citral

Well to put it in another way, you are trading an extremely good wide angle prime, which weighs 235g and is 58mm long, for a good zoom that weighs 410g and is 87mm long for the benefit of having 10-16mm instead of just 14mm (since 18-55 are covered, you don't really need the 17-24 range of the 10-24). You have to see if you can justify it but imo the distortion at 10mm is so tragically comic that the usuable range is more like 12-16mm. 12-16@F/4 vs 14mm@F/2.8 that's quite a lot of money for not much now, if you think about it that way In any case if you plan to keep the 18-55 forever and use it as a walk around lens (like for your holidays) the 18mm is really questionable. What I would personally do is sell the 18mm and keep the money for when the 35 F/2 comes out, and use 14, 18-55 and 23, that is an excellent combo. (Tho I prefer 35 than 23 for portrait but up to you) Ah, decisions

DSCF2098 by Christophe Branchereau, on Flickr Rosheim, France. The oversaturated look is intended as it was a "postcards from Elsass" project when I just started using my fuji. It also enhances the fact that the old woman has a blue dress and a yellow bag of exactly the same tones than the post logo. It was an amusing project, but I don't do oversaturated colours anymore these days.

Well I wouldn't care too much since generally the best photographs out there (like the magnum people, Parr, McCurry etc.) are so unwilling to speak about gear it's almost baffling. They use whatever suits their needs and then look for content all day long instead of arguing on internet... Sharpness fringing blabla all very well but what's in your frame ? People who are complaining about gear often take pictures of a flower in their backyard and wonder why people do not say WOW but just "lovely picture..." when seing it. Must be the gear. For sure. AF speed is subpar, that flower was moving so quick you know, and look the corners are not completely sharp at f/1.4. Terrible gear limiting my creativityyyyy.

I've never seen a really good picture of something that just "poped up" done with a tele personally. Neither by cropping, it never works. If you want something to carry around in case you find something interresting, the 18-55 is really fine in this role. I have yet to see a good shot of anything done with a teleobjective, maybe animals, but then as usual, the best shot will be done on moderate tele and getting closer, or by including the surrounding, same for the really good surf shots that are done in the water, not from the beach. But I'm an advocate for "letting go" when it won't work no matter how hard I try, and concentrate on the few shots that will, just food for thought maybe review the focales you use most first?

Yes but that's me, I like to include people in wide shots to give a perspective, sense of size and a touch of humour. If someone is into pure "architecture" shots without people the zoom might be a way to reduce the weight of the bag I suppose. Not really my thing since I don't find personnally that ultra-wide shots of stuff without people make memorable pictures, rather the kind of "fun, amusing" ones but to each his own Examples :

I'd say outside either use the 14 with the 18-55 (at 18 it's good, better than the 18mm prime and the 10-24 sucks at 23-24) or use the 14, 23 and 35. Or 18 and 27mm to be really light. For interiors f/4 is not really good enough IMO so 14, 23, 35. If you don't need it, bust just have gas why not rent the zoom for a bit ?

I went to fuji for the weight so I'd really like to see that 35mm f2 wr soon, then please 18mm f2 wr and 23mm f2 wr along with an X-E3 wr. I'm pissed that since I got into the system they keep releasing giant lenses for the X-T1... Or macro or crap like that. The world needs quicker, weather resistant lightweight usual focales. People shooting sports and lovely birds that make remarkably forgettable pictures are into DSLRs anyway so please stop with the 18-135mm giant chunck of crap...

Well I received it and I'm really pleased with the pictures it produces, the out of focus falloff, colours, details everything is gorgeous as expected. But damn is it sloooooowwwwww to focus, making a lot of noise, used to the 18-55 I struggle and there is something I don't like about external focusing. OTOH when it has acquired focus, it's more accurate than the 18-55 and while even slower in low light it does lock eventually. I can see how it's going to be really, really good for formal portraits, buildings interiors and such but really it's for slow work. If the f/2 is quick to focus and reasonably sharp at f/2 it will be more versatile. Of course, prefocusing works for fast moving things but a quick AF is useful in a hurry. Anyway not a bad deal for the 370€ I paid, the glass itself is worth it, but if you can wait so long I'd say wait for the f/2 and compare. Hope that helps.

I think it's wrong, because what Fuji should have developed is not another non-weather sealed body right now. IMO if they want to attract more people to the system they should release real quick weather sealed 35mm f2 and 23mm f2 and a weather sealed body that is cheaper than the x-t1 and smaller/lighter. Otherwise they are not gonna attract many Olympus customers if any, people are still reluctant for street and hiking. It's often raining in real life you know...

I went through the same considerations, but ordered the 35 f/1.4 last week. First, we don't know when the f/2 will be released, then it will be retail price the first months, so it might not be a good deal before late 2015. Then you have to consider that usually those lenses are quite weak wide open so f/1.4 is likely to perform better at f/2 than the new one. I might end up buying the other one later, f/1.4 for interiors or generally low light/good weather, and formal shots. F/2 for street, bad weather, less important stuff. But I really like the 50mm fov, I can make less shots than with a 35 but they turn out better generally, YMMV.

Mate for the price of 1 leica you can have 5 xt-1 so let's assume they each last you 4 years that's 20 years of great hardware with 5 upgrades, it's not a bad deal and they don't kill themselves at all. Especially not when their own lenses are the best for the x-mount system, and digital has still to evolve a lot unlike film I for one am happy with my x-e1, it's not manufactured anymore yeah so what, I have a lot to improve on my photography before labeling it as not good enough, besides glass is more important if you're into something artistict than AF performance. Xpro-1 and Xe-1 are for people who want to slow down and it has always been that way. CC is nice, I can see myself using it for family/travel just keeping the jpegs because raws are just too big, but a bad picture won't turn great just because I apply a color profile so meh, you got to be rational sometimes. A great picture in pro neg-hi, slightly desaturated remains a great picture, putting cc on it won't change much (I tried).

It's obvious that Fuji cannot allocate so much resources to old cameras (3 years old) when they have already put so much effort to improve them and have so much to develop still (compact 35 and 23mm F/2, maybe an update of the 18mm, X-PRO2, X-E3 etc. etc.) I think it's quite annoying that so much people are shouting "GIVE ME CLASSIC CHROME OR ELSE..." when they already had so much improvements, pushing the hardware to the limits of what it can do, and keeping in mind that people actually bought this cameras either not giving a damn about jpegs because they use raw, or buying them for the FUJI film simulations, not kodak. They bought them as they were, no reason to complain. So really it's just a bad case of envy. They had too much already I think from Fuji, they just can't stop wanting MOARRRR. And anyway if I were Fuji, why would I ever bring an old camera in line with the newest model so everybody can get it used for 200$? I wouldn't, nobody would. People could very well enjoy their X-E1 + 50mm F/1.4 for the next 5 years if they were really interrested in photography itself, instead of thinking that not having Classic Chrome limits their creativity...