flesix

I didn't try -4. But you can see for yourself, there is one sample with -2 and one with 0 in my set.

I'd say the waxy skin is gone with the X-Trans III. Please judge for yourself: https://www.flickr.com/gp/flesix/xK059p You can also refer to this discussion: http://www.fuji-x-forum.com/topic/2334-x-trans-iii-the-waxy-skin-is-gone/

For everyone who did not like the the waxy skin in high ISO SOOC jpegs of the X-Trans II cameras, there's good news: It's gone in the X-Trans III. If you like to check for yourself, I added two X-Pro2 shots to the comparison I once did between the X-E2 and X-E1: https://www.flickr.com/gp/flesix/xK059p

Personally, I wouldn't go for the zoom lenses you consider. With the 18 in your kit, you have a very nice walk around option, if you want a small setup that you can stuff into your coat pocket on some occasions where you don't want to carry around your entire set. You wouldn't be able to do with with either of the zoom lenses. If you think you need something more tele beyond the 35, you could get the 55-200 (a very nice lens in terms of quality with a good reach, albeit big compared to your primes) or the 60 (adding some nice closeup options, light and small) or you could even consider the XC 16-50. Personally I'd go for the 55-200. I'm actually very often traveling with the 18, 35 and 55-200 (even though I also have the 14, 27 and 60).

If I were you I'd sell the 12 and replace the 56 with the 60.

I only briefly tested the 56mm. And sure, it's shallow DOF and the better AF speed is a plus compared to the 60mm. But I'd never prefer it to the 60mm, which was my very first X-lens almost 3 years ago. To me the 60mm wins in many aspects. Close focus obviously and low weight too. I also like the the quality of the bokeh better. I'd recommend that you check it out first, but I don't really see any reason why you wouldn't like this lens on your X-T10.

Oh, and I forgot one thing: Keep focus after a shot until the shutter button is completely released. This would be very helpful for a series of shots of static objects, for MF-override in AF-S and for AF-C.

Here's what I'd like to see: - Auto-DR allowing for 400% (as a setting) - Focus Frame Tracking like it is available in the X-M1, A1 and A2: Put your active AF frame on something you like to focus on, engage AF Tracking (in the M1 and alike it's one of the arrow keys, but I'd prefer to put it onto the AF-L or onother fd-key) and reframe. The AF frame then moves across the frame while remaining on the subject. It works quite nicely and it saves you from having to manually move around focus frames. (I was very disappointed when this wasn't available in the X-E2 and X-Tx, particularly because I don't see why. I had hoped that wide tracking in the FW4.0 would bring this, but it's different and doesn't serve this purpose.) - Miniumum shutter speed depending on the focal length (optional, preferably also taking OIS into account) - Option to switch off skin-NR on high ISO - Batch RAW >> jpeg conversion

For what my opinion is worth, I wouldn't be interested at all. f4 is not an option on an APS-C DOF-wise for me.

When cycling in the French Alps (a bit north of la Provence in a region called Pays Diois) two years ago, I had the X-E1 with the 18, 35 and 55-200 with me. I had it in a ThinkTank Hubba Hubba Hiney on a belt around my waist, but I’d put it into the Turnstyle 5 now. And I might add the 14mm plus the MCEX-16.

Shallower DOF. At the tele end, f4 suffices for me, but at the wide end, the 3.5 of the 55-200 is barely enough for how I work. Plus I'd hope that reducing the zoom range would merit some advantage on the ergonomic side. I don't really like how the 55-200 handles. The 90mm is a bit better already and there might be some room on a 50-140 (135 would also be fine with me) to further improve this.

f4 at the wide end would be a no-go for me. I basically have this with the 55-200 now already, though without internal zoom and WR admittedly.

X-E1, 60mm f2.4

50-140mm f2.8-4.0 OIS, minimum focus distance of 60cm or less, preferably a bit smaller and lighter than the 55-200. 16mm f2.0, minimum focus distance 18cm or less, size and weight of the 35mm f1.4.

18, 27, 60 when I'm cycling to work with some good opportunities for nature shots throughout the year. It all (including the T1) fits nicely into a ThinkTank Slim Changer and it's light enough that I can have it with me every day. 18, 35, 60 when I'm with the family, because I find the 35 much more useful for portraits than the 27. Field of view wise, I'd actually like the 16 better than the 18, but the size is prohibitive to me. If Fuji will ever release a compact 16 f2 that focusses as close as the 18, then I'd certainly switch. I could also be quite happy with the 23 and the 60 only for many occasions, but the 28cm minimum focus distance of the 23 is just not enough for me.