citral

Given that we now have people claiming it's common knowledge that zooms have on par IQ with primes without bringing any kind of material whatsoever to support it, I'd say this is not really an answer.

I just can't cope with bad faith and drunk posting is a terrible idea. Sorry for these personal attacks, I find it irritating that you try to make people say what they have not quite said, instead of bringing some material to the discussion to prove your affirmation. Put some effort into it, otherwise it's just pointless.

Must be some kind of voodoo.

All I can say is that it's noiser and slower than the 18-55mm. Which when it came out was the quietest and fastest of all Fuji lenses. Now in say a church, it's barely noticeable while you hear the DSLRS making that loud ZWI ZWI CLAC.

Can you prove your statement?

Yes. And as usual those last 2% improvement on performance cost a lot, like in many other topics. I'm into ultralight backpacking and a 600g titanium pot sells for 60€ when the same volume in inox weighing 680g sells for 7€. It may sound dumb to grab the titanium one, still it is worth it for people that either have enough income not to care, or for people who do the Appalachian trail. On the very long run it is the better investment because that litlle % you gain matters eventually. YMMV.

I think OP refers to the 18mm. Which due to its pancake design is not optically but software corrected, that's the main reservation.

It's too cheap to be good, looks suspicious While I still think that for someone who really is into telephoto, the faster and better built (and very well priced for what it is) 55-200 is the way to go, for the very occasional user or light backpacker the 50-230 is a hell of a deal. Too good to be true might put off some people heh.

To me the 18-55mm has a much more "nervous" out-of focus rendering, and that often distracts from the subject even when viewed at normal size. Also, as it's on full manual the 18-55 is darker (due to the length of the zoom at 35mm the light has to travel longer to reach the sensor I suppose, tho I'm no expert so it might not be the decisive factor. In the Fuji vs Fuji series I think the reviewer is on auto speed so the camera makes up for the difference and they appear closer). I'm not debating over personal preference, convenience etc. and there are many more factors to take in account than pure IQ for zoom vs prime. What I maintain is that zooms still don't beat primes (and can't by design, unless one decides to ignore the rules of physics and optics) regarding pure IQ quality. That is just misleading and a test of a zoom designed for crop vs FF primes on crop don't prove anything at all. Otherwise we'd have all Fuji studio portrait shooters use zooms. End of the story.

To me this lens makes perfect sense if one wants to travel light and don't usually use telephoto but might want to use it sparingly. I'm tempted too, for the next tour in a zoo for example. Although it will probably end up resting in my bag while I shoot tourists using awkwards big zooms with my 50mn as usual

I could not have said it any better.

You need to persuade yourself first that you need it, or you'll sound like an hypocrite. Then you offer her a ticket for exotic holidays with you, where said glass will be used. If you spend the holiday money for that glass be prepared to feel like a loser forever, you'll be happy maybe 3 days, then it will vanish. Shit, it doesn't make me a better photographer, now really THIS time I thought... My wife is angry. We can only have one week of holidays in Memphis vs 3 in Hawaii. What am I gonna do with my life? Well that's where I sit anyway. We'll see after vacations if there is anything left of that money I spared, for glass. But I will not tell her how we can't go to the restaurant and must eat potatoes because glass is more important.

Hmmm. Well I made a real life test between the 18-55 and the 35 both at f4 that got promptly ignored/discarded by x-tc. Which I'm still not sure if he is a troll or not, because you seem to have some obvious good knowledge of how this works and he's discarding your comments as well, because they don't seem to concur with the opinion he has on his purchase, intended, as his bio describes, for recreational vacations souvenirs. So why would this even matter for this purpose is beyond me. You can't just beat the weight and versatilty of zooms for this use, but there is no need to claim they produce as good a picture as the primes, that would be kind of ridiculous for people that make art and/or big prints with their camera. So I will repost the left top corners of this test shot I made of both and will let you decide which is which. After that we can still conclude there is no bad lens in the fuji range, it's a no-brainer. My 18-55 isn't going anywhere.

So today I visited a new church for my project, and what catched my eye will probably seem strange for many. Eglise des Jesuites - Molsheim by Christophe Branchereau, on Flickr Eglise des Jesuites - Molsheim by Christophe Branchereau, on Flickr Eglise des Jesuites - Molsheim by Christophe Branchereau, on Flickr Eglise des Jesuites - Molsheim by Christophe Branchereau, on Flickr

By the way critics, even harsh, are welcome. Here is a picture of something vintage that is not an OOC Jpeg, because it didn't do any justice to it. I used the Pro Neg Hi Lightroom profile tho. Bugatti 35B - 1929 - Mollkirch 2015 by Christophe Branchereau, on Flickr

Day 1 : There is something to be said about the sheer simplicity and joy of capturing something just because it looks beautiful and without trying too hard to make it exceptional. Kind of when people used to shoot with film. This is not a showcase of the X-E1 jpeg output, just simple pictures with processing left to the camera and no cropping. Here are 3 shots of nothing spectacular I enjoy so far because they have really nice colours and/or light : Sélestat - 2015 by Christophe Branchereau, on Flickr Molsheim - 2015 by Christophe Branchereau, on Flickr 404 by Christophe Branchereau, on Flickr

x-tc on rampage by Christophe Branchereau, on Flickr

.

So in short let's just spin facts around until they fit our own biased opinion? It's strange because I read only "almost", "quite" and "nearly" in the reviews. So let's not spin this : if absolute best possible IQ is what one wants, the primes still beat the zooms on sharpness, contrast, bokeh. Not to mention the IQ of the 10-24 at f/1.4 and f/2.8 is unknown. Zooms have come a long way and are close, but not "on par". This is ridiculous. Hoh hehhh I love so much my big zoom am just gonna declare it as good as primes and ignore everything including basic laws of physics and lens design lalala.

.

I would dare to suggest that you are the one who needs a hug mate. But thank you anyway.

.

You see this is kind of contradictory, because you say I'm way too much trying to reach for perfection, yet you have cropped a head out of the picture because it was too imperfect for you I am not hard on myself for imperfect pictures at all, I'm hard on myself regarding editing because I have a pretty hard definition of what looks interresting to me and what does not. Yet I don't have the skills so far to achieve what I want, but I strongly believe that hard work (vs waiting for inspiration to suddenly strike) and knowing what I like and what I don't will eventually make it possible. I would be interrested to see the original, uncropped picture and would probably like it more, with its imperfections

By the way I've looked at the review, and if I understand correctly they are comparing FF lenses mounted on a cropped body, to a zoom specifically designed for crop bodies, and they say look, the corners of the zoom are sharper. What did they expect?

I have yet to see any review or test claiming the IQ of any fuji zoom is "on par" with a prime, except for the 18-55mm being better than the 18mm at every aperture (I think the 10-24 is better too, but at f/4 vs f/2 is not really the same whereas f/2.8 vs f/2 is really close) BUT having more barrel distortion which can be undesirable. Can you please prove your point before making such an affirmation? This could be misleading for people who are unsure what to chose. Thank you.