Tommyboy

I would like to throw in an alternate suggestion: Tenba Classic P211 I bought this bag two months ago. I've configured the bag to hold one body (XE-2 or XP-2) and any five of these six lenses: 16, 23, 56, 90, 18-55, and 55-200. I also have a Fuji bounce flash, three filters, three batteries. There is a zippered lower compartment that allows for one or two lenses, chargers, or other stuff. Full disclosure: In order to accomplish this, I had to add one divider from another bag. The camera rides on tip with the lens pointing down. The bag is very narrow, a messenger design, has a firm, box shape, and is very well made. I don't think the rear zippered compartment would hold a laptop, but it holds my tablet easily. For me, room is not an issue with this bag. I'm able to put more in it than I'm willing to carry around. It gets too heavy before it gets too full. Might be worth a look if you don't want to wait 27 days. . . . How intriguing. . . .

I have ended up with six lenses, for reasons of weight, too many to carry in a shoulder bag. They are: 16mm f/1.4 23mm f/1.4 56mm f/1.2 90mm f/2.0 18-55 f/2.8-4.0 55-200 f/3.5-4.8 Although I find it surprising, the 56 is the lens I leave at home. If I need to jettison two lenses, the 18-55 joins it. I use the 23mm the most. The 90mm is so scary sharp and works very well as a portrait lens. I never took it out of the bag on my last trip, though. The 55-200 is brand new, so it's still a novelty. Really, the whole kit is only about three months old, so who knows? One might consider choosing between the 16 and the 23. The 16 is a surprisingly versatile lens. One might also choose between the 56 and the 90, though the former is the classic portrait length and the latter is perhaps a bit too long. I could consider losing the 18-55, but it is a very respectable zoom and it's hard to give up that security, to say nothing of OIS. Too many lenses is a wonderful problem to have, but I'm always in a quandary when leaving on an excursion. . . .

The word "canyon" makes me think 14mm. Having said that, the field of view difference between 14m (21mm equivalent) and 18mm (28mm equivalent) is not that great. Still, I would prefer the 14. The 18-55 will be more versatile—no doubt—but I think the preponderance of your shooting would be at the widest focal length. The OIS is nice, but it would be more critical at 55mm f/4.0, something you wouldn't be dealing with at 14mm. You should be able to shoot that lens at 1/30 or even 1/15 in many circumstances. What about a monopod? A platypod? A beanbag? I shoot quite a bit with the 23mm and the 16mm. When the 23mm is not wide enough, I find that suffocating, much worse than when a lens is not long enough. Good luck!

Bob, Sorry for your troubles, especially for your bouncing 10-24. Those of us who shoot a lot eventually get around to dropping something. I've lost one or two P&Ss to drops, one to theft, several more to water. I had a spectacular incident in 1982 involving a large gadget bag and the ocean, but that's a story for another time. I bought a used Fujinon 90mm and the aperture wouldn't open past f/2.2. My guess is yours (and mine) is something internal, something electronic. Like you, I'm sure B&H will assist you, probably under warranty repair. Good luck. Things will get better. . . .

That. Mine was a Canon 70-200 f/2.8 v1. Owned it for a dozen years, used it a dozen times. So heavy it was silly as a carry-in-your-bag-lens. Not unlike Nero above, I traded mine for an XP2.

Really nice images, given the conditions you describe. Love the shot of the sea plane.

It's a great lens. It's my sixth Fujinon lens and only one was less expensive (used 18-55). If you need a long zoom for indoor/low light shooting, this is not your lens. If you can't get past fit and finish issues, this is not your lens. If you want 6X reach, shoot outdoors in the daylight, and dig crisp, clear photos, this might be the lens for you. Good luck with your decision.

Got mine and I love. Really well designed and made. I'm impressed with the hinged thumb rest, which I don't use much, but it's nice for those who may need it. I shoot little flash, so removing it is not a concern for me; however, I did notice a small gap where it meets the far and of the shoe. That appears to be a place to fit your fingernail to facilitate removing it. I prefer the security of a snug fit. If I were removing it regularly, I could see where that would be an irritant.

I can't help you. I have both, I love both. I use the 23mm far more often; it's my walking-around lens. The 23mm has a 63 degree angle of view, the 16mm is an 84 degree angle of view. In my opinion, the 23 sometimes feels not wide enough; on the other hand, I never feel that the 16 is too wide. For someplace like Spain, older parts of which have narrow streets and crowded conditions, I think I would choose the 16mm. Good luck!

I'm a recent Fuji convert. I started with a used EX-2, 18-55, and 23mm f/1.4. I was so impressed with the camera, the zoom, and the wide lens, I kept buying. A 16mm, 56mm, and 90mm later, I finally opted for an X-Pro 2. I had to sell my FF Canon system, consign some tobacco pipes, and work a second job, but I put together a very nice system. I'm really impressed with the image quality, particularly with the prime lenses. The 23mm is the lens that I keep on the body and the 90 is just amazing. When I bought the X-Pro 2, I had hoped to pick up a tele zoom. It was the only hole in my system. I agonized between the 50-140 and its infinitely more affordable cousin—the 55-200—for several weeks. I've always opted for better glass and would love to have a 16-55 and 50-140, but I got into this system for reasons of weight. After having a chance to actually handle both, I took the responsible route (financially speaking) and opted for the 55-200. Samy's Camera was out of stock, though, so I had to come home and order it online. It arrived Thursday and I took a brief trip out of town to try it out. The fit and feel of the lens is very different than the 50-140. It has a metal barrel, but the protruding inner barrel is plastic. The zoom is not smooth. It's ungainly, not a sophisticated design. The max aperture is variable, and slower, but faster then competitive lenses in the same range by other manufacturers. It does offer OIS, 3 stops or 5 stops, depending on who you ask, something absent from most of my lenses. Once I shot a few hundred exposures and processed them, I can safely say that I'm very pleased with the lens's performance. I also really like the (equivalent) 300 mm reach. The 50-140 (equivalent) 200mm seemed so much shorter in the store. That lens is certainly very sharp, probably sharper, has a fixed max aperture, internal mechanism, and is still very small and light, though much heavier than my chosen lens. Most of my shooting is in close, patient, and not dependent on the speed that a zoom affords. Were my circumstances different, I might have opted for the 50-140. Given my current life circumstances, and shooting style, however, this lens seems to fit the bill and is quite satisfying, given its limitations. I'll continue to shoot my 90 for what I deem critical images, but in all honesty, it was the one lens I didn't reach for all weekend. I used the 55-200 extensively. There were some less-than-spectacular low-contrast photos, some motion blur, and other issues, but many of the photos are just great. These are a few that I think highlight this inexpensive lens's tremendous sharpness. All are RAW files processed in LR. Thanks for reading. Feedback, comments, and questions are welcomed. 200mm • f/13 • 1/60 • ISO 200 156mm • f/4.5 • 1/900 • ISO 200 200mm • f/8 • 1/60 • ISO 400 55mm • f/5.0 • 1/420 • ISO 400 181mm • f/4.7 • 1/560 • ISO 400 55mm • f/3.5 • 1/2500 • ISO 200

Amazing photos. The processing is great and the images are so sharp. Really nice.

Really glad to hear it. I've been suffering severe, sharp pains in my arms and hands recently. I don't know if it's arthritis or repetitive motion injury, or both, but it is sometimes pronounced when gripping this (relatively) heavy camera. It lands tomorrow. Enjoy your grip.

I can't see having both. I went for the 23mm and have never looked back. I always feel boxed in by a "standard" lens (50mm equiv).

I'm with you. I recognize that it is, in fact, a 23mm lens, but to me, it's a 35mm lens and that's what I call it (because I'm old and cut my teeth on 35mm). I have a 24, a 35, an 85, a 135, a 28-85, and a 75-300 on the way (figures rounded for convenience).

Ordered one—due Thursday. Looks really well made. I ordered a soft release, too. I'll report on them after my upcoming weekend getaway.

Just shot one tonight that I'm pretty proud of. X-Pro 2 • 90mm • f/2.8 • 1/350 • ISO 200

Based on your shooting list, I also recommend the 16mm f/1.4. If you want a second camera, the X70 is worth a look. No viewfinder, but a tilt screen and a 28mm in a tiny package. No need to choose bodies; you'd bring both. Good luck with your decision.

A few more from the evening. . . .

Went downtown to do a little shooting. XE-2 with 23 and 90.

This thread has become so interesting, ironic, and kind of distressing—pun intended. Distressed jeans. Distressed furniture. It's a design concept. It's not for everyone, and many of us, myself included, protect our camera to preserve its luster. I respect those whose view are divergent from my own, particularly if they seem peculiar or unexpected. I like what the OPer did to his camera. I admire his chutzpah. I draw no conclusions about him, the person, from this act. I can't judge him by the appearance of one of his possessions, I can't judge a book by its cover, and I can't make an assumption of the whole individual from this narrow slice of what I know about him. It seems reasonable to not like what he did to his camera, and to act on that revulsion by choosing not to do it to your own camera, but to draw conclusions about him, to judge him, and to and sling accusations about his purpose, his outlook, his world view. . . . That, to me, is the false veneer.

Here's a recent portrait of my daughter. It's just a snapshot, really, but I was very impressed with the sharpness and the bokeh. For the price, it's a pretty sophisticated lens—outmatching any of its competitors and it's a 2.8 to boot, for part of its zoom range, anyway.

I just bought the XE-2 with the kit lens, both used. I find the lens to be quite sharp, good color and contrast. It focuses quickly and I am not dissatisfied with it in any way. I've hardly ever manually focused (I never see the need to) so I can't advise you there other than to see I've had no issues. The XE-2 has a control dial beneath your right thumb. When you press it, you can see a highly magnified view which greatly aids in focus confirmation or manual focus. It's quite handy. This is my first mirrorless camera and it has reignited my love of photography. I've since purchased four prime lenses and am looking to add a tele zoom. Go for it, I say.

I sold cameras at the retail and wholesale level for about 10 years. My most frequent query was "What is the best camera?" I always replied, "The one you have with you."

Thank you for the thoughtful and considered replies. I agree with your assessments. I shot about a dozen exposures from various perspectives. This was very late afternoon and I was casting nearly a 20-foot shadow. This tight crop was the result of me removing myself from the photo. I agree that a wider, and therefore more desolate, shot would convey a more compelling story. Thanks for sharing your thoughts.

That's good feedback, thank you. In this spot, there was literally nothing else, which is what I thought was interesting about it; however, context is important in telling the story. This railcar is literally disembodied. I learned something interesting about railcar tagging. The railroads will leave the graffiti in place as long as the car registration numbers are visible. The taggers and the railroads coexist peacefully if they give each other what they want. I learned this from a model railroader who seemed to know what he was talking about. I certainly do notice that registration numbers seem always to be visible. . . .