wmiller549

I've owned three and have never been particularly impressed with the IQ, especially in the corners. For a 'kit' lens it's a darn good one. Certainly better than the plastic things that Nikon and Canon sell in their kits. I really wanted to like the 18-55. I guess that's why I've purchased (and sold) three of them. If you become accustomed to the IQ from the Fuji primes, the 18-55 just doesn't cut it. If you want prime IQ and need a zoom, the 16-55 is really special. It's also big, heavy and expensive. But then, constant aperture, professional quality zooms always are.

I love the 40mm (FF) FOV, but have resisted the 27, mainly because of the lack of an aperture ring. It bugs me enough that my primes and zoom work differently; the 27 would add yet another style of UI. This one you turn the ring, that one you flip a switch and then turn the ring, with the other one you have to spin the control wheel. (STOP ALREADY! i'm getting confused )

Take the XT with the 35/ 90 or the 5D with the 50/ 100. With any kind of decent light that should be all you need. Just slip around and shoot away, photo-ninja style. Leave all that other stuff in the car. Sounds like you are trying to do a fashion shoot, not a birthday party. Light stands? Softboxes? Jeez. I know you paid a bunch of money for this stuff and are itching to use it, but remember - it is a birthday party for a 15 year-old, it's not about you.

I believe that this could be firmware update. Other posters have stated that changing the magnification is not possible, but the XT1/ XT2 reduce the magnification in the EVF with software, why not the XP2?

I owned both. I sold the 35 in favor of the 23 f/2 and I'll probably sell the 18-55 pretty soon. I just don't use it much. I take better pictures with primes. I just do. It's the old "limiting oneself makes you think more" thing. I've determined that a standard zoom makes me lazy. I have distilled my lens set to four: 14, 23, 56 & 55-200. I always carry the 14 and 23 and add the 56 or the 55-200 to the bag depending on what I anticipate shooting. I plan on replacing the 56 with the new 50 f/2 when it becomes available. The three lens combo works brilliantly for me.

I'm left eye dominate. Never caused an issue with any camera, including the XP1 and X100. Did you know that left-eye people tend to driver faster and more aggressively that right-eye folks? It's true.

It would be great if Fuji updated their lenses every few years. I'm just saying that it took Canon a quarter-century to update their original EOS primes, but some people are expecting Fuji to do it after a mere 2-3 years. That seems unreasonable, and unlikely.

To my knowledge Fuji hasn't updated any lenses yet. (With the exception of a mild improvement to the XC zooms) They have released a smaller, cheaper 35 and a smaller, cheaper 23 is rumored to be in the pipeline. Canon updates there prime lenses about every 20-25 years. If Fuji follows the Canon model, then look for replacements around 2035 or so.

This post may be rambling, but I have spent a lot of time and money trying to determine the right '3-4' lenses (for me). At one time or another, I have owned all of the Fuji offerings except the 27, 50-140 & 100-400. I may pick up a 27 eventually, but I have no interest or need for the 50-140 or 100-400. If I wanted to carry a bag of bricks around I would have kept my Canon FF 'L' kit. I shoot travel, cityscape/ landscape almost exclusively. I shot portraits professionally, but I haven't done so in a few years now. My goal is to carry as little as possible, while maintaining the ability to capture most any shot I see. I also hate changing lenses on the fly. I have distilled my current kit down to three lenses: 16/1.4, 35/1.4 & 18-135. These three lenses do just about everything I need them to do. I carry two bodies - X-Pro1 and X-T1 each with a lens mounted. The 16 and 35 are my 'fast prime, walkabout kit'. The 16 and 18-135 are my 'landscape kit'. The 18-135 is an underrated lens. I have done some pretty extensive A-B comparisons between the 18-135 and the 18-55/ 55-200 combo and can't find much difference between them. The weather-resistance of the 18-135 (and 16) is a feature not to be overlooked for landscape photography. Not to mention that the IS of the 18-135 is at least one stop better than the older pair. (better 'macro' too!) Of the lenses that I have owned, the only two I really miss are the 56 and 90. Both of the lenses are awesome. For landscapes - I highly recommend the 16mm. It offers practically no distortion and is crazy sharp (even at f/1.4!). The 14mm is great and a little wider, but it is two stops slower. That is a BIG difference if you want the lens to double as a walkabout or event lens. The 10-24 is also great, but IMHO the forced perspective of any lens wider than the 14 make landscapes appear unnatural. (I also trend toward primes.) You do however, need at least one zoom for landscapes, because you can't always 'zoom with your feet'. Portraits and weddings make the 56 or 90 indispensable. So - Three lenses: 16, 56 and 18-135. You shoot: Landscape (16, 18-135) , Portrait (56) and Wedding (16, 56) - done, done and done. Four lenses: If you believe that an ultra-wide is a must, you can add the 10-24 or, for a lot less money, the Samyang 12mm f/2 is superb. Or, if (like me) ultra-wide is not your thing, I would go with 16, 35, 90 & 18-135. Those three primes are killer for street/city/event and weddings. The 18-135 will be your 'Swiss Army Knife'.

ThinkTank Hubba Hubba Hiney City/ Walkabout X-Pro1 w/35 1.4 X-T1 w/16 1.4 ef-20 flash Country/ Landscape X-T1 16 1.4 18-135 Polarizer and ND grad filters