Lord_Vader

You need a wide, a normal and a telephoto.
My wide is the 16mm (but the 14mm is another good choice. Slower but wider, smaller and lighter. And the 18mm f2 is a good, small, low-priced alternative with a 28mm full-frame equivalent field of view)
My normal lens is the 35mm f2 (but you could have the slightly-wider 23mm or the 35 f1.4)
My telephoto is the 56mm, which is great for portraits (but people also like the super-sharp but bigger and heavier 90mm)
My fourth lens is a camera - the X100T. Which is why I don't have the all-purpose 23mm lens: this camera does that job and has some extra benefits besides - small, silent, fast flash sync.
 
This chart, from Ken Rockwell, is very useful. Bear in mind it's talking full-frame focal lengths.
 

 
 
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

This is an ancient debate.  In the days of 35mm film there were endless discussion about which was the more natural field of view, 50mm or 35mm (which were equivalent to what you are talking about). Going back to Fuji's, the 35mm corresponds more to the field of view you get from eyes when you don't swing them back and forth, while 23mm is more like what you see with your eyes when you move them around some what. (The previous statement is subject much argument!)
 
 It really comes down to individual preferences.  If you have the 16-50 or 18-55 try setting the focal length to 23mm for a few days and shoot as much as you have time for, then do the same for 35mm.  YUse a little square of duct tape to keep the focal length in place,  Compare results and your personal experience.

They are two completely different lenses with totally different characteristics. I don’t see them as alternative but as complementary lenses.
 
Don’t swap, buy the 35mm and keep it together with the 23mm. That’s what I would do.

Hello Joerg, welcome to the fuji-x-forum, there are other specific threads on this forum already on the 60mm macro, also with examples, and perhaps it would have been better to continue one of those already ( I am a staunch defender of using the search function on any forum)  in order to stay to the point while not spreading information even thinner for future reference when someone else wanting to know something on the 60mm macro will have many threads to chose from and read instead od a more compact source of information.
 
However, you have opened another one so we might as well have this discussion here.
 
Of course the 56 does has a slightly more evident “ bokeh” ( I never cease to marvel at the fact that when I started photography not only this word didn’t exist, at least not applied to photography, but generally no one would have chosen a lens based on its  quality of image in the parts that aren’t sharp).
 
Whether this is more or less creamy, I don’t know. It is a matter of personal taste.
 
I made the conscious choice, at the time, to not buy the 56mm and preferred to buy the 60mm.
 
Part of my decision was economically driven, the 60mm back then was even more expensive than it is now, was 40% cheaper than the 56mm.
 
But the 60mm was very sharp ( where it is) had a nice “ bokeh” ( where it is not), allows you to get fairly close ( some argue that 1:2 reproduction ratio doesn’t qualify as “ macro” while it is plenty close for me) and it is very light.
 
The lens, it has to be said, is not a speed monster, but neither am I.
 
For any type of picture for which I would want to use this lens I am not likely to want to focus incredibly rapidly.
 
Initial negative comments on this lens were based on its use on the X-Pro-1 and X-E1, both cameras have a different sensor X-Trans-CMos instead of X-Trans-CMos II and processor,  EXR instead of EXR II .
 
 
With the new firmware there has been some small improvement with the performance of old lenses too and some debate whether this has affected positively the 60mm too.
 
I found that it is not so much the speed which became any better ( because the motor runs at the same maximum speed) but the accuracy has slightly improved ( with the exception of low light low contrast subjects).
 
But probably the 56mm would perform better than the 60 in terms of focussing speed but I find that the 60mm is absolutely NOT as bad as some folks say ( but they might have different expectations).
 
 
 
 
 
 
   
 

That, given its shape, which is especially made and thought to make the camera be used without glasses, so that it would prevent parassite light from outside,  the long eyecup is best used without glasses using the outstanding dioptric correction built in the camera but, if you must, you could use it with spectacles too.
 
If, for some reason that I might not understand, the built in dioptric correction is NOT enough you can use it with glasses but its precise purpose, would be lost. In that case you can save the money, methinks!

10mm is enormously wide, with a field of view equal to a 15mm on a full frame. It allows the shooter to greatly emphasized perspective. I have a lens just slightly wider and results can be dramatic. At 24mm you are approaching the FOV of a "normal" lens—110° - 61.2°. The cost is an f/4.0 aperture. While the lens is extremely useful for architectural interiors, you will find that either flash, very high ISO settings or a tripod are required even with the excellence of its stabilization. Outdoors, hand-holding is no problem.
 
The 16mm has an 83.2° FOV, comparable to a traditional 24mm lens—substantially wide, thus a very popular focal length. At f/1.4 it is at home in low-light, allowing one to work at a party with reasonably high shutter speeds, getting in a good bit of environment as well as well as the subjects. Great for capturing the whole scene at wedding receptions as well as in church where flash may not be permitted. Nice for night-time street photography when including the environment is an important element. 
 
Two choices for wide or super-wide photography. I could well see both in a photographer's bag. Shoot with them in your imagination considering the great difference in aperture. If you will be mostly shooting from support where you can use relatively long shutter speeds, the 10-24mm certainly is the more versatile. If shooting hand-held, with a need for mobility and decisive moment fast reactions are key, then the 16mm will serve you very well. Same price for each, just match your choice to your needs.

If you don't think you need the extra stop of light, I'd go with the 18-55. I'm sure the 16-55 is better in some ways, but the 18-55 has impressed me. Normally kit lenses are the first thing I sell or sit on the shelf. I think the 18-55mm beats the 24-105mm F/4L that came with my Canon. I like the smallness and lightness of the Fuji cameras and lenses. The 16-55 goes against that some but serves its purpose.

I have both cameras, I thought it might be a good idea to keep hold of my X-E2 body and sure enough, now fw 4.0 is available, I'm really glad I did.
It occurred to me that the two cameras are now not so different to each other, so I started putting together a comparison spreadsheet of specs, using the latest fw versions for both cameras.
Hopefully, if you're in two minds about whether to keep your X-E2, upgrade to an X-T1 or maybe even buy a second-hand X-E2 instead of an X-T1, this might help.
Let me know if I got anything wrong, but I did most of this using the info on Fuji's website so it should be accurate
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1NT0gidgtP6nT7681vRpSJgh34ShverMhbqycOZGydCs/edit?usp=sharing
 
Dave