2 when focusing at the minimum focusing distance which is quite close.

Since you seem to be undecided on the focal length, would you consider the 10-24mm F/4? Yes, it is a little bigger than the F/2 prime line, however it is not huge, doesn't weigh a lot, and covers the entire wide range. Instead of carrying a couple small lenses, you would only need to carry one lens so that could be the trade off on the size/weight.

Thanks for your thoughts. The 10-24 surely looks like a good lens, but something about it doesn't speak to me. I really enjoy fixed focal lengths and a marked aperture ring. I know it's insignificant really but it makes the process more enjoyable to me, which for me, is what's important about the Fuji system

[Jake Hall]

Having the x100s, which has a similar (or same?) lens, I suspect that the opinion may depend on the flash-less low-light usage. 23mm f2 simply is not up to that task im-no-so-ho. Since you are going to be using it for landscapes mostly it will be perfectly fine, with the caveat that sometimes you can get an extremely nice deal on the f1.4, due to its size and it being slow at autofocus.

Thanks for the reply. You're right, the close focus and flash things aren't an issue for me, i don't really do either. The closest I ever focus when when I'm taking a photo of gear to put on eBay... an extremely nice deal on the 1.4 you say? I'll keep an eye out for it but I think at this point I'm sold on the smaller WR version - I doubt I'd ever use 1.4 if I'm being truly honest with myself

[Jake Hall]

With your lenses, consider the 18-135 as an all-purpose walk-around zoom. It is not a fast lens and is larger than all but your 55-200 but you might be able to leave the rest of your kit behind. Likewise, the 18-55 is a great lens because it is much smaller and faster than the 18-135. 

 

The 18 mk ii, 23 f/2, 35 f/2, and other prime lenses in that range might be good choices if you want to replace your current primes with something newer and more portable. The 23 f/2 is also a good all-purpose walk-around choice.

 

I use my own primes for low light shots, portraits, and wide angle but for nature photography while out for a walk, the 18-135 is a convenient way to shoot landscapes and squirrels. I do not use it indoors, though.

Wise input, thank you. I'm considering getting the 18-135 for my partners X-E1 so I might have to have a play with it. As for me, I definitely prefer small, lightweight primes with marked aperture rings, as mentioned before, I find it more fun. The 23 f2 is sounding better and better!

[Jake Hall]

16 1.4 or the 23 1.4  Though, other posters had good suggestions moving your feet (whenever conditions/location permits)  I'm too lazy.

 

That makes sense. Those two lenses are highly praised. At this point I think I'm pretty set on getting a smaller WR version. I'm not at all lazy when it comes to zooming with your feet but when out hiking and exploring I rarely want to go backwards. A lot of the time you have to go quite a long way back (and up a hill) to get to the 35 equiv FOV from 50.

[Jake Hall]

I've started with quite a wide range of FLs. 14mm was my wide, 200mm was my tele and everything in between was my normal...

However, as time went by I re-established my limits and today 23f2 is my wide, 27f2.8 is my normal and 35f2 is my tele. Well, I like to do landscapes as well, here is the recent one shot with my tele.

 

 

20171022_s.JPG

 

 

For me it's just right and now I don't need to go any wider in the vast majority of cases. So I vote for 23f2.

Thanks for the image! Nice work, it certainly looks good enough for my purposes. I think I'm pretty close to decided here, thanks to all!

[Florian]

That makes sense. Those two lenses are highly praised. At this point I think I'm pretty set on getting a smaller WR version. I'm not at all lazy when it comes to zooming with your feet but when out hiking and exploring I rarely want to go backwards. A lot of the time you have to go quite a long way back (and up a hill) to get to the 35 equiv FOV from 50.

 

Hmmm, from what I gather of your use case I suspect overuse of the zoom-with-your-feet-method might also not be such a good idea because of safety considerations

[Nick05]

Thanks for your thoughts. The 10-24 surely looks like a good lens, but something about it doesn't speak to me. I really enjoy fixed focal lengths and a marked aperture ring. I know it's insignificant really but it makes the process more enjoyable to me, which for me, is what's important about the Fuji system

I completely understand that. I own it, and like it, but don't love it. I really don't understand why they didn't put a marked aperture ring on it. I'm planning on getting the 16mm for similar reasons you mentioned.

[Nero]

You said that you're primarily a landscape shooter, but to me part of this question is how locked into that are you? My typical kit is the 16mm, 23mm, and 35mm, all f/1.4 versions. Nothing against the f/2 versions, I just bought all of these before the new ones were released. I love the 16 and 23 and would argue that it's not a bad idea to buy both when you can afford to.

 

However, the 23 will give you more all around versatility as far as everyday shooting. It's my go to lens most of the time, with the 35 coming in a close second. I'm perfectly comfortable using it for landscapes, street, and pretty much anything that I happen across. I rarely encounter a landscape that doesn't yield a good photo with a little footwork and some quick compositional judgment with the 23. I also don't plan my landscapes much because I'm either traveling with a long but spontaneous itinerary or I'm with other people and don't want to slow them down.

 

The 16 comes out of my bag in much more specific situations. I prefer primes, but I also prefer to not switch lenses frequently through the day, which makes the 23mm a much better focal length for me on most days.

[Jake Hall]

I completely understand that. I own it, and like it, but don't love it. I really don't understand why they didn't put a marked aperture ring on it. I'm planning on getting the 16mm for similar reasons you mentioned.

Enjoy! I'm yet to see even an average review of that lens, much less a bad one.

[Jake Hall]

You said that you're primarily a landscape shooter, but to me part of this question is how locked into that are you? My typical kit is the 16mm, 23mm, and 35mm, all f/1.4 versions. Nothing against the f/2 versions, I just bought all of these before the new ones were released. I love the 16 and 23 and would argue that it's not a bad idea to buy both when you can afford to.

 

However, the 23 will give you more all around versatility as far as everyday shooting. It's my go to lens most of the time, with the 35 coming in a close second. I'm perfectly comfortable using it for landscapes, street, and pretty much anything that I happen across. I rarely encounter a landscape that doesn't yield a good photo with a little footwork and some quick compositional judgment with the 23. I also don't plan my landscapes much because I'm either traveling with a long but spontaneous itinerary or I'm with other people and don't want to slow them down.

 

The 16 comes out of my bag in much more specific situations. I prefer primes, but I also prefer to not switch lenses frequently through the day, which makes the 23mm a much better focal length for me on most days.

Thanks for the response Nero, you make a lot of good points. I'm fairly locked into being a landscape shooter, I shoot wildlife too but with my 55-200 (I wish I could afford the 100-400) and I think you're right about maybe having both 23 and 16 in the long run, especially if an f2 version of the 16 comes out. It sounds like your style is similar to mine - I'm usually exploring multiple places, usually hiking with my girlfriend. Thankfully she's very patient but that doesn't stop me wanting to get the job done as soon as possible and keep it moving. The 23 would be great for everyday walkabout I'm sure, I often find my 35f2 too tight. I agree completely about not wanting to swap lenses all the time, but for me that's countered by having a choice of small lenses rather than one large one - many times I'll just take a single lens out on a walk or pocket a backup lens.

 

I think I'm sold on 23 at this point, and like you said, back it up in the future with a 16f2 if it comes out or maybe the rumoured 8-16 (I'd probably be OK with an ultra wide zoom, so long as it's good for Astro).

 

Thanks!

 

For anyone that was interested, I just yesterday made a website for my photos - I'd love some feedback!

 

All shot with X-T1, Samyang 12 f2, XF 35 f2 or XF 55-200 - who says you need expensive gear to get results!?

 

www.surfcoastnature.com

Edited March 28, 2017 by Jake Hall

[Tikcus]

Thanks for the response Nero, you make a lot of good points. I'm fairly locked into being a landscape shooter, I shoot wildlife too but with my 55-200 (I wish I could afford the 100-400) and I think you're right about maybe having both 23 and 16 in the long run, especially if an f2 version of the 16 comes out. It sounds like your style is similar to mine - I'm usually exploring multiple places, usually hiking with my girlfriend. Thankfully she's very patient but that doesn't stop me wanting to get the job done as soon as possible and keep it moving. The 23 would be great for everyday walkabout I'm sure, I often find my 35f2 too tight. I agree completely about not wanting to swap lenses all the time, but for me that's countered by having a choice of small lenses rather than one large one - many times I'll just take a single lens out on a walk or pocket a backup lens.

 

I think I'm sold on 23 at this point, and like you said, back it up in the future with a 16f2 if it comes out or maybe the rumoured 8-16 (I'd probably be OK with an ultra wide zoom, so long as it's good for Astro).

 

Thanks!

 

For anyone that was interested, I just yesterday made a website for my photos - I'd love some feedback!

 

All shot with X-T1, Samyang 12 f2, XF 35 f2 or XF 55-200 - who says you need expensive gear to get results!?

 

www.surfcoastnature.com

 

just checked your website, some great photographs, the bear fishing, and on the tree trunk are great captures

[Jake Hall]

just checked your website, some great photographs, the bear fishing, and on the tree trunk are great captures

Thanks for the feedback Tikcus! Glad you enjoyed the photos. Out of curiousity, which bear fishing photo were to referring to?

Edited March 30, 2017 by Jake Hall

[Tikcus]

Thanks for the feedback Tikcus! Glad you enjoyed the photos. Out of curiousity, which bear fishing photo were to referring to?

 

http://www.surfcoastnature.com/Wildlife/i-pmjwL6b/A

[kalinus]

The 12mm and the 16mm can share filters. For a landscape photographer this coud be important. And the 16mm it's an amazing lens for many other things.

 

Enviat des del meu LG-H815 usant Tapatalk

[elmacus]

Wide is not wide enough. Cant beat 10mm. Just buy XF-1024 and be done with it.